LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Monday, May 15, 1972 2:30 p.m. (The House met at 2:30 pm.) PRAYERS (Mr. Speaker in the Chair.) head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill No. 59 The Hydro and Electric Energy Amendment Act, 1972 MR. WERRY: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill No. 59, being The Hydro and Electric Energy Amendment Act, 1972. This new bill and amendments thereto, Mr. Speaker, empowers the Energy Resources Conservation Board to make regulations regarding measures to be taken to control pollution, and ensure environmental conservation, subject to the approval of the Minister of the Environment.

The second point, Mr. Speaker, is that the board has encountered difficulty throughout the year that they have acted with the new Hydro and Electric Energy Act in that a number of the utility firms in Alberta do not prescribe a uniform system of accounting. Incorporated into this bill is the provision that the Energy Resources Conservation Board will require public and private utilities to keep a uniform system of accounts.

The third point -- the board, being the Energy Resources Conservation Board, cannot approve construction of a hydro development until there has been, firstly, an investigation, secondly public hearings have been held, and then the Energy Resources Conservation Board must report to the Executive Council; and upon the recommendation of the board to the Executive Council, the Executive Council will then prepare a bill which is to be debated during the session of the Legislature closest to the recommendation coming from the Executive Council.

So there is an opportunity for both the investigation, public hearings, and a full-scale debate in this Assembly before any future hydro developments take place within the Province of Alberta. Also incorporated in this change, the board shall refer that application or any application for a hydro development to both the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Lands and Forests for their approval.

Those restrictions that both those ministers place on the report must be incorporated both in the Energy Resources Conservation Board’s approval to the Executive Council and also the bill that comes before the Legislature. The fourth point -- the board may approve construction and operation of a power plant with the authorization of the Lieutenant Governor in Council after referral to the Minister of the Environment and make such approval subject to any restrictions that the Minister of the Environment may wish to place on that particular siting.

Fifthly, applications for a permit to construct a transmission line are referred to both the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Lands and Forests before such approval is granted. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3285

50-2 ALBERTA HANSARD May 15th 1972 The sixth point, the board is not required to impose conditions specified by the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Lands and Forests when the Lieutenant Governor in Council directs otherwise. [Leave being granted, Bill No. 59 was introduced and read a first time.] Bill No. 82 The Franchise Amendment Act, 1972 MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill being The Franchise Amendment Act, 1972. The purpose of this act is to alter the method and timing of the legislation coming into force. As matters now stand, the legislation was passed last year.

It was to come into force upon proclamation. It has never been proclaimed in force. The existing act provides that the operative date be February 2, 1972. The purpose of the amendment will be to make the operative date of legislation to be determined by legislation, and the act will still come into force on the day fixed by proclamation. [Leave being granted, Bill No. 82 was introduced and read a first time] Bill No. 89 The Builders' Lien Amendment Act, 19 72 MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill, being The Builders' Lien Amendment Act, 1972.

The purpose of this bill is to change the existing method of calculating the hold-back insofar as lien payments are concerned. As matters now stand, there is one lien fund against which all claimants advance claims. The proposed bill will alter that to provide a fund with respect to each contract. The reasons for introducing the legislation are that at the moment, the argument is that the existing legislation slows down the flow of construction funds, and also leads to a lack of credit policing. It is my intention, Mr.

Speaker, to leave the bill for second reading until the fall session so that those persons who may be affected by it will be able to make representations on it over the summer. [Leave being granted, Bill No. 89 was introduced and read a first time.] Bill No. 88 The Department of Agriculture Amendment Act, 1972 DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill being The Department of Agriculture Amendment Act, 1972. This is a short bill, Mr.

Speaker, which will clarify the department's position in regard to the provision of grants to various associations and organizations within the agricultural industry, and will clarify also the provision of certain services that are performed by the department, and the fixing of fees for those services. [Leave being granted, Bill No. 88 was introduced and read a first time.] Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3286

May 15th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 50-3 Bill No. 211

An Act Respecting Remembrance and Dedication to Peace MR. STROMBERG: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill being

An Act Respecting Remembrance and Dedication to Peace. In regard to this bill, we seek to recapture the real meaning of Armistice Day. This bill will discourage businesses from capitalizing on Remembrance Day. [Leave being granted, Bill No. 211 was introduced and read a first time.] Bill No. 212 The Local Development Company Act MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill, being The Local Development Company Act. The bill is founded on the principle that each community bears a major responsibility for its own development.

To that end the residents of an area under this bill may form a development company. Not more than 25% of the shares may be owned by anyone living outside of that area, nor could more than 20% of the equity be owned by any one member.

The bill would provide a vehicle to assist existing businesses -- new businesses -- which might be initiated into the community and would relate to The Alberta Opportunity Fund Act in the manner that the local development company would be able to borrow from the Opportunity Fund $4 for each dollar of equity put up by local citizens. [Leave being granted, Bill No. 212, was introduced and read a first time.] head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS MR. TOPOLNISKY: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon it is my pleasure to introduce to you and to this Assembly, 20 members of the School Safety Patrol from H. A.

Kostash School at Smoky Lake in the Redwater-Andrew constituency. In appreciation of the services rendered, the patrols are treated to a trip to Edmonton, and I commend them for their interest to see Alberta government in action. They are accompanied by their vice-principal Mr. J. Roshko, and a parent, Mr. Clarkson. They are all seated in the members' gallery and are at their radiant best. Will they please rise and be recognized. MR. SCHMID: Mr.

Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I introduce to you, and through you, to the members of this Assembly, 30 students from Ritchie Junior High School, Grades VIII and IX, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Hugh Ross. The students are only 30 of 250 students who took

part last Wednesday and Thursday in a magnificent festival, called 'Music of the Last 30 Years'. I was privileged to attend it last Wednesday night. They did a great job. I would like them now to stand and be recognized. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, good afternoon. I would like to introduce to you, and through you, to the members of the Legislature, the Grade VI and Grade IX classes from McCauley School in the constituency of Edmonton Highlands. They are accompanied this afternoon by their teacher, Miss Gardner.

They are seated in the members' gallery, and I would ask that they rise and be recognized by the members of the Assembly. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3287

50-4 ALBERTA HANSARD May 15th 1972 DR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker, I understand Mr. Ray Barson, assistant principal of McCauley is also accompanying this class. I’m proud to say he was also my teacher at McCauley School. head: FILING RETURNS AND TABLING REPORTS Canada - China Air Link MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, in accord with government policy I beg leave to table the

summary report of the public hearings held on the impact on the environment of surface mining in Alberta, by the Environment Conservation Authority. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD MR. WILSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Industry. Inasmuch as Canada now seems to be getting preferential treatment in a proposed Canada-China air link, has the Lougheed government made representations to the federal government to have a scheduled stopover in Alberta? MR. PEACOCK: I would like the hon. member, if I could, Mr.

Speaker, to rephrase his question, and ask it directly -- what he is trying to get at. MR. WILSON: Mr. Speaker, it has been announced that the federal government has a mission in Peking at the moment, negotiating a Canada-Peking air service, and I was wondering if the Lougheed government has made representations to the federal government to determine whether or not a stopover of this service could be placed in Alberta. MR. PEACOCK: In direct answer to the hon. member of the Opposition’s question, yes, we have.

We have informed the federal government, the CTC, that we are interested in not only our services into China, but we are vitally interested in some air routes that are being opened in the bilateral arrangements with the United States on June 6th. MR. WILSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Has the Lougheed government determined any preference as far as benefits to Albertans are concerned as to whether Canadian Pacific Air or Air Canada get the Peking-Canada air route? MR. PEACOCK: Mr.

Speaker, in answer to that question I think our government takes the stand that we are interested in the services that are rendered to the citizens of this province and its growth economically, and let the best man win. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3288

May 15th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 50-5 International Air Policy MR. WILSON: One final supplementary Mr. Speaker. Has the Lougheed government made representations to the federal transport department regarding the proposed changes in their international air policy? MR. PEACOCK: Well, I don't know what he means by international air policy Mr.

Speaker, but I know this, that the provincial government has made overtures today to the CTC and to the federal Minister of Transportation to the effect that we are most disappointed and displeased with the appointment or the decision on behalf of the Air Transport Commission to appoint Thunderbird Airlines to render service to the northern part of this province including Grande Prairie, Whitecourt, Hinton and Edmonton.

We feel that in provincial services, the province itself should be part of that decision-making team and since we weren't consulted in this regard, and since Time Airways is a provincially based capitalized company of the Province of Alberta, we felt very disappointed indeed that the Transportation Commission had seen fit to make a decision in favour of an out-of- province carrier. MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary by the hon. Member for Lesser Slave Lake. MR. BARTON: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister just answered my supplementary. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview followed by the hon.

Member for Calgary Buffalo. Marlboro Logging Co-op MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Minister Without Portfolio, Mr. Adair. Has the government received a submission for assistance from the Marlboro Logging Co-op west of Edson? MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, in relation to assistance, they have been receiving assistance for quite some time. The last little while we have been doing a study as to what the Co-op itself is doing and I think it can possibly be further added to by the hon. Minister of Agriculture. DR. HORNER: Mr.

Speaker, in regard to the situation at the Marlboro Co-op, we have carried this co-operative along with, frankly, some misgivings. Because of the lack of management involved, we have attempted to get that infusion of management into the cooperative, but again against some fairly stiff resistance. One portion of the group, commonly known as the Beaverbones group, has now split up, and we are willing to continue to give them assistance and support because of their record. We are not at this time, Mr.

Speaker, willing to continue the present support to the Marlboro Co-op unless there is a drastic change in management. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3289

50-6 ALBERTA HANSARD May 15th 1972 MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question to the hon. Minister. Is the government taking any steps to sit down with the board of directors of the Marlboro Logging Co-op at this time in an effort to work out some sort of intermediate approach with the board? DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, we did this several months ago. Both my colleagues, the Minister Without Portfolio, Responsible for Northern Development, and also the hon.

Minister Without Portfolio, Responsible for Tourism in whose constituency the co-operative is situated, and in addition to that the director of co-operatives, and several people from my department, have sat down with these people. We have received some co-operation -- indeed some good co-operation -- from the management of Northwest Pulp and Power in relation to the entire management area for this co-operative. Quite frankly, Mr.

Speaker, unless there is a change in attitude of some of the people who are now in charge of that co-operative the government -- or at least our department -- cannot recommend continuing support. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary Buffalo, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary Mountain View. Court Reporters Shortage MR. GHITTER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Attorney General. It arises out of my concern that justice delayed is justice denied.

