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

19811103

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

November 3, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 1407 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Tuesday, November 3, 1981 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 80 Transportation of Dangerous Goods Control Act MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill No. 80, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Control Act.

This Bill is designed to complement similar legislation at the federal level and other legislation being introduced in provinces throughout Canada, to provide for a uni form method of control of the transportation of dan gerous goods throughout Canada. [Leave granted; Bill 80 read a first time] Bill 77 Judicature Amendment Act, 1981 MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to intro duce Bill No. 77, the Judicature Amendment Act, 1981.

This Bill would provide primarily for two changes to existing legislation: one clarifies the question of notice that must be given to the Attorney General when consti tutional issues are raised in proceedings and about to be argued in court; the other one, in a related matter, deals with the question of the representation Crown agencies must have in such cases. [Leave granted; Bill 77 read a first time] Bill 91 Legal Profession Amendment Act, 1981 MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to intro duce Bill No. 91, the Legal Profession Amendment Act, 1981.

Apart from making a number of extensive and impor tant administrative changes in this particular legislation, this Bill brings in a number of other important provisions in accordance with the government's policy in regard to professions. The way discipline proceedings are handled by the benchers has been revised. The requirement for a person to practise law is now that of Canadian citizen ship, where previously being a British subject was suffi cient qualification to seek to practise, given the other necessary qualifications.

It introduces the concept of lay benchers to the benchers of the Law Society and, further, provides certain clarification of the manner in which annual assessments may be varied by extraordinary assessments. [Leave granted; Bill 91 read a first time] Bill 93 Energy Resources Conservation Amendment Act, 1981 MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce a Bill being the Energy Resources Conservation Amend ment Act, 1981.

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the provisions of the Act dealing with the Energy Resources Conservation Board's practice and capacity to award costs to interveners. [Leave granted; Bill 93 read a first time] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table a response to Motion for a Return No. 118, as ordered by the Assembly. MR. STEVENS: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table the response to Question No. 115, as requested by the Assembly. MR. BORSTAD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to file with the Legislature Library four copies of the Alberta North in the '80s conference report. MR.

D. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to file for the interest of hon. members a number of letters representing a cross

section of those I've received from individuals with expertise in areas related to the family. These letters are in support of the general concept of Bill 228, The Alberta Family Institute Act. The letters are from E.P. Hogan, assistant chairman, Behavioral Sciences Department, Mount Royal College; Carol Knowles and Rose Marie McLean, instructors, Al lied Health Department, Mount Royal College, Calgary; Pat Burden, director, Fulton Child Care Centre, Edmon ton; Dr. Branch, certified psychologist, Barrhead; Dr. Dianne Kieren, professor of the Division of Family Stud ies, University of Alberta; Dr.

Jason Montgomery, of the same faculty; Dr. Wayne McVey, the Department of Sociology, University of Alberta; Dr. Karl Tomm, direc tor of the family therapy program, Division of Psychia try, University of Calgary; D.R. Milne, acting general manager of social services, city of Edmonton; Dr. Brian Woodward, psychologist, Janus Associates; and Bill Dyson, director of the Vanier Institute of the Family. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. SHABEN: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure for me today to introduce to you and to members of the Assembly four special guests in the members gallery.

They are Chief Jim Giroux of the Driftpile Indian Band, councillors Philip and George Bellerose, and band manager Raymond Wil- lier. I'd ask that they stand and receive the welcome of the Assembly. MR. HIEBERT: Mr. Speaker, may I introduce to you and to members of the Assembly 33 grade 6 students from Fulton Place school in the constituency of Edmon ton Gold Bar. They are accompanied by their teacher

1408 ALBERTA HANSARD November 3, 1981 Mrs. Heggerud, and parents Mrs. Kerr, Mrs. Vata- maniuk, and Mrs. Caine. I would ask them to rise in the members gallery and receive the customary welcome of the House. MR. WOO: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce to you, and through you to members of this Assembly, a class of 48 very bright grade 6 students from the St. Theresa elementary school located in the west borough of Sherwood Park. They are accompanied this afternoon by two teachers, their group leader Mr. Joe Weleschuk, and Mrs. Doreen Myroniuk.

If the students and teachers would now rise, I would ask the Assembly to join me in according them our traditional warm welcome. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Heritage Trust Fund Auditing MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Provincial Treasurer is a follow-up to the questions yes terday, when the Provincial Treasurer would not produce a management letter as requested in my question. Since that question, I've had the opportunity of looking at

Section 27 of The Auditor General Act in which working papers are not allowed to be tabled in the Legislature. Mr. Speaker, the management letter I requested and audit working papers are different. I've checked with the Institute of Chartered Accountants, tax accounting la wyers, and textbooks from the university. It's clear that there is a difference between management letters and audit working papers. Mr. Speaker, my question is: will the Provincial Treas urer produce in this Assembly the management letters we wish, and table them for our information? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Speaker, as I said yesterday and as the Auditor General of this province has said, the law of this province is that those working papers include the management letters and should not be tabled. That's the law of Alberta at this moment. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I differ with that opinion, and the Auditor General of this province has not made that clear definition. The letter received by the Provincial Treasurer is a management letter that can be tabled in this Legislature. Mr. Speaker, what is the Provincial Treasurer trying to hide? Why can't we have the information? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. R.

SPEAKER: Why can't it be produced in this Legislature? It is legal to produce it and table it. Why isn't it here? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand why the opposition leader in particular, and the opposition generally, persists in questioning the credibility of the independent Auditor General of this province who has said particularly . . . MR. R. SPEAKER: That's untrue. MR. HYNDMAN: And the law is that those letters . . . MR. R. SPEAKER: That is not a true statement. MR. HYNDMAN: . . . should not be tabled. MR. R.

SPEAKER: We're not questioning the Auditor General's capability, point of view, or working habits. MR. R. CLARK: That's just a red herring. MR. R. SPEAKER: We are questioning why the Provin cial Treasurer does not present information and make public business public in this Legislature. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. It would appear that it's time we got this back on the track. The question simply is whether the hon. Provincial Treasurer will produce cer tain documents. He has said he will not, and he has given a reason for that. It would seem to me that anything beyond that is debate. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Provincial Treasurer. In view of the Provin cial Treasurer's comments about the law, what specific legal advice has he obtained to back up his assertion that in fact it is not legal to table the management reports as opposed to the working papers, which are two entirely different things, as has been pointed out. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

Both the present edition of Beauchesne and the previous one, which is probably based even more on general parliamentary precedent and what might be known as the law of parliament, specifical ly say that a legal opinion received by a government or a minister of the Crown is beyond the scope of the question period, as I understand it and if I remember it correctly. As I understand it, a confidence between solicitor and client is quite in keeping with the normal practice throughout the free world. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, on a point of order. [Unre corded] the question may well be the tabling of a legal opinion but as to whether or not a legal opinion has been sought, in my judgment. We know that question has been put a number of times before. My question to the hon. minister is whether or not the Provincial Treasurer has sought a legal opinion on this matter, in view of the advice he gratuitously gave the Assembly — in my judgment, in error. MR. SPEAKER: That's quite a different question. MR. HYNDMAN: In my view, Mr. Speaker, the words mean what they said.

I believe the evidence of the Auditor General, who is a highly respected chartered accountant in not only Alberta but Canada, is that he has always deemed that the words in that Act infer, and quite clearly encompass, the management letters, the audit letters. Mr. Speaker, I think the best evidence of the fact that that is the case, and that the law today is quite clear that those letters cannot be tabled, is the fact that the unusual opposition trinity on the other side has introduced a Bill purporting to change the existing law.

The only reason they would do that is that they know that the existing law precludes and does not permit those letters to be tabled; therefore, they've introduced the Bill to change it. That will be debated at the appropriate time, and we'll see what the result of the Legislative Assembly is.

November 3, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 1409 MR. SINDLINGER: A supplementary, please, Mr. Speaker. When the Auditor General was before the herit age fund watchdog committee, he was . . . SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question. DR. BUCK: Come on. Call off the dogs. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Surely the hon. member is allowed a modest introduction to the question in laying the background to it. MR. SINDLINGER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, when the Auditor General was before the heritage fund watchdog committee, he referred to the management letters and offered to discuss and provide extracts to the committee.

However, the committee re fused to accept them. My question is whether or not the Provincial Treasurer would allow the Auditor General to provide those extracts from the management report to the heritage fund watchdog committee? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I don't have that power. The Auditor General is a servant of this Assembly, and we are talking about a letter prepared, and in effect owned, by the Auditor General. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a ques tion to the Provincial Treasurer.

If my recollection is accurate, the Provincial Auditor agreed to present to the Heritage Savings Trust Fund committee of this Assembly extracts from certain management letters he had given to the officials of the government. My supplementary ques tion to the Provincial Treasurer is: in light of that will ingness, if my memory is accurate, by the Provincial Auditor to make that information available, why did the government members on that committee prevent the Au ditor General from doing that? MR. SPEAKER: With great respect, the government members on the committee don't answer questions in the question period.

MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion to the minister relating to the comment with regard to our Bill. We agree that working papers can be kept confidential, and our Act does not ask for a change in that part of the Act. But we ask that management letters, management documents, be presented to the Legislature. Would the Provincial Treasurer examine all methods by which those management documents may be presented in this Legislature?

If the government believes in open government and in providing all possible material to this Legislature, will the Provincial Treasurer take on a commitment to examine the matter again and reassess his present position? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, the present position is the position of this Legislature, as evidenced in the Act. Not only do we believe in open government, we believe in ensuring that methods are found that will ensure that the control systems are not weakened. The initiatives by the opposition have already weakened the control systems of the government by revealing . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

We're definitely getting into the area of debate now. MR. SINDLINGER: A final supplementary please, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the management control letter. I would ask the Provincial Treasurer if he would please table in the Legislature a

summary of those transactions which led to the loss of $60 million on marketable securities? MR. SPEAKER: It would seem that the hon. member's request would be eminently suitable for a motion for a return. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion. Has the Provincial Treasurer examined the proce dures and any losses that have occurred in other prov inces, for example the province of Ontario which has very open legislation relative to the Auditor General where all management papers are made available to the Legislative Assembly?

Has the minister examined that procedure to look at the procedures being carried on in the province of Alberta? MR. SPEAKER: With great respect, I don't know whether the situation in Ontario has changed between yesterday and today, but that question would seem to be a repetition of one asked yesterday. MR. BATIUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At the spring sitting of the Legislature, you made a ruling that I concurred in, that the intent of the question period is to provide hon. members with the opportunity to seek in formation they would otherwise find difficult or impossi ble.

