May 7, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 573 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Thursday, May 7, 1981 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to introduce some very special visitors to our province. Seated in the Speaker's gallery is the Governor of the Bank of Canada Mr.

Gerald Bouey, a distinguished ca­ reer civil servant who has served the Bank of Canada for over 30 years, has been the Governor of the Bank of Canada since 1972, and of course has also served as a member of the board of directors of the Federal Business Development Bank and the Export Development Corpo­ ration. Mr. Bouey is accompanied by Mr. Alec Keith, Edmonton representative of the Bank of Canada; Mr. Wayne Chevaldayoff, an advisor to the governor; and Mr. Nick Van Tonnegan of Alberta Treasury. Mr. Bouey addressed a luncheon of financial analysts in our city and this afternoon will visit with the Premier.

No doubt you can quickly guess the topic of conversation with our Premier this afternoon. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of members of the Assembly, would you please extend a very warm welcome to the governor and his visitors. head: PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SELECT COMMITTEES MR. KNAAK: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83, I wish to advise that I have examined the petition for The Dental Mechanics Amendment Act, 1981, and wish to report that Standing Order 77 has been complied with. head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 41 The Alberta Educational Communications Corporation Amendment Act, 1981 MR. HORSMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I request leave to intro­ duce The Alberta Educational Communications Corpora­ tion Amendment Act, 1981. The amendments to this Bill will introduce what we hope will become a standard set of criteria for the appointment of directors of ACCESS and will make further changes to clarify the nature of the corporation. [Leave granted; Bill 41 read a first time] Bill 209

An Act to Amend The Surface Rights Act MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to intro­ duce

An Act to Amend The Surface Rights Act. This Bill extends the period of time by which a landowner and the oil company can reach an agreement. [Leave granted; Bill 209 read a first time] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. KROEGER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table two reports: one, the report of Pacific Western Airlines, 1980; the other, a departmental report of the Department of Transportation. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MRS. LeMESSURIER: Mr. Speaker, may I introduce to you, and through you to members of this Assembly, two visitors from that friendly country to the south, the United States of America: Mr.

Angus Archer, the co­ ordinator of the non-governmental liaison service in the United Nations; and accompanying him, Mr. Charles Lyons, the assistant director of the Mountain West Glob­ al Interdependence Conference to be held in Denver, Colorado, July 27 and 29. They are here on a speaking tour of the west. Mr. Lyons and Mr. Archer will then travel to a third-world development conference in Van­ couver, B.C. They are in the members gallery, and I would ask that they receive the cordial welcome of the Assembly. MR. KNAAK: Mr.

Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to introduce to you and my colleagues in this Assembly a grade 6 class from Duggan elementary school and their group leader Angie Klompas. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to advise that last fall I had occasion to visit the school and meet the students during the award of the 75th Anniversary medallions. I can assure you that not only is it a fine school, it has great students. They are seated in the members gallery, and I would ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. MR. PAHL: Mr.

Speaker, it's my pleasure today to introduce to you, and through you to members of the Assembly, 25 grade 6 students from Malcolm Tweddle school in Edmonton Mill Woods, accompanied by their teacher Mrs. Sharon Sommers. The class and Mrs. Sommers are seated in the members gallery, and I'd ask them to rise and receive the welcome of the Assembly. MRS. CRIPPS: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure today to have a delightful class of grades 5 and 6 students from St. Anthony's school in Drayton Valley. They've come a long way and tell me they only had time to stop at McDonald's before they got here.

They're accompanied by their teacher Zib Szatkowski; cha- perones, Fran MacLellan, Iris Curd, Amy Blais, and Diane Balderson. They are seated in the public gallery, and I would ask that they rise and receive the welcome of the House. MRS. CH1CHAK: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure today to welcome to this Assembly a class of 19 pre- vocation class 1 students from H.A. Gray elementary junior high school. They're accompanied by their teachers Mrs. J. Coutts and Mr. Doug Bahr. I'd like them to rise and receive the welcome of the Assembly.

574 ALBERTA HANSARD May 7, 1981 head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Energy Negotiations MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. It relates to questioning we started last Friday and as well to the Jasper meeting that I understand has just concluded. Could the Premier indicate whether the energy strategy of the provincial government has been modified, as indicated that Friday, and if so, possibly the Premier or the minister may be able to indicate in general terms what those modifications may be. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, the chairman of the energy negotiation task force for the government of Al­ berta is the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, and I'll refer the question to him. MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, the question involved a request as to whether we've modified our position. As I say, we seem to need to go through this every day in the Assembly in question period. We simply can't be making public announcements as to our position with respect to the upcoming energy meetings. That includes answering questions as to whether we've modified them and, if so, in what way, by how much, and so on.

We simply can't do that and carry on effective negotiations. I can inform the Assembly that we had a meeting extended over three days involving a number of ministers and senior officials of government, both from the departments involved and from agencies, and reviewed at length all the issues in­ volved in what we've been calling the energy package.

I can't overstress the fact that those issues have now become much more complex than they were prior to October 28, because on October 28 the federal energy policies and the budget introduced a number of new concepts into the energy package or the energy issue: new forms of taxation, grants, new pricing. Because of what occurred on October 28, Mr. Speaker, the matter of the energy negotiations has become much more complex than it was prior to that date. We spent a good deal of time reviewing all those issues and a number of documents that had been prepared for us in relation to them.

Of course all that review was done to enable us to be as well informed as one can be when we have the next meeting with representatives of the federal government. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques­ tion to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. I want to say that I respect that this government has chosen to negotiate in private. I'm not asking for detailed information in my questioning.

But in light of the new facts revealed by investigation at this point and in light of the new facts that been found because the federal energy policy has been in place, could the minister indicate at this time that the difference between Alberta and Ottawa is closer, further, or the same as it was a month ago? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't be able to give any assessment at all as to how far we're apart or whether the distance apart has changed, either by shortening or lengthening, since the meeting of April 13.

I think I can only add that during these meetings we have explored and no doubt will continue to explore all new ap­ proaches, all possible alternatives, because as members of the Assembly are fully aware, it has always been this government's intention to reach an energy package agreement with the federal government, if we could do so on terms that Albertans would regard as fair and honorable. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques­ tion to the minister. When will the next meeting be held with the federal minister Mr. Lalonde?

Has that been established at this point, and will it be as early as possible in May? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, we've not established a date for the next meeting. At the conclusion of the meeting in Winnipeg on April 13, we had agreed to look toward a meeting the end of this month, not early in May as was indicated in the question but late in May. The federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has been out of the country. I believe he will be returning shortly, and I expect that after his return we would then be able to discuss the time and place for a subsequent meeting. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary ques­ tion to the minister. Will June 30 or July 1 be a potential date for an interim agreement between the federal and Alberta governments, or at this point in time, in relation to the new facts revealed in this mystery meeting in the last week, does that date indicate it will take longer than June 30 or July 1 before an agreement is reached? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether the other members of the Assembly had the same difficulty I did, but I got lost about halfway through the question. I wonder if the hon. Leader of the Opposition could re­ phrase it. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, a number of Albertans have been lost in the last week wondering what the government has been doing. But to the minister. Is it possible to use June 30 or July 1 as a target date — I believe July 1 is when Esso Resources must make a decision as to their future. Will it be possible for an agreement to be reached at that time because of the new facts and new information the minis­ ter may have at his fingertips at this time? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, there's no way I could predict when it might be possible to reach an agreement. I can't do anything more than outline the present circum­ stances.

We had a meeting on April 13. I felt we had made some progress. Some new approaches had been discussed, but when reporting to the Legislative Assembly after that meeting, I underlined that that statement should not raise undue expectations, because a lot of miles had to be covered before we might reach an agreement. The meeting we're looking forward to is merely one further step. I've no way of predicting what will occur at that meeting or as a result of the meeting. I certainly would not want to be tied in any way to saying an agreement can or can't be reached by any specific date. DR. BUCK: Mr.

Speaker, a short supplementary to ei­ ther the Premier or the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. Is either hon. gentleman in a position to indicate if the government has met recently with Alberta's federal members of Parliament? Have there been any discussions with the members of Parliament as to the problems of trying to settle the energy issue?

May 7, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 575 MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, we keep a very close contact between our government and the federal members of Parliament from Alberta. We have a series of contacts. The last overall meeting that occurred between me and the federal members of Parliament was the very last days of February, I believe. But since that time, as is our customary policy, both I and other members of the government keep in contact with the members of Parlia­ ment from Alberta. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary to the Premier.

Can the Premier indicate to the Legislature if the discussions that are going to be taking place between our Minister of Energy and the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources are just the preliminary rounds, or is the decision as to an oil settlement going to have to be made by the Premier and the Prime Minister of Canada? Will that decision be made by the minsters responsible or the two leaders of government? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, it's very difficult to predict. I believe the hon.

Member for Clover Bar is aware that during the course of the '70s when the matter of oil pricing occurred, it was resolved in both ways. It was resolved on occasion between our respective minis­ ters of energy, and on other occasions it involved first ministers. I really have no way of predicting that in the current set of complex circumstances. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, one further short supplemen­ tary to either the Premier or the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources.

Can either gentleman indicate if there have been any recent meetings with the head of Esso Resources, which is developing the proposed Cold Lake plant, or the Alsands people? Have there been any discus­ sions within the last month with the government and these two oil companies? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, again, we keep in con­ tact with numerous representatives of industry, and of course that would include representatives of the concern considering development of the Cold Lake project. The phrase "recent discussions" hasn't been used.

I'd have to say that I don't believe there have been recent discussions if that is interpreted to be something within a matter of weeks. On the other hand, contact has been fairly steady and will continue to be so with the decision-makers involved in developing the Cold Lake project. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques­ tion to the Premier. I was going to address this to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, but I'd like to direct it to the Premier. It's with regard to spending an allocation of funds in the Cold Lake area at the present time.

In our tally of public statements in the area and commitments by government, nearly an additional $90 million is being spent in various programs, and I could list those for the Premier. Under the circumstances, where it is doubtful whether Esso Resources may go on stream at the present time — Esso Resources may terminate as of June 30 — would the Premier be reviewing those expenditures in the area of Cold Lake, or would they progress as announced up to this point in time? MR. LOUGHEED: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I think the de­ tails of that question would more appropriately be con­ sidered during the course of the estimates of various departments, but perhaps the Leader of the Opposition is raising a rather general question of policy. The position the government has taken in meeting with the representatives of the community — and we held a meeting with them, in Government House, I believe on December 8, with the MLA from the constituency. We informed them at that time that, having regard to the Ottawa energy proposals of October 28, it appeared likely there would be an indefinite delay in that project.

We recognized that in certain areas, but not in all areas, action had been taken by the community in a number of different ways in anticipation of the project. Expenditures had been incurred by municipal govern­ ment in anticipation of the project, which would not otherwise have been incurred. We gave an overall policy undertaking to respond to the communities involved by recognizing that situation. That leads to the nature of the expenditures, or the proposed appropriations would be better phraseology, that I believe the hon. Leader of the Opposition refers to. That's the general position.