I'm advised from Calgary that there is in excess of six months waiting period from the point of view of anyone wishing to obtain the services of Supreme and District court reporters at the Court House in Calgary. I'm concerned that this delay is excessive and I'm also advised that application has been made for more court reporters that has possibly been denied. I’m wondering if the hon. Attorney General is aware of the situation and if anything can be done to counteract the situation? MR. LEITCH: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the situation, and as the hon. member says it is a serious one.

I have had some discussions with the representatives of the Law Society about it. We are currently examining the situation and hope that we will be able to find a solution to shorten the delay between the request for discoveries and the actual discovery date. MR. LUDWIG: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the problem created by the government's lack of hiring enough reporters? What is the actual cause of the problem, the serious problem, he indicated? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I don't know that one can say it's the problem of the lack of hiring adequate reporters.

There has been a problem, I think, over the years in there not being enough reporters available. This is not a new matter by any means; it's been a continuing problem for a long time, and in fact as long as I can recall there have been discussions between the Law Society, the government and the court reporters in an effort to improve that service. It recently has become more acute than at any time I can recall in the past. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3290

May 15th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 50-7 MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary. What has this government done in the last eight months that will help alleviate the problem, since this is an ongoing problem? MR. LEITCH: Since coming into office, Mr. Speaker, I have asked my department people to again meet with the Law Society and the court reporters, because there were at that time no regular meetings going on to ascertain whether they couldn't find the solution to the problem. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary Mountain View, followed by the hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury. Calgary Convention Centre MR.

LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the hon. Attorney General. Has he received any formal request from from the Calgary Council, to arrange for an inquiry into the convention centre operation? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I did not receive any formal request. I understand one has come in and perhaps I can pass that question to the hon. the Premier. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's question, a letter was received from a single alderman this morning, Alderman Tom Priddle of Calgary.

We reviewed the matter with various ministers and advised him that we would not be prepared in this particular case to consider any sort of a judicial inquiry unless the request for a judicial inquiry came from the City Council in Calgary. MR. LUDWIG: A supplementary question, perhaps to the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. To what extent are provincial funds involved in the convention centre, and I mean with regard perhaps to the purchase of land or any other involvement or investment as far as the convention centre is concerned? MR. RUSSELL: As hon. members know, Mr.

Speaker, the convention centre site in Calgary was one of the last sites to proceed under the old urban renewal legislation insofar as the federal government is concerned, and the share of land purchase costs are somewhere in the nature of $1.3 or $1.4 million. In addition to that, of course, we are committed to supporting the construction of facilities for the Glenbow building and there will be costs involved in the relocation of the existing Treasury Branch. As far as I'm aware, that represents a total financial commitment on the site.

Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3291

50-8 ALBERTA HANSARD May 15th 1972 MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, one last supplementary. Is there any liaison between the City of Calgary and the government on this particular issue? Who is responsible? MR. RUSSELL: There is excellent liaison. With respect to the last two items I mentioned, the first item, the land acquisition, of course, is carried out by the government's Crown agency, The Alberta Housing Corporation, and land acquisition cost-sharing is handled by that agency.

Insofar as Glenbow and the treasury are concerned, there have been excellent on-going discussions over the past few months on both of those facilities. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury followed by the hon. Member for Drumheller. Project Recovery MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Health and Social Development and ask him if he has received any request for financial assistance from an organization known as Project Recovery? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr.

Speaker, if the question relates to an organization of that name in the City of Edmonton, a request for support has been received and it is in the course of being replied to. The letter of reply should go out today and I think, as I've done before in cases like this, the communication should in the first instance go to the applicant before I make it public by referring to it here. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Drumheller followed by the hon. Member for Calgary Millican. Soft Drug Centres MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the hon. Minister of Culture, Youth and Recreation?

Is the government financing and/or providing staff for a soft drug centre in Calgary and in Edmonton for use by, primarily, young people who unfortunately have a bad trip? MR. SCHMID: Mr. Speaker, not to my knowledge. A great number of activities that we have been involved in, right now are being handled, or at least endeavouring to be handled, by the Commission for Drug and Alcohol Abuse. I could, perhaps, refer this question to the hon. Mr. Crawford, who may have more answers on that. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I don't mind adding just a little bit to it.

The hon. minister did indicate the area of concern is that of the Alberta Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Commission and that is the situation. I have not covered with them all of their anticipated programs for the summer in regard to Calgary and Edmonton. I would think it is likely Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3292

May 15th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 50-9 that they are trying to make some provision in this regard but I have no further information on it. If the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, would like I would be glad to pursue it with the Commission and produce more information. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate that very much and, possibly, I should ask this one question. Does the hon. minister agree that some type of centre is required for these people who are actually ill -- whether by government or private agency -- and that these sick people should not have to run around a city in an ill condition? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr.

Speaker, I think the answer is that there are facilities to the extent they're available in the hospital system that can take some pressure off this type of illness -- a person suffering from this type of illness at a particularly bad time -- and I think the question is whether or not the hospitals are fully equipped in this regard. If they're not I would certainly agree that some further examination of it should be made, particularly as to any reasonable forecast for the summer as to whether or not this situation is likely to be handled within the system.

If not, I suppose we would have to ask the Commission to take it under consideration. MR. GHITTER: Supplementary, please, to the hon. Minister of Health and Social Development. Are you aware of the work that Information Centre has been doing in the City for the last three years? And if so, do they the Calgary Drug of Calgary in this area receive support from the provincial government to your knowledge? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr.

Speaker, this is an area, of course, in the transition from departmental jurisdiction to the jurisdiction of the Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Commission that relates to the priority setting by the commission this year. I'd certainly be glad to discuss that type of priority with them as I indicated in my answer to the hon. Member for Drumheller. And to the hon.

Member for Calgary Buffalo I would say that I met some months ago with the people involved in the Drug Information Centre in Calgary and reviewed the type of work that they had been doing, and at that time I believe they were placed in touch with the Alberta Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Commission. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary Millican followed by the hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury. Basic Shelter Grant Act MR. DIXON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my question today to the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs.

It has to do with the Basic Shelter Grant Act that we were speaking about earlier in the session, and a number of people are inquiring, especially those over 65. Owing to the fact that the municipal tax notices will be going out shortly, I wonder if it is the government's intention to go forward with this legislation, and will it be effective this year for property owners over 65? Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3293

50-10 ALBERTA HANSARD May 15th 1972 MR. RUSSELL: Yes, it is certainly our intention to proceed this year with the legislation, Mr. Speaker. It has been a matter of some concern to me to get the bill in front of the members at the earliest possible date. I hope we will see it this week. We've taken care of the details with respect to the printing and mailing of forms, and it’s the government's intention that the benefits to the senior citizens will be effective this year. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton Kingsway. Red Deer College MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Advanced Education, and ask him if he has received the report of the inquiry at the Red Deer College, and if he has, when will he be making it public? MR. FOSTER: A very good question, Mr. Speaker. I have received the report. I am reading it and thinking about it, and intend to take some time to consult with several people before making any statement whatever on it.

I should say that I'd like to rephrase and restate, since the hon. member opposite appears to be upset by my remarks, that I said earlier the Red Deer College inquiry and probably the report of the commissioner, may touch upon the lives and roles of many people in that college, and I think before I make any statements publicly about that commissioner's report, I would like the opportunity of assessing that very question and discussing it with the people most affected. Then, I'll be happy to advise the House about it. MR. CLARK: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the course of the hon.

Minister having these discussions and this consideration, will the minister also keep in mind that unless students and people in Central Alberta know the status of the Red Deer College and remove some of the problems that exist, the enrolments in that college will suffer greatly next fall, and the college already has budgetary problems? MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend opposite has told me something about which I am most familiar and most well-informed on, if I may be so humble. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton Kingsway. Trans-Canada Markets DR. PAPROSKI: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to direct this question to the hon. Minister of Industry and Commerce. I understand there were recent statistics released of the dollar value of manufactured goods coming from the east to Western Canada, and from Western Canada to Eastern Canada. I wonder if the hon. minister has those statistics in round figures? I think it would be interesting for the members of the Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3294

May 15th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 50-11 Assembly. And what is the obvious and not so obvious significance of these figures? MR. PEACOCK: Mr. Speaker, for the information of the House I presume that the hon. member is referring to the figures appearing in Alberta Business Trends, in which it indicated that some $3 billion worth of manufactured goods moved from Eastern Canada into Western Canada, while some $600 million of manufactured goods moved from Western Canada into Eastern Canada.

I suppose the significance of it is that we in Western Canada have to get off our hands and do something about manufacturing out here. And I suppose the significant indication from the figures is the fact that most of the $600 million that we move into the east is made up primarily of wood products and agricultural products, and there is very little secondary industry in the metal or the petrochemical industries. MR. TAYLOR: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the hon. minister agree that probably one of the main reasons is the high freight rate for finished products going east? MR. PEACOCK: Mr.

Speaker, I think the hon. Member for Drumheller has hit on one of the chief components of our problem and our severe problem of developing a secondary industry base, an intensive labour base, a secondary industry in the west. Because we are land-locked we have an unfortunate situation that we have inherited since Confederation almost -- certainly since the development of the railways -- in which the rates have always been oriented to taking the raw produce into the eastern marketplace.

In the course of the last 20 years, there is a marked shift in population and potentialities in the west, into the Pacific rim areas, and therefore we have to revise, it seems to me, these inequities in transportation if Western Canada is going to survive or be competitive in the market place, and particularly in the labour intensive industries.

So, if there is one thing that we, as a government, should all put our shoulders to, it is certainly the problems that western Canada is facing in these inequities of transportation, in rail rates and air accommodation -- international as well as national - - and also other modes of transportation. ORDERS OF THE DAY head: MINISTERIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, last Friday the hon. Leader of the Opposition made a proposal regarding possible changes in the time of sitting of the House during this week.

That proposal was that the afternoon of tomorrow Tuesday, private members' day, be exchanged for a government day, that the House sit on Wednesday morning and Wednesday evening, and that the House begin its evening sittings at 7:00 p.m. The government caucus has today considered these various proposals, most of which the hon. members will note involve major changes in the hours of sitting and most of which involve a substantial abandonment, I think, of the rules regarding sitting times that we have known and which were known in March and in April, and have been unaltered for many years in the House.

Bearing in mind Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3295

50-12 ALBERTA HANSARD May 15th 1972 the fact, after careful consideration, that these changes would involve a major disruption in the

schedule of the House, members o n our side having had many long-standing engagements and appointments for the evening dinner hours and for Wednesday evening, and bearing in mind the fact that on Wednesday morning a number of committees are scheduled to meet, while the government is prepared to agree to exchange private members' day, Tuesday afternoon, for government business, the other proposals we do not find appropriate at this time. MR. STROM: Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to say that we will accept the government's proposal and are pleased to co-operate with the government in this respect.