I also concur that preference should be given to the opposition, because it is presumed that it is more difficult for them to seek and get this information. But over the last number of days, Mr. Speaker, these same questions and answers have been coming, and it's continuing. Since the fall session, on several occasions I have indicated that I wanted to ask a question, but the question period elapsed before that chance. Unless the calibre of questioning changes, Mr. Speaker, I think you will have to make a different ruling on that. DR. BUCK: You'll get your 30 seconds in caucus next month, John. MR. R.

SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, speaking on the point of order, if that's what it was. Our questions are to gain information from the government, to ask what it is doing with regard to certain issues, what its positions are. When we find that positions are held fast, we attempt to provide greater information, which I did in indicating that other bodies supported our position. In that light, I asked the government to reconsider its position. So I think the criticism of our asking the same questions is unfair. Child Welfare MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move to my second question, if that is acceptable.

My question to the Minister of Social Services and Community Health is with regard to the tragedy in southern Alberta, relating to the towns of Taber and Waterton in the Lethbridge area. I wonder if the minister has taken steps at this time to prohibit or reduce the incidence of cases such as this happening again. MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, October 30, I indicated to the Assembly that I was concerned with the

1410 ALBERTA HANSARD November 3, 1981 events which took place between September 14 and Sep tember 18 this year, the time when the mother and her daughter were first reported absent and the time when that was confirmed by a note left by the mother; and concerned with the mechanism used, which had been mutually agreed to by the social worker in the case and the grandmother, that the grandmother would contact the Calgary police. I have had an opportunity to review those matters through both the director of social services deli very for the department and my office staff.

I am satisfied that the grandmother did in fact contact the city police and that the social worker involved in the case followed up on the same day. However, I was concerned that there had not been contact with the RCMP on a provincial basis.

As a result of a review of this matter by the appropriate deputy ministers and other senior officials in the depart ment, one step taken is that a telex has gone to the district department offices to ensure that a refined proce dure is followed in similar cases: in addition to a verbal reporting to the municipal police who may be involved, there would be a formal notification of the same to the RCMP K Division headquarters in Edmonton, either by letter or telex, and that the central office of the depart ment would be copied on that communication. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary ques tion to the minister. One recommendation of the Om budsman was to hire ex-RCMP or ex-police officers to staff the department, to investigate allegations of child abuse. Has the minister acted on that recommendation, or is that recommendation still being ignored? MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, none of the Ombudsman's recommendations relating to child welfare were ignored.

The hon. member well knows, in the document tabled in this Assembly, the actual response to each of the 40 recommendations and, in fact, a copy of the Ombuds man's reply to me as to his feelings as to the appropriate ness of our response to those various recommendations. If the hon. member doesn't have a copy or has misplaced his, I would be pleased to respond. Mr. Speaker, I draw to the hon. member's attention that a number of former police officers work in the department. The director of social services delivery is one example of such an officer. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, I'm talking about deal ing with the problem presently facing us, not in the past. Could the minister indicate whether any crisis nurseries that can deal with child abuse or child care problems are going to be established in major Alberta cities? MR. BOGLE: If the hon. member would like to elaborate on his proposal, I'd be prepared to listen to it. MR. R. SPEAKER: Now that I have the floor to make a speech . . . Mr. Speaker, in a number of cities are chil dren who require assistance, are neglected by their parents, and require a centre to which they could go to get some type of care.

This would be a crisis nursery. I wonder if the minister has looked into that kind of concept, to care for children in need. MR. BOGLE: To be clear, Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member suggesting a facility where parents could drop off their children, or a facility which would be used when children are apprehended from their parents because of abuse and/or neglect? It's a very important distinction, and I'd like to know exactly what the hon. member is referring to. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, in reply to the ques tion, a number of parents experience various problems with their children relative to work; or a wife, because the husband is carrying on certain activities, maybe alcohol ism, in the family. There are problems such as that where maybe a single parent, or parents, need a place to place their children at times of crisis in the home. MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, if we're sure we're discussing a case where parents need assistance, and we're not confusing that with a youngster who has been abused.

In the latter case, there is clearly a responsibility on the department to move in a very expedient way to appre hend the child and, later, go before the courts to prove the need for that kind of action. This government has given support to municipalities through the family and community support services pro gram, a unique program in Canada — the only province to have such a program — which clearly allows munici palities to set priorities.

In a municipality such as Cal gary, where the funding for such a program increased by some 49 per cent during the current fiscal year over the past fiscal year, there is clearly the ability of the munici pality to set its priorities in those areas — a similar case in Edmonton and other municipalities participating in the program. So if in fact that is deemed by the municipal authority to be a priority, the province clearly cost shares the funding of that project to a maximum of 80:20. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question to the hon. minister.

This deals with clarification of the minister's first answer, also an answer the minister gave on page 1353 of Hansard last Friday with respect to the guidelines for notifying the local police and the RCMP. Mr. Speak er, the minister indicated that the department had refined the policy "early in July this year". Did that policy as of early July include written guidelines? Were those written guidelines transferred to child care workers throughout the province? MR. BOGLE: Mr.

Speaker, my comments in early July related to the contacting of police when attempting to determine where a parent, or parents, and a child might be. That matter was in fact followed in the case in Calgary, where the local police were contacted. What I have alluded to — and on Friday, in response to the hon. member who asked the question, I indicated that we would be following up with a procedure which would automatically ensure that reporting to the RCMP was also done. That's what I've responded to today.

That message has in fact been transmitted, via the director of social services delivery, to the district offices in the province. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister. My question doesn't really relate to the public comments attributed to the minister in July but whether, as a result of those public comments in July this year, there was any formal communication from either the minister's office or the appropriate public servant to child care workers in the province, outlining the proce dure the minister indicated was followed in the Calgary case.

Was that done across the board to all child care

November 3, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 1411 workers? Were written guidelines presented saying, this is the policy you follow where there is this kind of situation? MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, the procedure followed would be the issuing of a telex by the appropriate official in the department, presumably the director of social serv ices delivery, to the district offices. When the procedural manual of the department is update, which is done from time to time, then of course that would be written in the manual.

As that transaction took place in July this year and, as I under stand it, the manual is currently being brought up to date, it would not yet be in the manual. I will certainly check to clarify the actual import of the hon. member's question as to how the information was transmitted from the director of social services delivery to those district offices. I assume it would follow the same practice I've just outlined for the most recent informa tion; that is, by telex. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, just so there's no misun derstanding the specific question would be: was there any formal communication?

The minister has indicated that a telex would be the normal route. Was that in fact fol lowed in July? It's been done recently. Would the minister obtain that information and report back to us? Odyssey Project MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this ques tion to the hon. Minister of Environment. It concerns the Odyssey project in the Kootenay Plains area.

In a 1979 letter to a member of the Alberta League for Environ mentally Responsible Tourism concerning the Odyssey environmental impact assessment, the minister stipulated that an environmental impact assessment should be un dertaken, and stipulated public involvement in the prepa ration of that EIA. Is the minister in a position to advise the House today of the status of that environmental impact assessment, and whether or not the conditions contained in the minister's 1979 letter have been met? MR. COOKSON: Mr. Speaker, the Odyssey proposal has been ongoing for some time.

Not only has the magnitude of the project changed, but the actors have changed as well. Over the past year or two, we have continued to receive proposals from the participants in the project. We have continued to upgrade our environ mental concerns through the environmental impact as sessment. Of course, the public has continued to show considerable interest in the project. Different organiza tions throughout the province have made submissions and expressed concern. At this time, Environment is still dialoguing with the proponents of the project.

We feel that some concerns have not yet been addressed suffi ciently. That's essentially where it rests at this time. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister could advise the Assembly why the Department of Environment — which administers The Land Surface Conservation and Reclamation Act, under which EIA terms are de tailed, and which has an environmental assessment divi sion — has handed over much of the responsibility, if not all, to the department of energy? MR. COOKSON: To the department of industry? MR. NOTLEY: Of energy. MR. COOKSON: I don't think that's correct, Mr. Speaker.

We still have a responsibility insofar as the environmental conditions are concerned. Three or four areas are being explored insofar as environment is con cerned, and that's our responsibility. One is the problem of the water supply, the problem of disposal of the efflu ent from a project which now has grown considerably. We are concerned about the impact of this sort of thing in the general area in which it's proposed, insofar as wildlife is concerned. We work closely with the Department of Energy and Natural Resources.

Perhaps the Associate Minister of Public Lands and Wildlife may want to comment on the progress or the questions asked by the member since it is on Crown land, for which he has considerable responsibility. MR. NOTLEY: The associate minister will have his turn in a moment. I would ask the Minister of Environment to advise the Assembly of the reasons for the government not insisting on formal public hearings on this project. Mr.

Speaker, I raise that question because in 1974, what is now the Environment Council of Alberta but at that time was the Environment Conservation Authority, specifically rec ommended that before this project were to go ahead, there would be separate public hearings — separate hear ings, I point out, from the overall hearings on the Eastern Slopes policy. Why are no formal public hearings being planned on this matter? MR. COOKSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, there have in the past. Part of our environmental impact assessment is to explore with regard to concerns expressed by organiza tions.

And of course we have in place the Eastern Slopes policy, which specifies that certain things that can be done in certain areas. Insofar as a public hearing is concerned, when one considers its location, it's pretty hard to hold a public hearing with a moose, a bear, and whatever else is out there. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that if the minister holds public hearings, he may find that a few — indeed, large numbers of Albertans would come. Perhaps the odd moose and bear, but I think many, many Albertans would come. Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could direct this question to the hon.

Associate Minister of Public Lands and Wildlife. In this House on May 21, 1981, the minister said: "I would refer members to the Eastern Slopes policy, which is the guidelines under which the Odyssey proposal is being developed". That policy states that there must be an integrated, closely managed land use policy, and that it's essential for the development of the Eastern Slopes.

Given the facts that at the moment no such policy is in place for that particular area and that the fish and wild life division has argued that the EIA prepared by the company is inadequate, what is the government's position at this stage? Is it the government's intention to withhold approval until completion of the planning process, or is the government going to ignore its own Eastern Slopes policy? MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, the Odyssey development does conform to the Eastern Slopes policy.

Certainly concerns were expressed by the wildlife division, but these have been resolved by the proponents of the Odyssey proposal sitting down with our staff. As my colleague the

1412 ALBERTA HANSARD November 3, 1981 Minister of Environment stated, there are concerns as to the sewage disposal and water supply. These are being dealt with by the company, and they have submitted plans dealing with the impact on the environment of sewage disposal and water supplies. I believe the project is very, very positive for the people of Alberta. We are very concerned about the environ ment, but we encourage the tourist industry here in Alberta as well. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

Is the minister saying to the House that in fact an inte grated management plan is in place, and that the com ments the minister made on May 21, 1981 — that in all respects the company has complied with the demands of the Eastern Slopes policy, including an integrated man agement plan? Is the minister in a position to advise the Assembly what public review of the company's environ mental impact assessment is now taking place? What provision is being made, since there aren't going to be public hearings? It's my understanding that ALERT has been refused a copy of the EIA.

