November 24, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1263 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Monday, November 24, 1975 2:30 p .m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: PRESENTING PETITIONS MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a petition from the Calgary tenants committee, a petition which calls upon the government to establish a rent control board. The petition has a p p r o x i m a t e l y 12,000 signatures attached to it, and I have at the present time no cause to question their sincerity. MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition for a private bill, being

An Act to Amend The Calgary C o n v e n t i o n Centre Authority Act. head: NOTICES OF MOTIONS MR . HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I wish to give notice of introduction of a bill tomorrow. It will be The Election Amendment Act, 1975. head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 71 The Alberta Labour Amendment Act, 1975 MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill No. 71, The Alberta Labour Amendment Act, 1975. Mr.

Speaker, there will be four or five points of interest and importance in Bill 71 relating to certain functions of the Board of Industrial Relations relating to the manner in which evidence is called, and clarifying the jurisdiction the board has to bring flexibility to hours of work and to the important area of flex-time. As well, the bill will provide for the way in which the Board of Industrial R e l a t i o n s will be able to prescribe the rules in our province for maternity leave. That would be the first occasion upon which that has been introduced in legislation in Alberta.

Other amendments of important principle include the reinforcing of the rights of persons to conduct their activities p u r s u a n t to trade union activities which they may be involved in from time to time without interference, and finally the h a n d l i n g of disputes in certain cases where emergencies are deemed to exist. [Leave granted; Bill 71 introduced and read a first time] MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I ask for u n a n i m o u s leave of the Assembly to allow the Minister of Social Services and Community Health to introduce a bill, being The Social Development Amendment Act, 1975, notwithstanding the lack of a day's notice. MR. SPEAKER: May the hon. Government House Leader have the requested leave? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. Bill 78 The Social Development Amendment Act, 1975 (No. 2) MISS HUNLEY: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill No. 78, The Social Development Amendment Act, 1975 (No. 2). The purpose of the bill, Mr.

Speaker, flows from federal legislation and relates to family allowance paid in Alberta. It's a requirement that our Legislature approve when the House is in session the rates of family allowance paid to our citizens of Alberta, consequently the request to p r e s e n t this bill. [Leave granted; Bill 78 introduced and read a first time] head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS MR . LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce to you, and through you to the members of the Legislative Assembly, some distinguished visitors from the north who are in your gallery today.

As all members are aware, the future activity and future growth and development of the Northwest Territories will be very much intertwined with the future of the Province of Alberta. We have in the Speaker's gallery today I'm pleased, I'm sure, to welcome him to this Assembly — the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories, together with three council members, Mr. Lyall from Cambridge Bay, Mr. Ernerk from Keewatin, and Mr. Steen from Tuktoyaktuk. Perhaps they would stand and join with Commissioner Hodgson, and we would like to welcome them to the Legislative Assembly of Alberta.

1264 ALBERTA HANSARD November 24, 1975 MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to introduce to you, and through you to the members of the Assembly, 45 Grades 10 and 11 students from the T.D. Baker school in my constituency. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Paul Smith. They are seated in the members gallery. I would ask that they stand, to be recognized by you and the members of the Assembly. head: MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Department of Energy and Natural Resources MR. GETTY: Mr.

Speaker, I thought members of the Legislature would be interested in an early assessment of the reaction of the people of Alberta to the offering of Alberta Energy Company shares on a priority basis for the last two weeks. I am pleased to report, although final figures are still being compiled, that Albertans have s u b s c r i b e d for more than $70 million worth. . . [ applause ] . . . $70 million worth of Alberta Energy Company shares. This strong expression of confidence by the people of Alberta in the Alberta Energy Company and in our free enterprise system is extremely significant.

When one considers the offering was conducted during a national postal strike, was restricted to Albertans or Alberta-owned corporations, competed with a Canada Savings Bond drive, followed a Canadian Development Corporation issue, was made during a relatively d e p r e s s e d stock market in a period of uncertainty due to anti-inflation controls; Mr. Speaker, despite all these factors, this share issue is now considered to be the most successful large equity offering in Canadian history.

To give an additional perspective to this issue: it would be equivalent to selling $1 billion worth of shares throughout Canada. It should be remembered, Mr. Speaker, that Albertans indicated this solid support for the Alberta Energy Company with the full knowledge that the shares represented an opportunity for not just the profits, but also the risks inherent in resource development in our province.

It is also important to note that the Alberta Energy Company will have more Canadian shareholders than almost any other Canadian c o r p o r a t i o n , and we are particularly pleased that, as of now, they are all Albertans. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that due to the extremely heavy flow of applications received during the closing days of the offering, final figures will not be available for a few more days, at which time the Alberta Energy Company will decide how many shares, if any, will be available for Canada-wide distribution. Mr.

Speaker, in 1971 our government made a commitment as part of our original mandate to provide a greater opportunity for investment by Albertans in resource development in our province. The success of the Alberta Energy Company concept clearly fulfils that commitment. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, in responding to the announcement by the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, we on this side of the House welcome the success the Alberta Energy Company has had.

We commend the Alberta Energy Company on this particular venture, and, as difficult as it may be for us on some occasions, we commend the g o v e r n m e n t for the fact that the Alberta Energy Company, in its initial effort, has been this successful. This may be somewhat untraditional as far as we on this side of the House are concerned, especially as far as the Alberta Energy Company is concerned, but we commend the government for at least moving in the direction it has.

Certainly, although we have had differences of opinion with the government on the accountability aspect of the Energy Company, nevertheless, I'm sure that's an ongoing question as far as the Assembly is concerned. I think the real test in how successful we will be in Albertans continuing to have the entire piece of the action, as far as the Energy Company is concerned, will be in perhaps 5 years, or 10 years, when we can look down the road.

Hopefully, we'll still have a tremendous number of Albertans who in fact are shareholders, and we won't be in a situation where there may be 50 or 75 Alberta or Canadian companies which have very sizable pieces of the Alberta Energy Company. In 5 to 10 years down the road, were it to be my lot still to be in the Assembly, I would be even louder in my applause of the government, or my c o n g r a t u l a t i o n s of the government, if in fact many, many Albertans still have a piece of the action. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Oil Exports Cutback MR. CLARK: Now, Mr. Speaker, to get back to my more accustomed role.

I'd like to ask the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources what type of c o n s u l t a t i o n there was between the Government of Alberta and the federal government, prior to the National Energy Board's announcement with regard to a one-third reduction in crude oil exports from Canada to the United States. MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I believe the c o n s u l t a t i o n took three different methods. It occurred through officials of our D e partment of Energy and Natural Resources with the federal Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.

The new Minister of Energy for the federal government made a trip to Alberta and, on that occasion, consulted with our government regarding the upcoming

November 24, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1265 National Energy Board report. Also, the National Energy Board discussed with the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board the implications of the report and some of the recommendations it would be making in that report. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Is the minister able to indicate to the Assembly the effect this change by the National Energy Board will have on the Province of Alberta, from the standpoint of our anticipated revenues? Is the g o v e r n m e n t in a position yet to give us some indication there? MR. GETTY: Mr.

Speaker, it's a little early to give the full implications. I would say, though, that on an early appraisal, just for the information of the hon. Leader of the Opposition, at present Alberta's production is about 75 per cent of productive capacity.

Our assessment of the restrictions on exports to the United States, and an increase of additional sales through the Montreal pipeline being c o n s t r u c t e d , is that the amount of Alberta production capacity that might be shut-in would perhaps rise from its present 25 per cent to as high as 27 or 28 per cent, would then decline to about what it is right now, then decline to even less productive c a p a c i t y shut-in. It's difficult to talk about revenues that might be passed up, because, in fact, they really are a deferral of revenues.

If the oil happens to be sold in the future, at additional increased prices, it's quite possible that in the long term — and this is very difficult to gauge now — we will, in fact, get more for our oil than we would have with no change in the exports. I just wanted to give an early appraisal to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, but, as he understands, much of this will become clearer in the future. Oil Pipeline Construction MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a further s u p p l e m e n t a r y question to the minister, and it flows from his last answer.

Is the minister in a position to give us some indication whether the pipeline to Montreal is on schedule, and is it still anticipated that Alberta crude would eventually start to flow to Montreal in the fall of next year, as many have hoped for a number of years? MR. GETTY: We can only go, Mr. Speaker, by the information being passed on to us by the federal government. It says it still hopes to meet the construction completion date of late next year.

However, I think it wouldn't be particularly wise for us to count on that construction deadline, because, as I understand from discussing this matter from time to time with r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of Interprovincial Pipe Line, they are running into some problems regarding land claims because of the very small acreage holdings in that part of Canada the pipeline will be crossing. Remuneration for MLAs MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to direct my second question to the Government House Leader and ask if it's the intention of the government to introduce the legislation to the House prior to the short recess.

The legislation I refer to deals with the question of remuneration for Members of the Legislative Assembly, so that MLAs would have an opportunity to get some feedback from the public during the five or six days the House will not be in session. MR. HYNDMAN: No, Mr. Speaker. I'd a n ticipate that legislation would be coming in on, or shortly after, the recess. Certainly, there will be time for hon. members to receive information and reaction from the public, in any event. Environment Reports MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my question to the hon.

Minister of Environment and ask whether the government has received a copy of a report by Aquatic Environments Limited, concerning potential environmental damage of the road to the No. 9 mine adjacent to McIntyre Porcupine's operation in Grande Cache. MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of that report is that it was done for McIntyre Mines by that private consulting firm, but my department does have copies of it which it is now assessing. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a further s u p p l e m e n t a r y q u e s t i o n to the hon. minister.

Can he advise the Assembly whether the government has undertaken any investigation of the concerns outlined in the report? MR. RUSSELL: Well again, Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that the report was only received within the last two or three weeks by the company and subsequently made a v a i l a b l e to the department. So it's too early to be able to answer that question. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a further s u p p l e m e n t a r y q u e s t i o n .

Can the minister tell the House whether the Aquatic report is similar in its conclusions to a deficiency report prepared by the Energy Resources Conservation Board in February 1973? MR. RUSSELL: No, I'm not able to answer that question without making a comparison of the two reports myself, Mr. Speaker. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a further s u p p l e m e n t a r y q u e s t i o n to the hon. minister. Can the minister outline to the House what steps have been taken subsequent to the receiving of the Energy Resources Conservation Board deficiency report on the road?

What steps have been taken by the department to deal with the concerns expressed in that report?

1266 ALBERTA HANSARD November 24, 1975 MR. RUSSELL: No, I'd have to take that question under advisement and report back, Mr. Speaker. Coal Exploration Report MR. NOTLEY: One final supplementary q u e s t i o n , Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister. Can he tell the House when he expects to table the ECA report on coal exploration in the east slopes? MR. RUSSELL: I assume, Mr. Speaker, that when they finish writing it, I would be able to make it available to the members of the House. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question for clarification.