The proposals that I made the other day are admittedly, quite a departure from procedures that we had previously followed. All I want to say is that we made them in good faith recognizing that had it been followed, it would have provided for about ten hours of additional time for government business that we do not presently have. All I can say today is that we would be prepared to look at the proposal again for following days if the Government House Leader feels that it would be necessary. In the meantime, we are prepared to accept this proposal. head: GOVERNMENT MOTIONS MR. HYNDMAN: I move, seconded by the Hon.

Provincial Treasurer Government Motion No. 1: "Be it resolved that the Interim Report of the Standing Committee on Public Affairs, Agriculture and Education be now received and concurred in." Notice of this report was given orally, Mr. Speaker, last Friday and the report, as it is briefed, I will read at this time. "The committee recommends that this Assembly do stand adjourned from 5:30 o'clock pm. on Friday, May 19th, 1972, until 2:30 o'clock pm. on Monday, May 29th, 1972, unless the committee earlier concludes the said public hearings.

The hearings will be conducted on May 23rd, 24th, 25th, and 26th, 1972, from 9:00 am. to noon, 2:00 pm. to 5:30 pm., and 8:00 pm. to 10:30 pm." I think, Mr. Speaker, insofar as that committee dealt with these matters in some detail, and insofar as there was I believe, either a substantial or, indeed, unanimity of voting on this resolution, that nothing further needs to be said in moving the motion at this time. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. House Leader omitted to say that should the hearings end earlier than anticipated, that the House would reconvene on the week of the 25th and 26th.

I thought that was in the original report, although I'm not sure. MR. HYNDMAN: Yes, Mr Speaker, I believe that was the case. In conversation with the Clerk of the Assembly on Friday, he indicated that by strict technical procedure, that should be deleted, because that concept was already embodied in the resolution: and also because the committee, being a creature of the House, could not order the House itself, its senior, when to come back and sit. However, that would certainly be the contemplation of the way we would move, should the hearings end prior to Thursday.

Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3296

May 15th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 50-13 [The motion was passed without debate or dissent] head: GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS FOR SECOND READING Bill No. 1 The Alberta Bill of Rights MR. LOUGHEED: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the hon. Deputy Premier, Bill No. 1, The Alberta Bill of Rights, for second reading. Mr. Speaker, The Alberta Bill of Rights, proposed before this Legislature, is the first and only provincial bill of its kind in Canada. The Province of Saskatchewan has a bill of rights, which contains some provisions that deal with matters of fundamental rights and human rights. However, the Saskatchewan bill contains no provision comparable to

Section No. 2 in The Alberta Bill of Rights, and has no operative clause in relationship to the question of the basic freedoms that are established in

Section No. 1 of Bill No. 1. Mr. Speaker, what is very significant about this bill, and I think not well understood, is that under The British North America Act, clearly and distinctly, the responsibility for property and civil rights is the responsibility of provincial government. And so, in undertaking the course that is implicit in Bill No. 1, we in the government are well aware that we are striking in very new ground with a very important bill. I'm sure the significance of this bill and its import is obvious to all. If I could refer briefly, Mr. Speaker, to the

Preamble of the bill. I think the

Preamble is important; and because of the shortness of the bill, I hope Mr. Speaker, it will be in order for me, at second reading to deal specifically with certain provisions in the bill, because it is difficult to deal in a general sense with the principle of the bill, in second reading here, without in fact, referring in a specific way to some of the provisions. The first

Preamble, of course, is something that I'm sure is accepted by all Members of the Legislature, that "the free and democratic society existing in Alberta is founded upon principles, fostered by tradition, that honour and respect human rights and fundamental freedoms and the dignity and worth of the human person." That casts the first framework for the bill. Secondly: "And

whereas the Parliament of Canada, being desirous of enshrining certain principles and the human rights and fundamental freedoms derived from them, enacted the Canadian Bill of Rights in order to ensure the protection of those rights and freedoms in Canada in matters coming within its legislative authority;" Thirdly, that: "whereas the Legislature of Alberta, affirming those principles and recognizing the need to ensure the protection of those rights and freedoms in Alberta in matters coming within its legislative authority, desires to enact The Alberta Bill of Rights." Mr.

Speaker, during the debate in the federal House on the Canadian Bill of Rights, one of the main criticisms that was presented was the fact that the Canadian bill, by its very nature, was restricted to matters that were clearly within the federal jurisdiction. Yet property and civil rights were within the provincial jurisdiction. There was some very significant criticism of the Canadian bill in terms of its import and its consequences and Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3297

50-14 ALBERTA HANSARD May 15th 1972 its significance. It is well to remember that in terms of what we are doing this afternoon. That is why the

preamble to the bill is framed in that direction. The second part of the bill sets forth six human rights and fundamental freedoms. It is important to recognize, for comments I want to make in a few minutes, that there are, in fact, six: Firstly, "the right of the individual to liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof, except by due process of law." That is the first one. It is identical to the right within the Canadian bill except we have deleted the phrase 'a life' insofar as that particular provision clearly is within the federal jurisdiction.

Secondly, "the right of the individual to equality before the law and protection of the law," Thirdly, "freedom of religion," Fourthly, "freedom of speech," Fifthly, "freedom of assembly and association," Lastly, "freedom of the press." Mr. Speaker, the most important

section of the bill that requires attention, in terms of every single word, is

Section 2 of this bill, because the whole framework of the argument made regarding the Bill of Rights develops out of

Section 2. Without it the bill is meaningless. Without an understanding of

Section 2, one doesn't understand the bill, or its relationship to previous legislation, or to other legislation before the House.

Section 2 states that: "Every law of Alberta shall, unless it is expressly declared by

an Act of the Legislature that it operates notwithstanding the Alberta Bill of Rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgment or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared". It is the critical section, Mr. Speaker, and in the course of my remarks, I do want to call it -- for want of a better term -- the 'notwithstanding' section. Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, the bill defines the law of Alberta. It is important to note under that definition that it includes "order, rule and regulation".

Any of those who have been familiar with the matters of regulation in government today can understand the vast scope that is involved in that particular provision. Mr. Speaker, the history of the question of a bill of rights should be briefly reviewed. It was mentioned in 1960 that the Canadian Bill of Rights was passed. It was restricted to the federal sphere of jurisdiction. In 1970 and 1971, I rose in my place in this House and presented a bill which, in essence, combines Bill 1 and Bill 2 presently before the Legislature. There was, of course, at that time, no opportunity for debate and no debate ensued.

In 1970 another important development occurred, for there were sceptics about bills of rights, Mr. Speaker. The sceptics said that this particular Bill of Rights, the Canadian Bill of Rights, really would not have any important impact. But the decision in 1970 of the Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3298

May 15th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 50-15 Supreme Court of Canada, in the Drybones case, Her Majesty the Queen and Joseph Drybones, very clearly assured for all, that the bill had a great deal more importance and import to the people of Canada. Because we have followed the format of the federal bill, it is equally important that we consider that this Drybones case has a bearing on what we are debating today. The Drybones case, and I think it is important to deal with it, is that the respondent, an Indian, was convicted by a magistrate of being intoxicated off the reserve in the Northwest Territories, contrary to a

section of the Indian Act of Canada. There is no reserve in the Northwest Territories. On an appeal, the respondent was acquitted, on the ground that that

section of the Indian Act had been rendered inoperative by the Canadian Bill of Rights, because it infringes the right of the respondent to equality before the law. The particular

section renders the respondent guilty of a punishable offence by reason of conduct which would not have been punishable if indulged in by any person who was not an Indian. And that historic decision of the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed for all the importance of the Canadian Bill of Rights and what it means. The next step was in June of 1971, when the First Ministers of Canada met on a constitutional conference and discussed a charter. That charter was approved by the federal government and, I believe, by eight of the ten provincial governments; but not by the Government of the Province of Quebec or, officially, by the Government of the Province of Saskatchewan. And it set forth in its

Part 1, certain, what are known as political rights, which appear to cover a portion of the Canadian Bill of Rights, and what is in Bill No. 1. Mr. Speaker, before this session commenced I had a lengthy meeting with Mr. Diefenbaker, and in the course of it, he mentioned to me that I should look with care upon that political rights

section in the Victoria proceedings, that in his opinion, it really didn't do what it was intended to do. I now, in the past week, have had an opportunity to do that; and I fully concur with Mr. Diefenbaker's view, because in my view the political rights contained in

Part 1 are substantially weakened from the Canadian Bill of Rights, or from the provisions contained in The Alberta Bill of Rights, for two very important reasons. The first reason is that it sets forth three fundamental freedoms. I will read them. "Freedom of thought, conscience and religion." And I think we can take that as being comparable to the provision in the Canadian bill or the Alberta bill, with freedom of religion.

Secondly, "freedom of opinion and expression." And I think we could reasonably take that as comparable to the two freedoms within the Canadian bill, and the proposed Alberta bill, of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. And thirdly, "freedom of peaceful assembly and of association." And we can take that as coming directly within the provisions of the freedom of assembly and association. Mr. Speaker, there are two missing. They are the first two.

"The right of the individual to liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law." And secondly, "the right of the individual to equality before the law and protection of the law." That, Mr. Speaker, the second freedom, was the very freedom of the Drybones case. And if those political rights were accepted in the way they were set forth in Victoria, quite clearly the Drybones case would have of course no effect today. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3299

50-16 ALBERTA HANSARD May 15th 1972 There is another more serious matter and this develops during the course of my discussions. But it is clear to me, that the operative

section of the Canadian bill and of the proposed Alberta bill is simply missing from the political rights set forth in the Victoria Charter. The impact of those sections, in the Canadian bill and the Alberta bill, is to restrain government; and that is the purpose of the whole approach to these bills, and is clearly absent, in my opinion, from

article 2 and

article 3. In fact, there would be no obligation, even in terms of matters of the four freedoms that are set forth in the Victoria Charter, to declare in any particular legislation that it was being established notwithstanding the provisions of these political rights. And the impact of that is that, in my opinion, under the Victoria Charter a court would look at it, and if it was contrary to say the freedom of opinion and expression, the court would look at

article 3, which reads; "nothing in this part shall be construed as preventing such limitation in the exercise of fundamental freedoms as are reasonably justifiable in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, order, health or morals, national security or the rights and freedoms of others, whether imposed by the Parliament of Canada or the Legislature of the province." Mr. Speaker, that sort of a qualification, in my humble opinion, renders ineffective these political rights.

Because what it means is that a court would look at pieces of legislation that might be contrary to one of those specific freedoms discussed in Victoria and they would say; "But, there is a provision in the act that it has this public: interest, and they haven't made it notwithstanding." Yet it's clear to me that by doing that, by taking that particular position, the court will find themselves facing a majority view within a democratic institution, and the majority view is such as to wipe out the impact of The Canadian Bill of Rights to all intents and purposes. Now I realize, Mr.