If there are specifics, I would suggest that perhaps in the course of the estimates we could resolve them or attempt to answer them. MR. S1NDL1NGER: A supplementary please, Mr. Speaker, to the Mmister of Energy and Natural Re­ sources. In regard to another meeting between the pro­ vincial minister of energy and the federal minister, was any arrangement made at the last one as to which party would call or convene such a meeting? Will it be at the initiative of the provincial government or at the initiative of the federal government? MR. LEITCH: Mr.

Speaker, no specific or firm ar­ rangements were made in that connection. I would expect to be in touch with the federal minister shortly after he returns to Ottawa. Emission Standards — Coal Dust MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my second question is to the Minister of Environment. It's with regard to a pollution concern in the area of Coleman. Could the minister indicate what plans are being taken under con­ sideration with regard to the coal dust fall in the area, in light of the fact that the Department of Environment has monitored the situation?

Some 88 tons per mile per month have dropped on the area, where the maximum within the regulations indicate that only 15 tons per square mile per month should fall on the area. I wonder if the minister has examined that situation, and what is going to be done? MR. COOKSON: Yes we have, Mr. Speaker. We have close consultation with the Member for Pincher Creek- Crowsnest, and he has advised me of this problem.

At the present time we have Coleman Collieries under a certific­ ate of variance which permits them to exceed the normal emission requirements and, so far as I know, that's where the situation is at this time. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques­ tion to the hon. minister. What is the length of term of the certificate of variance? Has the company a limited amount of time to bring the situation under control, or is it an open-ended type of contract? MR. COOKSON: I couldn't respond to the exact period of the certificate of variance. It has a limitation, so it is

576 ALBERTA HANSARD May 7, 1981 not an open-ended certificate as suggested by the member. There is a particular problem in that area because of the slag piles. I guess one has to make a judgment as to whether we wish to leave those unsightly piles in the general area for life or to make some attempt to clean them up. The company came forth with a proposal and, in consultation with the member in the area, we con­ cluded that, all things considered, it was best to proceed and attempt to do this.

If the dust situation or particulate emissions become difficult for the residents of the area, we would certainly take action. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister. Have any directions been given to the officials of Cole­ man Collieries by which the amount of dust fall could be reduced at the present time? MR. COOKSON: Not so far as I know, Mr. Speaker. I have had no direct communication with regard to it being a major problem at this time, but perhaps that's forthcoming. RCMP Contract MR. BORSTAD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Solicitor General.

I wonder if the minister can advise the Assembly if there has been any further discus­ sion with the federal Solicitor General on RCMP policing costs for the province? MR. HARLE: No there hasn't, Mr. Speaker. MR. BORSTAD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister advise if he has any idea when these decisions will be made or when the meeting will be held? MR. HARLE: No I can't, Mr. Speaker. MR. BORSTAD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. This year did all the municipalities get the number of RCMP they requested? Mr. HARLE: Mr.

Speaker, I believe that as of last year the municipalities did get most of their requirements. Of course we're into the new period now, and I believe that the RCMP have worked out their needs and that is in the process of going through the regular procedure that even­ tually winds up on the Treasury Board desk in Ottawa. Drilling Rig Safety MR. MANDEV1LLE: My question is to the hon. Minis­ ter responsible for Workers' Health, Safety and Compen­ sation.

Does the minister have any statistics which would indicate whether there's been an increase in the number of injuries [reported] to the Workers' Compensation Board as a result of drilling rig and service rig accidents? MR. D1ACHUK: Mr. Speaker, a report is tabled annual­ ly, and I am advised that the Workers' Compensation Board is in the final stages of compiling the statistics. I will be tabling them in the Legislature when I receive them. MR. MANDEVILLE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Could the minister indicate whether the gov­ ernment plans to increase the number of inspectors hired to inspect rigs for safety? MR. DIACHUK: Mr. Speaker, the approach to the in­ crease of staff will be dealt with when my estimates are dealt with in the very near future, and I would be prepared to answer it at that time. I covered the program of inspection of oil rigs last year when we reflected on the recommendations of the Sage report. For the past year we had an increase of one specialist in the oil field inspection service. MR. MANDEVILLE: One further supplementary ques­ tion, Mr. Speaker.

Could the minister indicate what follow-up procedures the inspectors have to see that their orders are followed, as far as safety is concerned on the rigs? MR. DIACHUK: Just continuous, routine inspections without any notice. Interest Rates DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Housing and Public Works. It concerns the situation faced by Albertans who are renegotiating mortgages at the present interest rate. Is the minister in a position to indicate to the House if many Albertans are having problems, facing financial strain because of the renegotia­ tion of their mortgages? MR. CHAMBERS: Mr.

Speaker, I have no specific sta­ tistics in regard to that. However, I would point out to the hon. member that of course we have been addressing the question of supply in Alberta. As members know, last year we financed over 8,000 through the family home purchase program, and over 6,000 through the core hous­ ing incentive program: an investment of over $1 billion. If you include as well all the units built by the Housing Corporation for the disadvantaged, we're looking at about 20,000 units, which is certainly more than half of all housing construction in Alberta, and with a budget of over $1.25 billion dollars.

So we're addressing that prob­ lem of affordability in a very major way. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to compliment the minister. When you don't want to answer a question, just keep talking. AN HON. MEMBER: Order. DR. BUCK: Well, that's all he did. More specifically to the minister responsible for the Alberta Home Mortgage Corporation. Is the minister in a position to indicate if he has any idea how many people who have mortgages with this corporation are just walk­ ing away from their mortgages? MR. CHAMBERS: Very few, Mr. Speaker.

In fact the foreclosure rate in Alberta through the corporation ac­ counts is very, very low. I would perhaps add that an assessment we did about a year ago showed that the average individual with a five-year term, in addition to appreciable capital assessment in their property, their income had risen such that they were even more able to afford the payments than they were when they first took out the term. Of course there are undoubtedly people who have one-year terms who are in more difficulty.

May 7, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 577 There's no question that the federal policy of high interest rates and high inflation is regrettable. It has an adverse impact on the economy of this entire country. Last year the federal minister indicated that they were considering something to help alleviate this problem, but nothing happened. I would suggest that they should con­ sider the consequences of the national policy in terms of high interest rates and inflation, and perhaps readjust their priorities. MR. ZAOZIRNY: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Could the minister advise whether some studies have been undertaken by his department to determine whether or not in fact high interest rates, rather than reducing inflation as is intended, may in fact be fuelling inflation? MR. CHAMBERS: Monetarists look at two sides of the question. The one side considered by many is that these interest rates are compounded into the cost of the proper­ ty and therefore add to the cost of the structures. That's certainly a fairly widely held point of view. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture.

Can the minister indicate if he is monitoring the effect that high interest rates have on the farmer who is borrowing through guaranteed loans? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, last night we had the opportunity to review with the Agricultural Development Corporation funding as it pertains to the agricultural industry within the province.

Recognizing that the high interest rates are of course directly involved in the input costs to the agricultural industry and have to be carried on to the end product and eventually to the consumer as well, the province has challenged, and will continue to challenge, those areas of long-term funding as it affects our agricultural industry in both our beginning farmer and those who have difficulty qualifying for funding through the normal lending agencies. In other words, the beginning farmer program and the lender of last resort aspect of the Agricultural Development Corporation will continue.

Because of the estimates we have just finished, all hon. members are current that last year alone in excess of $150 million was injected into the agricultural industry in an investment in both the industry and our young people, mainly beginning farmers. The area that has been shown to be of greatest importance to the agricultural industry, to the Ag. Development Corporation of course, is the ongoing operating cost of all farmers in agriculture. Those applications differ no less to the other lending agencies and ADC.

After some four hours last night, I think the discus­ sions came to the conclusion that interest rates, not unlike stabilization, because it is part of an input cost and affects the basic commodity — in other words, we sell in a national market; therefore we all recognize that perhaps an influx of interest, or the saving of interest, to the agricultural industry should be done on a national base, recognizing that it is part of the basic input cost. MR. MANDEVILLE: A supplementary question to the minister, Mr. Speaker.

I'm thinking of the guaranteed loans that were established, say, in '73, when they were paying in the neighborhood or 8 or 9 per cent interest rates, where now they're paying up to 19 and 20 per cent. In their discussions last night, was any consideration given to giving any relief to the farmers who had these guaranteed loans in the past? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, the basic interest rate in the Ag. Development Corporation as it exists today is 12 per cent. The subsidized rates for beginning farmers go as low as 6, and the two staged programs of 9 and 12.

The interest rates as they pertain to past guaranteed loans at a lower rate — at today's rate, we feel we have no problem in regard to some of the guaranteed borrowings, recogniz­ ing the history in regard to farm lending and that for ADC repossession because of non-payment is slightly less than 1 per cent. MR. S1NDLINGER: A supplementary, please, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Federal and Intergovern­ mental Affairs. Today the minister introduced Mr. Bouey from the Bank of Canada. I wonder if he took the opportunity to make representations to that gentleman in regard to the high interest rates? MR.

JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I haven't had a chance to meet with the governor, but of course the Premier will meet with him this afternoon. I'm sure that topic will be a major focus of their discussion. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. The minister's snowing the farmers of this province, because he doesn't seem to be showing any concern. [interjections] I don't mean the snow in southern Alberta that we need, but snowing them in this Legislature.

After his discussions with ADC, is the minister in a position to indicate what representation has been made by farmer borrowers who have guaranteed loans, to convert to direct loans from AOC? Because they can't keep paying those 20 per cent plus interest rates. The minister says they could remain competitive. They would have a competitive advantage if we used the Heritage Savings Trust Fund to subsidize the interest. SOME HON. MEMBERS: What was the question? DR.

BUCK: The question was if the minister's in a position to indicate how many farmers are requesting to change their loans from guaranteed loans from banks to direct loans from ADC. MR. SCHMIDT: Mr.

Speaker, of the total of all applica­ tions to the Agricultural Development Corporation for loans over the last 12 months, and the funds that were expended, recognizing that a program of consolidation also exists under the lender of last resort for those who collectively find that the interest rates are far beyond their capability from a repayment point of view — recognizing that opportunity that the majority of all of the loans were beginning farmers, and the applications for refinancing were limited. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques­ tion.

Could the minister indicate whether, after discus­ sions last evening, there is any consideration of a broader loan to farmers which would envisage easier access to money through ADC, along with an interest rebate program? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, last evening we had the opportunity to review the programs that exist, to evaluate

578 ALBERTA HANSARD May 7, 1981 the programs themselves to see whether they are achiev­ ing the aim and goals for which they intended, and to discuss some areas where perhaps programs which do not already exist may give us the opportunity to look at areas where some minor changes in those existing programs may be more encompassing than those that exist. MR. MANDEVILLE: A supplementary question. In the discussions last night, Mr. Speaker, did the minister dis­ cuss the possibility of making ADC not the lender of last resort, so that more loans could be made directly, instead of the guaranteed loans? MR.

SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, until the changes last year to the beginning farmer approach, the philosophy of ADC has always been a lender of last resort. There was no discussion as to any change in that direction. MR. PAHL: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Housing and Public Works, and it turns out to be supplemental to the one placed by the Member for Clover Bar.