Is the m i n i s t e r in a position to advise us whether or not this report will be tabled during the fall session? MR. RUSSELL: No, I can't give that advice, Mr. Speaker. The last time I spoke with Dr. Trost, they were only on the first preliminary draft of the report. It's my understanding they expect to have to rewrite it several times before the final copy would be ready. Mackenzie Highway MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Transportation. Will the provincial guidelines on pricing i n t e r f e r e with the government's priority on Highway 35, the Mackenzie highway? DR.

HORNER: I would hope not, Mr. Speaker, but that will depend upon the budget d i s c u s s i o n s we have for next year. MR. TAYLOR: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the federal government giving any assistance to the province in the modernizing of Highway 35 from High Level north? DR. HORNER: Not specifically, Mr. Speaker. Our agreement with the federal government under the northern roads program is p r i m a r i l y on the road north of Slave Lake and other road projects in the north. But we attach a very high priority to paving the Mackenzie as soon as possible. Santa Claus Letters MR. STROMBERG: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the hon. the Premier. Because of the mail strike, would the Premier use his influence in seeing that the thousands of urgent letters from young Albertans addressed to Santa Claus, North Pole, are delivered by one means or another? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, in the course of my discussions with the Commissioner this afternoon, I'll bring it to his attention and see if he can help us. Public Lands Division MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. Minister of Energy and Natural Resources.

Could the minister i n d i c a t e what considerations have been given to the suggestion made during the spring session of the Legislature regarding c e r t a i n areas of the public lands management division of the Department of Energy and Natural Resources being transferred to the Department of Agriculture? MR. GETTY: Well, Mr. Speaker, that subject has been worked on by officials of the Department of Energy and Natural Resources, the Department of Agriculture, the D e partment of Environment, and from time to time some officials of other departments also. It has also been studied by a ministerial committee.

I hope that before too long, Mr. Speaker, we will be able to present the results of those studies and that work in a way which will be satisfactory for the most efficient handling of the public lands of the province. Crime Prevention MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister responsible for Calgary affairs. A recent announcement from C a l g a r y showed that the crime rate had increased 13 per cent. My question to the minister is: is he considering, in discussions with local authorities of Calgary, some new programs in this area in the coming year? MR. McCRAE: Mr.

Speaker, that matter is under jurisdiction of the Solicitor General and the Attorney General. I think the Solicitor General has indicated we are having discussions with municipal r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s in Calgary, in conjunction with them in assessing their budgetary needs in this field in the next year. No-Fault Auto Insurance MR. KUSHNER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct this question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I understand the Alberta automobile insurance board has c o n d u c t e d a study on no-default automobile insurance.

Can the minister inform the House if that study has been completed? Is he, or will he be, in a position to make any recommendation to this fall session? MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, the Alberta a u t o m o b i l e insurance board is studying no-fault insurance. As the report has not been received by my office, I doubt very much

November 24, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1267 that any recommendations would be made to this fall session. Telephone Directory Listings MR. LITTLE: Mr. Speaker, I would address this question to the hon. Minister of Utilities and Telephones. A recent newspaper notice indicated that any change in listings in the telephone directory must be recorded by November 21. Could the minister inform the House when this particular directory will be printed and/or distributed? DR. WARRACK: Not without checking, Mr. Speaker. But I'd certainly be pleased to do that and inform the hon. member. MR. LITTLE: Supplementary to the minister.

Would this indicate that no changes or additions would be accepted after November 21 for this particular directory, which, I anticipate, would be the 1976 directory? DR. WARRACK: Mr. Speaker, certainly that would normally be the case. I would c e r t a i n l y be pleased to check whether under the present circumstance of postal strikes, sufficient difficulty might be created that there might need to be some adjustment. Price Monitoring DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Consumer and C o r p o r a t e Affairs. I'd like to know, Mr.

Speaker, if he can indicate to us, in light of the fact that I've personally received some complaints about the quite large increases in grocery prices, rent, and insurance, what process the department has had in the last year to monitor prices of different commodities in the province. MR. HARLE: Well, Mr. Speaker, the monitoring process that goes on continually, with the help of some officials in the D e p a r t m e n t of Agriculture, is such that certain specific items are checked as the need arises.

Now, I would think the hon. m e m b e r might wait until anti-inflationary l e g i s l a t i o n is introduced in this Assembly. Then further monitoring may well be required. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, my question to the hon. minister was, what process is in place now? I know the former minister had people going throughout the province m o n i t o r i n g prices in grocery stores. I would like to know: is that process still in place? Maybe the minister can answer the second portion of that question, Mr. Speaker.

Secondly, can the minister indicate to us if, after the federal price announcement was brought in on Thanksgiving weekend, there is any truth to what some people were saying, that some of the stores had changed their prices overnight. Was there any monitoring which indicated that had actually happened? MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, on the second part of the question, I did have my officials check into prices in grocery stores i m m e d i a t e l y following the Prime Minister's a n n o u n c e m e n t . So far I have not had a report from them.

The monitoring that was done, as I said, related to specific items as the need arose. That process is still continuing with the help of officials in the Department of Agriculture. DR. BUCK: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In light of the fact the announcement by the federal department was made six weeks ago, when can the hon. minister indicate to us if there were any increases when the price freeze was announced? MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, as I have not had a report indicating any urgency, I would assume it may not have been as serious as was first brought to my attention. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question. In light of the delay in receiving the report, be it good or ill, is the government considering, as part of its bill to be introduced in the House, a serious reassessment of the total monitoring p r o c e d u r e used by the Province of Alberta? Will that be part of the bill? MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should wait until the bill is presented. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. m i n i s t e r . Could he indicate if there will be any facilities in the bill so that prices could be rolled back? MR. HARLE: Mr.

Speaker, the federal a n t i - i n f l a t i o n a r y policy, as stated by the f e d e r a l government, did not indicate in it any roll-back provisions. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a further s u p p l e m e n t a r y question. Did the government at any time give any consideration to a t e m p o r a r y price freeze until such time as the federal price control procedures are f o r m a l l y established and reviewed by this government? MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure a number of possibilities were canvassed. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a further s u p p l e m e n t a r y q u e s t i o n .

Did the government give specific consideration to a temporary price freeze of 60 or 90 days? MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, I can only reply as I did to the last question. Antifreeze DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Last

1268 ALBERTA HANSARD November 24, 1975 year there were retail sales in Alberta of a very inflammable and potentially d a n g e r o u s product called ethanol ethylene g l y c o l antifreeze. I wonder if the minister is aware of any sales of this product this year? MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, I am not. Grey Cup Game DR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. Minister of Government Services and Culture. In view of the crushing victory of the Edmonton Eskimos over the Montreal Alouettes yesterday, Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the minister is considering sending a congratulatory note from the Legislative Assembly to each member of the Edmonton Eskimos and a letter of sympathy to the Prime Minister. DR. BUCK: And a cheque. MR. SCHMID: Mr. Speaker, this is now under the jurisdiction of the hon. Minister of Recreation, Parks and Wildlife. MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, if I might respond. We've got the letters partly drafted now. We are having a little t r o u b l e with the letter for Montreal. Speed Limit Reduction DR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker, one more q u e s t i o n on a more serious tone, to the hon. Solicitor General.

In view of the obvious lowerinq of morbidity or mortality as a result of lower speed limits on the h i g h w a y , is the minister considering lowering the speed limits of autos on Alberta highways? MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, the lowering of speed limits in selective areas considered more dangerous than others is being c o n t e m p l a t e d . As for an overall reduction, we intend to endeavor to enforce existing speed limits in a better manner than h e r e t o f o r e . The evidence is not entirely in on the success of lowering speed limits in the United States.

The contention was that lowering speed limits by 10 miles an hour reduced the accident rate and the consumption of fuel. On second thought, some people are now beginning to believe that the apparent reduction was caused by less exposure, because of less availability of high-priced gasoline. So far as this province is concerned, one must remember that we're landlocked. We depend a great deal on truck traffic to the United States, and there are great distances between our cities.

If we e n f o r c e the existing speed limit better, and perhaps eliminate the unwritten tolerance of up to 5 miles an hour over existing speed limits, we will have accomplished quite a bit. DR. PAPROSKI: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, if I may, to the Minister of Social Services and Community Health. In view of the fact that lowering speed limits decreases morbidity and mortality as a result of auto accidents, is the minister advocating lower speed limits on Alberta highways? MISS HUNLEY: Mr. Speaker, that all depends to whom one turns for the facts. The hon. member refers to it as being a fact.

I consider it an opinion. There are d i f f e r e n t opinions upon that matter. DR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. In view of the energy saving as a result of lowering speed limits for autos on Alberta highways, is the minister a d v o c a t i n g lower speed limits? MR. GETTY: Not at this time, Mr. Speaker. DR. PAPROSKI: One final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, if I may. MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. member is c o n d u c t i n g a poll, may I suggest that, in view of the mail strike, he might undertake a telephone poll. DR.

PAPROSKI: May I complete the supplementary, Mr. Speaker, as a final? Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of C o n s u m e r and Corporate Affairs. In view of the high cost of auto insurance, and in view of the fact that lower speed limits decrease the amount of damage to a u t o m o b i l e s , will he consider lowering speed limits on Alberta highways? MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the representations being made. Grey Cup Game (continued) MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary to the hon. member's first question. In the interests of bilingualism, would the hon.

Premier send a message of condolence to the Montreal Alouettes in French? MR. LOUGHEED: I've expressed the condolence. Speed Limit Reduction (continued) MR. NOTLEY: I wonder if I could put a supplementary question to the hon. Deputy Premier in charge of transportation, and ask him to advise the House whether the government at this time is officially r e q u e s t i n g and compiling evidence from other jurisdictions where speed limits have been lowered. If, in fact, that kind of a s sessment is being made, will it be tabled in the Legislature? DR. HORNER: The brief answer, Mr. Speaker, is, yes.

November 24, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1269 MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, just one final supplementary question then, if I may. Can the minister give the Legislature some idea as to when he'll be in a position to table this information in the House? DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, as soon as it's all compiled and we've had an opportunity to deal with it in the context of the MacKenzie report, and the variety of d e p a r t m e n t s involved, all that documentation will be made available to the public. Postal Strike MR. KIDD: Mr. Speaker, my question is probably best directed to the hon. P r e m i e r .

Can he give the Assembly any a s s e s s m e n t at this time of the effect the c o n t i n u i n g p o s t a l strike may be having on the economy of Alberta? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I think that's extremely difficult to evaluate. Certainly it's apparent that in the initiative of the people of this province, many have been able to find alternate ways of communication. I think, too, governments at all levels have been able to respond in ways to overcome the difficulty citizens have had.

Certainly the services developed by the provincial government on an alternate basis, hopefully temporary, have to a degree alleviated any serious problems. I think we have to be conscious, though, of small business people, and the nature of their dependency upon such things as c o m m u n i c a t i o n by the mails. It's very d i f f i c u l t to assess, but it's certainly one we would be watching very much over the course of the next weeks or months, if it becomes even more protracted, in evaluating whether there is some further alternate action we should take as a provincial government.