Speaker, that those are very strong

interpretations that I am making. But I feel that the political rights contained in the constitutional conference proceedings and the proposed charter, substantially weaken The Canadian Bill of Rights and the proposed Alberta bill because they don't do what the bills are intended to do, and that is to protect the individual from the power of the state. Mr. Speaker, I underline those remarks, because I think they are pretty serious.

I would hope that we would hear debate on that particular item, because if they do that, certainly our government in any future consitutional conference would want to be fully convinced that our view is accurate. Mr. Speaker, the next part of this bill is to compare it with Bill No. 2. Bill No. 1 The Alberta Bill of Rights restricts the power of the Legislature, in terms of imposing upon individual rights and freedoms. Bill No. 2 The Individual Rights Protection Act, deals with discrimination as between individuals.

The Saskatchewan government, as I mentioned, the Ontario government, the British Columbia government and the Alberta government have all had human rights legislation, and that is within the orbit of Bill No. 2. The Human Rights Act, as it now exists in the Province of Alberta, has nothing whatsoever to do with Bill No. 1. It relates to Bill No. 2 and you will note that Bill No. 1 makes no reference to it, although Bill No. 2 deals with its repeal, and I am sure that during the debate on second reading of Bill No. 2, we will be dealing with that particular matter. Next, Mr.

Speaker, I think it's important to say what The Bill of Rights does not do. First of all, as mentioned, it is not a document designed to protect us from each other, which is the purpose Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3300

May 15th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 50-17 in one sense of Bill No. 2. It's not either, Mr. Speaker, an instrument to provide jobs and security. A declaration, in my view, simply won't do this. Legislation such as Bill No. 50, The Alberta Opportunity Fund, that's the sort of legislation that moves in terms of improving the lot of our citizens and their economic position. But Bill No. 1 is not an economic charter, and I think it's the worst possible deception for government to suggest you can guarantee something you know you can't deliver.

I think for that reason it should be made abundantly clear that this bill deals with individual rights, and is not an economic charter in any sense, nor was it ever intended to be. But what does the bill do, Mr. Speaker? It establishes a procedure that restrains government from attempting to deprive persons of fundamental rights, beyond what is necessary by government. What has become, perhaps, the arbitrary exercise of government power. It doesn't prevent, it restrains. The government can still do anything that it wants to do.

It has the legislative power, with the concurrence of the Legislature, and it's supreme in that sense, that the Legislature is supreme. But what it must do, if it's contrary to The Bill of Rights, is bring in, in its future legislation, or its amending legislation, a provision that a particular bill operates, notwithstanding -- notwithstanding -- The Alberta Bill of Rights. I haven't any doubt in my mind, in rising today and speaking about Bill No. 1, Mr. Speaker, that that bill will be very carefully considered by our government or any future government, in terms of both public and Legislature pressure.

And I'm sure that any bill introduced by government in the future years, that states that it applies notwithstanding The Alberta Bill of Rights, is going to need a very, very effective argument. I'm sure the Official Opposition, in this or any future Legislatures, would feel very, very much on their toes, in terms of assuring that when that 'notwithstanding' provision is there that it is clearly there for a valid reason. I think that such a provision is going to make government very cautious and very careful in the future, before they bring in a provision that states 'notwithstanding The Alberta Bill of Rights'.

Now it has been argued and suggested, I believe by the hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Leduc, that the government cannot bind future Legislatures. This is quite so. In the parliamentary system, as I mentioned, the full sovereign power is vested in the Crown, and under our present system that is within the Legislature and our own sphere of influence. The future Legislatures in this province, Mr. Speaker, could repeal The Bill of Rights, but I very much doubt that would happen. I think, Mr.

Speaker, what I've just said must cause considerable concern to any member on either side of the Legislature, when they realize what we're doing today. Because we had better be right about what we're doing. And if we're wrong, we may not be able to bind future Legislatures, but we put them into a position of attempting to repeal the Alberta Bill of Rights, and that, I think, is something that all of us should pause to consider.

It's obvious that the Canadian Bill of Rights has not in any sense of the word been challenged in the federal House of Commons, even with changes in election, in changes in government, and the many, many changes that have occurred since 1960. Mr. Speaker, future Legislatures, as I have mentioned, can pass legislation, though, notwithstanding The Alberta Bill of Rights. But I do know that that is a very restraining factor upon government. So this bill, Mr.

Speaker, if passed through this Legislature at second reading and through committee and third reading next fall, is Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3301

50-18 ALBERTA HANSARD May 15th 1972 a bill that will be with us a long time; and for that reason, requires the care and concern of all members. I have been asked, Mr. Speaker, "Why enact such a bill?" When I first proposed it in the House in 1970, I was rather staggered at the degree of advice I received to drop the whole idea. I received a lot of advice not to go ahead with it. No other province had done it, was the the argument. It is going to cause embarrassment if you form the government and then have to pass legislation or regulations, you’re going to have to go back and say, "Well, Mr.

Speaker, we made a mistake and we should have had a notwithstanding provision in that particular bill," and that’s going to focus attention upon it, so it’s going to cause governments in the future some considerable embarrassment. It's certainly going to be inconvenient for government. Every minister and every department, I know, already is concerned with it. But these reasons are the very reasons why I feel so strongly we should propose it.

Because in this modern day, and in our society today in Canada, almost every facet of our life seems to be involved with government law or government regulation, so the rights of the individual needs protection from the power of the state. And the basic philosophy that I have, as a Conservative and as a Legislator is to assure that those rights of the individual -- those six rights of Bill No. 1 -- are protected. I refer again, to the import of what I'm saying relative to the Constitution. The Canadian Bill of Rights deals with matters within the Canadian Federal jurisdiction.

But this Bill No. 1 deals with matters within the provincial jurisdiction, which involves property and civil rights specifically in the Constitution. And this touches upon the Health and Social Development department, the administration of justice, the whole area of property rights, and I could go on. So, Mr. Speaker, we accept the embarrassments that are going to be coming, the considerable inconvenience of this bill; and I’ve already noted the process has started, in terms of legislation. In the course of the last four months the question must have come up dozens of times, does it offend the Bill of Rights?

Is it contrary to the Bill of Rights, at the departmental level, by the Legislative Council, by the deputy ministers, by the ministers, by the Cabinet, in our caucus, and already in the Legislature? I dropped my pen three times during the course of previous debates, when somebody mentioned the Alberta Bill of Rights in areas frankly, that I thought had absolutely nothing to do with it; but it certainly got a message across to me, Mr. Speaker, that if members thought that it did involve that particular area, one can surely see how broad and encompassing it is. Now it hasn’t yet hit in the area of regulations.

The hon. members on the front bench who were formerly in the Executive Council are well aware; they know what is involved in that. But we also recognize that this bill does cover matters of regulation. One of the suggestions I proposed to the House, one I hope we can act on, is to activate the Standing Committee in a very intensive effort of law and law amendments and regulations.

I'd like to see us follow the practice that I discussed with the Premier of Saskatchewan, that perhaps that committee could meet; perhaps we could look at having public accounts meetings during the fall sitting and have that committee meet extensively during the spring session, be provided with the necessary legal advice and do the role that is done in the Province of Saskatchewan with their legislators, in making constant reviews of the regulations. I think that that would be an important thing to do. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3302

May 15th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 50-19 Mr. Speaker, the importance of this bill was underlined to me in a very effective way recently, when I attended here at the University, a special convocation with regard to the faculty of law. One of the recipients of an honorary Doctor of Laws, was the hon. Mr. Justice Bora Laskin. Mr. Justice Laskin is one of the foremost legal authorities in this nation. He is a scholar and a professor who was appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada. And it was an excellent decision by the Law School here in Alberta to confer this honorary degree upon Mr. Justice Laskin.

He made an address which impressed me a great deal, and I'd like to quote from a part of it that I think all of us today are very conscious about. I'm quoting from his address at that convocation. "However we view the pace of the law, or our ultimate dependence primarily upon the Legislature to respond to social needs or social demands, there are basic values in our society which are essential to orderly and peaceful change and to the very climate of responsiveness of the political authorities that we look to the law to assure. In this area the courts have played an historic and courageous role.

Chief among these values which our law has promoted and which our courts have protected, both against private and public invasion, are the political liberties of utterance, oral and written, assembly and association, conscience and religion. Our society is anchored as well on openness of our courts, and of our Legislative Assemblies, underpinned by a universal franchise, on fair procedure before adjudicative agencies, be they courts or other tribunals which, at least, means a right to be heard or to make representations before being condemned criminally or made liable civilly.

In the administration of our criminal laws, special protections have developed for an accused, such as the rule against forced confessions, the presumption of innocence, and the privilege against self- incrimination. These values are not absolutes, but a heavy burden lies on any Legislative Assembly or Court to justify any attenuation of them." And this is the most operative part of his remarks: "The Canadian Bill of Rights, operative on the federal level has given special sanctity to these values, short of constitutional entrenchment." That, Mr. Speaker, is what we're doing here today.

The Alberta Bill of Rights, operative upon the provincial level, will give special sanctity to these values, short of constitutional entrenchment. Mr. Speaker, how does this Bill work? In effect, it tells the courts not to attribute to the Legislature, an intention to infringe fundamental rights and freedoms unless it meets a prescribed formula. The bill in the first

section is a declaration, and then in

section 2, establishes an

interpretation. In this regard, Mr. Driedger, who was the Deputy Minister of Justice at the time the Canadian Bill of Rights came forth, has written in an article, with regard to the matter of binding future parliaments, to this effect: "Granted that parliament cannot bind itself and cannot bind future parliaments; it may, nevertheless, lay down the rules that are to govern the

interpretation and application of its own statutes." The

Interpretation Act is a long-standing example of this technique, and if any members want to consider the import of that, I Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3303

50-20 ALBERTA HANSARD May 15th 1972 suggest they read again The

Interpretation Act of our present statutes to show how a particular act sets forth an

interpretation. That is what

Section 2 of The Bill of Rights, in fact, does. With regard to existing legislation, we can follow the obvious case, such as in Bill No. 34 in my opinion, and repeal it. But frankly we haven't had an opportunity, before proclaiming this bill, to do a full assessment as to the number of acts that we now have that may be contrary to the Bill of Rights. Frankly, I don't think there are very many. There may be only two or three, but what I am not sure of and what I am sure all members are worried about is, to what extent are there significant regulations that might be contrary to the bill. Because in

Section 2 there is the provision to prohibit the authorization of the abrogation of the rights unless it is specifically said that it operates notwithstanding the Alberta bill. That word 'authorize' is key, because that means you can set up a bill that permits the authorization of something by regulation, that can be contrary to these fundamental freedoms, and then it is caught within the orbit of the bill. The next step, Mr. Speaker, is court action. The Drybones case -- and I won't go into further detail -- has set it out that it renders it inoperative.