In view of the minister's proper concern for the high interest rate policy of the federal government which, I can advise, is causing problems in Edmonton Mill Woods with respect to mortgage renewals at 17.5 per cent, has he made any representation with respect to the high interest rate policy to the federal government, or perhaps even to the Governor of the Bank of Canada? MR. CHAMBERS: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, I attended a conference of the Urban Development Insti­ tute this past Monday. I had occasion to speak to them and with them and participate in a very enjoyable panel discussion.

The federal minister was there, and I think I expressed my point of view quite clearly. I'm quite confi­ dent he got our message. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, perhaps I could sup­ plement the relatively general question by the Member for Edmonton Mill Woods with regard to the govern­ ment's view of the matter of interest rates, and recall a number of circumstances in which this subject has been discussed in this Legislature; first, at some considerable length in the fall of 1979 with ministerial statements of that time made by the Provincial Treasurer who, regret­ tably, is out of the province today on other business; secondly, discussions of this matter that we held at the last two western premiers' conferences, the one in Leth- bridge a year ago and the more recent one in Thompson, Manitoba, where the general concern was expressed that the matter of high interest rates seems to bear more heavily and with more difficulty upon the parts of the country, that are in a growth situation, such as we in western Canada are or at least had been until October 28, and where our growth to a very large degree depends upon sustaining a high level of investment.

In short, Mr.

Speaker, it appears to me, and will be my submission to the federal government and to others who are involved, that the whole matter of high interest rates does not bear evenly across Canada, and to continue to press the view to the federal government, for at least the 10th time, that one way in which we could improve the overall position of our country — hence the pressure upon our economy, the inflationary pressures, and there­ fore the interest rates, and to find ourselves less involved in following the interest rates in the United States as precisely as has been the policy in the past — is, as mentioned in this year's budget speech, to reassess in a co-operative way with the federal government the whole question of natural gas exports, and to develop a pricing, supply, and requirement policy that could markedly change — and I think the anticipation would be signifi­ cant from the outset — the balance of payments difficul­ ties faced by Canada which, in my judgment and in the judgment of my colleagues, have a very significant effect on Canada's economic position and, hence, monetary policy.

MR. GOGO: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Housing and Public Works, and this impacts directly on the interest rate question. Recogniz­ ing that mortgage payments are made out of pre-tax income, could the minister advise the House if he has asked his counterpart in Ottawa to consider the tax deductibility of mortgage payment interest from income for Albertans? MR. CHAMBERS: Mr. Speaker, no. Then again, for the past year or so the provincial ministers have been trying to arrange a meeting with the federal minister.

In fact I think the last meeting between the provincial and federal ministers was about three years ago. We expect that one might be held in the not too distant future, which would give every provincial minister a chance to discuss that and other housing topics. Emission Standards MR. COOKSON: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Member for Spirit River-Fairview isn't here this afternoon, be­ cause I wanted to give him a lecture on emission stand­ ards. Rather than do that, I would like to clarify some of the questions asked yesterday. I have before me a stand­ ard which is set by national air qualities across Canada.

It deals with sulphur dioxide, suspended particulates, car­ bon monoxide oxidants, which are ozone and nitrogen oxide. These standards are basically set right across Canada. The province of Alberta is second to none of the provinces in terms of these standards. The questions asked yesterday had to do with Suncor and Syncrude and with an adjustment between the half- hour and the one-hour measures. Under The Clean Air Act, the minister has the authority to adjust these rates. Under that

section we generally agreed we would elimi­ nate the half-hour standard, which is not required on the Canadian standards. Generally the procedure in setting rates is to determine in terms of efficiency and economics what the plants can practically keep down to a maximum in tons per day. Based on that, through computers we can calculate what the rate should be. This takes into consid­ eration the height of the stack insofar as those standards are concerned. So in answer to those questions raised yesterday, per­ haps I can just refer briefly to them.

The question was asked whether the half-hour regulation, which has been eliminated, applies to all Alberta industry and not just Syncrude. I can answer yes to that. Secondly, in addition to what was said yesterday, there never was an environ­ mental effect basis for the half-hour regulations. It was never laid down by Canada. We used it, but we reverted to what is recommended. I might note in passing that Saskatchewan has even gone to the one-hour standard. The elimination of the half-hour regulation was in keep­ ing with the approach being adopted on a national basis.

I'd like to conclude by saying that it's interesting to note in the records we've kept from 1978 to 1980, by

May 7, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 579 using monitoring stations, that in the case of Syncrude, using the half-hour standard, emissions were 0.2 per cent. When we reverted to the one-hour standard for SO2 it went up as high as 0.5 per cent. In fact I challenge the Member for Spirit River-Fairview on that basis alone. The one-hour standards are just as restrictive, if not more so, than the half-hour standards. In the case of Syncrude there are five monitoring sta­ tions. These report regularly, and the one-hour reading is pretty well consistently equivalent to or better than the half-hour reading.

In conclusion, there's no relationship between these standards and certificates of variance. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: May the hon. Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care revert to Introduction of Special Guests? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS (reversion) MR. RUSSELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope they're there. I'd like to introduce to you, and through you to the members of the Legislature, a grade 8 class from the Milton Williams school in the Calgary Elbow constitu­ ency. They're accompanied by Mrs. M. Sorenson. I should mention that the class contains Linda Stevens.

Her grandparents' little boy Greg sits down here as the Member for Banff-Cochrane. If the students are here, would they please rise and receive the welcome of the House. MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the ques­ tions and motions for returns, in the absence of the Member for Spirit River-Fairview I assume that motions and questions would stand and retain their places unless somebody else has been asked to deal with them. MR. SPEAKER: Does the Assembly consent to the proposal made by the hon. Deputy Government House Leader? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: It is so ordered. MR.

HORSMAN: That would apply to the two ques­ tions. With regard to other motions for returns, before making the motion I would ask whether the hon. Leader of the Opposition is prepared to make the amendments. Very well. I then move that motions for returns 125A and 126 stand and retain their places on the Order Paper. [Motion carried] head: MOTIONS FOR RETURNS 117. Mr. R. Speaker moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing:

(1) With respect to every provincial government grant to native organizations and projects approved in the fiscal year 1979-80, (

a) the recipient of each grant, (

b) the amount of each grant, and (

c) the proposed use of each grant;

(2) With respect to every provincial government grant to native organizations and projects approved in the fiscal year 1980-81, (

a) the recipient of each grant, (

b) the amount of each grant, and (

c) the proposed use of each grant. MR. R. SPEAKER: After "year 1979-80" and after "year 1980-81", I would add "from the Department of Native Affairs" as an amendment so it is more specific. [Motion as amended carried] MR. R. SPEAKER: I move the following as a substitute for Motion 118: In Alberta as at March 31, 1981, list: (1) all approved projects for hospital construction or renovation, (2) the . . . status of each project, (3) the description and estimated cost of each project, (4) the change in the number of beds . . . resulting from each project. I would like to mention, Mr.

Speaker, that this was redrafted in consultation with the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care. MR. SPEAKER: That should certainly give it a great element of respectability. [interjections] DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, that is very debatable. MR. SPEAKER: However, may I respectfully suggest that it might be of assistance to the table staff and perhaps to myself if changes of this kind to motions which are on the Order Paper might be received a little ahead of the opening of the afternoon sitting. It's rather difficult to assess the impact.

Presumably they're all in order, especially with such illustrious attention, but it is convenient to be able to look at them ahead of time. [Motion as amended carried] 123. Mr. R. Speaker moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: (1) the total cost to the province of the hog marketing review committee report, (2) the fees paid to each member of the committee, (3) the expenses of each member of the committee, including a breakdown by accommodation, meals, transportation, hospitality, and supplies. [Motion carried] 124. Mr. R.

Speaker moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing the total cost of the province of Alberta's share of the joint advertisement of the position of the eight premiers opposed to the patriation of the constitution. MR. McCRAE: Mr. Speaker, I want to move a small amendment to Motion 124. This side of the House is always interested in responding to the motions opposite and clarifying information or getting information out

580 ALBERTA HANSARD May 7, 1981 which is of interest to the public. If we were to accept 124 the way it is worded right now, it would be a nil return and no information would go to the public. The words I find troublesome, Mr. Speaker — and I'm sure they were innocently prepared by the Leader of the Opposition or his staff, and they had no intention of really trying to establish in the public mind that there were premiers of the provinces of Canada who were opposed to the patriation of the constitution.

So I would like to move that we delete the words "of the eight premiers opposed to the patriation of the constitution". I have copies of the proposed amendment for you and other members. I would like to make a couple of comments. As I said, I'm sure the words I find offensive and have asked to be deleted are innocent of any intention of the suggestion that is in them; that is, that some of the premiers would willfully oppose the patriation of the constitution.

Through the leadership of our Premier, this government has striven for years to assure that the constitution can be brought back to Canada in a form that respects the federal nature of our system, respects the rights, privi­ leges, prerogatives, and authorities of the provinces, and respects the federal jurisdiction as presently established by the British North America Act and other complemen­ tary statutes.

It would also deny the effort that went into the April 16 meeting of eight premiers who met in Ottawa and, in a spirit of compromise, came to an agreement as to a basis on which the constitution could be patriated to Canada.

If all others think back to that historic occasion and the remarks over radio or television in which the premiers set forward their concept of a Canada that would reflect the British North America Act and the constitution as we know it now, rather than the unilateral approach to patriation of the constitution that we see by the Prime Minister and his Liberal government in Ottawa; if we hark back to that moving moment when the eight pre­ miers took their pen and signed the accord, the moving moment when the Premier of Prince Edward Island, that tiny, tiny province, sat with the eight other premiers and agreed with them that all provinces should have equality, that there should not be first-, second-, and third-class provinces — indeed the eight agreed to a basis for a return of the constitution with an amending formula to be decided in Canada, not in Britain, not unilaterally in Ottawa, but in Canada in a spirit of agreement and compromise between premiers and federal representatives.

The amendment I would like to make is to delete the words I have referred to and substitute instead — and apparently this is the information the members are in­ terested in having — the words "of the eight premiers who presented to the federal government their accord — the Canadian patriation plan and a Canadian amending formula". With that deletion and substitution, Mr. Speaker, I urge that all members support the amendment suggested. MR. KNAAK: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to speak to the amendment. I too am concerned about the wording in the proposed motion, and I don't understand its purpose.

It says, "eight premiers opposed to the patriation of the constitution". As it reads, it would be a meaningless motion because no eight premiers are opposed to patriation. But my real concern — and my colleague who just introduced the motion was quite generous and said the way this motion showed up must have been an oversight, an error by the staff or some other error. Or is it in fact an attempt to mislead Albertans? I don't know the an­ swer, and I really would like to hear from the Leader of the Opposition how this untrue statement got into this motion. In fact, Mr.

Speaker, not only did the eight premiers have a patriation plan, they formalized the patriation plan with an amending formula executed in public, signed by all eight premiers: an historic event, where three of the Atlantic provinces, the important province of Quebec, and all four western premiers executed this document. And someone is suggesting the eight premiers don't have a patriation plan are opposed to patriation? That's un­ true. They are in favor; that's what the whole thing is about.