Grey Cup Game (continued) MR. ZANDER: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Solicitor General. Was the minister present at yesterday's Grey Cup game? If so, could he relate to us the latest on the female streaker, and what happened to her after the game? DR. WARRACK: She got cold. MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, I watched it on television. The color on my television isn't very good, but she didn't look blue. Oil Producers MR. PLANCHE: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy.

In view of serious problems anticipated by smaller oil producers because of the reduced cash flow through 1976 until that Sarnia-Montreal line is complete, is the government c o n t e m p l a t i n g some deferment of royalty or other short-term relief for these small producers? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, as I originally said in replying to a question by the Leader of the Opposition with regard to this subject, it's difficult for us to determine whether there will, in fact, be any serious problems of cash flow to p r o d u c e r s .

It may well be that as our p r oduction capacity is reduced slightly — and as I pointed out, it will be very slightly that capacity will be taken out of the very prolific fields and will not be taken out of the lower reserve producing fields. To a great extent, the high capacity producing fields are held by major companies. Petrochemical Development MR. COOKSON: I have a question, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. Could he advise as to the final stage of dotting the i's and crossing the t's on Alberta Gas Ethylene, the petrochemical complex for the Joffre-Haynes area?

We're interested in the assessment. MR. GETTY: I can appreciate, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's interest in such an exciting development for Alberta. However, the matter of petrochemical development is the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister of Business Development and T o u r i s m , and I refer the question to him. MR. DOWLING: Mr. Speaker, I didn't hear the question properly. I wonder if it could be repeated. MR. COOKSON: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to know at what stage the negotiations are with regard to the establishment of Alberta Gas Ethylene, the major petrochemical c o m p l e x in the Joffre-Haynes area close to Red Deer. MR. DOWLING: Thanks very much. Mr. Speaker, yes, the matter is before the Energy Resources Conservation Board. A report will eventually come from it to a cabinet committee, then to cabinet for a decision on its proceeding. However, we have made our suggestions to the companies involved that Joffre would be a likely area for the original ethylene plant to proceed in. Lamb Industry MR. TAYLOR: Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Agriculture. Has the provincial government made any representations to the federal government regarding revision of the excise tax on lambs from Australia and New Zealand, in order to protect our lamb industry? MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I don't believe we have, directly. In a general way, we've made representations to the Government of Canada with regard to a variety of things

1270 ALBERTA HANSARD November 24, 1975 that pertain to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Nursing Home Fees MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this question to the hon. Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care and ask whether it's true that rates for s e m i - p r i v a t e accommodation in provincial nursing homes will increase from $3 to $6 a day, as of January 1, 1976. MR. MINIELY: Mr.

Speaker, the particular example the hon. member indicates has not been brought to my attention, and I think perhaps the hon. member could clarify for me whether he is talking about — the hon. member must appreciate that in the nursing home field we have both publicly operated district boards and privately operated nursing homes. The rates are subject to the approval of the Hospital Services Commission. I think we indicated earlier the a d j u s t m e n t in the general rate from $3 to $4, which the hon. member asked a question about last week, but the specific one the hon. member is describing, Mr.

Speaker, I'm not aware of. I could check it out, and report back on the situation. Telephone Bill Payments MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Utilities and Telephones and ask what the policy is of Alberta Government Telephones during the course of the mail strike for those people who have, in fact, paid their telephone bills and AGT hasn't received the money. I ask the question because people in the Cremona area received telephone calls F r i d a y from AGT's Calgary office saying that, if their bills weren't paid by today, they would be cut off. DR. WARRACK: Mr.

Speaker, I think this area, like many others, will require some considerable sorting out once the postal strike finally ends. Certainly, in the instances where people have in all good faith paid their bills and mailed them to AGT, I think there ought to be the a p p r o p r i a t e kind of adjustment involved. With respect to the Cremona situation the hon. member brings forward, I would be pleased to look into that matter to see where we do stand, because we'd certainly try to have as flexible an attitude as possible. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

In light of the minister's a n s w e r , would he then be prepared to discuss with the general manager of Alberta G o v e r n m e n t Telephones the question of people who do in fact maintain that their cheques are in the mail? I had a number of people get hold of me over the weekend with regard to that one particular area. I hope it isn't just in my riding, Mr. Minister. DR. WARRACK: I expect it's not, Mr. Speaker, and I will indeed discuss this matter with the general manager. MR. CLARK: Then, Mr. Speaker, would the minister report back to the House? DR. WARRACK: I'd be pleased to do that, too. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, just a supplementary question. Has the minister received any report at all of an increased rate in disconnections during the last five weeks? DR. WARRACK: Mr. Speaker, the answer is, no. Tax Payments DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of Municipal A f f a i r s . I believe that in many of the IDs and so on throughout the province the taxes come due November 30, without penalty. Could the hon. minister check to find out if that date will be extended because of the problem of the mail strike? MR. JOHNSTON: I can advise the House, Mr. Speaker, that the date has been extended.

I haven't got the exact day. I think it's 30 days. Crime Prevention (continued) MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Solicitor General, and a followup to the question to the minister for Calgary affairs. I would like to ask the minister what discussions he has had with the Calgary authorities with regard to new moneys or new programs for the city of Calgary, with regard to its increased crime rate. MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, we have had m e e t i n g s with the Calgary police commission. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to the minister.

What new approach or new programs are proposed with the city at the present time? MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, we have discussed the question of budgets, extension of n e i g h b o u r h o o d watch, the follow-through on the present zoning police policy in Calgary, and the relief of traffic policemen from investigating minor bumps and scrapes in parking lots. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, supplementary. Is the minister contemplating e s t a b l i s h i n g a separate or a special budget for the city of Calgary that other municipalities in the province would not have equal access to? MR. FARRAN: No, Mr. Speaker.

The crime records in Calgary are not so very

November 24, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1271 different rom those in other parts of the country. AEC Shares Sale MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. Is the minister in a position at this stage to advise whether the a p p l i c a t i o n s for Alberta Energy Company shares were widespread throughout the entire p r o v i n c e , or were they related perhaps to the two larger cities? MR. GETTY: The indication we have, Mr.

Speaker — and this will be subject to checking when addresses and so on are more clearly known — is that the reception and support by Albertans was widespread throughout the province, and we are very, very pleased with that. I should add also, Mr. Speaker, that because of the mail strike and communication problems, we assume an additional number of applications which were validly completed last Friday will continue to flow in and be honored by the Alberta Energy Company. MR. GOGO: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister.

Is there any i n d i c a t i o n as to when these shares may be traded on the Ontario and Toronto stock exchanges? MR. GETTY: No, I have no feeling as to when that date might be, Mr. Speaker. It will obviously be something that will have to be worked out by the Energy Company. I might point out, though, that it would be our desire that they first trade on the Alberta exchange. There's no need for it to a u t o m a t i c a l l y go to the Toronto or Ontario exchange. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister.

The minister mentioned in his ministerial statement the total amount subscribed. He didn't give us any statistics on the number of shareholders, the number of Alberta r e s i d e n t s . Does the minister have any s t a t i s t i c s he could give to the Assembly on that? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, it's difficult to know how many Albertans are represented by the applications. I've been informed that in some cases fathers or mothers purchased shares for themselves and for their c h i l d r e n . However, individual applications are in excess of 50, 000. MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister.

At this stage, is there any indication that the application for shares will have to be cut back by the Energy Company? MR. GETTY: I don't think that will be necessary unless the additional outstanding applications, which were validly completed last week and which I mentioned would be coming in, happen to use up and exceed the remaining number of shares available to make up the 7.5 million. If that happened, there would have to be some type of p r o r a t i o n i n g carried out. It would, as o r i g i n a l l y pointed out, favor the smaller s h a r e h o l d e r .

More likely, though, if additional shares are left, the pro-rationing will probably go on outside Alberta, not within Alberta. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Can the minister tell the House how many applications were for the maximum permissible under the legislation, the 1 per cent? MR. GETTY: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not have that information, but I would be happy to check and find out. Municipal Boundaries MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Can he give us any indication as to the status of the reorganization of municipal boundaries in the province? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Municipal and School Boundaries has had under advisement information regarding j u r i s d i c t i o n a l and boundary changes as they affect municipal and school problems in the area of central Alberta. The commission is holding some new hearings, final hearings, to allow further input from the people before it makes any recommendations to us.

These will be s c h e d u l e d for some time in December, ending in January 1976, with some consultation with the councils in the area. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, supplementary question. Would the minister be in a position to indicate to the Assembly whether in fact it's the government's intention to move on reshaping of municipal b o undaries in a portion of the province — the Edmonton-Red Deer area, let's say — as opposed to making changes in municipal boundaries across the whole province in one swoop. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, the government will wait for the report to come in.

It is not predisposed in its decision. MR. CLARK: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister any indication whether in fact the committee has finalized its recommendations for all of Alberta, or has the committee only looked at a central portion of the province, as far as changes in the boundaries are concerned? MR. JOHNSTON: With respect to boundaries, Mr. Speaker, the committee has finalized some of the recommendations. Some of the essentially small problem areas have been rectified by agreements, by simple d i s c u s s i o n s .

With respect to the critical areas in the central portion of Alberta, there

1272 ALBERTA HANSARD November 24, 1975 are no finalizations. These will await input from the people involved. Rehabilitation of Prisoners MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, I’m now in a position to answer the question put by the hon. Member for Clover Ear last Friday. He said that two prisoners had taken French leave while attending an Oilers hockey game at taxpayers’ expense and inquired about policy in this regard. First, it's not true that the prisoners were attending hockey games at the expense of the taxpayer. From time to time commu- nity organizations make donations toward the welfare of prisoners.

In this case, eight hockey tickets were donated by the hockey club. This gift was welcomed by my department, which is charged with endeavoring to rehabilitate inmates. The privilege is a reward for good behavior in the institution. While rules are firm, we do operate on the principle that there is some good in the heart of every man. And we do welcome community interest which seems to accord with the other Christian principle, whatsoever you do for the least of my brothers, that you do unto me. The p r i s o n e r s attending the hockey game were escorted.

Two teenagers took advantage of the privilege and escaped for a short time. They were apprehended by the Edmonton City Police and are being punished. Perhaps the hon. member would now like to retract the false statements he rushed to make on television before he knew the facts. [interjections] DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, the only statement I withdraw is that they took French leave - - a statement which not too many people know and which, I think, was unfortunately used. But the other point, Mr. Speaker, is that it's quite obvious the prisoners were taken in at taxpayers' expense, because there were correctional . . .

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. If the hon. member wishes, he may put the matter on the Order Paper. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member wanted me to apologize, and there's nothing to apologize for. AN HON. MEMBER: We accept your apology. MR. CLARK: It wasn't given, you can't a c c e p t it. Public Accounts MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could take this opportunity to clear up some confusion that arose last week between the hon. Leader of the Opposition and me regarding questions about Public Accounts.