The purpose of the Bill of Rights, therefore, is to say to the courts, 'here are the fundamental freedoms we intend to protect; if we haven't done so, then you, the courts, in your intepretation -- which is certainly one of the major purposes of our courts -- you interpret our laws in that regard.' Mr. Speaker, in terms of future legislation, obviously we will have to review every act that comes before this House, as to whether or not it affects the Bill of Rights and is contrary to it, but we are not proposing to go through the entire -- in any public sense - - the entire existing statute law.

We are probably going to have to, frankly, take the cases as they arise, although a review will be made this summer, and we will welcome any comments by any members. There has been a matter raised by the hon. Member for Olds- Didsbury in the course of debate that I think was valid. That was the concern about the matter of civil legal aid.

I think that in terms of the Alberta Bill of Rights, what I have discussed with the Attorney General, is to request the Director of Civil Legal Aid to, in all cases, personally advise the Premier and the Attorney General, if any individual is turned down on any request for civil legal aid for any application that involves a dispute rising out of the Alberta Bill of Rights. Under

Section 4 of the act, there is provision, of course, for the Attorney General being notified. During the course of those proceedings, the government can decide whether or not it will accept the provision as being inoperative or seek provision by way of amendment of notwithstanding approval, which we would then ask the Legislature to concur. Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned we have chosen a form and that is why the form differs from Bill No. 145 of last year. That is as identical as we can make it within our present circumstances, with the federal bill.

The purpose of that is that we have to create whatever certainty we can by establishing a situation that judicial decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada on the federal Canadian Bill of Rights can be utilized in an effective way in interpreting the Alberta Bill. I think that, for that reason, it is a worthwhile approach to follow, and that, for hon. members, may explain why we differed from the approach of Bill No. 145 of last year. I would like to give an example of how this bill would work. I would like to refer to a press report, with reference to the hon. Member for Lethbridge East.

It's a report in the Lethbridge Herald of March 21, 1972: Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3304

May 15th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 50-21 "John Anderson, Social Credit, Lethbridge East, has informed Lethbridge school teachers that the proposed Alberta Bill of Rights will eliminate compulsory membership in the Alberta Teachers' Association.” It goes on to say that that was his

interpretation, and that he could be wrong. I think it's a very important point, and a good one to use by way of example. Under The Teaching Profession Act, as all members know, in order to be a qualified teacher, one needs to be a member of the Alberta Teachers' Association. In my view, The Bill of Rights is not contrary to that

section of The Teaching Profession Act. It would be, if, for example -- and I know that this is not or would never even be within the contemplation of the Alberta Teachers' Association - - membership in the Alberta Teachers' Association was limited to a particular religion, or a particular race or national origin were excluded, or was limited to just females. If the provisions of membership in the Alberta Teachers' Association were set up in that particular way, then quite clearly, it would be contrary, in my opinion, to The Alberta Bill of Rights.

But I do not think it would be contrary, and I do not think it is now at odds, in terms of some of the studies that I've done -- I refer hon. members to a book called Peace, Order and Good Government, by O'Hearne -- that such a provision, as the required membership in the Alberta Teachers' Association, would not be contrary to the Alberta Bill of Rights, because there's no discrimination element involved in that association's bylaws that fit within the discrimination provision that are set forth in this act. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, and I'm trying to use this as an example to show how Bill No. 1 would work.

If I am wrong in that opinion, if the matter should be contested, and if the court should hold that it is true that the requirement of being a member of the Alberta Teachers' Association in order to teach, is contrary to the intent of The Alberta Bill of Rights, then the government faces a decision. It does one of two things -- it accepts the court's decision, or it comes back to this Assembly with a proposed amendment to The Teaching Profession Act, that it apply, notwithstanding The Alberta Bill of Rights.

I've tried to use that as an example to show how I think the bill, in a practical sense, may or may not be operative in the future. When we refer to being operative, I'm sorry, but I think it is necessary for hon. members to understand that it doesn't mean that a particular

section or a particular act will be deemed to be repealed. It simply will be ineffective or inoperative, and it will be very similar, as some hon. members are aware, to a circumstance where there is valid provincial legislation that ceases to be operative, by reason of subsequent, and valid, conflicting federal legislation. When that case has occured, even though there is valid provincial legislation, the provincial legislation becomes inoperative. I think it's important to point that out. Now, Mr.

Speaker, the course of this legislation is that, if concurred in by the members in second reading, we would hope, perhaps even this week, to bring it to committee for consideration and clause by clause study. It's then our intention to advertise for submissions from all who are interested, to be submitted to myself; and then in the fall I will undertake to table any submissions that I have to the members of the Legislature, when we reconvene.

We would then either have third reading of Bill No. 1, or we would refer it back to committee, if the circumstances were such that members wanted to refer it back; or if, during the course of the submissions that we receive, some suggested amendments developed. You will note that the bill provides that it comes into force when it's proclaimed, by

Section 5. We hope that before that, we will have completed review of all of the various existing legislation, but not regulation, by Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3305

50-22 ALBERTA HANSARD May 15th 1972 early 1973, and be in a position, with the concurrance of the Legislature, to proclaim it then. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I ask all hon. members to support this bill. It is key legislation and certainly our first priority. There was no pressure on myself or my colleagues to bring this bill forward.

On the other hand, we sense in our nation, and in our society, a growing number of storms, the problems of the individual in terms of the personality of the individual relative to the state; the broadening and extensive powers of government -- big government, if you like -- and the reaction that people are having to that; the growing degree of confrontations and demonstrations that we have in our society.

I am sure all members are concerned as I am, in watching the events unfold in Quebec in the last few days and the news report that we had when we sat down, about an attempted assault upon Governor Wallace in the United States. All of these things are part of our society, and the pressures and strains within our society. Mr. Speaker, I don't think government should be reacting all the time to events. I think is important that we, at times move ahead, anticipate events, and I think that is what showing leadership is all about. There is no pressure on us. The members may know this, and I confirm it.

To put this bill forward is strictly our own idea in terms of our forecast of the future. We are not passing it because of demands of people; we are passing it because we think the time has come, in 1972, for government at a provincial level, to show that it understands the importance of the individual, and the need for restraint upon government. At the provincial level -- that is where property and civil rights are foremost. Mr. Speaker, I have no way of knowing how many acts are affected by this bill, how many orders or how many regulations.

I know it is going to create very difficult time for our administration. We are determined, however, to be first in Canada. Perhaps it will exercise some pressure on other provinces; perhaps it will have some impact upon future constitutional talks. It doesn't strike me, Mr. Speaker, as a bill that lends itself toward amendment. So what we do on this bill now is very, very important. It also strikes me, as I have said, that we are watching something that will be with us for a long time. The consequences, Mr. Speaker, could be great or merely significant. We have no way of knowing.

I do not want to blow the bill out of proportion. I think there is a danger of doing that, but equally so, it is important that members on both sides of the House recognize the significance of what we are doing. We are watching here, with Bill No. 1, entirely new ground for a provincial administration. We are doing so because we want to show that, so far as the society of Alberta is concerned, the rights of the individual deserve, entitle, require some protection against the abuse of the power of the state. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, this is a point of order in connection with procedure.

I don't know how firmly the hon. Premier and the government have decided on the outline of procedures, as outlined by the hon. Premier, but we would like to respectfully suggest that the bill would serve a better purpose if, (1) we had the second reading and the bill was held in Committee of the Whole, rather than proceeding through Committee of the Whole. We make that suggestion for this reason, that during the summer, representations are being Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3306

May 15th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 50-23 requested on the various provisions from the people at large in the province. Undoubtedly, every MLA will want to discuss this extensively with his own constituents, organizations, etc. If the provisions in the Committee of the Whole have already been passed, it will be more difficult to discuss it with a view to carrying out the wishes of the people in the provisions of the bill.

We can't see where the principles of the bill would be changed, but it would well be that some of the provisions might be changed; I don't know which ones at the present time, or if any, but if it was left open, and not carried through the Committee of the Whole, we would be in an excellent position to go to the people and say, now we want to know your thinking in regard to every one of these provisions. So we would recommend that the bill receive second reading and then be held in the committee.

There is one other point I would like to make, and that is we agree that this is a very important bill, and undoubtedly the most important bill at this session, even having regard for the Opportunity Fund, because without freedoms and rights, everything else becomes just not important. And so, we would again suggest that while every MLA will have an opportunity to hear representations from his constituents, we would again try to impress upon the government the importance of letting the people bring representations to the Committee of Public Affairs, particularly on this particular bill.

This is a second point of this order which I am raising. We are having public hearings to decide how much money we should charge on oil royalties and how to proceed with it and so on, and properly so. I would think that it is even more essential that we hold public hearings on this type of bill, and the fall session, I think would be a proper time to have one or two days in which various organizations that concern themselves primarily with rights and freedoms would be able to give the considered opinion of their organizations to all members of the Legislature.

So this point of order is really number one, we question the government to hold the bill once we have completed second reading, and secondly to have hearings for the Public Affairs Committee at the early part of the fall session. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the point of order, with regard to the second item that the Opposition House Leader has raised.

My inclination, having regard to the study that has been involved in this bill, is that it is purely the responsibility of the 75 elected legislators here; and a hearing of this nature in these circumstances, I don't think is necessarily going to be required. I am prepared to keep that matter under advisement and give it some further thought, and certainly I have committed myself that any submissions I receive on the bill will be made public. On the first point, however, I think there is a great deal of merit in that.

On reflection, one of the reasons that we felt that we would try to get it through the committee stage now, was because we felt we wanted to communicate the importance of the bill, and that the bill was moving through passage in the Legislature, and hence would encourage people to be interested in it.

On the other hand, I think the argument made by the Opposition House Leader is sound, that it may be better to leave it after the second reading stage, so that when we come back in the fall, we are dealing with a committee and entirely a first time, instead of coming back at the bill, and referring back to particular clauses. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3307

50-24 ALBERTA HANSARD May 15th 1972 So, Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared on behalf of the government, to accede to the suggestion made by the hon. Opposition House Leader on the first point and suggest to my colleagues that it be held at the second reading stage. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary Mountain View. MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, I just have a few brief remarks to make in response to the principle of Bill 1. Firstly, I believe that most members will support the principle of the bill. Secondly, I don’t wish to deflate the hon. Premier when he talks about having taken a bold stride in leadership.

Since he raised the issue, it must be brought to him that a bill, perhaps with a little more meaning to it than the one he presented, was brought into this House by the then hon. Member, Mr. Watkins. And with all due respect to his claim, to having sort of blazed a trail, this bill almost verbatim, has been in Canada for a long time, since 1959 I understand. Also, when the Premier says that he does not intend to blow this bill out of all proportion, that is his opinion. My humble submission is that he probably did just that, notwithstanding. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely support the principle of the bill.