The other thing I would ask in this discussion of the amendment — and something I'd like to remind the House of — is that it was a Social Credit government, of which the hon. Leader of the Opposition was part of the cabinet, which agreed to the Victoria formula which would permanently and in perpetuity reduce Alberta to a second-class province. Not only did our Premier and the other seven agree to a patriation formula; we had an amending formula that would assure equal and fair status for Alberta within Confederation.

I really would like to know from the Leader of the Opposition whether he supports the eight premiers in Canada, who represent 80 per cent of the provinces and well over 60 per cent of the population, or whether he supports Mr. Trudeau's unilat­ eral patriation plan, which turns Alberta into a second- class province. MR. COOK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like as well to speak in favor of the proposal of the hon. minister. I too am a little dismayed to see the motion on the Order Paper, which is basically negative and suggests this government is not positively proposing an alternative to the Trudeau package.

I too would like to suggest that the Socreds are continuing their knock-knock routine, and I'm not sure Albertans have any interest at all in answering the door. Albertans don't tend to respond at all to naysayers. The eight premiers have accomplished a great deal. In a spirit of compromise and in a spirit that reflects the true diversity of the country, they've come to a compromise package in the constitutional accord signed in Ottawa. Mr.

Speaker, that constitutional accord does provide for a patriation package; it does provide for a workable amending formula; and it does reflect the federal nature of the country because it allows diversity, something Mr. Trudeau in Ottawa does not seem to understand. I'm a little dismayed that we have, in the Leader of the Opposi­ tion, closet Liberals and naysayers in our Assembly. Mr. Speaker, one final point: the other leader of the Social Credit Party, the former mayor of Calgary, was fairly active in the Liberal Party and, as recently as the last election, was stumping for Mr. Jack Horner. DR.

BUCK: A former Conservative. MR. COOK: I would be really interested in knowing whether the Social Credit Party is supporting the Tru­ deau package. MR. R. SPEAKER: Speaking to the amendment, Mr. Speaker, it certainly gave some of the government back­ benchers the opportunity to say a few words today and put their positions on the record. I think it's important

May 7, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 581 for them to do that once in a while, and to show they're still behind their Premier. [interjections] Somewhere along the line he has said, you've got to say something. So they get up and say a few things, and I guess they've done that again. DR. BUCK: The puppet strings have been pulled, so they open their mouths. [interjections] MR. R. SPEAKER: My colleague knows very well how to describe that; however, I won't go into that detail. I know they're a little sensitive that Albertans are start­ ing to say, what's this government really doing?

They keep wanting to negotiate behind closed doors and say they're going to come out with some great successes in energy and the constitution. We've lost the constitutional debate; we're finished. Alberta hasn't done its job. We talk about eight premiers in accord. Sure they are, but you can have an accord and no progress. As far as the rest of Canadians, we're in deep trouble at present. I'd say the confrontation of the last 10 years by this government has led us to that position. The Ottawa ear just turned deaf.

That's what happened to Alberta: we got a little too arrogant and thought we had the world by the end and had billions sitting in the bank and could do all these kinds of things. That's why this government is now trying to make a lot of noise: to look like they're going to rally the forces again. Well, they have a lot of rallying to do before they ever reach success.

In Ottawa, when there was the opportunity to make representation on the constitution in the committee, the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs could have said directly to Liberals in Ottawa, this is where we as Albertans stand; this is the position of the Conserva­ tive Party in Alberta. We never saw them in Ottawa; hardly heard from them. It's been months since anything has been said to Ottawa about the constitution. So here we are, arguing over words at present. I know the government has to say a few things to defend their position and try to make it look good.

But Albertans are finally finding things are different. In the amendment we're speaking about, most likely the word "unilateral" would have been sufficient to clarify the matter. It was not my intent to make this little political whirlwind that occurred. I felt the eight premiers were very opposed to unilateral patriation of the constitution.

As House leader of the Socred Party — our caucus and our party as a whole was against that move by the Prime Minister and certainly in no way endorse it; and support the eight premiers that they as well were saying together, we're opposed to unilateral patriation of the constitution. Maybe that word would have been sufficient. As a whole, though, I think we'll accept this amendment and make the government feel good today, because it's all right to do that once in a while. MR. KNAAK: Mr.

Speaker, on a point of order, I just wonder if the Leader of the Opposition answered the question whether the error was inadvertent and sloppy or intentional. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member hasn't too much to do and wants to be critical about little fiddling things like wording of resolutions. [interjections] That's about all he has time to do. He's so far away from his constituents that he hardly has time . . . He gets few letters, and there are few issues, so he has to worry about missing a word or suspecting us as an opposition of intentionally doing something like that. Well, Mr.

Speaker, we wouldn't do that. MR. KNAAK: On the point of order. Mr. Speaker, I don't think you would disagree with what I'm saying. On this matter of the constitution, which is one of the most important facing Alberta, it has been extremely difficult to communicate to Albertans what in fact is happening. A miscommunication of this sort is not very helpful to the issue. It is important that matters be done accurately, and the point of order to know whether it was intentional or inadvertent was important. MR. KING: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the hon.

Member for Edmonton Whitemud missed the final comment of the hon. Leader of the Opposition. He admitted that it was sloppiness and not deliberate. I think that answers the hon. member's question. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, we've abused the rule of the point of order. I would just like to make one very small point. All we wanted to know was the advertising cost to the people of Alberta. That's all we wanted to know. [Motion as amended carried] MR. SPEAKER: Might the hon. Member for Athabasca and Deputy Speaker revert to Introduction of Special Guests? HON.

MEMBERS: Agreed. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS (reversion) MR. APPLEBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's my spe­ cial privilege this afternoon to introduce something like 140 grades 5 and 6 students from Meadow Lake, Sas­ katchewan. They are on a visit to Alberta. They come here every two years — not the same students but the same class level. Accompanying them are a number of staff members and their principal Mr. Emile Arraf, who used to be a colleague of mine at Athabasca high school.

I ask them all to stand in both galleries and be welcomed to our Alberta Assembly. head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, in rising to lead off debate on this motion this afternoon, I will try to be as brief as possible. I am sure there are members who would like to enter debate. First of all, I'd like to make one very, very important point. The purpose of the resolution I have on the Order Paper this afternoon:

Be it resolved that this Assembly urge the govern­ ment to ensure parent choice in education by estab­ lishing a system of vouchers which will enable 100 per cent of the per capita pupil grant to follow a child to the school of his parent's choice, providing that the school operates within the provincial school system. I want the point made very, very clear: this is no intention on my part as to a debate between the merits of the public school system versus the separate school system

582 ALBERTA HANSARD May 7, 1981 versus the private school system. The Minister of Educa­ tion indicated he is considering looking at a pilot project utilizing the voucher system. Also, I feel it's an opportu­ nity to start debate on one of the most important reports I have had the opportunity of looking at: the Kratzmann report, called A System in Conflict, a report to the Minister of Labour by the fact-finding commission which basically tries to indicate to us as legislators, to educators, to pupils, and to taxpayers what we think are some of the short-comings in our educational system.

The purpose of this resolution is to stimulate the thought of this Assembly. Because we in this Assembly, through the Minister of Education, are the final judges. Through legislation and funding of education, we are the final directors of where education goes in the next decade or maybe even further. We are asking input from mem­ bers of the Assembly, from the Alberta Teachers' Asso­ ciation, from the Alberta School Trustees' Association — all concerned educators — and most importantly, from the parents of children in our system. Mr. Speaker, at times I will be quoting the Kratzmann report.

First of all, on page 3: The Primacy of Instruction The Commission has been guided by a number of important educational premises which refer to such matters as the provision of good quality educational programs and services, equality of educational op­ portunity for all, and the democratic rights and re­ sponsibilities of parents, pupils, teachers, administra­ tors and government.

However, one central notion, the critical classroom interaction between teachers and students which we describe as "the primacy of instruction," has emerged in the course of this inves­ tigation as the most significant element in education­ al activity. Mr. Speaker, it goes on to quote a local Calgary newspa­ per, The Calgary Herald, July [3]: What happens when a teacher meets his class is the primary act of education. Everything else in the sys­ tem is designed to support that primary act.

We hope to hear discussions this afternoon that will be based on the premise that the teacher is the most impor­ tant part of the educational system. All we can really look at is some means of funding, some means of giving parents freedom of choice. That is basically what the resolution indicates. As I said in a debate earlier in this Assembly, the Minister of Education either thinks he has very broad shoulders or he's developing a very thick hide, because he does stick his neck out. The Minister of Education said he was interested in looking at alternate forms of financ­ ing.

He said he would be interested in looking at a pilot project using the voucher system — sometimes ministers, don't like doing things like that — for the purpose of broadening our look at education, looking at alternate means of freedom of choice, and choice of financing. I compliment the minister on being broad-minded enough and having the political thickness of hide to do that. I agree with the premise that the most important people in our educational system are teachers. But we have no argument with teachers, and later I will get into some problems they have.

This resolution is really meant to give us as legislators an opportunity to look at alternates. Mr. Speaker, there are many sacred cows in many institutions. But in look­ ing at the best system for our pupils, our teachers, our trustees, and our taxpayers, nothing should be a sacred cow. We should assume nothing is so good it cannot be improved upon. No system should be looked at as being so strong that it cannot withstand scrutiny. As I indicated in my opening remarks, Mr. Speaker, this is not a crusade for the destruction of the public, separate, or private school systems, weighing one against the other.

But when we look at the growth of the private school system, there must be some ferment that chal­ lenges us as legislators to question why this phenomenon is occurring. Is it just because people want their children educated in a Christian school or a school with some religious background? If we think it is just that, then there are many schools that educate children from all denominations. The Alliance Christian school outside Sherwood Park, that I'm quite familiar with, has a ba­ lance between people who practise that faith and people outside that faith. So it can't be just that they have a church affiliation.

Is it elitism? Using that school again as an example, there are rich, middle-income, and poor families who choose to send their children to that school. Is it conven­ ience? No, because many of the parents in that institution deliver their children to the school and pick them up every day. So it's certainly not convenience. Is it that the school is of a smaller size, smaller classrooms, smaller total enrolment, smaller numbers of pupils per teacher, and the opportunity for parents to participate in the programs, in the extra-curricular activities, and a better opportunity for parents to associate with teachers?

I say, Mr. Speaker and members of the Assembly, that basically it's the latter two: the smallness of size and the opportuni­ ty to be involved. Everything goes in cycles. We have gone from the one- and two-room schoolhouse to the thousand and larger school systems, schools with that many pupils. In that change, that transformation, I think maybe we have lost that personal touch that's so important to education. So basically I am saying that maybe bigger is not better, maybe smaller is better, maybe teacher/parent/pupil in­ volvement is better.

In looking at some these supposi­ tions, maybe we are asking our schools to do too many things for too many people. I'd like to quote one or two more sections from the Kratzmann report, about some of these social and educational trends we have seen. Page 14 of the report talks about social changes: In light of these recent social and educational trends, two facts stand out clearly. First, the school is now responsible for the development of pupils in areas that not long ago were viewed to be the obliga­ tion of the family.

And second, that because a child's education achievement is widely viewed as a predic­ tive or determining factor in his or her future suc­ cess, public interest in educational operations has risen fairly dramatically. In the years ahead, we may anticipate that attention to the extent and quality of educational services offered by school systems will continue to increase and controversies regarding educational policies and decision making will intensify. Mr. Speaker, in saying that possibly we are asking the school system to do too much, look at what we are asking that system to do.