I think the confusion arose because of the different terms that were used, such as tabling, available, and released. I'd now like to refer to all of those terms and give the information about them. I'm advised, Mr. Speaker, the Public Accounts were tabled between the years 1955-72 inclusive either during the months of February or March. In 1973 they were tabled in October, and in 1979 in February. With respect to the date the Public Accounts were signed, between 1955 and '72 that date always occurred prior to October, and indeed that was so for the year 1973 as well. The date they were released, Mr.

Speaker, occurred in November in 1955. By released, I mean released to the public as opposed to being tabled. The actual date of release to the public we do not have for the years 1956-66 inclusive. For the years thereafter, they were always released in November or October, save for 1979, when they were released in December. The question was also asked whether it still takes four to seven weeks to have them printed. I am advised, and on the basis of our past experience, it takes approximately a month to have them printed after the last drafts are sent to the printer.

The question was also asked why the Public Accounts were not signed until November in 1979. The answer, with respect to 1979 and 1975, Mr. Speaker, is that they have very materially increased in size in those 2 years, going from 531 pages in '73 to 698 in '74, and we expect there will be about 800 this year. In addition, in 1973-79 and 1979-75, there were some changes in the format and content of the Public Accounts, to make them more closely follow the budget p r e s e n t a t i o n . The workload for preparing Public Accounts has materially increased in both those years.

For example, this year the investment transactions alone took about 900 per cent more auditing time than in the preceding year. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I've reviewed the matter with the Auditor's office, and the Auditor is most anxious to ensure that the Public Accounts are made available and released to the public as quickly as possible. In recent years he has followed a very intensive recruiting program to ensure he will have the required staff to do that. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, we accept the m i n i s t e r giving us the information.

We were afraid that possibly he had misled the House, and we're satisfied he had not intended it. head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS (reve rsion) DR . WALKER: Mr. Speaker, might I revert to Introduction of Visitors? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. DR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, it gives me the utmost pleasure to introduce to you, and through you to the hon. members of this Assembly, a group of very beautiful and

November 24, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1273 very capable ladies. They all have their winqs, which puts them up near the angels somewhere. Back in the early 1920s, a group was formed in the United States by Amelia Earhart. She sent out about 130 letters to women pilots across North America. Out of this group she contacted, 99 replied in the affirmative. They became known as the group of 99 and formed the international organization of women pilots. They are here today to present to the hon. Premier a proclamation on I n t e r n a t i o n a l Women's Year.

They have already presented this to all the other premiers and to the Prime Minister, and I do hope the hon. Premier won't take it as any political slight that we happen to be the last. Ladies, if you would stand to be w e l c o m e d by the Assembly. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD (continued) Mentally Retarded, Accommodation MISS HUNLEY: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, I'd like to correct an error I made in answering a question of one of the hon. members on November 19. HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MISS HUNLEY: On November 19, Mr. Speaker, in reply to a question from the hon.

Member for Little Bow regarding accomodation for the mentally retarded, I erroneously referred to the Sherwood Park association for the mentally retarded. I should have said the Strathcona County Association for Retarded Children, and I'm pleased to have the opportunity to correct that and give credit where credit is due, Mr. Speaker. ORDERS OF THE DAY head: GOVERNMENT BILLS AND O RDERS (Second Reading) Bi ll 77 The Surveys Amendment Act, 1975 MR. CHAMBERS: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 77 being The Surveys Amendment Act, 1975. To begin with, Mr.

Speaker, I think that I should give a brief background on the province's control survey system, which makes the amendment set out in this bill possible. In 1965, legislation was passed which permitted the establishment of a control survey system which takes advantage of the modern, accurate survey instruments, and of the electronic computer. The 1965 a m e n d m e n t s , being

Section 93, provide for, in

summary:

(1) The establishment of c o n t r o l surveys in any area of the province the minister deems necessary; (2) the sharing of costs by agreement with municipalities; (3) the adoption of the n e c e s s a r y projection and official records and the preparation of land boundary base maps; (4) the declaration of areas to be known as survey control areas; and finally (5) the establishment of r e g u l a t i o n s governing the manner by which land surveyors shall c o n d u c t their work within these survey control areas. Under this legislation, control surveys were broadly categorized, Mr.

Speaker, into three groups, being: (1) city or urban control; (2) resource development control; (3) rural control. The national geodetic survey has e s t a b l i s h e d so-called first and second order stations in and surrounding our larger centres, bringing the spacing of monuments to every one or two miles. Their work is ongoing and will form the basis for all subsequent provincial control.

In the urban control program, by a g r e e m e n t between the cities and the towns and the province, the density of the monumentation is beinq increased to a spacing of approximately one-half mile in undeveloped areas adjacent to these urban centres, and 1,000 feet in built-up areas, in order to make economic use of the control in day-to- day survey work. Rather than being exactly spaced, these monuments are located on public property in safe locations where the risk of their destruction is minimal.

C o n n e c t i o n s between these control monuments and the existing or old land survey system are then made at the rate of at least one property corner for each control station. I think, Mr. Speaker, members would be interested in knowing that urban areas in which work is completed, or under way and again I'd mention by cost-sharing agreements between the province and the municipality — include essentially 7 cities and 21 towns. Perhaps I should name these; the members might be interested.

The cities, of course, would be Grande Prairie, Edmonton, Camrose, Red Deer, C a l g a r y , Lethbridge, and Medicine Hat; the towns of St. Albert, Fort Saskatchewan, Leduc, Ponoka, Black Diamond, Turner V a l l e y , Taber, Grande Cache, Fort McMurray, Peace River, Whitecourt, Sherwood Park, Fort Macleod, Grimshaw, Fairview, Brooks, Raymond, Coaldale, Olds, Innisfail, and Wetaskiwin. Some additional work is being done on the same principle, Mr. Speaker, outside of urban areas, but at greater spacing, of course, for resource development in such areas as the Athabasca oil sands.

1274 ALBERTA HANSARD November 24, 1975 Because of the state of advancement of the control survey system, in my view, it is now opportune to pass the amendments which are proposed in Bill 77. Under existing legislation, Mr. Spe a k e r , the surveyor is required to monument block corners prior to the submission of his plan to the Land Titles Office for registration. The plan is required in some cases as the basis for a development a g r e e m e n t with the local authority, and conveys title of streets and reserves to the Crown and to the local authority.

Often during the course of construction, as members can appreciate, as the streets and utilities are being constructed monuments get destroyed. This of course requires that the developer has to pay the surveyor to re-establish these in order that the housing contractor has a proper lot location. Monuments are often destroyed again during house construction and landscaping, such that a third survey is really desirable so the eventual lot purchaser has his boundaries defined for fencing and occupation purposes.

There is no legislative requirement for these final surveys, so, as a result, they may or may not be done. Under the proposed amendments, the s u r v e y o r has the option of either using the old system, or of using the new proposed system. Under the new system, the surveyor must first locate any existing monuments or iron posts within the proposed subdivision, after which he can then plan the new development on paper, and submit the plan for registration.

The surveyor will, of course, be required to do whatever control work is necessary as the construction of a development progresses; for example, to stake out streets and utilities and such other temporary control points as are needed. However, these may be laid out at different stages of contruction, and I think can be done efficiently and reliably from the temporary control points. This is an important point I think, Mr. Speaker.

Within one year of the registration of the development, or such longer period as the director of surveys may allow, the surveyor must plant the iron posts as required by the existing act. Mr. Speaker, this procedure should prove more efficient, and result in the property owner having good corner posts when he occupies his house, which is not always the case under the old system. The new system should also result in some cost reductions. It has been estimated that on a large development of, say, from 200 to 300 lots, as much as 2 to 3 months could be cut from the overall completion time of a development.

With current interest rates, this could be a significant number, and I would expect that the savings should be passed on to the home-owner. The other principle presented in the act, Mr. Speaker, and that’s the amendment to

Section 69, is to recognize the reality that a qualified surveyor must take r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for any survey that he undertakes, but that he need not personally plant every post. There is much work that paraprofes- sionals, so to speak, or qualified i n s t r u m e n t men can do, so long as the surveyor takes the ultimate responsibility. In conclusion, Mr.

Speaker, I appreciate that the entire act is quite a technical one, and I would respectfully suggest that there could be a number of technical details the members would like to discuss, and which perhaps could be better dealt with at the committee stage. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I have no o b j e c t i o n s to the principles contained in the bill at all. As a matter of fact, I commend the government for making the changes that have been outlined so e x c e l l e n t l y by the hon. member, Mr. Chambers. My point in rising is one that goes into the future.

I'm wondering if there are going to be grave difficulties in converting to t he metric system in regard to land surveys. I see some great d i f f i c u l t i e s there personally, and I'm wondering what is the thinking of the people in the field, whether there is going to be a bold attempt to keep our present basis for our land surveys, particularly our acre and section, in spite of the metric system, or if there is some preliminary work on foot to make this conversion during the next two or three years. MR. CLARK: I wonder if I might just make one comment in discussion of second reading of Bill 77.

In principle, certainly, we have no objection to Bill 77. I would like to ask the hon. member, Mr. Chambers, who is piloting the bill through the House, one question. What kind of consultation has there been with p r o f e s s i o n a l s in the field themselves, namely their own professional association? Would he give us some indication as to the reaction of the profession to the legislation he has brought foward? MR. CHAMBERS: Mr. Speaker, if there are no other comments, I would first, in answer to the Member for Drumheller . . . MR. SPEAKER: Is the Assembly ready to have the hon. member close the debate? HON.

MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. CHAMBERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This system will certainly facilitate conversion to metric. Because the m o n u m e n t s are versatile and on a co-ordinate system, by inputting the right call, the location can actually be determined either in latitude or longitude or in terms of co-ordinates, from a northing and easting, or the actual location under the old s y s t e m . With the computer, this new control system is actually very amenable to conversion to metric, and perhaps is a significant reason for approving the amendments now.

In addition, instruments, of course, are much more sophisticated than they were, in terms of electronic chaining i n s t r u m e n t s , for example. These can be had that read either in British or metric units. I

November 24, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1275 think surveyors down the road would like to know before too long whether they should be getting a reading out in metric or British units, although I expect they could, in most cases, be readily converted. In reply to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, I'm sorry, I forget the q u e s t i o n . Would you mind asking me again? MR. CLARK: The attitude of the profession to the amendments coming forward. MR. CHAMBERS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This actually was run by several groups, including the land surveyors who are enthusiastic about it. I had that initial question too.