What steps are being taken by the department to ensure that all interested groups have a copy of the EIA, so they can present their concerns or views? MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, the plan has been submitted to the department. They are looking at it from the environmental impact on the area. The company also has structured an advisory committee centred in Rocky Mountain House and, through those people, has liaison with the people interested in this development. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the last supplementary. MR.

NOTLEY: Will the minister assure the House that all interested groups will be able to obtain copies of the EIA report? I understand that either the Department of Environment or the minister's department has 30 copies of this report, but groups that have expressed an interest have been denied copies. So that there is no closing of the door on public information, will the minister publicly assure the House that he will take the initiative to open the door and make that environmental impact assessment report available to any Albertan or group which wishes a copy? MR. MILLER: Mr.

Speaker, it's my understanding that this report is available to the public. I know that it is available in Rocky Mountain House. As to how widely it's been distributed, I don't know at this point in time. Highway Safety DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, my question to the hon. Solici tor General has to do with the 41,500 suspended drivers in the province. Perhaps the minister can clarify to the Legislature to what he meant when he talked about decriminalization of traffic violations, in light of the fact that eight out of 10 of these so-called minor accidents are people who eventually end up on the suspended list.

Can the minister give us some clarification as to his intent and purpose in making that statement? MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the hon. member recalls the recommendation of the Kirby commission that a mechanism be found for handling fines for the lesser level of traffic offences. That's what I'm referring to. We are in the process of implementing that recommendation by providing a system whereby the fines can be collected through the mechanism of driver licences and motor vehicle registrations. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister.

In light of the recent court decision in Wetaskiwin that ruled that Check Stops were illegal, is the minister in a position to indicate if the Solicitor General is still carrying out the Check Stop program? Can the minister indicate if that program is going to be accelerated or decelerated? MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, the program is being con tinued. You may wish to direct your questions on this to the Attorney General, but I understand there are two cases in Alberta. An Ontario case is presently going to the Supreme Court of Canada.

I think all jurisdictions are watching with interest the progress of these legal deci sions upon the effectiveness of the Check Stop program. I might say that it's my view, and I think the govern ment's view, that the public supports the Check Stop operations. We will do everything possible to make sure we can continue that program. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, if I could just add a little bit. The case the hon. Member for Clover Bar has referred to was decided in Provincial Court in Wetaski win a month or so ago.

That result is potentially under appeal at the present time, to test the law in the province of Alberta. We're of the view that the legislation between Ontario and Alberta is sufficiently different that there was no need to adjust the enforcement of the Check Stop program as a result of any recent decisions in Ontario or here. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Can the Solicitor General indicate if there's any consider ation of asking the people in his department to look at checking vehicles and some of the jobs now being done by the RCMP?

Is the minister looking at enlarging that force under his jurisdiction, to take away some of the smaller responsibilities the RCMP now have? MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, the annual report I tabled in this Assembly describes the work of the Alberta highway patrol. They do a certain amount of work with passenger vehicles. Certainly the RCMP have always been con cerned about the volume of work they're involved in and would prefer, I think quite legitimately, to take on the more serious matters, particularly matters that involve crime.

I can't say that we have not looked at the possibili ty of increasing the highway patrol. In the past, it has primarily been devoted to the trucking industry and the enforcement of the rules that govern trucking in the waybill area, the weights and, along with that, the equipment. I might say that we've watched with interest the devel opments of this type of capacity in other provinces. One of the difficulties brought to my attention by the officials, in discussing this type of thing, is the problem of dual policing, the fact that you will have different standards if more than one police force is operating.

Along with that, a lot of general police work is done through the highway

November 3, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 1413 traffic patrol that operates generally throughout this province by the RCMP. MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the final supplementary. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary ques tion. And it's pretty sad, when the chief law enforcement officer will not enforce the law. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I fail to find that a supplementary question. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Minister of Trans portation.

In light of the fact that nine of the mayors in jurisdictions around the city of Edmonton, and many other municipal people in the province, are asking for enabling legislation as to the use of flashing lights on school buses within their jurisdictions, is the minister in a position to indicate if any change in the legislation is going to be brought in in the fall sittings of this Legislature? MR. KROEGER: Mr. Speaker, before we would think about changing the regulations on the use of flashing lights, we would want to have a lot more clarification on the concerns of the people talking about the change.

What I specifically mean by that is that we have tried very seriously to assess the effects of using flashing lights on school buses. Our information is that the regulations now are the best we can do. We're prepared to discuss with anyone to help clarify the reasons for the existing regulations. If we're missing something, we invite comment. DR. BUCK: How about the other provinces? Utility Rates MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my question to the Minister of Utilities and Telephones, deal ing with the whole question of power rates.

At what stage is the government's consideration of the proposal of balancing out, levelling off, or equalizing utility rates across the province? MR. SHABEN: Mr. Speaker, I think the matter was raised earlier by the Member for Olds-Didsbury. I indi cated that it was under consideration by the government and by the department, and that's the present status. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, to the minister. Has the government entered into discussions with the various municipalities in the province which are involved in either producing or purchasing their own power?

Have discus sions been held with those municipalities about the effects on the power rates of their ratepayers? MR. SHABEN: Mr. Speaker, the discussions being held, that have been going on for four to six weeks, have been with the utilities — TransAlta utilities, Alberta Power, Edmonton Power, and Medicine Hat Power — also with the chairman of the Union of REAs, as well as with those large cities that purchase power in blocks and distribute within their own jurisdictions, the cities of Calgary, Leth- bridge, and so on. Those discussions are going on. MR. R. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, can the minister indicate to the Assembly the degree of enthusiasm there has been from the city of Calgary for this concept? MR. SPEAKER: I'm wondering if it's within the minis ter's official duties to assess degrees of enthusiasm. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, then let me put the supplementary question to the minister this way. Has the Minister of Utilities and Telephones, or his officials who have been meeting with the groups the minister just out lined, received representation from the city of Calgary expressing concern about the effects such a move would have on the rates of the people in Calgary? MR.

SHABEN: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to comment on the second question. I've had an opportunity to meet with Commissioner Cornish of the city of Calgary, as well as with an alderman who serves on the utilities committee for the city and the mayor of Calgary. As well, officials from the department are meeting on a regular basis with officials from the city of Calgary to discuss certain pro posals. Those discussions are taking place. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Before the Legislature resumed, the minister was publicly reported, quite widely, as personally favoring a concept of a marketing board.

Is the minister in the position to advise or report to the Assembly on the essential struc ture of this board? Would it take into account the dif ference in transmission costs, for example, in the Calgary Power/TransAlta area compared to the much higher cost Alberta Power area? How would it do so? MR. SHABEN: Mr. Speaker, that question involves con siderable technical detail. I think it would be premature, since there's no final decision by the government, to discuss any element of any particular program. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

Can the minister report whether the reports of three or four options attributed to the minister before the Legisla ture resumed are now being assessed by the department, whether that information in fact is correct, and whether it is the minister's preferred option is still the route of some kind of marketing board? MR. SHABEN: Mr.

Speaker, I think I've responded on a couple of occasions that for over two years the depart ment has been considering a variety of options to address some problems that exist within our utilities structure in the province, the principal one being significant rate dif ferentials throughout the province. Yes, a variety of op tions were, and are, being considered. MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the final supplementary. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, one last supplementary question to the minister. Has the government made a policy decision that it will move to equalize power rates across the province?

Or is this a — I was going to say "figment", but that wouldn't be fair — design that the Minister of Utilities and Telephones has, and simply that? MR. NOTLEY: Kite-flying. MR. R. CLARK: Has the government made a policy decision to equalize power rates or, to use the term of the

1414 ALBERTA HANSARD November 3, 1981 member from the north, are we kite-flying about this proposition? MR. SHABEN: Mr. Speaker, I think I've responded to that question on a number of occasions. No final decision has been taken by the government. I advised members of the Assembly that we are giving careful consideration to the problem. That's the status. Hail and Crop Insurance MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Agriculture. Does the minister have any statistics that would indicate the number of farmers who purchased hail and crop insurance this year com pared to last year? MR.

SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, I don't have that infor mation. It would appear in the annual report. I would be pleased to take the question as notice, and provide the hon. member with those figures. Ophthalmologists — Lethbridge MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care, concerning the supply of certain medical specialists in the Lethbridge area. Has the minister had any representation from the Lethbridge area, including the hospitals and the medical association, with regard to the shortage of ophthalmolo gists in the community? MR. RUSSELL: Mr.

Speaker, none that I can recall off-hand. A letter or two may have been received during the past two years, but I'd have to check the files to give you a definitive answer. MR. GOGO: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I've had several calls in the last few days. In view of the facts that 12 per cent of the population are senior citizens, and as a result the necessity for eye surgery is somewhat higher, and that now only one ophthalmologist is active there,

whereas there were six, could the minister under take to discuss the matter with the College of Physicians and Surgeons, and perhaps the AMA, with a view to finding somebody new to meet the demand in that community? MR. RUSSELL: I'm certainly willing to discuss that matter, or any other similar to it, with those bodies, Mr. Speaker. But I hope nobody in this Assembly believes that it's up to the government to be responsible for maintaining a supply of any kind of specialty in any kind of community in our society, the way it works.

We can enhance communities and make employment opportuni ties attractive but, beyond that, there's a limit to what we're able to do. MR. GOGO: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Then it could well be that it's a question of the fee structure. Maybe it's not high enough to attract ophthalmologists. Could the minister advise the Assembly if discussions are now taking place with regard to a new fee

schedule for the physicians in Alberta? MR. RUSSELL: Yes, Mr. Speaker, those discussions are under way at the present time. They are traditionally held at this time of the year, so the computers can be set to incorporate the new fee

schedule for the next calendar year. The government negotiates a global increase with the Alberta Medical Association, and they in turn decide how that increase shall be divided among the various specialty groups. If the Alberta Medical Association per ceives a need to increase fees for ophthalmologists this year, they would do that. If they perceive a need to decrease or increase fees in different ratios for other groups, they undertake to do those sorts of things. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Environment would like to supplement some information given in an earlier question period. Pipeline Crossings MR.

COOKSON: Just to make sure there was no misun derstanding yesterday, Mr. Speaker. The Member for Spirit River-Fairview asked a question with regard to the crossings on the Elbow River, dealing with the Quirk Creek and Jumping Pound plants. The comment I made is that it's our responsibility to provide an environmental impact assessment at some stage of the application. If it wasn't picked up, the intention in the response was that it's our normal responsibility.