Page 15 from Kratzmann: Unquestionably, the school bears the brunt of fa­ mily and social dislocation. Because of such disrupt­ ing forces, an increasing number of pupils are de­ pressed, angry, and rebellious, and they express these feelings often through aggressive behavior or with­ drawal. It is not uncommon for teachers to find pupils who feel deprived in areas of basic human

May 7, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 583 needs, including love and esteem. We are asking teachers and the system to do these many things in the education of our children. Is there a need? Should we be discussing and investigating the need for change? I say as a legislator that the rights of families and parents in education have to be recognized. Parents and taxpayers seem to have been removed very, very far from any input to the educational system.

A quote from a book by Coons and Sugarman, Educa­ tion by Choice, 1978: "Only when it comes to education has the state, deliberately or otherwise, virtually emascu­ lated the family's options." While the state has a role to play in education — for example, in requiring mandatory education to a certain age, establishing minimum teacher qualifications for publicly funded schools, and ensuring that a certain core curriculum is taught — the massive centralization that characterizes today's education leaves no room for those who use the system to participate in educational decisions.

I think that is very, very important. Our parents feel they just do not have any more input to the system. The lack of parental input was demonstrated by the results of an Edmonton Public School Board survey of 1980, that asked, "Do you feel you have an adequate voice in school decisions that affect your child?" Mr. Speaker, the response from parents indicates that a signif­ icant proportion did not feel they had enough input.

The responses: from elementary, 67 per cent said yes, 14 per cent no, and 19 per cent didn't know; junior high, 56 per cent said yes, 20 per cent no, 24 per cent didn't know; senior high, 46 per cent yes, 24 per cent no, 29 per cent didn't know. Next, Mr. Speaker, the existing system does not have enough diversity for our society. We know that all chil­ dren have different abilities, different intelligence, dif­ ferent interests. Education must take into account the differences among our students.

I would like to say that we must take these differences into consideration, and we must afford the opportunity for people to decide the form of education they want for their children. The minister spoke about the voucher system. Basically the money collected by the provincial government and the local requisition for school purposes would be distributed to parents on a fixed sum per capita basis in the form of a voucher.

The parents could then take the voucher to an approved school of their choice, either private, public, sectarian, or non-sectarian, and then the school would forward that and be reimbursed their share. I know there are pros and cons, and that's why I welcome the debate. I believe this would involve the parents without excluding the government. A certain minimum standard quality in education is required at present in order for a school to become approved. This idea would remain intact. We would be following a high educational standard.

It would introduce and increase competition between schools beyond the minimum stand­ ard. Mr. Speaker, at one time — before I was sufficiently educated, some people would say, in things relating to education by being a member of this Assembly — I thought all we needed was one school system, because I thought anything other than one school was a costly duplication. But as I've managed to stay around the league a few years, I feel that this competition is as healthy in education as it is in any other activity. I think this competition would be healthy.

Thirdly, parents would have a greater control over their tax dollars since the parents themselves would de­ cide where their share of the education budget went. Not all children respond to the same environment and atmos­ phere in schooling. They have different capabilities, apti­ tudes, and needs. A system where families whose children have common educational needs could come together and support a school which meets those needs would be more satisfactory than the present system, where children who don't fit into the mainstream are isolated in some cases, and in some cases even ignored.

That is because we have this largeness of size and in some cases lack of choice. Mr. Speaker, I feel it is time we were returned to the family unit. Families are best able to decide what form of education is best for a child. No other unit or person in society knows the child's needs better than that family. This would be recognized through the use of the system. . Mr. Speaker, the voucher system has been used in some jurisdictions in the United States. It will be interest­ ing to find out from other members of the Assembly if they consider that some of these experiments were fail­ ures or successes. Mr.

Speaker, as a parent and a legisla­ tor, I feel that that freedom of choice should be open to all of us. It is not meant to be a knock on the present system in any way. It is meant to stimulate thought and discussion. So with those few opening remarks, I wel­ come debate for the next half hour. MR. HIEBERT: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter the debate on Motion 216, proposed by the Member for Clover Bar, with regard to the voucher system. Now I know we had a little discussion a moment ago on the amendment to the motion for a return with regard to the wording.

For a while I thought we were going to start debating the Kratzmann report, so I was a little confused. I think we can all agree with what the hon. member said with regard to change and new approaches. However, I think the resolution, as it was put on the Order Paper, does have implications on the merits of public, separate, and private schools. Before I comment on the voucher system itself, it may be of interest to note that I happened to peruse the new Social Credit policy statement on education. In it the southern shadow calls for a "fundamental overhaul of the province's educational system".

It goes on to state that some "fresh approaches" will be presented. Well, I think we could concur in that statement. But the difficulty is when we start looking at the fresh approach. Here we have the voucher system, a 1950/60 fad from south of the border which failed miserably. Surely in the past we've learned [not] to take some burned-out ideas under the guise of change or innovation and adopt them here in Canada. I think we all realize what has happened with the new math program, the values approach to social studies, the open area concept, whatever.

The new Social Credit policy also says that "pupil grants per capita must follow the child — 100%. Con­ cerned parents have to be given a better choice". But may I remind the Member for Clover Bar that once a student is enrolled in a specific public separate school, the per pupil grant rate does go to that specific jurisdiction. Or is the member implying the expansion of the private school concept? With such a proliferation, what are the actual implications for school boards, the teaching profession, parents, communities? Mr.

Speaker, in the large metropo­ litan areas, students from outlying areas already enrol in alternative schools through tuition agreements. So choices are being exercised at the local level. Another proposal taken by the new position paper is a small school policy. It asserts that "neighborhood schools give a better education in the broad sense than the large

584 ALBERTA HANSARD May 7, 1981 'factory type' schools being encouraged by [this] govern­ ment". What are the implications to small schools with the open voucher system? May I remind the Member for Clover Bar that that statement is an opinion which cannot always be backed up by fact. Secondly, when did the factory-like schools come into existence. I would like to remind the member that they came into existence in the '60s. Surely we shouldn't be taking credit for that innovation. This government did introduce the small school grant system to keep small schools viable.

I think that particu­ lar initiative has been very welcome in areas where they have depleting enrolments. Maybe it's an insufficient amount at this time, but I think the intent and direction is well appreciated throughout Alberta. The various alterna­ tives or choices that parents and students are seeking do exist in fact in some of the larger urban areas. However, it's a question of trying to extend the same to smaller jurisdictions.

The concept of financing education by giving parents vouchers of a predetermined value, which parents give to schools where they choose to send their children, was based on some premises. One of them was: to cause a broader range of schools sensitive to the special needs and demands of students and parents. But I suggest that that can be done now. Secondly: to have teachers and administrators more responsive to parents' wishes and children's needs. That too can be achieved now if we put our will to it.

Thirdly: to somehow lead to instructional innovation which may result in improved student perfor­ mance or increased parental satisfaction. I suggest that that too is now attainable without the voucher system. The notion that students will perform better if schools try harder, and schools will try harder if they are directly accountable to parents using the voucher system, is de­ batable to say the least. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the most important criterion in adapting to a voucher system is whether or not it will improve the quality of schooling or the choices in the educational system.

I agree with the comment by the hon. member with regard to the importance of the primacy of instruction, the importance of the teacher in the school. But I also suggest that the student is why we exist. The student is important. Often in educational debate, you never hear the word "student" mentioned. Experimentation in places like San Jose during the period 1972-1978 resulted in nothing but administrative difficulties. It didn't present real choices to the parents. There were no clear-cut conclusions as to whether it improved the quality of instruction.

In fact, on balance the whole concept was fraught by many dangers. An unlimited voucher system could inadvertently become elitist. Certain private schools could mushroom, both in terms of dollars and attracting top students, leaving public schools a repository for all the leftovers, with curtailed resources for the remaining clients, thereby fostering academic snobbery, attitudinal segregation, one-upmanship, whatever: take your choice. Mr. Speaker, to some extent those dangers already exist in some of the alternative programs that have been in­ itiated in some schools.

I've also noted recent correspondence to teachers re­ garding The Teaching Profession Act by the Leader of the Opposition, who I might add is starting to play the role the odd time. In stating his opposition to any encroachment upon the integrity of the teaching profes­ sion, he went on to say that their position is to oppose any attempt to lower the status of teachers. Well, I wonder what the voucher system by implication is saying to the teachers. I wonder what the voucher system, which could cause a proliferation of public schools, is saying to school boards. Mr.

Speaker, I think the members of the Official Opposition ought to quit snowing the teachers and the school boards on this particular motion, because we really can't start talking about a voucher system unless we start looking at the implications with regard to what we presently have in place. Implicit in the motion by the Member for Clover Bar is that parents want a greater choice in where they send their children to school, or what goes on in the school program. The member mentioned the survey by the Edmonton Public School Board.

The Canadian Educa­ tion Association did a similar survey, which indicated that about 75 per cent of the parents were concerned about what was going on in the schools, and that they wanted greater involvement and input to the decisions. But ironically, when asked how many would be willing to serve on a parent advisory committee for their local school, less than one-quarter of the parents said they would want to serve. When asked whether they would want to serve as a trustee, so that they could influence policy within the school district, even less responded that they were willing to serve.

That seems to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that while parents want a say in what is going on in the school, they do not want to assume any greater responsibility. I think this fact was borne out with the early childhood program, which had a mandatory com­ ponent for parental involvement. There was a reaction with regard to the amount of involvement that was expected. So, Mr. Speaker, we could say, what do parents want? Well I think we could list a number of things. They want the best for their children. They want to see their children do well in school.

They want their children to be happy, because usually if they are happy and the learning envi­ ronment is a positive one, they usually achieve in a satis­ factory manner. They want their children to go to a school close to the neighborhood. They want a school environment that is supportive of the home, the family, and its values; and a staff that is genuinely interested and committed to that objective. They want good rapport and communication with the school. I think many schools in this province have made initiatives and excellent efforts in this regard. It is also known, Mr.

Speaker, that as the children get older, especially into the senior high grades, many are more apt to select their schools not on the basis of what their parents want but on the basis of peer pressure or influence from other sources. How will the voucher sys­ tem really affect these expectations? For example, we could take some areas like discipline, the learning envi­ ronment, and the philosophy of the school — and you can take any school, be it in Edmonton, Calgary, or whatever.

That particular school can have an excellent reputation in the community, and many times it is due to the concerted effort of the community, the principal, and the staff working together in a co-operative spirit. Yet you could take the same school 10 years later: you could have a change of the leader and in the core of the staff, and you would find a complete reversal. What would really end up is that we would have a real circus, with people hopping all over the place, because schools change by the very nature of the people in them. Mr. Speaker, I think we need to address the question in another way.

I think we have to try to look at the positive aspects within the present structure. Rather than dealing with the shortcomings, we should be identifying the

May 7, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 585 strengths. And from the strengths, we should grow. I think there is a predominance of thinking that we always get to the shortcomings of an institution or person, when in fact it is know that by going to the strengths, one can improve whatever the issue might be. I think we have to work constructively to the solution. A voucher system may be an attempt at this, but I think it really skirts some of the issues we're facing, that the Kratzmann report addresses and that we know exist in our schools. I can recall an experiment done in the Edmonton school system.