It seemed to me this could possibly result in some reduction in work. They take the very professional stance that they don't like to see money wasted, monuments that are torn out having to be replanted. They prefer a more efficient system, so they endorse this system. Also, of course, the second principle I mentioned, which, I think, was

Section 69 of the old act. Mr. Speaker, the way that portion of the act was worded was somewhat unrealistic. It necessitated that every iron post, if you read the act literally, be planted by a registered land surveyor. Of course, that isn't reality. They would heartily endorse that being changed in the manner outlined in the amendment. The association of professional e n g i n e e r s and several other groups were also consulted over the past two years. There have been, I might add, no significant objections to these amendments. [Motion carried; Bill 77 read a second time] MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I move you do now leave the Chair and the Assembly resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to study certain bills on the Order Paper. MR. SPEAKER: Having heard the motion by the hon. Government House Leader, do you all agree? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. [Mr. Speaker left the Chair.] head: COM MITTEE OF THE WHOLE [D r. McCrimmon in the Chair] MR. CHAIRMAN: The Committee of the Whole Assembly will now come to order. Bill 48 The Coal Conservation Amendment Act, 1975 MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, just a small point. I would like to ask the minister, with regard to

Section 2(b)8; it talks about a drill hole being made while exploring for coal, which really will not then be considered to be a mine. Can the minister give us the reason for that? An individual got hold of me on the weekend, in the course of the Grey Cup, who was very concerned about this. He wanted to know why, in fact, "drill hole" was being taken out of the definition. I assume here is the place to find the answer. MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I'm advised by the Energy Resources Conservation Board that this merely clears up a matter that they run into in applications.

It should be made clear that a "mine" would not mean a digging of an exploratory drill hole. This is really the only purpose of this amendment. [Title and

preamble agreed to] MR. GETTY: Mr. Chairman, I move Bill 48 be reported. [Motion carried] Bill 52 The Natural Gas Pricing Agreement Act, 1975 MR. GETTY: Mr. Chairman, I thought I might explain to members — and express my a p p r e c i a t i o n to them in tackling Bill 52 today — that there are some amendments which we have distributed.

I'm sure they will find they do not affect any of the principles of the bill, and are the result of some very detailed work we have been conducting with industry, a joint government-industry group which has been working out ways to make the bill operate in the most efficient manner possible. Mr. Chairman, we also have the s i t u a t i o n where this bill will be in effect as of November 1. We would appreciate it very much if the House could deal with the bill, so it can be approved as soon as possible. MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, to the minister.

I can appreciate the desire on his behalf to get the bill through as soon as p o s s i b l e . I wonder if the minister would c o n s i d e r it reasonable — we have just got the amendments — if we hold the bill, and perhaps deal with it Wednesday afternoon in committee? Quite frankly, it would give us an opportunity to send the amendments to two or three people we've had look at the bill for us, and to respond back. If we could deal with it Wednesday afternoon, is that too long a delay? MR. GETTY: Mr. Chairman, the House is going to adjourn for a period of time on

1276 ALBERTA HANSARD November 24, 1975 Wednesday, and will not come back until December. In addition, I am advised that the Lieutenant-Governor will not be available on Wednesday for Royal Assent. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. Leader of the Opposition could go through the amendments we've proposed today, he would find they are really a matter of cleaning up detailed operations. As we discuss the amendments, he could perhaps see if there are any that might raise questions in his mind. We could discuss them here in committee or even, perhaps, over supper hour, or something like that.

I apologize for the need for time to have the bill effective during the month of November, but I'd appreciate it if the House could deal with it. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to raise several questions and, if I could, have the minister clarify some uncertainty in my mind about the pricing of natural gas within the province.

As I understood the minister's answer when we had second r e a d i n g , in attempting to reconcile Sections 7 and 12, I believe, the border price will apply to all natural gas shipped out of the province, but, if I'm not mistaken, for natural gas consumed within the province, it will be the contract price or the border price, whichever is the least of the two. So, I would like to find out — just to clarify in my own mind what we're looking at in terms of domestic natural gas in Alberta — can the minister advise us what the situation is with the major utility companies, in terms of their gas supplies?

How much natural gas does Northwestern Utilities, Canadian Western Natural Gas — what percentage of their gas reserves are on long-term contract at a relatively low price, as opposed to the new border price? MR. GETTY: Mr. Chairman, I don't have the percentages. However, in discussing this matter with the utility companies, they have tied up long-term supplies of natural gas at prices which they feel are b e n e f i c i a l to their operation.

But they realize that, with natural gas prices increasing throughout Canada, there will be a constant renegotiation pressure between them and their suppliers, and that, in all p r o b a b i l i t y , over a period of the next few years, there will be an increasing pressure to bring their contract prices up to the border price, less the cost of service to the border. The companies recognize that's going to happen. I should point out to the hon. member, though, that that won't necessarily be the price paid in Alberta if we are going to continue with out natural gas rebate plan. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Chairman, to follow that up. I'm sure all hon. members realize we do have a rebate system. Of course, that's something which can change from year to year, so it might be a 28 cent base now, it might be 50 cents next year, it might be 70 cents the year after that. What I'm interested in trying to obtain is — well, let me just back up a bit.

First of all, in terms of the phasing-in of the border price, I take it that is really what the minister is suggesting: that there's going to be pressure from the producers to get the border price, at least, if they've got a long-term contract with Northwestern Utilities, Canadian W e s t e r n Natural Gas, or what have you. In your discussions with the utilities, what are you looking at in terms of phasing-in time? MR. GETTY: It's pretty difficult to judge, Mr. Chairman.

The reason is that some of their contracts do not provide at all for renegotiation, and they are going to have to make almost a fairness judgment as to whether they are paying a reasonable value to some of their suppliers. It's going to be something that will be determined on a corporate basis between the utilities and their suppliers. In many cases, they may be freeholders, individual Albertans, or others, holding these reserves.

I would say you're going to have the normal negotiations going on between the company and its suppliers, remembering again, as I pointed out, that, in addition, we are going to have the natural gas rebate plan and, of course, the Public Utilities Board also inserted into the picture, once the utilities have purchased natural gas, to make sure that only a reasonable price is then used in selling to Albertans. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Chairman, just to follow along. What will be the position at the present time with respect to the rural gas co-ops in Alberta which would be buying their gas through Gas Alberta?

Obviously, you're not looking at large reserves which are tied up for them. Will they automatically be paying the border price, less the cost of transmission, as a gate price to the co-op? MR. GETTY: They will pay the price after rebate, which is 28 cents, Mr. Chairman. The co-ops are protected, like others, by the rebate plan. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Minister, I realize that. My question, though, is that in terms of rural Alberta, the rural gas co-ops at this stage will be paying the border price, less transmission, less whatever the rebate is from year to year. That's correct? MR. GETTY: That's correct, Mr. Chairman.

MR. NOTLEY: The other question I'd like to get clear in my mind, Mr. Chairman, is with respect to the long-term contracts the large utility companies would enjoy. As I gather, in listening to the minister, it's essentially a voluntary renegotiation. Is there any compulsion, or any statutory authority, which would, in fact, set a gun to the head of the utility company to increase the payment to the producer?

I'm thinking, for example, would the provisions of The Arbitration Act of 1973 apply, if there was a difference between what the producer feels he should be receiving for the natural gas, on one hand, and the long-term contract which Northwestern,

November 24, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1277 Canadian Western Natural Gas, or w h i c h e v e r company you want to cite, has nailed down for perhaps two, three or five years? MR. GETTY: Mr. Chairman, the utilities companies have different kinds of c o n t r a c t s . Some provide for the reopening of price renegotiations on an annual basis; others provide for no reopening of wellhead prices for renegotiation. Therefore, while some may be voluntary, and the companies may make a judgment not to renegotiate, others are required to.

Therefore — and I want to answer the other question too — there is no gun at the head of the utilities, in legislation, that would force them to reopen any c o n t r a c t s that do not provide for reopening. However, I imagine they will make a j u d g e m e n t based on what they consider to be their test business interest. MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister would be agreeable to perhaps holding the bill in committee until tonight. We'd be in a position then to check by telephone with some people who have given us some input in this particular area.

In a quick look over the bill, it doesn't seem to cause any concern, but in fairness to the people who gave a sizable amount of their time, it's only fair that we give them the opportunity to respond. MR. GETTY: Mr. Chairman, I think that would be reasonable, and I certainly would agree to it. I appreciate the hon. m e m b e r ' s determination to deal with the bill this evening if possible. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Chairman, I move we defer debate on this bill. [Motion carried] Bill 53 The Pharmaceutical Association Amendment Act, 1975 MR. MUSGREAVE: Mr.

Chairman, I would like to mention one amendment I'd like to make to the bill. In the bill that was tabled in the House and the printed bill that has been distributed to the members, there was one slight deletion. In

Section 4, I would like to move that the bill be amended as follows: that by striking out the words "(or any body e s t a b l i s h e d in substitution for or as a successor to that body?)". It's

Section 4(4). It starts off by saying "If the name of a pharmaceutical chemist is removed from the register of the Pharmacy Examining Board of Canada. . . " MR. CHAIRMAN: Has the amendment been distributed? MR. MUSGREAVE: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure whether the amendment has been distributed or not. We had some problems as to just how we would handle the particular a m e n d m e n t . There was some discussion with the clerk of the legal counsel. He suggested I just make the amendment and I could arrange to have it prepared. MR. CHAIRMAN: In the meanwhile, it has been asked. I wonder if you would read the amendment out once more, please. MR. MUSGREAVE: The bill is hereby amended as follows: (

a) Section 4 of the bill is amended by striking out the words "(or any body established in substitution for or as a successor to that board?)". MISS HUNLEY: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could throw some light on this. I see some hon. members are looking concerned. The bill which was originally introduced in the House by the hon. member Mr. Musgreave contained those words. The error was s u b s e q u e n t l y picked up prior to printing. So all hon. members who are looking at the printed bill will never see the words we are attempting to delete.

It's a technical matter required because the bill which was filed originally with the Clerk did contain an error. It was picked up, but we must clarify it according to legislative c o u n s e l . The bill, as we are now reading it, is the bill which we would appreciate having passed. [Title and

preamble agreed to] MR. MUSGREAVE: Mr. Chairman, I would move that Bill 53 be reported as amended. [Motion carried ] Bill 56 The Public Utilities Board Amendment Act, 1975 MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, you will recall that when we were in second reading of Bill 56, we on this side expressed some rather strong reservations about

Section 70, which in fact would let the Lieutenant Governor in Council or the Public Utilities Board declare any utility in Alberta exempt from the provisions of The Public Utilities Board Act. We're being asked, in

Section 70 of this particular bill, to grant to the cabinet or the Public Utilities Board the power to exempt any utility from regulation by the Board of Public Utilities commissioners. The hon. member who has piloted the bill through the House, and also the S o l i c i t o r General, attempted to give us some sort of explanation. While I appreciate their sincerity in trying to give us an explanation, frankly, we're not satisfied. Unless we can have a more definitive explanation as to the reasons why

Section 70 has to be in, I would really urge the government to hold this piece of legislation. With all the legal minds we have in the government, surely we can draft a

section that would cover the situations the Solicitor General talked about, so that we're not really, by means of this Legislature,

1278 ALBERTA HANSARD November 24, 1975 giving carte blanche approval to the cabinet to let any utility company not appear before the board if they can put a good enough case to the cabinet. I think it's bad legislation in p r i n c i p l e to go this way. So I'd ask the hon. member for Edmonton Beverly who has piloted the bill through the House, if he could give us some more definitive examples. We can then carry the discussion from there. MR. DIACHUK: Mr. Chairman, to the Leader of the Opposition.