We do have a number of situations where we don't require environmental impact assessments, and that could conceivably be one, depend ing on the submission by the proponent at the time. In addition, I promised to deliver any research with regard to pipeline crossings. I have three documents from Alberta Environment: the Expansion and Plume Rise of Gas Jets from High Pressure Pipeline Ruptures, a Com puter Model of the Risks from Gas Pipeline Ruptures, and Public Safety Aspects of Sour Gas Facilities. I'd like to make these available to the member. ORDERS OF THE DAY head: WRITTEN QUESTIONS 139. Mr. R.

Speaker asked the government the following questions:

(1) What art items, owned by the government or any of its agencies, are presently missing or unaccounted for?

(2) Is an original painting by A.Y. Jackson, owned by the government or one of its agencies, unaccounted for?

(3) What is the name of the artist, and the type and purchase price of each lost or unaccounted for piece of art worth over $200? head: MOTIONS FOR RETURNS MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I move that Motion for a Return No. 140 stand. [Motion carried] 138. Mr. R. Speaker moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing an accounting for all travel at public expense outside the province of Alberta by the Premier and employees of the Office of the Premier, cabinet ministers, MLAs, deputy ministers, associate dep uty ministers, and the immediate staffs of each, from June

November 3, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 1415 3, 1981, to October 15, 1981, showing the dates of each trip; the places visited; the purpose of each trip, and explanation of what was accomplished by each trip; the cost of each trip, including a breakdown by the following headings: meals, lodging, travel, hospitality, mode of tra vel, and miscellaneous; and a listing of the most signifi cant meetings held on each trip that indicates the purpose, participants, and accomplishments of each meeting. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Speaker, this motion is basically satisfactory and, in fact, will enable the government to indicate how the Alberta story is very effectively being told outside the province of Alberta. However, three amendments are appropriate. I have distributed them to the hon. opposition leader, to Your Honour the Speaker, and to the Clerk.

They are as follows: firstly, that the words "June 3, 1981" be deleted and replaced with the words "October 15, 1980"; secondly, that the following words be deleted: "and explanation of what was accom plished by each trip"; also, that the following words be deleted: "and a listing of the most significant meetings held on each trip that indicates the purpose, participants, and accomplishments of each meeting". There is another matter which does not need to be amended, Mr. Speaker, but that I think should be re ferred to in debate.

The record should show that with respect to the travels of MLAs, as referred to at the top of page 4 of today's Order Paper, the return would refer only to the details of travels by members of the Legisla tive Assembly in their capacity as acting in any way for the government. Any travels or trips taken by MLAs with respect to duties for legislative committees would not properly belong in this return and therefore would not be provided in the answer. I think the reason for the first deletion — that is, replacing "June 3" with "October 15, 1980," — is self- evident.

I am not sure why the hon. opposition leader picks the unusual period of four months and 12 days to ascertain when various trips were taken. It would seem appropriate to me to take a full calendar year of the entire range of various trips that were taken so, for example, we can encompass all the travels of the Minister of State for Economic Development — International Trade, and get the full picture of what he and others were doing. That's the reason for that amendment. Mr. Speaker, the other amendments simply delete items which are more properly the subject of debate during the estimates.

For example, to list what was accomplished during each trip in respect of the Minister of State for Economic Development — International Trade, would require several volumes of returns. There fore, to keep the return manageable, it would seem that information in respect to what was accomplished can be secured by the Assembly during discussion of the estimates. Also, I believe it's inappropriate to have matters other than factual matters in a return.

To be requested to list participants at meetings who are not members of the Assembly or members of this government would not be respecting the privacy of others around the world who may happen to be at meetings. For those reasons, I move that those amendments be made. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the recommendations for amendment, the time period causes no problem as far as I'm concerned. If the government wishes to reveal all these trips, flitting around the world, that's fine.

But I do have some concern with regard to the second and third recommendations for amendment, where I requested what is accomplished by the trip. I think that's a very legitimate question when we think in terms of accountability in this Legislature. As an irrigation farmer, I think of three members of this Legislature — the hon. Member for Cypress, Mr. Hyland; the hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood, Mrs. Chichak; and the hon. Member for Vegreville, Mr. Ba- tiuk — visiting Israel, I understand, to look at irrigation. That's a report of where they went.

But I can say with a clear mind and all sincerity that there was no reporting back to this Legislature on what could be added to the irrigation system of Alberta, what could improve the income of Alberta farmers. It was a nice trip for those three people, but in terms of taxpayers' dollars producing good benefit, the benefit was zero. Mr. Speaker, I would claim that on any podium in any debate. Zero. A nice trip and zero benefit. As an irrigation farmer, I benefited zero. My constituents as irrigation farmers right across the board benefited zero. That's just one trip; there are others.

What is needed and why I make the point is that (a), I'm critical of that, and this is first time I've had the opportunity to do so publicly; and (b), it is an example of the kinds of trips this government and backbenchers take across the world. It's a nice summer holiday, but do we as Alberta citizens receive results? That's what I'm concerned about. What was accomplished? That is the key to making an evalua tion of what really happened. I want to know: does the Premier ask MLAs to report back by memo when they flit around the world? Is that information public to this Legislature?

If it is a confiden tial memo between the Premier and that member, it doesn't do this Legislature any good, not one bit of good. Mr. Speaker, I've never seen any — even a public memo, not even something tabled on a trip that has occurred. A number of years ago, I recall asking why one of the backbench MLAs went to a certain country, and really didn't receive much of an answer. There was indication that there was a report to the Premier, but that doesn't do us here in this Legislature any good.

If the true feelings of backbench MLAs who have gone on trips here and there were known, I'm sure they would admit that maybe it was a nice trip, but what did I bring back? What did we in Alberta really learn and benefit from? The other part: "a listing of the most significant meet ings held on each trip that indicates the purpose, partici pants, and accomplishments of each meeting". Mr. Speaker, if very important individuals were visited, talked to, and provided information . . . Let me give you an example.

In 1970, I as minister at that time had the opportunity to visit the Scandinavian countries to look at part of the penal system, a different concept that a fellow by the name of Erickson was using there, in terms of a more open approach in dealing with people who had committed various types of crimes. We met with that person and examined the concept. [interjection] MR. R. CLARK: He was the minister of social services, and that came under his responsibility. [interjection] Yes, Mr. Crawford. MR. R. SPEAKER: At that time I was responsible for young offenders.

Maybe you didn't realize what your responsibility was when you took over the department. At that time, we changed some of the approach when we came back to Alberta. This is the point I want to

1416 ALBERTA HANSARD November 3, 1981 make: there is a report on file of that trip — I believe in this library, and if not, in the department library — of our activities and the people we met. That's the kind of thing I'm asking here. Do ministers and backbenchers file reports? Mr. Speaker, as far as amendments two and three are concerned, I can't accept them. If the government wishes to provide this other period of time, fine. But if it's the same as with regard to our discussion in question period on providing management letters, these as well are man agement letters that indicate what really was accomplished.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh. MR. R. SPEAKER: Here the government is again hiding things. Maybe they don't want to tell us because they don't exist. Maybe nobody cares what they do as long as the backbench MLAs are happy, satisfied, out of every body's hair, and the Premier doesn't have to worry about elevating them to cabinet ministers. Send them on a trip, and there's no problem. But the public pays for it. It's time for accountability, Mr. Speaker, and that's what we're asking for here. MR. BATIUK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to participate in the debate on this resolution.

I was sort of appalled to hear why the hon. member chose . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the debate at the moment is on the amendment rather than the main resolution. MR. BATIUK: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I was going to respond to, as the hon. leader brought this to the House. For a number of years, I had the opportunity to serve on the irrigation committee. During my time, I had a chance to view irrigation in southern Alberta. Ever since, I have given all my support. I saw the difference between dryland farming and farming where irrigation was practised.

I always felt it was a good system and was working well. When the hon. Minister of State for Economic Devel opment — International Trade selected us to go to Europe to view the irrigation systems there, we three MLAs had a really busy time. There were celebrations of the 75th Anniversary of the province and so forth, but I felt it was my obligation. It was no holiday, as the hon. leader may make it. We travelled for 11 days, from morning until night. We walked through fields and looked at irrigation. When we came back, the minister requested each of us to make a report. We made the report.

I know all of us handed the report to the minister, and he tabled the report of this trip in this House. Mr. Speaker, I always felt that regardless of whether I or anybody in my area will ever use irrigation, it was an area where we're looking at how the population is in creasing. Only 140 years ago, there were 1 billion people in the world. Today there are 6 billion. Irrigation is one area that really provides an increase in farm production. We know the natural resources will go. They cannot be brought back. However, with irrigation and being on a committee like this, I think we did a good job.

We made our report. We did learn, and we brought that message back. Even though irrigation in this province has been functioning for 70 years or more, it has not improved in those 70 years. There are big losses by it annually. With the technology in the three countries we visited — and there was a likelihood at that time that one of the largest manufacturers of irrigation equipment was going to look strongly at the possibility of coming to Alberta to set up factories to produce equipment, because they felt that Alberta was the best place because of the cheap energy. So when the hon.

Leader of the Opposition quickly attacks things like that, I think there is no reason for it. MR. COOK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to rise and participate in the debate on the amendment and make a couple of points. One is that government MLAs do make trips and, by doing so, benefit in a variety of ways. They benefit by getting an increased perspective on international and na tional situations, and they can apply that to their work on caucus committees and in work on legislative committees, trying to improve the system of government for Albertans.

When the Member for Little Bow grandstands and asks how he as an irrigation farmer might benefit from the irrigation trip conducted by the three hon. members, the information is quite at hand. The Foster report on economic development for the province outlines that irri gation is one of the main limiting factors for economic development and that we're going to have to invest massive sums of money in this area of activity. I think it's important that urban and rural members alike be edu cated and involved in decision-making, Mr. Speaker, because it's going to take massive amounts of money and investment.

It's going to raise some very serious environ ment questions as well. Because to expand irrigation much more, we're going to have to improve the existing system and consider pipelining water from northern Alberta. For a southern farmer to have the parochial views the Member for Little Bow does, suggests that he really doesn't appreciate the larger questions involved in public policy, the larger questions applied and made apparent in the government caucus or in this Legislature. When northern water is being considered for pipelining to southern Alberta, that question affects northern Alber tans.

When we want to know whether our irrigation system is efficient, we need to know what kinds of tech nology exist elsewhere. Speaking to the motion, I think the hon. Member for Little Bow is grandstanding once again, Mr. Speaker. He's trying to get a little press attention, trying to appear noble, to appear as the defender of the public purse. It's a shallow and shabby effort. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. With great respect to the hon. member, it would seem to me that we're here to discuss arguments, not personalities. MR. COOK: Agreed, Mr. Speaker.