All schools used to have attendance boundaries for their elementary, junior high, and senior high schools. A pilot project was initiated which lifted these boundaries so that students could go to any school of their choice, or of their parents' choice, with only the proviso that local students could not be denied a place by over-enrolments, and that the additional transportation cost would have to be incurred by the parent. What was the result? It was found that less than 10 per cent of the students actually changed from their local community school.

Many of them who did change looked for other alternatives such as special education programs, language immersion programs, vocational programs, and whatever. There was very little mobility away from the local school. So I suggest, why do we require the voucher system when in fact they do not leave their local community school? A recent survey was conducted in the urban areas, and they found that students generally leave their local school based on program choice rather than dissatisfaction with the school. So I think we need to look at some of the issues before us when we start looking at choice of schools.

Before us today we have declining enrolments, small schools, school closures, and parents very voci­ ferous about maintaining the viability of the local, small school, to the extent that they will accept such things as split grades, overcrowded combined classes, program cur­ tailment, and even to the extent that they will get in­ volved voluntarily. Therefore I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in all likelihood parents will not exercise the voucher option to go to any school, but rather they want to bolster and make sure that their local school is operating consistent with the objectives of the community.

Take a look at small communities. How realistic is it, in terms of having the option and the alternatives which are very limited? It's no different than when you go to a small community where you may only have one doctor or dentist. How many alternatives do the people in that community have with regard to seeking professional services? What would happen to the public and separate schools as we know them if we went to the open system? Possibly, according to what has happened in the city, there might be very little mobility.

So why should we bring about a voucher system, and all the bureaucracy involved in in­ troducing the system, when in fact the people are not going to be moving to all kinds of different schools? However, I do agree with the hon. Member for Clover Bar in that we need to turn some things around. We do have many social problems, and the schools cannot be immune to what is happening in the overall community. I think we have to change some public attitudes, Mr. Speaker. For example, we need parental involvement. But where do we get parental involvement in our schools?

Sometimes the greatest outcry will come when a school closes an hour early, and they are alarmed because it changes the baby-sitting schedule. Rather than focussing on educational issues, sometimes they look at the very mundane things that affect them in the home. I think that one thing that has affected schools a great deal is that they are looked upon in terms of a custodial role for the family. Is that what was intended for schools? Take another example. We hear about youngsters be­ ing bored and unmotivated.

But if you examine what's happening to these youngsters, many of them might be working at McDonald's until 1 o'clock in the morning. No wonder they are tired and unmotivated. They cannot function. Where is the family responsibility in this regard? We hear a great deal about more discipline, yet how much control is there at home when you see the young­ sters out on the street all night? Is the school to replace the natural function of the mother and father? Often you will find that discipline is intended for others but not for my child. We hear about the illiteracy problem; about reading, writing, and computing.

Yet I wonder how many youngsters actually go home and read a book for relaxa­ tion as opposed to sitting before the idiot box for hours, or listening to a rock station blaring and screaming throughout the house. You can't become a hockey player if you're not going to skate. You're not going to read or write unless you read. Maybe some of the things that are happening in our homes have a direct bearing on what is occurring in schools. We can talk about responsibility, initiative; work ethic. How many urban youngsters actually have respon­ sibilities in and around the home?

We can look at sports programs, how they have become overorganized. If the mother or the father don't take the youngster to the basketball or soccer game, the youngster doesn't go. Who are they doing it for? Is the reliance upon the adult, or should it be occurring through self-initiative? I'm sure the situation is quite different in rural Alberta, where young people learn to take on responsibilities. I'm told it often shows a difference in postsecondary institutions, where young people from the rural area know how to apply themselves and how to work.

I think school systems are addressing the challenges and demands that are implied in the voucher system. Certainly schools in the large urban areas are responding with a supermarket of learning alternatives for all types of students. I think we need to look at what caused the change. Parents are demanding more varied types of off­ erings. That students need not go outside the present school system is certainly an objective of the parents I speak to. Another reason is that there is an awareness that if the public and separate schools don't respond, the void will be filled somewhere else.

I hope the Alberta Teachers' Association is listening to this one. There are a number of choices. You have choices for the gifted, special classes for the mentally and physically handicapped, schools for learning disabilities, the immer­ sion language program, schools going back to the basics, the Christian school concept being worked through our present public and separate schools, the international baccalaureate program: I could go on and on. Certainly the system is not perfect, but it does give the public some genuine alternatives.

I'd also like to remind members of the Assembly that it is unrealistic to have some of these same opportunities throughout the province. There is no way you can have a Walter MacKenzie hospital in the smaller community. Likewise I would say that smaller communities, because of sheer numbers and resources, will have to look at alternatives applicable to their situation. Smaller com­ munities are fighting just for the continuing existence of their schools. But I agree that bigness is not everything, and that small schools have an atmosphere that is unique.

586 ALBERTA HANSARD May 7, 1981 I would also suggest that the country and rural living style brings a dimension that can never be replaced or duplicated in the large urban areas. I think that is something the smaller communities should try to preserve. Mr. Speaker, I think we're going to see some spinoff effect with regard to neighborhood schools, and schools will be doing a self-evaluation and diversification that is truly going to reflect community wishes. But I suggest that the trend is still to maintain the neighborhood school.

The key elements are co-operation, where you have a good staff, where you get good parental support, and the teachers and students in the school are working harmoniously together in something that is considered and perceived as worth while. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think we can identify issues and problems in our present schooling. We can continue to resolve them. I endorse the idea that one could experiment with a voucher system, but I do not look forward to the voucher system as a panacea to many of the issues and problems the school systems face.

There­ fore I do not support the proposition as put forth, but I do support some of the comments and ideas in the debate from the hon. Member for Clover Bar. I also look forward to the debate of other members and to hearing the resolution not only this spring, but possibly when it comes up this fall. MR. ISLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks this afternoon by reading Motion 216 into the record.

Be it resolved that this Assembly urge the govern­ ment to ensure parent choice in education by es­ tablishing a system of vouchers which will enable 100 per cent of the per capita pupil grant to follow a child to the school of his parent's choice, provid­ ing that the school operates within the provincial school system. I wish to do that because I noted that the hon. Member for Clover Bar, under whose name the motion stands, did not. I don't really blame him, because I wouldn't have either.

In listening to him, I also got the feeling that I wasn't sure whether he was supporting or opposing the motion, or talking on the one hand and on the other hand. I can't help but wonder if some of my friends from Barnett House have already gotten to him. DR. BUCK: You slept through it. I did read the resolution. MR. ISLEY: I'll check Hansard, sir. The hon. member said that the purpose of this resolu­ tion was to stimulate thought, and then moved on to do a substantive amount of reading from the Kratzmann re­ port.

I don't find the Kratzmann report too stimulating, and I also can't make the connection between it and what we're talking about in the voucher system. The hon. Member for Clover Bar made one other statement I have to take exception to, and I believe he repeated it. He felt very strongly that the most important individual in the education system is the teacher. I would say the teacher is the second most important individual in the system; the most important individual, and the individual around which the whole system should exist, is definitely the student. Mr.

Speaker, as I understand Motion 216, parents would be given a money voucher which would follow the child to the school of the parents' choice. I assume that if we had this motion in place by this fall, a parent would receive a voucher for, as I understand the hon. member's comments, the amount of the provincial per capita grant plus some determined amount of the supplementary re­ quisition. Then the parent would go school shopping. I can't help but wonder what the impact of this would be. Very briefly, I suggest it would have some of the follow­ ing effects on education in this province.

First of all, it would increase bureaucracy and the associated costs to issue roughly 420,000 vouchers. I think it would have a tremendously negative impact on staff and program planning in our schools throughout the province, and hence cause a lot of them to get off to late starts. From past experience in education, I know of a case where we had a Indian reserve sitting approximately 20 miles from two towns. The children on that reserve had a choice of which school system they could go to. One of the problems was that the system never knew in advance who it was getting, and how many if any.

This makes it very difficult for jurisdictions to plan and re­ spond to particular needs. If I understand the hon. member correctly, another impact it would have is that 100 per cent of public funding would start flowing to private schools instead of the 80 per cent which flows to date. I can't help wonder­ ing what impact this would have on the number of private schools in the province. I can almost see the teaching business shifting to a consulting business, and a group of teachers getting together to initiate private schools and trying to attract individuals to them. I think the hon.

Member for Edmonton Gold Bar discussed the implications of an elitist school. I think he also touched on the lack of real choices that would exist in rural Alberta. I further submit that you would see parents bouncing children around from school to school because of disciplinary action the school had taken to­ ward the child, which I don't think would have a positive impact on our educational system. You would probably see the ultimate developing of what I would call 'catering schools'; in other words, schools that cater to the child to keep the child and parent happy and to keep the money coming in.

I don't see this as being positive. Mr. Speaker, what the hon. Member for Clover Bar proposes in Motion 216, and then backed away from in his comments, is ridiculous in my opinion, and I can in no way support it. It will increase educational costs without increasing educational efficiency, cause disor­ ganization and disruption in what is basically a good educational system, and serve no useful purposes. I don't believe that is what Albertans want to see happen to their educational system. Mr.

Speaker, we have a strong educational system in the province, and I believe we should direct our energies to improving it, not destroying it. I have been critical of education in this Assembly, but I have never advocated throwing the baby out with the bath water. Our educa­ tion system has deficiencies. MR. SPEAKER: Having regard to the metaphor just used by the hon. Member for Bonnyville, I am somewhat reluctant to pull the plug, but the time for debate of this motion has expired. MR. ISLEY: I request leave to adjourn debate, Mr. Speaker.

May 7, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 587 head: PUBLIC BILLS AND ORDERS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Second Reading) Bill 205 The Remembrance Day Act MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in moving second reading of Bill 205, The Remembrance Day Act. As the member representing Lethbridge West, in reality I believe I represent tens of thousands of Albertans who, when they review this Act, would support its goals and objectives: to make Remembrance Day a living reality in the province of Alberta, with particular emphasis on our younger generation.

Simply put I believe that this Bill, if enacted, will allow all Albertans — not just veterans, mothers, and fathers, but indeed children — the opportunity to observe and learn more about what's behind Remembrance Day, commonly known as the date of November 11 at 11 a.m. Mr. Speaker, I also think it would give our young people an opportunity to value freedom and all that goes with freedom, and the very high price paid for the democracy we enjoy today, given by the many citizens not only of Canada and Alberta but of parts of the world during wartime so that we might preserve this freedom.

It's fine to have a Bill of rights and other kinds of rights, but I suggest to members of the Assembly that it's not something that occurred and simply became a statute in the province of Alberta or any other province at the stroke of a pen. In reality it was the culmination of the great sacrifice many Canadian men and women made in times of war so we could enjoy the freedom to enact that type of legislation. Before we get to the details of the Bill, it would be interesting to recall for a moment the fact that World War I, which occurred ever so many years ago, was believed to have been the war to end all wars.