As definitive as I possibly can be, my understanding is that the type of examples will be pipeline companies and small companies which, as the Solicitor General indicated, own gas wells and which do not have shareholders — possibly a privately owned company that does not do any direct business with c o n s u m e r s . That's about the explanation I received. MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, taking the explanation the hon. member has given, why don't we make an amendment, or why haven't we phrased

Section 70 to, in fact, say that

Section 70 would only apply to those c o m p a n i e s which do not deal directly with consumers? I must say, frankly, I had fully intended to move an amendment that

Section 6 of the act be struck out, and ask the hon. member who piloted the bill through the House to go back and see if the government can't come forward with s o m e t h i n g a great deal more definitive. If what the hon. member is saying is that this would not apply to any company which deals with consumers in the province, but is simply an inter-trade kind of thing, let's put that in the legislation. But let's not just open the door wide open here, because that's what

Section 70 does. MR. FOSTER: Maybe I could make a couple of comments, Mr. Chairman. I'm not sure I'm precise in this, but it seems to me there are something like 400 companies in Alberta which might be caught by the provisions of the public utilities legislation. I appreciate the concern the Leader of the Opposition is making. However, I don't mean to imply there's anything ulterior in the government's motive in promoting S e c t i o n 6 of this bill. Not all the 400 companies which might otherwise be a r e g u l a t e d utility under the act should be caught.

It's a little difficult to set out all the exceptions. We're simply asking for the capacity, upon examination by the board of certain companies, to declare some of them not bound by either all the p r o v i s i o n s of the act, or some of the provisions of the act, depending on the company's activities. I don't think there's anything s e c r e t i v e about the Public Utilities Board d e c i s i o n to exempt a certain company, under this

section for example, for certain reasons before the board. If they do so, I see no reason why that kind of thing is not a matter of public record. If some member of the House is concerned that that company was exempted for ulterior motives or o t h e r w i s e , surely the members of the opposition, or indeed anyone else, is entitled to raise it and ask why this was done. I don't know how else we might handle the objective we seek here, and provide the kind of flexibility the board would like to have in dealing with these companies.

If the Leader of the Opposition has some suggestions, I would be happy to hear them. But nothing is going to be done here secretly that will allow someone to escape, for example, Public Utilities' regulation, and not have the government accountable for what the board has done, or what the cabinet has asked the board to consider doing. MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that the Attorney General may have the very best of intentions — I was going to say on this occasion, but that would imply he doesn't on all occasions — so I'll just say he may have the very best of intentions as far as Bill 56 is concerned.

But what we are doing here now, if this is passed, is making it possible for any utility company in the province to come to the government and say look, for this reason, and this reason, and this reason, and this reason, we think you may well want to, or you should use

Section 70 of the act to in fact exempt us from certain provisions of the Public Utilities Board operation. In addition to the pint already made, that is going to put, in my judgment, just a tremendous amount of increased pressure on the minister responsible, and also on the Public Utilities Board — for the board to come to the government and say, we think that for certain reasons this company should be exempt under

Section 70 of the act. I think that's very poor legislation: to really open the thing up and say, but trust Executive Council. There are many people in this House who trust the E x e c u t i v e Council implicitly, but — perish the thought — this may not be the Executive Council forever. Then, at least, you're guaranteed a full discussion back here in the Legislature. MR. FOSTER: I appreciate the point of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Chairman: where does the responsibility lie, and where does the accountability lie. The answer to that can leave no doubt; it lies here, it lies in cabinet if this

section is to carry. I appreciate the leader's concern for the pressure on government and on the cabinet in dealing with what probably will be reguests from some companies to be exempted — and we have no intention of exempting them. But better that someone here be responsible for that decision and to answer questions in this Legislature as to the reasons why, than someone in a board or agency left out there who's not directly accountable.

When you cast the net rather broadly, as does this legislation, you undoubtedly, or you may bring in to that cover people who don't need to be regulated by the utilities legislation, and so you provide some room for exemption. Just for example — it comes to mind

November 24 , 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1279 quickly -- in the case of our land titles reporting system, you cast the net pretty broadly there, and there are reasons for some exemptions. Those exemptions are granted, and I’m responsible to this l e g i s l a t u r e as to why certain companies may be exempted. If I can't satisfy the test of reasonableness there, then I’m in some difficulty. But I don't appreciate why this is such an unreasonable section, Mr. Chairman.

If the lieutenant Governor in Council suggests that a firm should, in fact, be exempt for what it believes to be good and valid reasons, it is accountable here. If those reasons don't stand up, I think it has a significant effect on the government of the day. My point is, I appreciate your concern about cabinet responsibility, but it's here. The board may, in fact, do it on their own, in which case I'll be responsible to explain why the board has done so. But my other colleagues and I will be accountable for that. It's not being done under the table or in the back room. MR.

CLARK: To the Attorney General, one more question quickly. I guess I could be a bit more convinced if the Attorney General could give me some indication of the kinds of organizations involved. We've heard such terms as pipeline companies and so on. Can I ask the Attorney General how, in fact, these are being handled right now? Have we got a backlog that's lasted over the past two, three, four, or five years? What's brought this to a head right now? Can the minister give us half a dozen, or four or five good examples of the reason this is coming forward? MR. FOSTER: I'd have to take that question as notice.

My experience in this is not as complete as it should be, and I apologize for that. It may be that my colleague, the Solicitor General, who was involved before me may be able to add to this. I u n d e r s t a n d there are some companies which, in the judgment of the board, ought not to be caught by all the provisions of the u t i l i t i e s legislation, and they should be given some exemption. I think it would be very difficult for me to say now — if I knew, and I don't specifically which companies the board might want to exempt from all or portions of the act.

If I were to make that statement now and have it reported, and the board's view was, no, that was not in fact the case, I might be in some difficulty. I don't have a list of names, Mr. Chairman, of companies which may fall within that category. The board is seeking this kind of flexibility. But I haven't got the names of companies, although I can probably get an indication from the PUB which c o m p a n i e s they feel specifically should be exempted, pursuant to this, from all or portions of the legislation — mostly p o r t i o n s , I assume. MR.

CLARK: If we had this kind of i n f o r m a t i o n , if we had examples not naming the companies — and perhaps "companies" is a poor term — if we had those kinds of examples before the committee, I think we could look at the kind of problem you are having and have another look at it. I just look at this

section very b o l d l y , very straightforwardly, and say that we're really removing the principle of all utilities going before the board. It becomes a matter of the cabinet may or it may not. So if the minister, or the former minister, could give us some examples I'm not particularly fussy about companies -- that the board's wrestling with right now, then at least that would shed a little light on the situation. MR. FARRAN: Mr. Chairman, I'll see if I can satisfy the hon. Leader of the O p p o s i t i o n , who's putting what I think is a very legitimate point.

The Gas Utilities Act has been in the statutes for many years prior to 1971. It contains the power for the board to exempt, in whole or part, any utility from full regulation. The reason for this is that the definition of a utility is very broad — for good reasons. A utility includes a well, any system for providing gas, any little private power plant, and so on. So, for quite a while, a lot of utilities which were utilities under the definition of the act — didn't realize they were subject to regulation by the board.

About two years ago, they suddenly tumbled to the fact that they were, and they then began, in great numbers, to apply for exemption, because they were not utilities in the sense of the word you and I are dealing with today. They were utilities which were maybe supplying gas to a petrochemical plant at Empress. But under the definition of the act, it was still called a utility — they weren't supplying gas to consumers at large. So the board has been exempting. This reinforces that provision, but adds the Lieutenant Governor in Council, as well as the board's own right under The Gas Utilities Act.

Then, because of this problem, which applied to small gas works or gas c o r p o r a t i o n s , it became obvious that certain small power systems were also in the same c a t e g o r y . They weren't supplying electric power to the consumers at large, but were perhaps supplying power from a stand-alone plant to a couple of industries, or an industry might have its own power plant just a couple of hundred yards down the street. So the thought was that there should be power in the act to exempt, in whole or part, any utility.

The intent, of course, is not to use it for "public utilities", for utilities which are not really public. They are really private utilities. I’ll give you one example which might illustrate it better. East of Edmonton, there's a private gas utility run by Cygnus Limited. It supplies gas to a number of industries. Sheritt Gordon fertilizer plant is one of them. It supplies the gas by private arrangement between the producer and the consumer. It's not gas being supplied to the public at large in the

1280 ALBERTA HANSARD November 24, 1975 nature of a public utility. It could ask to come under the regulation of the Public Utilities Board, presumably with the c o n s e n t of both parties to the contract, but at the moment one sees no reason for regulating it. It's not in the public interest. They've already made deals with one another under agreement. They're not utilities in the sense of Northwest U t i l i t i e s or Canadian Western Natural Gas C o m p a n y or any small power utility. I've got a note here that a government power plant supplies power to a government centre.

That would be another illustration. So the power to exempt, in whole or part, needs to be there. They also need the right to be able to track through the gas component of a uti l i t y , where they would just be regulating in part, because of the fluctuating level of the natural gas rebate support price. In this case, they may not want to regulate a whole utility, but to check the f l o w t h r o u g h of the gas support price to make sure it's going for the benefit of the consumers for whom it was intended, not being diverted into some other pocket.

In that case, they would want to regulate in part and not in whole. MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to go back to the minister responsible, the A t t o r n e y General.

If the Attorney General is saying that it is not the government's intention in any way, shape, or form, in fact, to use this amendment in Bill 56 to get around the public utilities act, as it's rather commonly regarded by most people — and when I say commonly regarded, I refer specifically to when utilities seek a rate increase, that the practice is to go to the board, the board then holds public hearings, and the rate increase cannot be granted until the board either gives an interim increase or the final increase after the public hearings — I'm still not enthused about this kind of legislation.

But is the Attorney General prepared to rise in his place and have an indication placed in Hansard that it is not the government's intention to use this

section of the act in that way at all, that it is not the intention of the government to use this amendment to

Section 7 of the Public Utilities Board to get around or to water down at all the concept of the Public Utilities Board and its role in the r e g u l a t i o n of public utilities in the province? MR. FOSTER: That, Mr. Chairman, is my understanding. MR. CLARK: Well, say it. MR. FOSTER: I do. I said that 12 years ago and I'm happy to say it today. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Chairman, with the rate of divorce these days, "I do" doesn't n e c e s s a r i l y mean . . . MR. FOSTER: [Inaudible] say I did, Mr. Chairman, I said "I do." MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Chairman, I really have to express some concern.