But unfortunately, the hon. member seems to dwell on personalities more than he does on . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. R. SPEAKER: Learn the rules, Rollie. MR. SINDLINGER: Mr. Speaker, may I make a few comments about this, please. I don't see any problem with government MLAs or other MLAs taking trips, whether throughout the province, the country, or the world. I don't believe that the events of the world or the province unfold within this Chamber. Therefore, it's ne

November 3, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 1417 cessary for all of us to get outside and become acquainted with what's going on there, so we can make the most informed, well-reasoned decisions possible in this Legisla ture. So I don't think there's any problem with that. I do believe a distinction should be made between trips taken by caucus members and trips taken by MLAs on behalf of the Legislative Assembly. Some of the com ments made have been in regard to caucus members taking trips.

There's nothing wrong with that either, except in that instance it should be the caucus that is paying for the trips and not the government. However, in the instance where the government or the taxpayer is paying for the trip, I believe those MLAs who take those trips have an obligation to report back to the Assembly. In the first instance, I think it's important for MLAs to take those trips and become informed on matters. There's self-improvement through that, of course, and that's good.

But I think it's also incumbent upon them to ensure that other Members of the Legislative Assembly can benefit from and share in their experience and make well-informed decisions as well. I think all efforts should be made to ensure there is a reporting procedure whereby not only those members present today but those who come after us as well will have the benefit of those experiences, and won't have to repeat the same things. I understand some of the reports from members are made available to the Assembly, are tabled.

I would ask the government to make every reasonable effort to ensure that all reports from trips made at taxpayers' expense are made available to all Members of the Legislative Assembly. MR. KNAAK: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to participate in the debate on the amendment. One of the arguments that has been made in this House on several occasions by the opposition is the accountability of MLAs and various other groups to the House, with actually very little dis tinction being made between the process of government the way it is and the Legislature the way it functions in the House.

For instance, if we as MLAs were not per mitted to go on trips, we would be in a position where cabinet ministers, who are already very busy, could go on trips, on fact-finding tours, and we could have govern ment officials go on fact-finding tours. The opposition is doing its best to put some meaning on us as backbenchers when in a very real way we do participate in policy decisions of the government as a whole. I want to assure the hon. Leader of the Opposition that his reference to backbenchers has no more applica bility to us now than the opposite would been true when his government was in office.

In fact, it's essential for government MLAs to take trips and to become informed, to ensure that MLAs continue to participate actively in decisions, especially when there are so many of us on this side of the government, which we assume will grow by next election time.

So rather than defend or apologize for government MLAs taking trips, I'd be disappointed if the cabinet and Executive Council were daunted in any way by the purported criticism, and MLAs were not sent on fact finding tours for the purpose of bringing forth informa tion so that cabinet and government don't have to rein vent the wheel each time a new policy is considered, and for all MLAs to have input to the government process. Thank you. MR. HYLAND: Mr. Speaker, to participate in the amendment and the comments made by the hon.

Leader of the Opposition, the Member for Vegreville mentioned that when the trip he talked about was taken and we returned, we submitted a report to the minister. After a motion for a return on the Order Paper, the cost of the trip and the report were filed. The hon. leader seemed to indicate that a report was not filed. I suggest that when they ask for stuff on motions for returns, they take time to read some of the stuff submitted to them, for all the time it has taken to achieve it. Mr. Speaker, at least the government was prepared to go and look at different methods of irrigation.

We're not prepared to sit from 1944, whenever the Socred party became part of the government . . . AN HON. MEMBER: 1935. MR. HYLAND: Well, whenever. They sat on it just as long anyway, and didn't do nothing for irrigation. I'd better rephrase that; I shouldn't say "nothing". AN HON. MEMBER: You should say "anything". MR. HYLAND: Anything. The government participated in the construction of St. Mary irrigation district. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. With great respect to the hon. member, it seems to me we're getting very far afield from the debate on the amendment.

I realize the amend ment has opened up a considerable topic insofar as the merit of trips might be concerned. But to get out on the record of a former administration in regard to irrigation would seem to me to be getting beyond the scope of the debate. MR. BRADLEY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the course of debate on the amendment, it seemed to me that the hon. Leader of the Opposition brought a number of questions into debate. I believe the hon. members involved in the questions he raised should have an oppor tunity to respond. MR. SPEAKER: Quite.

As I recall the main emphasis of the remarks of the hon. Leader of the Opposition, he queried what good these trips were doing for irrigation in Alberta. That's quite a different question from dealing with what might or might not have been done in regard to irrigation 11 or 12 years ago. MR. BRADLEY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In his remarks, the hon. member was going to get to exactly that. The hon. leader implied that these members were on a paid vacation. MR. KNAAK: On the point of order, Mr.

Speaker, it seems to me that it's properly in order for a member of this House to show by way of comparison and to justify his trips by comparing how poorly the government before us did. Perhaps they didn't have any trips. MR. SPEAKER: With great respect to the hon. member, that is tenuous beyond . . . [interjections] MR. HYLAND: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I guess, because I already spoke once. I was just trying to illustrate the difference between the concern then and now that we have to deal with irrigation.

1418 ALBERTA HANSARD November 3, 1981 [Motion as amended carried] head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 203. Moved by Mr. Knaak:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly recommend that the government of the province of Alberta give consideration to undertaking a study into the feasibility of collecting the personal income tax presently collected by the Ottawa government. [Adjourned debate April 16: Mr. D. Anderson] MR. D. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, in rising to con clude my comments on this particular topic, I would like to remind hon. members, since it has been since April 16 that I began my remarks on this issue, that in those remarks I congratulated the hon.

Member for Edmonton Whitemud on bringing forth this issue, and indicated support for the general idea that we should investigate the possibility of collecting the personal income tax of Alber tans within this province. Having said that, it is indeed true that a number of difficulties would be inherent on collecting it within the province. The first of those would obviously be the costs involved. I understand that this year the province of Quebec, the only province to have availed itself of the constitutional right to collect personal income tax, will spend some $155 million on collecting its income tax.

We would have to consider very carefully whether the bene fits would be such as to pay the way on that issue. In addition, we would undoubtedly create a situation where there would be a separate tax law for the taxes collected in the province of Alberta, by different criteria than those used by the federal government. While I know that that might indeed increase the business for some hon. members in the occupation that would be most used in that regard, I think as well that we'd have to consider carefully whether we'd like to duplicate laws in that regard.

I suppose the third negative with respect to possibly moving ahead with collecting personal income tax here is that if each province moved into doing that, different provinces might begin to give tax incentives in increasing ways to try to bring industry from one province to another or allow for investments in that sense through that method and, therefore, in an overall way may reduce the capacity of different provinces to collect income tax over time because of this tax war that could potentially take place. I see two positives to this area, however. That's why I support the concept of investigating it further.

One is clearly that at the current time we are tied to the criteria of the federal government in raising personal income tax. Indeed, we can put on or take off our own tax points. But in terms of percentage from individuals, high and low income brackets, those tax points are based the same as the federal government's. We're tied to that particular policy. If we took over that system, we would have the potential ability to create tax incentives and to deal with our industry in the way we need to within our own province.

One other possible aspect to it, and it's much more in terms of an obvious move for Albertans than one that would perhaps concretely do any good, would be to reassert our constitutional right to collect taxes at a time when the federal government has made quite a number of moves which I believe are designed to create a unitary rather than a federal state. This would indeed underline our constitutional right in that area. Having made those few remarks in completing the speech I began on April 16, Mr.

Speaker, I support the resolution as written and think we should consider seriously the possibility of moving into the collection of our own tax system, taking into account the obvious difficulties in doing so. MR. COOK: Mr. Speaker, I as well would like to rise and support the motion presented by the hon. Member for Edmonton Whitemud. I think it's a credit to the hon. member for placing the topic on the Order Paper, be cause it shows some boldness, initiative, and imagination in planning our economic future.

I'm sure all hon. members know that we've entered into a federal/provincial tax collection agreement for the cor porate tax that will be coming into effect in the fiscal year 1982-83. There's no real argument to suggest that this is not an area of jurisdiction we can appropriate. But there are a couple of questions why we should consider this question. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, taxes are used to raise money. I guess one question would be: does the province of Alberta need to raise more money for its provincial government? I'm not sure what the answer to that is, but I'd suggest it's probably not the case.

The other question is: can we use the provincial income tax system to in fluence economic decision-making by individuals and, in doing that, can we have individuals share in creating a new and better Alberta? I think the answer to the second question is probably yes, and the answer to the first question is very definitely no. I sat on the caucus committee chaired by the hon. Member for Edmonton Whitemud, and we examined the corporate tax system. To the surprise of some members — me, anyway — we discovered there wasn't much taxa tion money coming to the province from the corporate sector.

In fact, it only amounts to about 6 per cent of our total revenue requirements. It's both insignificant to the province's revenues and probably to the companies'. It's not a significant budgetary amount for them. The reason I raise this point is that the question comes to mind: is it necessary to have the corporate system supplemented with the personal income tax system to give us another tool for economic planning? There is one question some of my hon. friends, probably from south ern Alberta in particular, have to wrestle with, and its philosophical problem.

If we're going to get involved in personal taxation, it suggests a much higher degree of government activity in economic decision-making in shaping the economy. Some of my colleagues seem to have some difficulty with that concept; I'm not one of those. But it is a big decision for the government to decide whether it actively wants to determine the econom ic future of this province. It also suggests something else. It suggests that the present personal income tax system works against the interests of the province, or at least is neutral.

It certainly isn't a positive influence in shaping a vibrant provincial economy. Alberta has some structural problems. We have a dependency on oil and gas. True, we are trying to develop other resources: timber and coal. Agriculture is key. I've talked on agriculture a couple of times in this Assembly, and I have a very sincere interest in that area of public policy. But we need to provide incentives to

November 3, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 1419 shape the economic future. I think the Foster report is one of the most boring and unimaginative documents I have read. It's a report com missioned by the provincial government to study the economic future and decision-making of this province, and I'm not sure I could say it was money well worth spending. It seems to be a rehash of what we're doing, rather than suggestions for what we should be doing. In that sense, it's almost apologetic of provincial govern ment policy.

Nowhere in this report would we find any reference to the provincial corporate or personal income tax system being used to shape economic decision making. That's surprising and somewhat disappointing. The Foster report does outline a couple of areas of economic opportunity. In passing, and not in a very detailed way, it suggests that we should be doing more in the way of developing a research industry.

I guess the question I'm asking myself is: can we use personal and corporate income taxes to try to shape that area of public policy, to try to influence a science policy for this prov ince, a policy that really doesn't exist yet? I think we're going to have to look at that, Mr. Speaker. Because, as I mentioned, the corporate tax is insignificant in the total picture of the provincial econo my. A very small number of companies — large compa nies like Imperial Oil — pay most of the corporate tax. The bulk of small- and medium-sized companies pay practically nothing.

So we're not going to be able to influence the firm or enterprise in this province that has 10 or 20 employees to do something bold and imagina tive. They're not going to have much taxation resource to work with. They might be paying $500 or $1,000, and with that kind of revenue we're not going to have much opportunity to do very much. So I think the corporate tax is going to be somewhat limited in its application in shaping the Alberta economy. To be really effective, it's probably going to have to be targeted at a few areas.