Over 10 million lives were lost in that war, still referred to by some as the Great War. In Canada alone we had over 600,000 men and women in uniform. Of those in uniform, 60,000 died, gave their lives during that four-year term. Undoubtedly many other Canadians also gave their lives, either directly or indirectly, while not in uniform. World War II: we had over a million Canadians in uniform. Of the 1.2 million Canadians who wore uni­ forms, over 42,000 died. In many peoples' minds, that was an unnecessary war because they'd already had the war to end all wars. Then, Mr.

Speaker, occurred the war or incident or police action known as Korea, an aggres­ sion from China, south through North Korea, which re­ sulted in United Nations intervention with United Na­ tions divisions being supplied in Korea. Twenty-two thousand were Canadians; between 300 and 350 died. Some members of this Assembly participated in the Second World War, and some participated in Korea. I don't believe any participated in the Great War of 1914- 1918. If they did, they're remarkably quiet about it. It would be interesting, Mr. Speaker, to take a moment to look at some of the history.

For example, in 1919, immediately following the Great War, we find some in­ teresting things occurred. The peace agreement was signed by France on behalf of the allies at 5 o'clock one morning, to take effect at 11 o'clock that morning. It was the 11th day of November, hence we ended up with the very symbolic 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month each year being known in different countries for different reasons. It might be interesting to note that since that time, Mr. Speaker, we concluded not many years ago what some would term the greatest war in the history of the world.

Statements and claims are made that in terms of fire power, more bombs were dropped on Vietnam in one year than in the entire World War II. The devastation and wrack of human life is probably well known, and I wouldn't want to dwell on that. Shortly after World War I, Mr. Speaker, symbolic events took place in many countries in the western world. It began in France with a symbolic burial, although it was a real body known as the Unknown Soldier. He was to represent the men and women who had given their lives in the Great War. That occurred not quite simultaneously but around the western world.

It occurred in Arlington cemetery in Washington D.C., at Westminster in Eng­ land. I don't know whether it occurred in Canada. At that time Canada was a relatively young nation, although we had somehow managed to lose 60,000 Canadians in that war. That gave birth to activities across Canada, including Alberta, where we had the dedication of ceno­ taphs in virtually every city, town, and hamlet. As members know, each year the province of Alberta pro­ vides a wreath to be laid at the cenotaph.

Invariably inscribed in bronze on those cenotaphs are the names of men and women from that community who gave their lives in both wars. It's interesting to look back at some of the legislation enacted. When one looks at the House of Commons activities in 1921, we see a statute enacted known as the Armistice Day Act. It was coupled with Thanksgiving. I believe the statute read: herein

an Act is created known as the Armistice Day Act. Assented to June 4, 1921, it provided that where Thanksgiving occurred in the same week as November 11, they would be enjoyed on a common day, being the Monday of that week. I don't want to belittle the fact that [Remembrance] Day was important; the celebration of Thanksgiving in remem­ brance of being thankful for everything that had been received wasn't necessarily belittling anything. But that went on for 10 years. In 1931 an amendment to the Armistice Day Act was passed in Canada recognizing Remembrance Day under its present name.

It's interesting to quote from Hansard some of the debate of May 23, 1921, Mr. Speaker. I'm naturally in­ terested in the participation that day of members who were in the area near where I represent. I see a Mr. Gershaw was the Member for Medicine Hat. That's ob­ viously a long time ago, because I wasn't even born at that time. He reads into Hansard many of the comments that will undoubtedly be made today with regard to why we should be remembering November 11.

I don't want to quote it for the members, but I believe he points out very fittingly the cogent reasons why young people of that day should observe November 11. I don't suppose much has changed in the intervening years, and maybe not much more will be contributed by me today, other than to highlight what I believe to be the major reason we should be enshrining this in statute. You know, Mr. Speaker, memories tend to be short. I believe very strongly that if it were not for particular groups in this country, Remembrance Day would have been long forgotten.

Here I'm addressing my remarks to veterans' organizations in Canada and in other parts of the world, but within Canada, specifically to the Royal Canadian Legion. Across Canada we now see the poppies in the week leading up to November 11, those red flowers

588 ALBERTA HANSARD May 7, 1981 so representative of Flanders field from World War I. Each year the Canadian Legion, which has tens of thou­ sands of members — I believe the figure is now 78,000 in the province of Alberta alone — uses poppy day for two reasons. One is to have people remember the occasion of November 11 and the fact that people gave their lives, and thereby the theme for November 11 has been con­ stant for so many years: Lest we forget.

As many members know, the funds raised by poppies are used by the Legion in a benevolent way to assist widows and children of veterans who gave their lives during the wars. I'm particularly pleased to have the opportunity each year to attend the formal laying of wreaths at the ceno­ taph, Mr. Speaker, where I see citizens in the Lethbridge community in ever-increasing numbers, and I, on behalf of the Member for Lethbridge East and myself, have the opportunity to lay that wreath and see the number of young people who come out. Part of this prompted me to suggest this Bill to the House today.

When we see the symbolic bereaved mother laying the first wreath; in­ variably it's a mother who's lost at least two and some­ times more children from the Second World War. It's interesting to recall the number of years it's been since the conclusion of World War II. It's been a long time. When one considers that over 50 per cent of all Albertans are under 25, not that many were alive at that time. Speaking directly to the Bill now, Mr.

Speaker, my intent in moving this Bill was really twofold: to encourage Albertans to be more aware of Remembrance Day, and in particular to direct the attention of legislators to the next generation. Therefore, it is suggested in the Bill that an activity take place in the schools in Alberta between 11 and 11:05 a.m. on Remembrance Day amongst the 450,000 young people in our school system on. I should point out that in many communities, including my own, the Canadian Legion spends time each year in the schools pointing out the reasons we observe Remembrance Day. But I don't think it's done enough.

For that reason, I would like to see it formally done and made a require­ ment in the school system. Mr. Speaker, I understand that it's not mandatory at this time for schools in the province to close on Novem­ ber 11. I begin to wonder if it would be a good thing to force them to close. I'm somewhat persuaded, and later I would encourage an amendment in the Bill, if it ever gets to committee stage — as a matter of fact, I would move the amendment — that this Act not dictate that schools must close, but as is in The School Act now; that is, an option by the school boards of Alberta.

The county of Lethbridge presently has schools open on that day, which is extremely meaningful in terms of young people observ­ ing Remembrance Day,

whereas they're closed in the city of Lethbridge School District 51. So I anticipate that I would be making an amendment at that time. More important than that, Mr. Speaker, during the ceremonies between 10 and 11 on Remembrance Day morning as one marches from a church service to the cenotaph, it's particularly aggravating to see retail stores open. For that reason a

section of the Bill would indicate that it's necessary for those stores to close, with certain exceptions, and they're in the Bill: drug stores, certain small grocery stores, et cetera. In addition, far be it from me to want to remove the right of anybody to [partake] of alcoholic beverages, but I somehow don't think it's right that we should have bars and pubs open on Remembrance Day. For that reason there's provision in the Bill whereby they wouldn't be open. I don't want to be particularly associated with alcohol; however, I notice people looking at me in a somewhat jaundiced way. Mr.

Speaker, I would point out how very important it is to our veterans to be able to participate in the private clubs they belong to, such as the army and navy club, the Legion, Elks club, other private clubs where veterans tend to gather on special occasions such as Remembrance Day, to recount those events. Mr. Speaker, let me close on this note. I believe that

an Act of this kind is timely. I think it's pertinent to the citizens of Alberta. I think it's particularly pertinent to the next generation, and I certainly encourage all mem­ bers of the Assembly to support it. Thanks very much. MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to com­ mend the Member for Lethbridge West for introducing Bill 205. I can heartily assure the members of the Assem­ bly that the people of the Cardston constituency will support it too. We've done it in the past. We really feel that Remembrance Day is of very great importance to the whole community down there.

I don't think I need to underline the importance of Remembrance Day to the people of my age, Mr. Speaker. For my generation and the generation who preceded me, three or four events really had an impact on our lives: the two World Wars, the Depression in the '30s and, to some extent, the Korean War. So people of my age and my generation understand the importance of commemorating this day, which used to be Armistice Day. However, for my children and grandchildren, it's a different thing. They never really experienced this type of social upheaval, that basically the wars were.

They uprooted people from their family atsmosphere, mostly young people. It's of real importance that we pick one day a year — possibly two or three minutes, or two or three hours from that day — to remember what this did to our country. I'm not looking at the celebration of victory in the war; I'm just talking about the social upheaval we had. Mr. Speaker, I honestly think the immediate families of peo­ ple who served in active duty suffered more anxiety and more worry than the people actually involved.

So every­ one of that generation who experienced it can understand it, and I think we should give the younger generation a chance to understand it. I'd like to commend the province for supplying wreaths to the cities and towns of Alberta for this day. On November 11, I make a point to go to different towns in my constituency — to the Legions and cenotaphs — and participate in their ceremonies. There is real support for them in my area. I can give one example. Last year in the town of Raymond, 2,500 people, there was an hour-long ceremony in one of the churches.

Two hundred and fifty people were out where I spoke, and they had a very moving ceremony at the cenotaph afterwards. So I really feel it is an important day. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to underline that in this Bill we are designating one special day. We in this Legislature all know that we tend to take our holidays on a Monday and make a long weekend. In those cases, I think the impor­ tance of the holiday is somewhat lost in the shuffle. I am glad the member says, let's stick with the date of November 11, and whatever day it is will be the day we celebrate.

Every year in the elementary school in Cardston, they take an hour in the gym and have a very moving ceremony. They read the name of every resident in the Cardston area who was killed in action in the First and Second World Wars and have a ceremony that is quite

May 7, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 589 moving. So from my point of view, this Bill isn't neces­ sary for the Cardston constituency, because we're going to celebrate November 11 anyway. But for other commu­ nities, I think it's good to have a standard in which they can participate. Let's not forget November 11. Thank you for you attention. MR. LITTLE: Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to speak to Bill 205. Perception of Remembrance Day depends on one's age and one's thoughtfulness.

Impressions can range from getting a day off school or a day off work to standing on cold, dull gray, dreary days in front of the cenotaph, with thoughts of fallen comrades. This is the real meaning. To most Canadians, Remembrance Day is something they have grown up with. But now sentiments are more often preached than observed. It is important to reflect not only on our errors and omissions — I'm sure we do that everyday — but more important that we have the freedom to make what we want of the world. That freedom was dearly purchased.

My first thoughts of Remembrance Day go to my early days at Riverside school in the city of Calgary. Each Arbor Day the principal used to take the young children from grade 2 to about grade 5 down to the banks on the north side of the Bow River, both sides of the Langevin Bridge. On succeeding Arbor Days, we planted trees in memory of the veterans of Calgary who had been killed in the first war. At a later date, nameplates were attached to these trees indicating the men they were in memory of.

Not only have the nameplates disappeared, but the city of Calgary now plans to remove those trees for a road- widening project. So don't be surprised, hon. members, if I spread myself in front of the bulldozer. [interjection] My next thought of Remembrance Day, Mr. Speaker, is attending Crescent Heights high school in the years just before the war broke out. There was good indication a war was coming, and the young men were prepared for it. Most young men who I attended class with enlisted within the first year and served with distinction in almost every theatre of war on earth.