I wasn't here for second reading, and I apologize for that. It seems to me there really is a great deal of danger. I accept the Attorney General's position that he doesn't intend to use this

section to alter the role and function of the Public Utilities Board. But what c o n c e r n s me, Mr. Chairman, is that this

section allows the government, the E x e c u t i v e Council, sweeping powers. A future government could look at this

section and exempt Calgary Power from the provisions of The Public Utilities Board Act. The Attorney General, in debating this subject, said that ultimately the government is going to be accountable. That's true. But it's a question, Mr. Minister, of whether you're accountable after the fact or before. If you're going to be making any changes — and when I say you, I mean a future government — if the future Executive Council is going to be making any changes that relate to the basic function of the board supervising public utilities in this province, it seems to me the place to make that case is in the Legislature, before the exemption is made. My concern with this

section as it reads, notwithstanding what this government is saying today, or for the next two or three years, is that this change could be on the books for five or six years. Some future government could completely, f u n d a m e n t a l l y alter the role and function of the Public Utilities Board in the province, and use this section, very plausibly, to do it. I'm not suggesting that the Public U t i l i t i e s Board is sacrosanct, that forever and a day it's going to be there, inviolate.

But it seems to me, if we're going to make basic changes in its operation, those changes should form specific amendments that are placed in the Legislature and debated as a consequence. If at some point in time a future government wants to exempt Calgary Power, Northwestern Utilities, Canadian Western Natural Gas, or any of the other companies, or fundamentally reshape the role of the board, the jurisdiction of the board, that's something that should be specifically debated and hammered out in the House before changes are made, rather than have the government come back and face the issue in question period.

I realize there's always going to be an opportunity to debate it. But in my view, whether that debate is after the fact or before the fact is pretty crucial. The former minister cited some examples, but none of the examples, as I listened to them, really dealt with the major utility companies. Why did they not at least add a

section which would simply say, this

section of the act will not apply to the major utility companies, then list them? That seems to me to be the most sensible thing to do. No one in this committee is going to suggest there are not going to be valid reasons for essentially private utilities, as the Solicitor General has suggested, being exempted. Fair enouqh -- but there's a difference between a private utility supplying gas or power to a

November 24, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1281 small company on one hand, and Calgary Power on the other. In order to retain legislative control of this important act, why would we not at least exempt the major utility companies from the provisions of this clause? Then you would have the flexibility, it seems to me, you’re seeking. At the same time, we would have the assurance that this act, as it is now set up, will continue to apply to the major utilities. MR. FOSTER: Well, Mr. Chairman, I guess it’s all a matter of definition. Where does the fish’s tail begin?

What is small, smaller, smallest, big, bigger and biggest, major, minor or in-between? I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I find it amusing that some members of the opposition are sort of anxious to have the Legislature pass judgment on each of the cases to which my colleague the Solicitor General has referred. Given my earlier example, it's tantamount to having the Legislature rule on each specific exemption, of which there may be 10, under the land titles reporting system. I appreciate the point you make, and I don't mean to be cynical about it.

But I really don't think you can frame legislation dealing with all 400 companies c u r r e n t l y there, to say nothing of the various firms that, given a reasonable construction of the act, would now be bound by its provisions, that will adequately define what you're getting at. The jurisdiction rests with the board at its initiative, or with the cabinet.

If some day some government were f o o l i s h enough to exempt a major utility from regulation in an attempt, I don't know, to benefit somebody, I have enough faith in members of the opposition and the public of this province that the cabinet of the day would be hearing about it in no uncertain terms. I guess I'm really not satisfying the members opposite, Mr. Chairman, but I read them to say that they'd like to have the Legislature pass judgment on the e x e m p t i o n s . That's really what it comes down to. The leader was concerned about the pressure on government, the pressure of business.

I just don't think that this government or any other can function if members of the opposition are going to have to rule on exemptions under this part, or exemptions under similar parts in many other areas of legislation in the Province of Alberta. The responsibility is here. I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the House, that that's reasonable and fair enough. If we are fundamentally opposed on that, so be it.

But I don't know where there's an area of common ground that will allow the o p p o s i t i o n to achieve what it's after in the definition that, particularly, the Member for Spirit River-Fairview is discussing. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I'm also having a little difficulty following the concern about this particular amendment for the following reasons. For many, many years now — and [through] legislation which I certainly helped to pass — the board of public utility commissioners has had the authority to exempt, and has in fact exempted, a number of companies over the years, and properly so.

But I can't recall ever seeing the names of the companies that were exempted, and I'm not even sure that every Attorney General in this province since that time has even had a list of these companies. It seems to me this is strengthening the position of responsible government, rather than weakening it. Now, before the board of public utility commissioners, which is an appointed body, may exempt, it must be referred to the minister and to the Executive Council. So we now have ministerial and government responsibility for that exemption, rather than the exemption by an appointed board.

Consequently, it seems to me this is what we're aiming at in most of our legislation, to have the responsibility placed where it should be, on the cabinet or the government of the province. I don’t agree with appointed boards having these powers. I would feel much safer as a citizen of the province, even if we had an extreme, red, socialist g o v e r n m e n t , having the responsibility in the entire government [rather] than in an appointed board, because at least that government has to come out to periodically stand for re-election and report to the people through the Legislature.

So I think this is strengthening the present position. I have no concern at all, really, about this, because once it's passed, the cabinet is going to be responsible for any of these exemptions. Surely, that's the way we want it in a responsible government. That, in fact, is very much in line with what the hon. Leader of the O p position was asking for in his resolution the other day, in general terms that the g o v e r n m e n t be responsible to the Legislature and be responsible to the people of the province, and this is going to make them responsible.

As a matter of fact, at the end of any year, I can't see why we can't ask a question, and get the answers of every company the cabinet did exempt during the year. It would be a proper question for a return on the Order Paper. So again I say, I'm not really concerned about that at all. I'm much more concerned about something we did several years ago, which still is in effect. We exempted publicly owned u t i l i t i e s from appearing before the board of public utility commissioners.

As a result, the city of Edmonton can do what it likes with its rates — its telephone rates, its power rates, and so on — without ever appearing before the board of public utility commissioners. Now, I remember the arguments in when that was discussed. The argument was that the city of Edmonton had to elect its council, the council had the final word on the amount of increase or decrease in public utility rates, and therefore it seemed logical that the responsible people who were elected should have the final say. I think that carries a lot of argument.

1282 ALBERTA HANSARD November 24, 1975 There's a lot of sound sense in that, and it carried the judgment of the Legislature and the government several years ago. I suppose it still does, because I don’t see any amendment changing it. Many citizens feel that, living in a place where there's municipally owned u t i l i t i e s , they don't have the same rights as citizens who live outside. Alberta G o v e r n m e n t Telephones, for instance, when it wants to increase its rates, doesn't say, well, we're the government, we've been elected, so we can increase the rates.

It goes before the board of public utility commissioners. It has to present a case, a sound argument, and I think properly so. Rather than change what is being done here, which I support, if we're going to change anything, let's give some thought to having publicly owned utilities appear before the board of public utility commissioners, for exemption or otherwise, and not simply be exempted wholesale by legislation, so they do not have to appear at all, and citizens there must accept the decision of the elected councillors.

Now, the difference, I think, is that when an application for an increase appears before the board of public utility c o m m i s s i o n e r s , that board normally has a hearing. It becomes public information. Newspapermen can sit in and publish the information. This isn't always so. There's no public hearing. It's done by the appointed people in a city, then confirmed, approved, or amended by the elected aldermen. But n o r m a l l y , there's no public hearing before the city council.

I think people do have some legitimate reason in saying they would like to see it come before the board of public utility commissioners for acceptance or rejection. I'm sure the cities would oppose that, and I'm not particularly advocating it. But I'm more concerned about that than about having the government say which companies will be exempted, because the government must answer to the people for any exemption it makes,

whereas a board of public utility commissioners could have done this, had the change not been made, without ever saying boo to anybody. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I happen to agree with the proposal, or with the point that municipal utilities should also have to appear and justify their case before the Public Utilities Board. Just going back to your response, Mr. Minister, I hope I didn't leave the i m p r e s s i o n that I was suggesting we, as a L e g i s l a t u r e , would determine the minor e x e m p t i o n s . I'm not making that point at all.

I can understand there has to be flexibility to make minor exemptions. What I am concerned about is the scope of the s e c t i o n , as it now reads, which allows the Executive Council to make major exemptions. That's what troubles me. I have two or three questions I'd like to put. Perhaps the Solicitor General could answer some of them. The Member for Drumheller mentioned that the Public U t i l i t i e s Board already had the authority to exempt companies from the provisions of the act. In listening to your response, Mr.

Minister, I was left with the impression that that in fact did not occur, and problems were created because there was not now authority under the present operation of the board to grant minor exemptions. Perhaps you could clarify that, first of all. MR. FARRAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, the power under The Gas Utilities Act obviously doesn't extend to power. It only refers to natural gas. That's one reason for changing it.

The other was that, in the past, companies which haven't considered t h e m s e l v e s to be utilities have not been s u p p l y i n g information to the Public Utilities Board as the act required, because they hadn't received an exemption. So this really tidies the whole thing up to give obvious rights to the Lieutenant Governor in Council or the Public Utilities Board to exempt these clearly deserving cases. Then, of course, as you mentioned, municipal utilities have always been exempt.

We have the question of the gas co-ops, which are supplying gas to members of their organization, not to the public at large, by agreement between what in effect are shareholders of a co-operative. So there are all kinds of different fish and fowl that seem to fall under this definition of "utilities". Some of them obviously shouldn't be regulated at all, some of them should be regulated in part, so you're checking the flow-through of a natural gas rebate plan, and some should be regulated entirely, like Calgary Power, the big gas companies, and Alberta Government Telephones.

It would be impossible to write the names of the actual ones you want to regulate in the act, because there are small utilities that have to be regulated. There is one out at Bonnyville, for instance. But there were some that should never have been regulated. MR. NOTLEY: I'd like to follow that through, if I may. I fail to follow the argument that naming the 10 or 12 major utility companies that do the vast majority, by far, of business in the province would unduly restrict anybody.

It seems to me that the question of whether the smaller utilities should be regulated, could quite clearly come under this clause as presented here. It would give the Public Utilities Board and the Executive Council the l a t i t u d e to decide whether that utility at Bonnyville should be regulated in the p u b l i c interest, or whether it should be free to set rates as it chooses. It seems to me what is at stake here is the basic question of what we are going to do with the large utilities.

I don't see where that confines either the Executive Council or the board, to simply name the 10 or 12 major utilities in this province and simply say, these utilities will not come under the import of this section. MR. FARRAN: I think this is the best way to do it. So much flexibility is required with the natural gas rebate plan too. You want to regulate in regard to gas. You

November 24, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1283 want to check and regulate in part. You want to check that the contracts they paid for the gas are not sweetheart deals and are proper market value for the gas, so you have validity for your degree of support under the plan. So you need to regulate for a small portion of many of these organizations which are not public u t i l i t i e s in the true sense of the word. But they may be supplying gas to a cement plant or an industry which consumes less than a billion cubic feet a year. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Chairman, if I can follow that up.

Would the minister see any s i t u a t i o n arise where part of the operation of a major utility company would not need to be regulated? MR. FARRAN: Every part of a major utility company has to be regulated. I think that is well understood. The hon. Attorney General has said that never in the wildest stretch of the imagination would they be exempted from regulation. [Title and

preamble agreed to] MR. DIACHUK: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 56, The Public Utilities Board A m e n d m e n t Act, 1975, be reported as amended. [Motion carried] Bill 61 The Companies Amendment Act, 1975 MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, in second reading I raised a number of questions. The minister indicated he would make some comments with regard to those questions. MR. HARLE: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member raised some questions — and I'm looking at the Alberta Hansard for November 20.