If we do not do that, the result will be that the revenue, the economic impact of taxation policy will be diluted in a number of public policy areas. So if you're going to do something bold, Mr. Speaker, it's fairly evident that the other alternative is the personal income tax system, and the hon. Member for Edmonton Whitemud suggests that. It has a larger capital pool, almost twice as much as the corporate tax system. As I mentioned, the corporate tax system contributes about 6 per cent of the revenue to the provincial government's requirements each year.

Personal taxes amount to about 12 per cent, or roughly twice as much. I'd make the same argument that personal taxation is not so great that we're going to have much influence on economic decision making even there. I guess the same caution would be that if we're going to get involved in this area, we're going to have to concen trate public policy initiatives with the taxation system into just a few areas. But it has been used before, nation ally. Hon. members can think of the movie industry that is starting to develop in Canada.

That is largely an initia tive of the federal government, providing individuals with the right to write off investments in the movie industry from their taxes. When the government wasn't messing around with Alberta in other ways, oil drilling funds had a dramatic influence and effect on providing capital resources to the junior oil industry in this province. MURBs, multi-unit residential buildings, have also been encouraged by the ability of individuals to write off investments in apart ment dwellings from their taxes. So, Mr.

Speaker, it is evident that the personal income tax system can influence economic decision-making. In this province, we should be trying to depart from some of the traditional approaches we've had, and I guess we have some philosophical baggage that I referred to earlier. Hon. members are going to have to make some tough choices about whether they want the provincial govern ment to get involved in actively planning the economy. As I said, the Foster report is unimaginative and cer tainly not very bold. They seem to target on coal, timber, and agriculture as being areas of future economic devel opment.

Certainly all those areas should be developed, but I add one area of speculation. I think it is possible to provide incentives for Albertans to purchase shares in companies that want to get involved in timber or coal development and create a variety of Alberta-owned, Al berta Energy types of companies — an Alberta coal company, an Alberta timber company, an Alberta sul phur company — and try to provide Albertans with the incentives to actively get involved in ownership of the economy. Quite frankly, there are a lot of foreign shareholders who largely influence the big companies in this province.

As a whole, Albertans do not have much economic stake in this province, other than simply buying a house and a car. This province has one of the worst records in a sense: it has the highest level of foreign investment of any province in Canada. My question is, can we use the personal tax system to provide incentives for Albertans as individuals — not the government — to buy shares in companies and to have a stake in the ownership of this province? I think there's a real opportunity, and we can target those incentives into areas in which we want to see the province develop.

I'd also like to note that we need more incentives for research and technology industry. Perhaps at that point I should put some cautions on the provincial personal taxation system I've been talking about. I think we'd all want a very simple system. I don't think we'd want to have Albertans faced with a complex tax form that would require some high-priced, talented accounting help. I think we'd want to adopt basically the same

definitions and forms the federal taxation system uses. I don't think we'd want to have Albertans faced with a cumbersome and expensive collection system. A couple of other questions I think we should ask: can we afford to forego much more taxation? Albertans al ready exist in what amounts to be a tax holiday. We have the lowest personal and corporate taxes in Canada, and in some areas we have the lowest consumption taxes in North America. We pay very little for alcohol and tobac co. I think the hon. Member for Lethbridge West has referred to that as an incentive for people to consume alcohol and tobacco.

Albertans enjoy a tax holiday that they don't really understand or appreciate. As well, we don't have a sales tax. But, Mr. Speaker, to have Alber tans get more ownership stake in this province, do we have to give away more taxation revenue? That's the question I'm asking. A couple of other questions would be: would individual Albertans have equal access to the incentives? Would this be a plan that could, in effect, enrich the rich and impoverish the poor? I don't think we want to see the development of large income distinctions or disincentives in our taxation system.

I think the kind of Alberta we now have is quite egalitarian and affords a great deal of opportunity for anybody in this province. I hope the taxation system we envision would incorporate that.

1420 ALBERTA HANSARD November 3, 1981 Those are the questions I have, Mr. Speaker. On balance, I'm very supportive of this kind of concept. I think it offers real opportunity, and I think the provincial government should be bold in its economic planning. We should be involved in the decision-making, and we should be providing incentives for Albertans to own shares in companies that are active in the province. With the ques tions I've raised and the general support I offer, I think all hon. members should support the motion.

It does call for a study, and there are some important questions that have to be examined. I'm not a taxation expert. I certain ly don't have the answers, but I do know that there are some opportunities here which should be examined more seriously by both this Assembly and the Provincial Treasurer. I ask all hon. members to support the motion. MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with some degree of interest to the discussion on this motion. I suspect that most everyone in the Assembly is interested in taxation, because it affects every one of us. AN HON. MEMBER: Some more than others. MR.

THOMPSON: Some more than others, right. There's an old saying that there are only two things you're sure of in life: death and taxes. We're sure that we're going to be taxed some way, and we are always trying to look for ways to avoid taxation — not evade it; that's illegal. But avoidance is legal. Taxes are necessary, and I'll tell you why. I think it's a generally accepted concept that the people who benefit most from society should support society to the biggest degree. This is what happens with taxation.

The person who can afford and enjoys living in a 5,000 square foot house pays higher taxes than the fellow who's living in a 1,000 square foot house. You can convert that to metres if you wish, Mr. Cook. Anyway, it's one of those con cepts we more or less live with. Another thing why I think taxes are necessary is that they generate a greater responsibility in the taxpayer. I'd like to give you an example. I used to be a trustee on the Cardston school board. We paid school taxes, and we had annual meetings. We used to get 50, 60 people out at these annual meetings.

They used to go over the expendi tures and the budgets, and were quite concerned, especial ly in the trustees' expenses. But as time went by and equalization came along, we paid very little taxes in the Cardston school division. People who came to those meetings dropped off to five or six. The trustees were there, and sometimes some of their relatives, but in the community there was no real interest in what happened with the budget of the school board.

I really think it doesn't matter how much tax you pay; the fact that you pay taxes gives you a certain sense of responsibility in seeing that local government, or any government, really works. I think that's a necessary thing. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Chair is having con siderable difficulty relating debate which extols the merit of taxation generally with the topic of this motion, which is that a certain form of taxation might be taken over by the provincial government. MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, obviously this motion deals with income tax, and that is a form of taxation.

From my point of view, I was giving a semi-brief review on the history of taxation. But I respect your ruling, and I will carry on to page number two. Basically I think it's time we took a look at this concept — I was just getting to it, you know, Mr. Speaker — expressed in Motion 203. Maybe you will check me again, Mr. Speaker, but I want to go into federal income tax to some small degree. I really do believe that the federal Income Tax Act is a mess. It's a voluntary system of taxation, and there are very few people today who can accurately make out their own income tax.

Many dif ferent companies have a thriving business making out income tax forms for the citizens of the country. Honest ly, there has to be some kind of reorganization in the Act to make it more simple so people can understand it. One of the negative things that will happen to us if we set up a tax system in Alberta — and they have been alluded to by the Member for Calgary Currie — is the fact that there's duplication. Another is that no one really wants to get out and make out his income tax twice a year.

I honestly think that one of the main things is the pressure from special groups on the government of Alber ta to set up special categories for them in this area. I realize there are going to be some negative results from setting up our own separate income tax. But on the whole I think it's something we have to look at, because this decision is going to have to be made in the future. We are having trouble with the federal government with transfer payments right now, and I think it's going to get worse. It is some kind of avenue for the province to take over responsibility in that area.

Thank you for your attention, Mr. Speaker. MR. BORSTAD: Mr. Speaker, Motion 203, a motion to study the feasibility of collecting our own personal in come tax, is a very radical change from our present system, where we have one tax collecting body for most provinces and, I believe, some uniformity. If we moved in this direction, we could see every province setting up its own taxation department. I suppose you could conceiva bly see 10 provinces, and the federal government looking after the two territories — in all, 11 collecting their own taxes, and all going in their own direction.

A person or a company working in or doing business in several provinces in one year, I suppose, would have to file a tax report in each of those provinces. I believe you could have more chance of people getting lost in the system when moving between provinces, and possibly not even paying tax or, conceivably, being taxed two or three times. Let's look at the cost of our tax collecting system. Presently we have one system, no doubt very costly to operate and probably not that efficient, but it is one system. We could have 11.

To me, it has to decrease our efficiency and increase our cost of operation very dramat ically. Presently, we have uniformity across the country. If each province moves into its own income tax collec tion, I could see a tax jungle. Uniformity reduces the cost and makes it simpler to file tax reports when you have to file them in only one place. Filing one report rather than several, depending on how many countries you worked in, has to be an advantage. I think we would also be looking at more jobs for tax advisers, consultants, and accountants in order to file the necessary tax reports.

The change to our collection system for income tax, both personal and corporate, has to be very, very expen sive to operate. We only have to look at Quebec, which spent some $155 million in 1980-81 to operate its own tax department. We now pay the lowest personal income tax in Canada, and I'm not sure we will receive enough advantage to offset the cost of a provincial taxation

November 3, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 1421 system. I suppose a tax war could result from all the provinces handling their own tax departments; some provinces enticing industry from other provinces, thereby creating further disparity amongst the provinces across Canada. Let's look at where we are going and where we are today. We have opted to set up our own corporate tax collection department. We have made the first step to say we are becoming masters in our own house. It follows that we should benefit from the single taxation system, rather than filing corporate tax provincially and personal tax federally.

Therefore the next step should be looked at; that is, to move towards collecting our own personal income tax to round out the whole taxation picture in the province. Not being an accountant like some of my colleagues, with knowledge of the benefits at the end of the road, I'm not sure I can see all the benefits. I also have some reservations. Having been in business for some 30 years, and owning a business in two different provinces, I can see a nightmare trying to file reports between the two provinces. Maybe there are advantages to offset that; I don't know.

Now that we've made the first step, we should look at the advantages of taking the second step, which would be to handle the total system ourselves. I suppose you could also say that the government that spends the money should actually collect it, which makes some sense. Although I have some misgivings, there are some advantages. Presently, the federal income tax policies dis- criminate against areas of the country, and this could be overcome.

The province could regain control of its consti tutional right, and a provincially administered personal income tax system could be an economic tool to strength en and diversify the economy in the province. I can see some advantages in a number of areas for people in the north and in some smaller communities across the province. There is a real shortage of doctors and health care professionals in the north and other smaller centres across the province. Tax credits could be given to create incentives to these professionals to move into areas where their services are needed.

This would assist the motion by the Member for St. Paul, to be debated next week, on incentives for health care profes sionals. This type of incentive could be used to encourage various types of professionals to areas where they're needed, be they doctors, nurses, or engineers. Many studies about the cost of living in the north have been completed, which point out that there is an extra cost to living in the northern parts of our province. Tax credits could also be allowed to offset some of those costs.