But when you are trail blazing, when you are showing leadership, let's give the people the proper bill of rights. There are half a dozen or eight items that he avoided that require leadership, and that require a man to stand up and be counted, and take a bold stand and not just one of these cross-roads types of bills that will not offend anybody, but is designed to please everybody.

Nobody can quarrel with what is in there, and nobody can quarrel with my statement that every one of these rights -- freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assent and association, freedom of the press -- are entrenched rights, entrenched as solidly as any law we have, that is my submission. But if the hon. the Premier says that he is providing leadership, I’m going to ask a few questions. Before we pass The Bill of Rights I’d like to raise a few issues that must be dealt with, things that concern me and concern a lot of people. Has the Premier considered the issue of the right to work?

I'm not taking a particular stand on it, but if you are going to provide leadership, let’s cover the whole field. This bill is going to be with us a long time and I agree that it isn't amenable to amendments. Let's cover the whole field. The right to work. Has the right to rest and leisure been considered in this day and age? This is the 1970's and times have changed since the Diefenbaker Bill of Rights was passed. How about the right to maintenance in old age, and also in case of sickness and loss of capacity to work? I'm not taking a stand on this again, but these facts have to be considered Mr.

Speaker, in this day and age. When I talk about the right to rest and leisure and hours of employment, these are important factors now, because the picture is entirely changed, and it is changing rapidly. How about the right to have an education? Many people believe that this is a right, and many believe that it isn't a right. Now this is the kind of an issue where a Premier ought to take some leadership. It's controversial, but you can't be a bold trail blazer and, sort of, not rock the boat. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3308

May 15th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 50-25 These are facts that concern many people, and I'm surprised that the hon. Premier stands up and says that he has provided great leadership here, but he avoided the issues that are not with us now. It's alright to tell me that 'sure we have all these powers,' I know that and the people know that. We like this kind of a bill and as I stated let nobody get me wrong, I’m supporting the principle of the bill; but I’m saying that he hasn't gone far enough. I'm looking for some real leadership. Let’s deal with a couple of controversial matters.

This is just taking the Diefenbaker Bill, and then taking the Watkins Bill, amending it where it affects Alberta, and bringing it in. The Premier is very much a follower in that regard. Then let me go on further. I believe that the rights of women have to be entrenched a little more seriously, a little more effectively than here, equal rights with men in all spheres of economic, state, culture, social, and political life. We may have this, but if we have this now, Mr. Speaker, then why omit it from the other entrenched freedoms that are enumerated here? Let's run the whole gamut.

Let's enumerate all the freedoms that we have and put them in here, because if he says it shouldn't be done, then why do the four that most people know about? There might be a few of the people that don't know and it might be educational to get this thing into The Bill of Rights and do a proper job. Let's do a proper job if we are going to show leadership. That is some of the criticism I had. I would say that the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, including the holding of mass meetings; and these are embodied in every bill of rights probably in the whole world.

So in that regard, particularly the Russian one, if you want to be specific let's get a few more in on the list. How about the freedom of street processions and demonstrations? How about the freedom against self-incrimination? That's another good one to get going on, and let's nail this one down into the statutes so that the people know where they stand on this matter. When the hon. Premier quotes Bora Laskin -- I have a quote and I haven’t got it with me at the present time -- but I reviewed the Canadian Bill of Rights very effectively a number of years ago and the then Mr.

Bora Laskin -- I believe he was a professor at the time, and an outstanding lawyer and an outstanding jurist -- now wasn't too impressed as to the practical effect of the Canadian Bill of Rights. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I agree with the comments made by my colleague that we should deal with this bill, second reading, debate the thing and not take it to committee where amendments might be made because the hon. Premier has admitted that this is not the bill as it will be in the final stages. So why should we be amending something in committee not knowing what the recommendations and additions are going to be?

We'll be wasting our time. So the sensible thing to do is to have our second reading and then wait until fall when we might have a chance to review this bill. There are a few other items I would like to mention. The hon. Premier says that there is no pressure on him to bring this bill.

Well maybe there isn't, but I feel that when a man makes a political commitment that he is going to bring a bill of rights that's sufficient pressure and I believe that he is obliged to bring it in now and he shouldn't say he is bringing it in out of magnanimity or because he feels it's timely, I believe he committed himself to do something like this about two years ago, and the pressure is there. I say, Mr. Speaker, that I'm on record as supporting this bill in principle, but I'm also on record that it doesn't go far enough.

There are a few real contentious issues affecting the rights of people that I'm of the opinion the hon. Premier would like to avoid, but I think that now he's brought this bill before the House he will Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3309

50-26 ALBERTA HANSARD May 15th 1972 have to consider these points. He will have to stand up and be counted, and even if it's unpopular he will be pressured to bring in these amendments and make it a truly meaningful Bill of Rights for the future of this province. The hon. Premier mentioned the Drybones case and I'm most impressed with that decision.

But it should be brought to his mind very clearly and emphatically that in 10 years, in a country of 20 million people, that this is probably the first real indication that this bill was really practically applied to help an individual whose freedom was involved and adversely affected. So we have to bring in a bill that not only looks good and sounds good and tells us all the wonderful freedoms we have -- in fact the bill says that -- but we have to take a look at it to see whether there is any real practical purpose for a bill like this. If there isn't, let's make it practical. And so when the hon.

Premier quotes the Drybones case I'd like to quote what I consider the main point in the decision in that case and here’s what it says: "If a law of Canada could not be sensibly construed and applied so that it did not abrogate, abridge, or infringe one of the rights and freedoms recognized and declared by the bill, then such law was inoperative unless it was expressly declared by

an act of the Parliament of Canada that it should operate notwithstanding The Canadian Bill of Rights." That is what this case decides and it took the Supreme Court of Canada 10 years, and a lot of litigation and uncertainty and anxiety on behalf of an individual -- an Indian who didn't know whether he had the rights or not until the Supreme Court of Canada decided. In fact, Mr. Justice Morrow ought to be commended for having made a decision in favour of the Canadian Bill of Rights and really set a new era. But I would like the hon.

Premier to tell me the number of times that Canadians did get remedies under the Canadian Bill of Rights. I think you could count them all on one hand in 12 years. So we mustn't blow the thing out of proportion with the impact that we're going to liberate the masses from oppression. Let's put it in its proper perspective and let's deal with it without too much fanfare, without too much, as I said, blowing out of proportion, and let's do a creditable job for the people of this province. One point that the hon. Premier raised which rather amused me, was with regard to the membership in the ATA.

He said that the established -- well he didn't say this but I'm enlarging on his principle -- that that is not affected. The membership in the ATA is not affected at all, although I can imagine several good reasons why a man, because of his beliefs, religious beliefs, etc. may not want to be a member. If we're going to guarantee religious freedom, we have to take this into account -- unpleasant as it might be. It might get a lot of teachers mad at us but we have to stand up as politicians and be counted, Mr. Speaker. So there is nothing so far in this bill that anyone in the whole country wouldn't support.

It's a nice popular bill. But I'm going to insist, at least from my point of view, that we get into the real issues. And when he says that the ATA -- if they discriminated against a member because of some particular reason of race, colour or creed, then that would be a violation of the Bill of Rights -- well, how on earth would that kind of legislation get on the books? The government would legislate something that violates a person's rights, and then say, well, but the Bill of Rights will protect him. The commonsense approach is to not have anything like that on the books, and if there is, let's find it. On the

interpretation of statutes, I haven't got the

Interpretation Act before me, but I think it's a well established rule of law, Mr. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3310

May 15th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 50-27 Speaker, that a general act, general legislation, does not override specific legislation. Maybe someone wants to quarrel with me -- they can cite their authority but I think I can back up my statements. So, Mr. Speaker, these are just a few of the observations that I want to make, that we have to deal with whether we like it or not, and once we’ve opened the case for a Bill of Rights in Alberta, I am going to push for the consideration -- full consideration -- and vote on all these different matters that I raised. And this isn't all, there will be more.

Also, I would like to urge the hon. Premier that it's rather a mockery of democracy to have hearings conducted during the summer to only part of the elected members. I have just as much of a role to play in this bill and the human rights of this province as the Premier or anybody else, bar none. And not only I, but every member -- and to say anything to the contrary, it indicates that the man really doesn't believe in human rights. He believes in that bill. If he believes in human rights, we should all -- all the MLA's - - should be listening to the submissions made by many people.

We'll get these submissions anyway, whether the hon. Premier thinks we ought to get them or not. But it should be done properly. It should appear that there is an interest on the part of everybody in this House to see that we come up with the best Bill of Rights possible for Alberta. That's what I'm elected for, and that's what I'm going to fight for, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I want to -- MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Drumheller, followed by the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, thank you. I would first of all like to thank the hon.

Premier for the consideration he gave in indicating that he would look with favour on holding the bill on second reading. I appreciate that very much indeed, and the consideration he will give to the other point that we raised. How important is the Bill of Rights? I think this is a question every MLA has to ask himself. And when I try to establish the answer of how important this is, I have to ask two or three questions.

Is it important to the man who is appearing in court, and who feels that because of his status in life, and because of his lack of money, and lack of good clothes, and lack of counsel, that he is not getting equality? Is it important to the person who says he has no discrimination, and yet signs a petition against a negro living next door to him? Is it important to the Indian who many times is looked down upon as he walks on our streets in our cities and in our towns? Mr.

Speaker, the very fact that there are inequalities today, the very fact that there are things going on that none of us appreciate, and we all try to avoid, in my mind is the real reason for establishing -- or one of the real reasons for passing a bill like the Bill of Rights. I'm not suggesting for a moment that this bill is going to solve every one of these problems, but this will at least show the people of Alberta, show the people of Canada, show the people of the world where we stand in regard to the major freedoms of the human race. And in my view these items make the bill very, very important. The first

preamble of the bill, I think, is an excellent one touching on the worth of the human person. Many people in our Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3311

50-28 ALBERTA HANSARD May 15th 1972 society and in our province and in our country feel that they are not worth anything, that they are not valued by the community, that they can make no contribution. I like to think of the importance of every individual, that he is a human being and that he is worthy of respect. Sometimes it may be difficult to respect some human beings, but even having said that, I think this bill is so much more important because it sets out the dignity of the human being, the worth of the human being.

I am glad to say too that the organization of which I am a member has as one of its basic principles, the dignity of the individual, the worth of the human individual. I am not suggesting that the Social Credit organization has any monopoly on that particular item, but we do recognize the worth of the individual and the dignity of every human being. I secured a very definite and lasting lesson in regard to the worth of an individual when I was a young boy. We lived at the Newcastle mine some two miles out of the City of Drumheller.