I also remember that my good friend Willie McKnight left school, went to England on a cattle boat in 1937, and joined the RAF. When the war broke out, Willie Mc­ Knight was a qualified flying officer. He flew in Douglas Bader's squadron and was shot down over France in 1942. I'm happy to report that I had a great deal to do with naming McKnight Boulevard in memory of Willie McKnight. But I'm sorry to say that when I visit the schools on Remembrance Day and ask students who McKnight Boulevard is named in memory of, they don't know. They know many American heroes; they don't know our own.

It's a disappointment to me. About two years ago, I remember attending the annual conference or convention of the War Amputations of Canada. This organization is very unique. You have to have a particular qualification to get in: you must have lost a limb in a theatre of war. Among that group, I found some of the most cheerful, most dedicated Cana­ dians I have ever met. Some had lost both legs, some had lost both arms, some had multiple amputations, and many are hospitalized for life. Mr. Speaker, if you'd let me quote Charles Dickens, a

section from The Old Curiosity Shop: The memory of those who lie below passes away so soon. At first they tend them, morning, noon, and night; they soon begin to come less frequently; from once a day, to once a week; from once a week to once a month; then at long and uncertain [last] . . . not at all. Mr. Speaker, ultimately all veterans will lie below. November 11 is a day to challenge the truth of Dickens' words and ensure that the memory of those who served will live forever. MRS. CRIPPS: Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to support the Bill.

The Holidays Act of 1970 states: Throughout Canada in each and every year, the 11th day of November, being the day of the year in 1918 on which the Great War was triumphantly concluded by an armistice . . . [shall be] a holiday, and shall be kept and observed as such under the name of "Re­ membrance Day". The purpose is clearly stated in the Act. It's been brought to my attention by the Royal Cana­ dian Legion in my constituency that some groups are officially taking the November 11 Remembrance Day ho­ liday on alternate dates, during the summer or at Christ­ mas.

This deferment or advancement of the November 11 day has caused consternation among the veterans and, I think, well it might. While realizing that essential work must be done, November 11 is designated as Remem­ brance Day by that Act, and not just another holiday. The number of people attending Remembrance Day service is declining. I believe this is an indication that we are taking our freedom for granted. As the devastations of war recede and the memory of those who made the supreme sacrifice fades, we are liable to become compla­ cent.

We must be thankful that today's generation has not been subjected to the ravages of war. It is important to remember that that fight was for freedom, and that we must be constantly vigilant to protect that freedom won at such sacrifice. Not only is it important that we pay tribute to the soldiers of all wars, but that we consider the causes of war, the ravages of war, and the necessity to prevent future wars. Mr. Speaker, this Bill is important, lest we forget. MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon.

Member for Lethbridge West for -bringing this Bill forward, not only because of the content of the Bill but because I know he has very personal feelings and memo­ ries of what the Bill represents. The hon. Member for Lethbridge West served our country in the armed forces from 1949 to 1960 in Korea, Germany, and Canada. So he has a great appreciation for what the armed forces are and what Remembrance Day really should mean. Mr. Speaker, whenever a person enters the Legislature Building, one of the things he or she sees in the front of the building are the large bronze plaques.

Those plaques with the names on them are there to commemorate those who gave their lives so that we could all be free. Plaques are really great, but they only have meaning if people see them, and understand and appreciate what they repre­ sent. Throughout my constituency, as well the constitu­ ency of every other member in the House, there is a cenotaph or monument. Some are large and some small, but all represent a public reminder of those to whom we owe such a great debt. When a loved one dies, we grieve but life really goes on.

It's always amazed me how quickly we get over our memories, and the hurt and the loss we feel. Our youth today never really felt the horrors of war or of losing a loved one, and what the war really meant. They don't have an appreciation for what Remembrance Day really is. When I think back, I remember when the second war was over. I was standing on the street in Claresholm, and

590 ALBERTA HANSARD May 7, 1981 two Mitchell bombers came over at treetop level and dropped leaflets saying the war was over. Those days we had no television of course; and in the radios we did have, the batteries were normally dead. So that was one way of letting people know the war was really over. I've often thought about that and regretted I didn't keep one of those leaflets. I'd like to see one again, because it made such an impression on me; the horns were tooting, and there was great joy that the war was over.

When I stand at a cenotaph on Remembrance Day, I always remember that day I stood on that street in Claresholm when the war was over. A common saying today, Mr. Speaker, is that those who don't know their history are condemned to repeat it. As people, we need to do more than remember the great sacrifices made by so many people so that we could live in freedom; we have to honor them, and instil in our children that appreciation of Remembrance Day and what it really means. Mr.

Speaker, our province recognizes the need to understand, and appreciate our history: there is a new book, The Albertans; the naming of the scholarships of the Heritage Scholarship Fund and the individuals who contribute to our province and our country. Three of those scholarships honor people who lived in the McLeod constituency, and many individuals in the McLeod con­ stituency made the ultimate sacrifice. They gave their lives so that we could be free.

I certainly support the Bill now before us, and I ask other members of this Assembly: do you really know a better way that we could acknowledge and remember the sacrifice made by those who came before us? Thank you. MR. MUSGREAVE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make some comments on why I support Bill 205, The Remembrance Day Act. I think it's unfortunate that Canada seems to do its best at working together mainly when we're attacked by foreigners. With the exception of Expo in 1967, the single most strong event that brought us together was World War I, World War II, or the Korean war.

Unfor­ tunately, I think too many of our young people and many of my generation and the one coming behind me don't understand the sacrifice that particularly the Canadians made in the First World War. I'd like to deal with that war in a little more detail than we've heard so far today, when our country had less than 8 million people. In August 1914 the first Canadian expeditionary force was committed to Britain. By September of that year, 30,000 men were at Valcartier, Quebec. A single convoy reached Plymouth, England, in October 1914.

The 1st Canadian Division crossed the English Channel in Fe­ bruary 1915, and the first large-scale action in the Second Battle of Ypres was on April 22, 1915.

The Germans launched their first gas attack and Sir John French, commander-in-chief of the British Expeditionary Force, of which the Canadian Corps was a part, wrote: In spite of the danger to which they were exposed the Canadians held their ground with a magnificent dis­ play of tenacity and courage; and it is not too much to say that the bearing and conduct of these splendid troops averted a disaster which might have been attended with the most serious consequences. Less than two weeks after this, the division was re­ lieved, having suffered 5,700 battle casualties.

Other divi­ sions followed from Canada, and the casualties continued to mount. April 4, 1915, a second division was engaged and an unsuccessful struggle in the mud of St. Eloi, where they suffered 2,000 casualties. There followed the 3rd Division overseas in 1915, and by the beginning of 1916 the Canadian army had three divisions in the field. Battles at Sanctuary Wood, Mount Sorrel, and the Battle of the Somme, which saw the 4th Division added in August 1916, continued. Casualties were heavy on both sides, but the deadlock remained unbroken.

In the fall of 1917 the Canadian Corps was involved in new planning to take Vimy Ridge, and in April the four Canadian units attacked on a front four miles long. In the next five days the war would cost Canada over 11,000 casualties. Under a new commander, Sir Arthur Currie, the Canadian Corps was involved in several operations culminating in the Third Battle of Ypres. It was important to clear the Flanders coast, so that they could eliminate the German submarine bases which were attacking Atlantic convoys. Canadians were brought in under terrible conditions.

The entire countryside was a sea of mud, with hardly any means of transportation. Passchendaele Ridge, which commanded the area, had to be captured. After suffering 16,000 casualties, the Canadian army had acquired 2 square miles of ground. As the war moved into 1918, casualties grew. In the spring offensive the battle of Amiens started, with the Canadians moving 12 miles in four days, and the casual­ ties mounted to 9,000. As the war continued into the fall, casualties mounted, so that between August 22 and Octo­ ber 11, Canadian casualties amounted to 30,000. As the hon.

Member for Lethbridge West mentioned earlier, by the end of the war 620,000 people were in the Expedi­ tionary Force; 425,000 went overseas, and 61,000 were killed. The war was very important, though, in ridding us as Canadians of our colonial status. It fostered a truly national spirit, resulting in independent status as a dominion by virtue of the Statute of Westminster in 1931. Now, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to give some brief high­ lights of the Second World War. It saw over a million citizens in uniform; 49,000 of these were women.

The casualties amounted to 23,000 for the army, 17,000 for the air force, and 2,000 for the navy. Our population in 1939 was [11,300,000]. Again though, our economy was strengthened by the war, at great personal sacrifice to many people and many families. But to put it in perspec­ tive, if we went to war today under the same kinds of conditions as existed in 1914, we would see 200,000 Canadians killed; we would see over 2,200,000 people in uniform. It's too horrendous to even anticipate the people who would be injured or die if we got into a nuclear war. Mr.

Speaker, from my own experience as a schoolboy, we stood silently at our desks for two minutes. We knew; we had a short discussion on what a terrible thing war was. We were aware of why there was a Canadian Legion, and why there was an Army, Navy, & Air Force Veterans' association. Many of my generation remember the lapel badges worn by the veterans of the First World War. I think this is a very important part of our history that should be commemorated, and this is why I support the Bill of the hon. member.

If it hadn't been for the sacrifice of those people in 1914 and again in 1939, we probably would be living in a totalitarian state as unfor­ tunately the people of East Germany are living in today. MR. STROMBERG: Mr. Speaker, I believe it was about 3,000 years ago that an Egyptian king had inscribed on the temple wall the following quotation: In times of peace, sons bury their fathers. In times of war, fathers bury their sons.

May 7, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 591| After 3,000 years, that is very true today. You can't help but think, will we ever learn? Mr. Speaker, several years ago I had the opportunity to be in Ottawa on November 11, to see first-hand the ceremonies at the national ceno­ taph and the laying of wreaths by the republic of West Germany, Japan, and all the major nations of the world. Mr. Speaker, I could not help but question that our allies of a short 32 years ago are today our enemies. Our troops fought in Korea against China. Russia was our major ally; today it is our major threat.

Japan is probably our best trading partner and the best friend we have — all in less than a generation. And you wonder, will we ever learn? But I have to commend the Member for Lethbridge West for introduction of this Bill. I have a constituent who served alongside the Member for Lethbridge West in Korea in the Royal Horse Artillery. He speaks very highly of the comradeship he had with him. He also questioned the Canadian army. At that time they were alongside the American army.

In that very mountainous country of South Korea, the American army used good Missouri mules to pack tons of ammunition up the sides of the mountains. But my constituent claimed that the Canadian army used him and the Member for Lethbridge West to pack this ammunition up these mountains. Mr. Speaker, the Member for Cardston indicated the social upheaval. It certainly was a social upheaval, but it pulled Canada together. Everyone was involved: the vic­ tory gardens, the school children saving their pennies for war bonds. At no time was this country ever that close together.

Nine years ago I introduced to this Legislature a pri­ vate member's Bill similar in intent. It was named The Rededication Act. Basically the aim of that Bill was to take the profit out of Armistice Day. It was rather discouraging, as other members have indicated, that cer­ tain business people remain open on a federal statutory holiday. At that time right here on Jasper Avenue, major department stores with displays in their windows of the contribution our Canadian forces had m