You will recall some time ago that the federal member for Prince George promoted a Bill in the federal House recommending tax credits for those living above a certain parallel, to offset the inequities of northerners. Mr. Speaker, in closing I would also say that the federal policies today are causing many small businesses to declare bankruptcy, farmers and livestock men to sell their land and herds, and many are in financial difficulty. Many people are not able to get into their own home, all brought on by a federal policy of tracking U.S. interest rates.

Other countries are not tracking U.S. interest rates; for instance, New Zealand is 11 per cent. Others are even less than that. So I don't think we should be tracking U.S. rates. If we continue to track the rates the federal government seems to be following today, many of my constituents, as well as many others across the province, will not have to worry about filing income tax. They'll be broke.

I hope and pray that the Premier and his colleagues will be able to make some adjustments and agreements this week on the constitution, so that that issue is behind us and we may get on to work together in unity, fight high interest rates and inflation, and turn the economy around in Canada for all Canadians. Therefore, I support this recommendation. MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr. Speaker, it's great to have an opportunity today to participate in this debate, a debate about something I don't know a lot about.

Con sider that I have my two-year certificates in accounting, but still I have someone else do my tax forms because they're so complicated, and that then to be one to make a decision on looking at what we should do about the tax rates and how we're going to handle the tax system. I'm pleased to enter the debate considering it's timely to be debating it today, considering the discussions going on in Ottawa between the first ministers of our country.

I have to look at the last federal budget and realize that the budget could have a great impact on whether we should indeed consider collecting our own personal income taxes within the province. Actually, I think the last budget came at the wrong time. It should have been a couple of days later, because it came in a Hallowe'en mask, as something different than it really was: we saw the nation al energy program.

Now having the Prime Minister — and if you'll allow me to call the Prime Minister and his 'Trudeaucrats' — moving the budget debate so, they say, that they can accommodate the constitutional issue and talks, makes me wonder: if it is necessary to move it, what's in the budget that we won't like? MR. SPEAKER: With great respect, we seem to be having great difficulty staying with the topic of the motion. It's a simple question of fairness. A member has proposed a motion and has waited for it to reach its place on the Order Paper for debate.

Presumably some hon. members have prepared themselves to debate that mo tion, and perhaps they're not as well prepared to debate with regard to extraneous matters not related to the motion. Consequently, as a simple matter of fairness and relevance, may I respectfully suggest to the hon. member that if he wishes, he might return to the substance of the motion. MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess it's the

preamble to what I was going to discuss. Howev er, part of the reason we would have to look at collecting our own provincial income taxes in the province — and motion is worded in such a way as to recommend the government "give consideration to undertaking a study". If we're going to recommend and give consideration, there should be some strong motivations for even going on with the study if the system is working fine now. I think that what budgets are in the future would have some impact on whether we look at the feasibility of collecting our own tax. We in Alberta now enjoy a strong economy.

In order to remain strong and to strength and diversify our economy, we need to use every tool we can. The collec tion of our own personal income tax could be one tool we could use. If we collected our own personal income tax, we could use it as a lever to complement the initiatives offered under the provincial corporate income tax system, and increase the amount of venture capital available in the province.

1422 ALBERTA HANSARD November 3, 1981 Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the budget, I have to look at another province that is collecting its own per sonal income tax. That's Quebec, and it has since 1954. When we talk in the Canadian context, we also know that it's our constitutional right, under

Section 92(2) of the constitution, to collect our own taxes. I'm sure you're all agree that the time is right to really determine whether we should be collecting our own personal income taxes, and assess the costs and benefits of such an arrangement. Mr. Speaker, we are pioneers in this province. The pioneers who settled here came from other provinces and other countries, and they're still coming, with a dream. They're willing to sacrifice. They've struggled against na tural obstacles, they're still willing to struggle, and they've built. We have a bright future in this province, and we have many new jobs.

Last year there were 66,000 new jobs in Alberta. With the growth in that population and with the pioneer spirit, we have to use whatever we can to give an opportunity to all Albertans to participate in the strong economy of Alberta. One of those tools we could look at is collecting our own personal income taxes. To everything we might dis cuss, there's always an upside and a downside. The cost benefit, the administration cost, is something we really have to look at. When we look at the personal income tax as a source of revenue, as a percentage of gross revenue, in Quebec it's 30.52 per cent.

That's the percentage of personal tax as a source of revenue compared to the gross revenue. In Ontario, it's 23.24 per cent. In Alberta, it's 9.17 per cent. The Canadian average is 21.38 per cent. So we're less than half the Canadian average. When we look at the cost benefit of collecting our own taxes when we have such a small personal income tax rate in the prov ince, we have to be concerned that we don't end up with a lot more administration costs than benefits. Taxpayers also should be considered in red tape.

Will it mean 10 more forms to fill out with your income tax, and more costly to take care of your accounting? Mr. Speaker, these are all things that have to be looked at. I hate income tax as much as anybody. I think we all don't like the day when we finally have to mail our income tax. Many of us feel that those taxes support the government and its programs. But we can look at in the positive sense. Those taxes can been used as a tool for economic stimulation. Mr. Speaker, I support this motion, and I hope all members do. I beg leave to adjourn debate. MR. SPEAKER: Does the Assembly agree? HON.

MEMBERS: Agreed. 209. Moved by Mr. R. Clark:

Be it resolved that this Assembly urge the government to establish a practice that where the financial requirements of the Crown exceed the money appropriated by more than 8 per cent in any fiscal year, the Lieutenant- Governor be advised to recall the Legislative Assembly for the purpose of voting on an interim supply Bill. [Debate adjourned April 23: Mrs. Chichak speaking] MRS. CHICHAK: Mr. Speaker, it certainly gives me pleasure today to have the opportunity to add my re marks to the debate with respect to Motion 209, that started, I believe, on April 23 this year, during the spring sitting of this session.

Mr. Speaker, at that time a number of members partic ipated. The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury, who moved the motion, requested that the Assembly urge the gov ernment to establish a practice that, where financial re quirements of the Crown exceed by 8 per cent the moneys approved by the Assembly, the Legislative Assembly be recalled to vote on an interim supply Bill for any such additional amounts over the 8 per cent. In his debate, the hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury put forward a number of arguments with respect to the requirement for govern ment to be accountable to the Legislature.

In my remarks, I hope I can put forward arguments that will indicate that in fact the government is account able to the Legislature, that any of the moneys requested by Executive Council and applied under special warrant comply with the legislation in place, and that even if the government moved to have the Legislature recalled at some point to vote on an interim supply Bill, all the matters that would come for consideration by the gov ernment and which are not predictable in advance could not be included under such an interim supply Bill. [Mr. Appleby in the Chair] It's quite clear that

Section 36 of The Financial Admin istration Act provides a mechanism to enable the gov ernment to deal with such issues as are necessary to provide the people of Alberta with required services which were not predicted during the year when planning for the entire year was considered, and were otherwise not included within the time frame, the calculation, and the preparation of estimates. The important factor is that

Section 36 of The Financial Administration Act allows the government to obtain additional expenditure funds by special warrant where no legislative authority is provided with respect to the matters that must be dealt with and, as well, where there is legislative authority for an expendi ture, there was not the capability of predicting the addi tional amount with any degree of accuracy.

I think two important factors need to be taken into consideration: one, whether any kind of percentage may be cho sen as a guideline to determine which side of that guideline a requirement falls into, or the requirement for bringing forward an interim supply Bill, or whether there should be any percentage or amount at all; the other is whether, when Executive Council has found itself in a position where it was necessary to request additional funding and have it approved by special warrant, that need fell under the terms and guidelines of The Financial Administration Act.

In all fairness, we can recognize that there will be some areas of determination which would have to be met that are outside what has previously been approved by the Legislature, so you give the government that kind of flexibility. But what guideline do we use? How can we determine that it should be 8 per cent, 1 per cent, or 2 per cent? Do we simply use the guideline of percentage of dollars or do we use changing economic developments, changing population, and the demands placed on gov ernment which could not have been predicted at the time when the budget was being determined? In this case the hon.

Member for Olds-Didsbury chose 8 per cent. The circumstance arises, as it did in a number of situations I will refer to in a little more detail, that is urgent and cannot wait for the preparation time of an interim supply Bill, cannot await the determination that the House be recalled to consider whether it's a proper expenditure and whether there is urgency in dealing with the matter within the time frame the government proposes. When an issue

November 3, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 1423 of that nature arises, what do we do? In that circumstance do we say: all right, in this case we will set aside the 8 per cent and move it up to 10 per cent, because that's what the difference in the figure will ulti mately be. I really can't agree that it's useful to deal with percentages, or that we need or want to. I think the usefulness has to be in determining whether, in reality, in each case the expenditure can be set back two or three months and be considered by an interim supply Bill. What I would like to do this afternoon, Mr.

Speaker, is look at a number of situations in which the government did provide additional funding by special warrant which had not earlier been considered or approved by the Legis lature and, discuss briefly whether in fact those particular areas could have waited one, two, or three months, to give the flexibility for a recall of the Legislative Assembly to deal with the matter before such expenditures were approved. I'd particularly like to look at a few areas in social service programs.

I think it's important to know whether the additional expenditures were in people pro grams which could not wait, delivered directly to people where people would have suffered unjustly if the govern ment had not moved to provide the kind of programming determined to be necessary. In the first instance, I'd like to look particularly at a number of special warrants that dealt with the situation at Michener Centre, Red Deer, and the adjustments made there.

I use that because I'm very familiar with that particular institution, the seriousness of the problem, and why the minister had to move prior to being able to allow for time to request additional funding by way of an interim supply Bill; had to make a decision, go to Execu tive Council and ask for a special warrant.

I recall a time last year when there was a very serious situation in the matter of the level of care, the treatment of the residents of Michener Centre, the conditions that existed in the work environment, the case load, the staff available, the professionalism of the staff and whether the staff had the expertise necessary to cope with the kind of patient in residence at Michener Centre. It was recog nized that areas of Michener Centre were overcrowded. There were areas of Michener Centre where there just wasn't adequate staffing.

The case load was far too high to provide the necessary service in counselling and in direct care. One of the studies carried out — not the only one by any means, but one of the studies I was familiar with and involved in — determined that there had to be an immediate resolution of the problems of case load, crowding, and availability of professional staff to provide this service. Quite rightly, the minister responded very rapidly on the recommendations when they were received.

That was a very important aspect, because without a doubt the determination was there that there could not be a matter of two or three months deliberation in the Legislative Assembly while we deliberate whether or not that money should be allowed. There was an outcry — not only from members from every side of the Assembly, whatever political affiliation they had, but from the pub lic — for attention to deal with the problem in Mitchener Centre. So the government responded. That was one type of special warrant that was taken into consideration and could not have been predicted or foreseen.