Every Sunday it was necessary -- I say it was necessary because it was part of our home training -- to go to church on Sunday evening. When I was walking back from church one nice summer Sunday evening with my mother, walking the tracks because there were no roads in those days, we came across an individual who was lying on the track. I was anxious to get by, I could see he was inebriated, sickeningly drunk. I said to mother, "Let's keep going." She said "No, isn't that --?" Let's call him Henry, that wasn't his name, but he was an old bachelor who lived at the old shack mine.

And I said, "yes, that is him alright." She said, "Well you go right home and get your brothers and come back; we are not going to leave him lying here." The very sight of the man who had thrown up, who looked disgusting in every sense of the word -- I was all for leaving him there. But I remember the words of mother saying, "He is a human being and none of us know what we might end up, and we'd better be careful and look after him." So I, against my will, had to go and get my three brothers and we carried this inebriated, dirty individual to his shack.

There I saw my mother clean his shack and clean him as much as she could. It is a lesson that I will never forget. He was a human being and he was worthy of respect. I remember some years later when he gave up his drinking habits, he became a well-respected man in that particular neighbourhood. I could never look upon that man without remembering that I would have left him there as something that was not worth even helping.

That is a lesson that I learned and I think it is set forth in beautiful language in the first 'whereas', that the human rights "respect the human rights and fundamental freedoms and the dignity and worth of the human person." A few years ago on my first trip from Alberta as the Minister of Highways, it was my pleasure to attend President Eisenhower's Safety Conference in Chicago. That evening Jack Douglas, who was the Minister of Highways in Saskatchewan, and I decided we would go down to skid row and see what we had heard about.

When we were on the skid row area, I noticed one young man, about 19 or 20, again lying in the gutter. I couldn't help but think, remembering the incident of Henry back at the old Newcastle mine. Only here was a young man with his whole future ahead of him. As we were walking by, I felt compelled to try to help this man. Just as I was about to say to Jack, who was a humanitarian if there ever has been one in the country, "what can we do to help this chap?", I saw a lady, well- dressed, come and help him up, and with his arm around her shoulder, she took him, I suppose, to some mission or to some welfare place.

I thought here is somebody who is demonstrating the worth of the human being, the worth of the human person. Yes, the first

preamble, I think, is excellently written, and is basic to almost everything else. Because if we, in our own mind, Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3312

May 15th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 50-29 can't respect those with whom we differ, those for whom we may not have any particular liking -- if we can't respect and help them, then we deny what we are saying in connection with these excellent words in the

preamble. I would like to commend the hon. Premier also in stressing the importance of reviewing all of our laws and regulations. I agree, particularly with our regulations. When we were in government, we found it very difficult to get regulations prepared in time to present to the Legislature, when the legislation was there. I'm sure the present government will find this same difficulty. We may ask and request many times for the regulations, because many times the meat of a bill is contained in the regulations.

I think I can speak for hon. members on this side of the House in saying that we would support fully any move to activate the law and the Law Amendments Committee, to study extensively and to constantly review the regulations. I think this is important and most essential if the aims and objects of this bill are going to be met. The

preamble is certainly important, and we place the dignity of the human person as basic to all of those. With respect to the property and civil rights, many of us, and I think our Leader on this side of the House has a number of times stressed to us -- whether he has in the House or not, I don't recall -- that our property and civil rights are enshrined in our Canadian citizenship. I think I can go along with that. I believe that as a Canadian my property and civil rights are protected through that Canadian citizenship.

But I see no difficulty, and I see some merit in re-emphasizing the property and civil rights in a provincial statute. I think this is important, particularly since the BNA Act places the property and civil rights as an item for which provincial Legislatures and provincial governments are responsible. I'd like to deal with the six human rights for a moment. I don't think, as the hon. Member for Calgary Mountain View mentioned, that there would be many who will oppose these particular rights.

That may well be the case, but I think it's not a case of opposing these particular rights; I think it's not only putting them in law and making them a statute of the province, but then I think it's most important that we, as legislators, and that the government, as the government of the province, endeavour to make sure that those human rights are not denied indirectly through legislation. That's why I like to see that word "notwithstanding" in this bill. I think it's necessary today for a government to have some restraints and some constraints. I think this is essential. The hon.

Premier mentioned once or twice this afternoon about the power of big government. Human nature sometimes wants power over other human beings. We saw it in the case of Mussolini; we saw it in the case of Hitler; we've seen it in a number of other cases in the history of the world; and we see it, to a lesser degree, even in municipal and provincial politics, where some like to have power over fellow human beings.

I think it is essential that there be some restraints so that we can make sure that when we are placed in positions of authority and positions of power, we use that for the benefit of the people and not for the sake of power. Restraint in law I think is good for government. I don't think this is bad at all. I think this is an excellent part of this bill. Big business and big government need restraints, if the lowly individual is going to have his equality before the law, have his freedoms and his worth is going to be recognized.

So, the 'notwithstanding' part of this bill, I think, has been excellently thought out. As the hon. Premier mentioned, this could have been left out, and probably would have relieved whatever government is in power in the next few years of a great deal of trouble, maybe sometimes of embarrassment, sometimes of difficult decisions. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3313

50-30 ALBERTA HANSARD May 15th 1972 I am glad to see it in there, because if a decision is difficult for government, it must be far more difficult and humiliating for the lowly individual who doesn't have the power and authority of government. Yes, big business and big government need some restraints; even a government that is completely humanitarian, in my view, should not object to some restraints when it comes to recognizing the freedoms of other people.

"The right to liberty and the right to enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof, except by the process of law" -- every once in a while we hear of people in Canada, and sometimes even in Alberta, who are held too long without a trial; who are not permitted to call a lawyer when they are arrested; whose rights are forgotten sometimes by the police officer in charge, even though it is recognized by our police forces and by our administrations.

I think this will be emphasizing to our law enforcement agencies the importance of making sure that the rights of individuals, whether they have done wrong or otherwise, must be recognized; that they are entitled to their advocates or solicitors; that they are entitled to let people at home know what has happened; that they are entitled to counselling before they start to convict themselves. Yes, this may be the exception, but I think the exception is the thing that makes the law essential. Some people may say these may be little things. I am reminded of the saying, 'it is the little foxes that spoil the vines'.

It is most essential that we correct the little things if we are going to have the type of society in this country that we all want to have. The second one, "The right of the individual to equality before the law, and the protection of the law" -- I think this is most essential.

I would like to see this written up in the halls of every courtroom and every police station in this province, that every individual is entitled to equality before the law -- every individual, the poor as well as the rich, the robber as well as the man who does no wrong, until the court is satisfied and he is convicted of the offence for which he is charged. Too many of us are wont to convict a man before he has had his hearing, before he has had his day in court. This might be human nature, but it certainly would be contrary to the way I read the rights of the individual.

"Freedom of religion" -- today I think we have won freedom of religion and freedom of speech. I hear people in our parks talking just as wildly as I heard them talking in Hyde Park during the war years when I was on leave in London. There, there is no restriction whatsoever in regard to freedom of speech. I was standing there beside a Polish air force officer one day and hearing a chap condemning Churchill and the Churchill government and the war effort.

At the same time Britishers were being killed by the bombings of Hitler and his Nazi crews, but he had the right to stand up in Hyde Park and condemn the very government that was protecting him, and the very soldiers who were trying to save him his freedom. I have heard people in this country too, talk pretty wildly, when it comes to freedom of speech. But we recognize that. And if they want to take an apple box to Churchill Square and stand up and people want to listen to them, we don't deny them that right in this country.

I remember the story that was told facetiously, I think, when the Russian leader, not Stalin, the one who came after him -- AN HON. MEMBER: Khrushchev. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3314

May 15th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 50-31 MR. TAYLOR: Yes, Khrushchev, went to the United States, and was talking to the late Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Kennedy was explaining to him the difference between the society in the United States where there was freedom of speech compared to the society in Moscow Square where there is no freedom of speech. Mr.

Kennedy was reported to have said to Krhushchev, "why in this country, anybody can take a soap box out there in Washington Square and stand on it and say, to hell with President Kennedy, and nothing happens!" And Khrushchev thought for a moment, and said, "Well, that is not an awful lot different from the way it is in my country, anybody can take an apple box out on Moscow Square and say 'to hell with President Kennedy', too, nothing will happen". This shows the difference in the particular freedoms. I think we recognize freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

I would like to say here, that while there has been very strong feeling in my particular riding regarding Hutterian Brethern, I have never once heard any individual say anything against the religion of the Hutterians. Never once has anyone ever questioned their right to freedom of association, freedom of religion. I am proud of that, because that is one of the things we recognize. "Freedom of assembly and freedom of the press" -- these things are all very, very important. I would like to extend one thought, and I don't know how it could be put into this bill. So it is really a thought. The hon.

Premier mentioned that this is not an economic bill. It didn't deal with wants. I can follow that reasoning, and yet there is something in the back of my mind that makes me a little leary of this. Because I know of countries where people have used want to deprive human beings of their right to the other freedoms, the freedom of religion, the freedom of association, the freedom of equality and even the freedom of assembly. And when people use want because -- let me put it this way -- when people are hungry, they are sometimes willing to give up the things they cherish the most. This is the part that worries me.

I talk about freedom of religion. I remember the story in Harold Begbe's book that he called, 'Broken Earthenware'. I don't know how many hon. members have read that book, but it is worth reading when it comes to trying to establish the worth of individuals. It tells of William Booth, the founder of the Salvation Army, in the slums of London trying to talk religion or salvation to the people who were hungry, who were without clothes, who had no food.

He found that he could get no reception, and so he thought of the idea of taking them into a place and giving them a bowl of soup, satisfying the needs of their stomachs and then talking religion to them. He found that by doing that, scores of these inebriates, and scores of these people found in the slums of London, were converted and became humanitarians and Salvation Army officers and ministers in other churches and worthwhile citizens. Because their hunger was satisfied, they could then give some thought to the finer things of life.

Food has a great deal to do with being basic to these other freedoms and I say, I don't know how some measure should be embodied in this particular bill but I think it is something we should give some very careful thought to during the summer months. I came from a big family and I saw hunger during the depression years, as hundreds of others did. I saw my own mother go without food so we could have a piece of bread. When I joined the air force the first poster that I saw was a picture of a happy family.

There were nine or ten around the table, the same as there were in my own home; there was a turkey on the table. Perhaps some of the other hon. members have seen this poster Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3315

50-32 ALBERTA HANSARD May 15th 1972 too. There, underneath, it said, "Freedom from want, that's what we're fighting for". That was part of The Atlantic Charter. Yes, freedom from want is pretty important -- is very important. I don't know how it can be tied into this bill, but I would hope that since we have overcome many of the other difficulties -- the freedom of religion, the freedoms of assembly and speech -- that during our lifetime we will also be able to overcome this other one, the freedom from want.