I'd like to look at a number of other areas where special warrants were put in place. There was a develop ment of government policy in the area of family and community support services, which was under a different title prior to that, and the people in the communities were providing a social service, counselling to depressed areas where there were problems for children and families: providing a service that needed a very early and quick change. It took time to develop a new program.

Once the decision was made as to the direction the program should take, there certainly was a need to have the funding available immediately. Unfortunately, it was not possible for the hon. minister to have predicted what the ultimate decision or the total plan of the family and community support service program might be and what the addition al costs that were originally included and provided in his estimates for the program that previously existed might be.

So when that determination was made to move the program, funding, and support forward, to assist and work with the communities and meet their needs as rapid ly as possible — whether in fact that program could have waited, could have been delayed another two or three months before funding was assured and the program could go forward, and all the activity in its planning and implementation could go ahead.

I notice as well that some of the special warrants were to provide agencies that provided services for the handi capped with respect to the negotiations that were con cluded in providing an increased level of salary for the employees. It seems to me that when negotiations are finally determined, the employees, the people involved who are the beneficiaries or recipients of that wage set tlement, certainly cannot be held in limbo to wait to have the matter determined whether and when the funds will be made available to them.

Under their employment contracts, they are performing their services on a day to day basis. In many instances, a determination is made where the adjustment has to be retroactive. When the adjustment is retroactive, the employee certainly is not going to be satisfied to wait for the Legislature to deter mine whether in fact this particular appropriation that would now have to come forward is going to be over the 8 per cent point, and have the Legislature recalled simply to say, yes, we approve these funds because a contract was agreed upon.

I'm sure that doesn't present very proper logic to the employees, who are the people we're concerned with. A number of special warrants were provided to the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care with respect to adjustments and negotiations, although at some point not fully concluded: salary and wage adjustments for employ ees in active treatment and auxiliary hospitals. There, again, we're talking about people who are providing a service to the infirm, the ill, and the aged who have various medical problems.

Although there may have been a conclusion in negotiation for a wage adjustment or an acknowledgement that an adjustment in their salaries is due to them, surely we can't ask these employees to wait until we come forward with an interim supply Bill just to be able to come forward and say, yes, we will allow that expenditure to go forward. Whether the government will provide the funds to the hospitals in question I don't think is a matter that can be questioned. It's a matter of having that money available.

Whether that particular special warrant would come above the 8 per cent, or above any per cent, is irrelevant. It's a matter that must be approved and put forward immediately. When I visited the auxiliary hospital and two nursing homes in Grande Prairie, I found in my discussion with the employees one very common complaint: the shortage of nurses. The shortage of nurses caused a great deal of difficulty, a difficult condition under which to work for those on staff, because they were required to provide

1424 ALBERTA HANSARD November 3, 1981 services over a longer period of time to care for a larger number of patients. In my discussion with them, I asked whether there was something the government in its role could do to alleviate that situation.

One of the sugges tions made was that it was important that in Grande Prairie or in the northern region there be a provision for nursing courses in the educational system, in the college, and that if the young ladies could be kept in their own environment of population — where they were, their home where they lived — without the exposure of coming to the major urban centres, they would have a greater possibility, first, of girls enrolling in the nursing profes sion and, secondly, in their remaining in their areas.

This was one of the recommendations put forward to the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care, who then dealt with that matter with the Minister of Advanced Educa tion and Manpower. As you see in one of the special warrants, funds were provided to establish such a pro gram at the Grande Prairie college. The timing of the establishment of that type of course, making a decision on that particular policy, and making provision of the funds was in such a period of time that the whole program would have been set back one year if it were to have been dealt with at a subsequent time through an interim supply Bill.

So I'm simply relating to a number of these special warrants to indicate the fact that the government re sponded by special warrant rather than by an interim supply Bill, that the circumstances in each case were such that the period of one, two, or three months would not have been suitable or met the kind of need the people faced in the particular circumstance, and particular con sideration was then given. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intent of the hon. member's motion.

Perhaps there needs to be a greater examination of whether in certain circum stances that aren't as urgent as to be dealt with on an immediate basis, it may be possible to utilize the fall sitting and bring forward interim supply Bills for consid eration. That matter should not be completely discarded out of hand. There may be some situations where this can be dealt with. However, in a majority of instances we have examples of in the past year, the population had increased by approximately 4 per cent.

This put a greater pressure on immediate services necessary in the areas of social and education programs, additional facilities in health care and child care. In the way of supply and expenditure, they are not the kinds of things that can delayed and set back a number of months.

So although the motion has merit and should perhaps give Executive Council and the Provincial Treasurer a sort of signal to take a second look at those requests for special warrants, to put a percentage on would just not meet the kinds of real needs that the public — not government within its own operation — demands be met very realistically immediately. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. HIEBERT: Mr.

Speaker, in rising to enter the debate on Motion 209, which basically deals with special warrants, I would like to inform members that I took the time to look at the debate last spring with regard to this motion, to read from Hansard what happened during question period and so on, to find out what motivated this particular motion. I think it's rather appropriate to parallel today's proceedings with last spring. It would appear that the motion is a thin way of disguising a discussion on the McDougall school purchase.

If we look at what happened during the question period today, for motions for returns we saw something about trips for MLAs, the helicopter trips, and so on. There seems to be a common thread in a lot of this. DR. BUCK: That's right. Waste by government. MR. HIEBERT: I call it mucking around. I know that the Member for Clover Bar has often talked about puppets and pulling strings, but maybe we had better look at whether we have a sheep in wolfs clothing. MR. CRAWFORD: Walter is a sheep in sheep's clothing. MR. HIEBERT: There's another Member for Little Bow I might be referring to.

Anyway, if we take a look a special warrants, I think anybody familiar with a public or government operation where budgets are derived, can see the need for special warrants. A budget basically translates policies, pro grams, and decisions into appropriations of some nature. There's nothing absolute about that process. That process will never meet or address all the contingencies or unex pected events. In order to deal with those unforeseen events, special warrants are a necessary vehicle. Having established the need for special warrants, Mr.

Speaker, maybe I could just expand on some reasons for having that particular vehicle. Certainly it gives flexibility and responsiveness to various programs or situations that occur. The government does not operate solely during the sitting time of the Legislature. Emergent needs come up, and once decisions are made I think the general public should expect an immediate response of some sort.

Knowing how long it takes between making the decision, and appropriating funds, and then implementing it, we all know that any suggestion of recalling the Legislature is only going to lead to further frustrations and delays for the public involved in the outcome of the decision. Mr. Speaker, I also think that rather than waiting for the reconvening of the Legislature, the prudent, practical course of action is to act with a special warrant so the government is responding to the needs of the day.

It's not like a Monopoly game where we have the Stop and Go situation and you have to wait to pass Go in order to collect $200. Mr. Speaker, I can take some examples where special warrants were used in this past year, the year of disabled persons. I recall a parent group from Michener Centre coming to the Legislature, making a request with regard to the possibility of government participating in a project they had in mind. This was an association made up of parents of the residents of Michener Centre. Over the past decade, they had raised $200,000 or more through various projects — bingos, whatever.

They were in terested in forming a camp where the residents of Mi chener Centre could spend the summers at a lake setting. They approached me and, in turn, we approached the Minister of Social Services and Community Health to see if they could receive a matching grant. The immediate response was, it's not in the budget. The other answer could have been, wait until next year. But serious consid eration was given to this project, and a special warrant was arrived at.

Here's a case where government was responsive to a situation which had some very key components: one, it was being done by volunteers; se condly, it was being done by people in the general public. Rather than having a straight handout, they had done something for themselves. A special warrant used in a situation like this is a very positive measure in terms of

November 3, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 1425 government responding to the various needs of our citizenry. We can take a look at the 8 per cent limit suggested in the debate during the spring sitting. If we were to place a limit, this arbitrary restriction would limit the flexibility and responsiveness of government. The motion appears to express a concern based on percentages rather than actual dollars being spent. If the principle of special warrant spending is accepted, then the amount below or above 8 per cent should not confuse the issue. During the debate, the hon.

Member for Olds- Didsbury stated: . . . there's nothing magic about the 8 per cent figure . . . That 8 per cent is rather a halfway point between the 11 per cent of the budget that was in special warrants [the previous] year, compared to the 5 per cent of [another year]. In my view, if that is the reasoning for 8 per cent, I would suggest it is irrelevant. Why have it at all? Another important area with regard to special war rants, Mr. Speaker, is the practicality factor of the recal ling of the Legislature. All of us know about recalling the Legislature for the spring and fall sittings.

If we were to respond to every urgent need — for example, we could take the forest fire special warrant — the time and expenditure to recall the House would be most impractic al and, I suggest, even irresponsible with regard to how we handle our affairs in the province. I could ask the question, would the House be called into session to approve every warrant over the 8 per cent limit, as was suggested in the debate on the motion? Or would we batch them together and review them all at one time?

I suggest that the process would be rather lengthy and, with the tactics we have seen over the past few weeks, we could be here 365 days in the year. With regard to the question of accountability with special warrants, we're all aware of The Financial Admin istration Amendment Act, 1972, which provides for spending through special warrants. It's not a case of anything being below the table or behind closed doors, as might be suggested. Rather, there is full opportunity for the opposition to debate these warrants when they are brought to the House.

The amount spent is a matter of public record and does receive approval from the Assem bly. As I mentioned before, in one case the court has even ruled that the method is within the Legislature's purview, and it is regarded as an established practice. In fact in terms of public profile, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that special warrants receive even greater scrutiny and attention than some of our ordinary budgetary lines. Certainly the posturing can be made that special warrants are being abused, that there is something suspicious be hind every special warrant.

But with regard to the debate in this Assembly, I don't think that has ever been borne out when in fact we have brought those special warrants here. At the end of any session, there has been ample opportunity to debate the merits of it. It's entirely proper and within custom that we proceed with special warrants. If we look at other jurisdictions, Mr. Speaker, special warrants have worked rather satisfactorily, and they've used them for decades. The implication might be, the opposition argues, that in Alberta more money is being spent as a result of having the special warrants provision.

But I suggest we keep in mind that our needs are dif ferent, Alberta is growing at a different rate, and our budgeting and financial practices differ from other prov inces. To isolate special warrants and make comparisons to other provinces is not appropriate; heaven forbid. As we all know, Ontario has a different view on many things. So why should we necessarily be a mirror image of precisely what another province does? Another example I could take is the nurses' strike.

The opposition repeatedly questioned whether the government would grant salary increases to the nurses to make their wages competitive with their counterparts in B.C. Well, we all know what took place that pa

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19811103
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L19 S3 19811103 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	7e754fd92238863c209c8fefc3942fd38b69c345

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