I would hope this, so that every individual -- whether he's in Newfoundland, or Nova Scotia, New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, B.C., or the Northwest Territorities or anywhere else in our country -- is not going to go hungry. We have come a long way. Our social legislation has brought us a long way. But there are still people in our country who are going hungry and maybe this can never be completely overcome. But it's an objective worth pursuing, because sometimes we lose our other freedoms when we give way because we are hungry.

Some people in other countries of the world have lost their freedoms for food. Their freedoms have been purchased by food, because their pangs of hunger, or of their dependants, were so great. I think that we have to recognize that in this bill. Again I emphasize I don't know how to include it in The Alberta Bill of Rights. I have thought about it and it doesn't seem -- at least I have not been able to ascertain how it can be done -- so I'm not going to condemn the government for not putting it in.

But I think it's something worthwhile thinking about during the summer months when we will be considering it with our people, as one of the basic freedoms affecting every man, woman and child. The Alberta Bill of Rights, Mr. Speaker, in my view, is an important piece of legislation. It may be found wanting in years to come; it may be found inconvenient; it may point out the exceptions. Maybe we'll - - well, it will be Utopia if we are able to accomplish everything that we all envision in The Bill of Rights. But unless we have a high goal we will not reach anything very high at all.

If we hitch our vision to a star we'll certainly get part way there. The closer we get to the realization of the Utopia dreamed about, I'm sure, by the hon. Premier and those who believe in The Bill of Rights -- federally and provincially -- the closer we get to that Utopian ideal, the more worthwhile the effort will be. Because we can only go up when we have high objectives such as those outlined in The Alberta Bill of Rights. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, before making any comments on this bill I want to just take a moment to say how very moved and impressed I was with the comments made by the hon.

Member for Drumheller. He has made one of the most excellent speeches to date in the Legislature and I commend him for it. In looking at this bill I would first of all like to compliment the government for deciding to withold it from committee stage until the fall. It's important that the various groups throughout the province have an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to make submissions which, in my judgment, will strengthen the bill. As the hon. Premier himself has pointed out, what we are doing in this bill is taking an important step.

In taking that step it is vital that we not only have as much discussion as possible, as much input from as many people as possible, but that we not rush into it -- that we take sufficient time to pass legislation which we can all be proud of. [Mr. Speaker took the Chair at 4 :43 p.m.] Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3316

May 15th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 50-33 The government is to be commended for recognizing that within our present constitutional framework -- with property and civil rights coming under the provincial heading,

Section 92 of The BNA Act -- it's necessary for this type of legislation to be passed by the province. To the extent, Mr. Speaker, that our province is taking a lead, I commend the government for doing just that. But I would also like to make the point that I, personally, view the long-term objective that we should aim at in this country as one of embedding in our federal constitution a bill of rights which will be part of that constitution and which will over-ride both

Section 91 and

section 92 of The BNA Act. While I concur with the government's move to implement this legislation at this time, I argue quite strongly that if we really mean what we say about a bill of rights that is meaningful in this country, it's necessary that that bill of rights be entrenched in our constitution.

But, at the same time, it's probably necessary to recognize from a practical point of view that it will be some time before we can, at the various federal- provincial constitional conferences, achieve the degree of harmony necessary to entrench a meaningful bill of rights into the federal constitution of our country. It has been said that a bill of rights is not really necessary, Mr. Speaker, because the heritage that we have -- our British parliamentary system, our concept of the rule of law, the great body of common law built up over hundreds of years -- protects the rights of the individual.

In most cases this is true. As the hon. Member for Calgary Mountain View pointed out, in most cases the rights of the citizenry are adequately protected. But there are those exceptions which should concern us and which make an honest effort to introduce legislation of this nature important. Without going into a great deal of detail, Mr. Speaker, all we have to do is look over the past 25 years in our own country.

During World War II for example, the decision of the federal government to intern the Japanese Canadians, deprive them of their rights of citizenship and bring them into southern Alberta, is in my judgment one of the black marks against civil liberties in this country. Just recently, in 1970, we had the implication of The War Measures Act which, as I see it anyway, struck at the heart of some of the basic civil liberties that should exist in a free society. It is necessary to have a bill of rights because, as the hon.

Premier has pointed out, a bill of rights will not guarantee that there won't be abuse, but a bill of rights will act as a restraining influence. It will cause government to take a sober second look and when government takes a sober second look it's often a more rational and balanced look, an examination of the facts, which will tend to guard the individual liberties of the citizenry. Now, as has already been very eloquently pointed out by the hon. Member for Drumheller, I really believe there is a case to be made, Mr.

Speaker, for going beyond the specified rights in this bill, and taking a close look at economic and social rights. I realize that it would be difficult to incorporate them in this bill, but I don't think the task insurmountable by any means. The universal Declaration of Human Rights, passed by the United Nations General Assembly, Mr. Speaker, in 1948, lists all the basic freedoms that Bill 1 enumerates, and in addition, a number of other very important economic and social rights -- the right to work, free choice of employment, the right to belong to trade unions, the right to education. I see that the hon.

Minister of Culture, Youth and Recreation is here.

Article 27 of the International Declaration of Human Rights states: everyone has the right to freely participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts, and to share in scientific advancement and benefits. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3317

50-34 ALBERTA HANSARD May 15th 1972 Now, Mr. Speaker, the argument that we cannot include economic and social rights in our provincial legislation is not really valid when we recognize the importance, the overwhelming importance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As I see it, Mr. Speaker, one of the tasks for those people who are concerned about expanding the intent of this Bill 1 to include social and economic rights will be over the summer to make positive suggestions to the government as to how it can expand the scope of the legislation to make it even more meaningful than it is today.

Now one other area that, in my view, has to be examined is the question of political rights. I know that the legislation talks about freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and association, and in a general way these headings deal with political rights. But I again look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Mr. Speaker, and in that document, it specifies political rights. I would suggest that one thing we might examine at the provincial level here is that of including political rights.

We all know that there are many examples in Canada where the political rights of our citizenry have been infringed upon in one way or another. We have the example of the United States, where their Bill of Rights doesn't make any mention of political rights, and where during the 1950's we had the excesses of the McCarthy era. Many of the finest people in the United States lost their jobs, lost their civil liberties, because of an over-reaction to what, at that time, seemed to be a very serious threat. The point is, because the Bill of Rights in the United States did not specifically outline political rights, Mr.

Speaker, many good and loyal American people lost their rights. I would like to suggest that when we examine this question in this Legislature, perhaps there is a lot of merit in pinpointing the right of every citizen in this province as to the political course of his choice. In addition to that, I would like to add that civil servants, who are increasingly becoming a larger and larger group of people in modern society, must have political rights. We cannot indefinitely accept the proposition, Mr. Speaker, that these people are to be denied the right to participate freely and actively in the political process.

I know that the legislation passed in Saskatchewan in the 1940's had some people up in arms when it was first introduced. But looking at the record of that legislation, the impact that it had on the province was desirable, and it did not in any way, undercut the efficiency and the competence and the loyalty of the civil servants. I submit that if we're going to talk about guaranteeing fundamental freedoms in our society, we must extend to those people, who carry out the public business of the province, the right to participate freely and actively in the political process.

One of the points the bill makes, and I concur with it completely, is the long-standing concept that is inherent in our British parliamentary system, that all men are equal before the law. It is important to underline and stress and to codify this principle in legislation. But, Mr. Speaker, by the same token, when we codify that all men are equal before the law, we must make sure that we have the machinery set up to ensure that, in fact, all men are equal before the law. This means, I submit, a radically improved legal aid system.

I am reassured in part that the government is going to take a second look at legal aid and we recognize that acting this year may be a little premature -- as the Attorney General has pointed out, there may be some federal funding.

But as a proposition -- and we are dealing with this in principle now -- it seems to me beyond challenge that if all men are to be equal before the law we must have an adequate legal aid system which is not based on the proposition that the legal system, the legal fraternity in this province, should provide charity to people, but rather is based on the fact that a legal aid system is a matter of right -- so that every man, whether he is a pauper or millionaire, can stand equally before the law. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, this very important

section of the act will not have any teeth. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3318

May 15th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 50-35 May I make a further observation. The bill that is a companion to Bill No. 1, Bill No. 2, talks about the establishment of a Human Rights Commission. I don't intend to go into that in any detail because that really comes under Bill No. 2. But it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that if Human Rights legislation is to have any meaning, we must make sure that the administration of this legislation is sufficiently funded so that the job can be done.

I think that the commission also, when it is established, should be set up in such a way that it will take the lead, that it will be active in rooting out and destroying discrimination wherever we find it and not simply reacting to complaints. Because often, Mr. Speaker, when we have that kind of passive approach, discrimination exists much longer than it should. Indeed one thing we might actively consider is to ask this commission, once it is established, to do an evaluation in this province of the extent of discrimination in Alberta. I think it is important that we find out the truth.

Truth may hurt, but it is important that we know just what the situation is. Finally may I make just one observation about the civil service again. I talked about the need to extend political rights to our civil servants. It is also my view that our civil servants should have collective bargaining rights as well. One thing we must do when we look at Bill No. 1 is ask ourselves whether or not there is any discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, creed, or sex in our present civil service operation. If there is, Mr.

Speaker, then we are honour bound as members of this Legislature, if this bill is to have any importance at all, to root out that discrimination because the place to start is not in the private sector, Mr. Speaker, but is with our own civil service which comes under the jurisdiction of this Legislature and the leadership of this government. May I conclude, then, by saying that the bill is a worthwhile document, one which will earn, and rightly so, the support of members from all sides of this House.

But I would hope that the members on the government side would not look at the points that have been raised in any partisan sense, because I think all of us are concerned about a charter of human rights in Alberta which can do this entire Legislature justice. As a consequence, the more points of view expressed, not only in this Legislature, but throughout the province, the better. Because in the process, Mr. Speaker, it will strengthen what is a good bill and make it even stronger. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton Kingsway, followed by the hon. Member for Highwood. DR. PAPROSKI: Mr.

Speaker, hon. members, I as a new member of this Alberta Legislature, consider it a privilege -- and I'm here in humbleness and with pride -- that I am able to speak and make a judgment on such an important matter, being the rights and liberties of the individual and the state in our province. This is incorporated very well in The Alberta Bill of Rights. This bill is the first bill of its type in Canada. Because the Premier has covered this bill so well in his extensive overview, and in-depth penetrating remarks, it’s very difficult for me to add very much. However, I will be brief and make a few comments.

Firstly, before I go on with my remarks, I would like to make a few comments regarding the statements that have been made by the Member for Calgary Mountain View. It seems quite difficul