He asked, "what examination has been made with regard to the extra cost of bringing on new directors?" I would advise the hon. m e m b e r that there has been no specific examination as to the extra cost that might result. Basically, the only cost I could see that would relate would be if the board of directors was increased to meet somehow the requirements of the amending section, which usually entails additional directors fees. Apart from that, I wouldn't think the costs would be very significant.

In fact, most of the responses I've had since the bill was introduced have not s p e c i f i c a l l y mentioned the cost. It's interesting that many of the c o m p a n i e s that incorporate here, incorporate because of our lower fees. One was described to me. A company was incorporated here which carries on mining operations in Ontario, for example. As far as I can determine, the reason for incorporating here related purely to a lower cost, and it just happened to be easier to do that.

That type of company, of course, would be directly affected, because most of the principals in the company presumably are in Ontario or the Northwest Territories, where they are carrying on mining operations. They incorporate here and become registered extra-provincial companies in the jurisdiction s in which they are carrying on a business. The hon. member asked, "will this reduce investment in the Province of Alberta?

"As the Premier pointed out in the debate on second reading, this is a growth province, and [whether] the investment here will occur is purely a question of whether the companies might decide to incorporate in another jurisdiction and register extra- provincially in Alberta. He asks, Mr. Chairman, "by putting 50 per cent Albertans on a number of these companies, does it mean Albertans will be taking over some companies?" As I i n t e r p r e t those words, I would say, no. The ownership of a company is in the shareholders who appoint the directors to make the decisions for the company.

I certainly wouldn't think that that amendment, which relates to directors, could be said to be that Albertans would be taking over some companies. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I want to raise just one point on the bill. I strongly support the amendments to the bill which make at least one half of the directors of a company Albertans, and the majority of the meetings must be held in Canada and so on. There is one point I would like to raise for the minister's consideration. That is the injection of unions into m a n a g e m e n t functions in many of our companies.

This is getting to the point where, if it continues, it won't matter who the d i r e c t o r s of a company are. The important thing will be who the heads of the union happen to be. I'm thinking of an American- dominated union, or American union, where the reports and money from Canada go back to the United States. Particularly, I think, we have a good illustration in the postal strike now, where the union is not even acting d e m o c r a t i c a l l y . It's holding up the entire country. It's bringing complete bankruptcy to many businesses.

It's causing i n c o n v e n i e n c e to thousands, perhaps millions, of our people. The union members aren't even permitted to have a vote on whether they want to stay out on strike. I think this is going too far entirely, when unions can start telling the country what's good for it, and telling its own members what's good for them. I don't know why the members don't stand up and be heard, unless they're completely dominated by the leadership of this union. But I don't think the people of Canada appreciate this at all. They're not doing the cause of unionism any good. I use that as an illustration.

Now it's reported — I don't know how true it is — that money is now coming in from the United States to keep the union on strike. If this is so, the Canadian government should be starting to take some pretty definite action, because I, for one, don't want the Americans running our unions or our country. I think we're quite able to do that ourselves.

1284 ALBERTA HANSARD November 24, 1975 Now I'm not going to put all unions that originate in the United States in this category. The UMWA is completely the other way. They're autonomous in Canada. They don't send the miners' money to the United States. They listen to what's going on here, and the leadership has been very responsible, not simply telling the members what they have to do. I can't remember one instance where the UMWA has not gone out of its way and endeavored to secure the wishes of its members, completely contrary to what the postal union is doing in Canada today.

My point is that if we're going to permit unions to run our businesses, it may not matter whether we have Alberta d i r e c t o r s , if they're going to have the say about what goes on in this country. I come from a family of union members. My brothers and dad were members of the United Mine Workers, and I believe in responsible unions. But I certainly don't believe in what we see going on in the postal union today. This is not doing the country or anybody else any good.

I simply raise the point that I hope the amendments we're making now will be effective, by management saying what management should do and the powers they should have. The union should not be injecting itself into managing our businesses. I simply raise the point that I hope we'll be able, in this province at least, to make sure that unions do not have the say whether a man can work, whether a company can act, or can make a company change its policy because some fellow at the head of the union thinks it's wrong.

If the entire union body thinks there's something wrong, they should make r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s the proper way, but they shouldn't be doing this by the heads of the union refusing even to let the rank and file have a vote. I support the bill very, very strongly. I think it's an excellent move to have our companies with a majority of Albertans in them. I think it will do a great deal towards building our country and building responsibility in our country, and giving the Alberta and Canadian viewpoints.

I certainly loathe the attitude we see in the Canadian postal union today, and hope that such an attitude never comes into companies in Alberta, whether they have a majority of Albertans on them or otherwise. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, to the m i n i s t e r . In the act, half of a board of directors must be ordinary residents of Alberta. How do you define that residency clause? Is it the intention of government to bring in a residency act to clarify that completely? Who makes the judgment on that particular term? As I look at different pieces of provincial legislation, it varies. What's the

interpretation there? MR. HARLE: Mr. Chairman, one would have to look at The

Interpretation Act to see whether that particular word has been defined. I would suspect not. The word ''resident'' has been used in many types of legislation, and in this particular case it would have to be left up to the courts as to what an ordinary dictionary definition of the word "resident” would mean. I think most of the legislation I've seen in this area has left it to ordinary usage of these words, and we would have to see if and when there are any court

interpretations applied to this type of legislation. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, to the m i n i s t e r . On what basis would a court make a decision, that is, if a person has been six months or a year in the province, comes in and lives three months and lives somewhere else for the rest of the year? What's the

interpretation? What are we talking about? What kind of guidance would you give to a court in a matter such as this? It's so general. MR. HARLE: Well, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member raises a very valid point,and a point that courts over the years have had some difficulty with. As you know, The [Alberta] Income Tax Act gets down to trying to define residency on a specific number of days. If it were to become a matter of that import, then presumably by experience the only satisfactory test is perhaps to provide for so many days. H o w e v e r , I would hope that we wouldn't have to go that far.

I think that the words "ordinarily resident" have a judicial m e a n i n g , and there are many cases that have considered those words in other l e g i s l a t i o n . That consideration would no doubt be used by the court to come to some d e t e r m i n a t i o n on the facts that were actually presented to it. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, I note that the date the bill comes into effect has been changed from July 1, 1976 to January 1, 1977 in order to give the companies more time.

During that period of time, is it up to the companies to take the initiative to go to the director of companies and say, now look, I qualify or I don't? Can you make a judgment? Is it that kind of a procedure which is going to be set up? Will there be regulations made following this act which will be sent out to the various companies saying, do you meet these regulations; if not then you must go to the director of companies, or you must bring in more directors so you meet the requirements of the legislation? What procedure will we set up for the companies in the next year? MR. HARLE: Mr.

Chairman, as yet, we haven't worked out these details. In t a l k i n g to the former Registrar of Companies, he has suggested that it may need some amendments to the forms which are used for reporting, and probably will require some staff in a somewhat senior position to examine the returns as they come in to check the residency clauses. I might say that this type of provision under our present Companies Act is handled on a fairly routine basis.

My understanding of the operations of the companies branch, is that unless someone brings to the attention of the registrar specific suspected violations of the statute, they generally only check them to make sure that

November 24, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1285 the spaces are completed and that the right documents are on file in the companies branch. MR. R. SPEAKER: Earlier in the session, the minister tabled the report, Selected Topics in Canadian Company Law Reform. My q u e s t i o n to the minister is: was this report used to prepare this legislation? If so, prior to the presentation of the legislation in the House, did the minister refer to the recommendations of the report? MR. HARLE: Mr. Chairman, I had the report approximately in July, and noted with i n t e r e s t the comments on that particular topic in the report. [Title and

preamble agreed to] MR. HARLE: Mr. Chairman, I move the bill be reported as amended. [Motion carried] MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Chairman, I move the c o m m i t t e e rise, report progress, and beg leave to sit again. [Motion carried] [Dr. McCrimmon left the Chair.] [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] DR. McCRIMMON: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole Assembly has had under c o n s i d e r a t i o n the following: Bills No. 48, 53, 56, and 61, and begs to report same with some amendments. Mr.

Speaker, the Committee of the Whole Assembly has had under consideration the following: Bill 52, begs to report progress on same, and asks leave to sit again. MR. SPEAKER: Having heard the report and the request for leave to sit again, do you all agree? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 7. Mr. Hyndman proposed the following motion to the Assembly:

Be it resolved that, when the Assembly rises at 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, November 26, 1975, it stands adjourned to 2:30 p.m. on Wednesday, December 3, 1975. MR. HYNDMAN: As mentioned previously, I believe in the question period, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this motion is to provide the opportunity for the cabinet and caucus to finalize and review the temporary anti-inflation measures act and the t e m p o r a r y rent regulation measures act. [Motion carried] 5. Mr. Crawford proposed the following motion to the Assembly:

Be it resolved that,

(1) A select committee of this Assembly be established consisting of the following members: Chairman: T. Donnelly Members: J. Ashton E. Jamison K. Paproski G. Taylor J. Thompson: with instructions: (

a) to receive representations and recommendations as to the operations of the Workers' Compensation Act; and (

b) that the committee so appointed do meet for the purposes aforesaid at the call of the chairman at such times and places as may from time to time be designated by him; and (

c) that the said committee do report to this Assembly at the next ensuing session of this Assembly, the s u b s t a n c e of the representations and recommendations made to the committee, together with such r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s relating to the administration of the said act as to the said committee seems proper.

(2) Members of the committee shall receive remuneration in a c c o r d a n c e with

Section 59 of The Legislative Assembly Act.

(3) Reasonable disbursement by the c o m m i t t e e for clerical assistance, equipment and supplies, a d v e r t i s i n g , rent, and other fac i l i t i e s required for the effective conduct of its responsibilities shall be paid, subject to the approval of the chairman, out of Appropriation 1909. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, in moving Motion No. 5 on the Order Paper in my name, I'd just like to make a few general remarks about the importance of the select committee that is to be established by that motion.

I think it's worth noting, every once in a while in any Legislature, that the history of the rights and what is in so many respects the fair treatment of the working man is something that is of r e l a t i v e l y recent origin. You only have to go back a matter of a few generations in order to find that so many of the complaints that were made about unfairness and harsh t r e a t m e n t were regrettably only too true.

It was, I suppose, in the late stages of the last century and certainly early into the 20th century when, for various reasons, that sort of picture began to change in the working community of the western world. I suppose some of the worst

1286 ALBERTA HANSARD November 24, 1975 abuses and excesses have been spared most of the workers in Canada, because of the relatively late development, when compared with the U .S . , Britain, and Europe, of a type of society which is fairly heavily industrialized now. So, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say that one of the things, that through that period has been a way of marking the progress of society in bringing about changes, has been the bringing in of the various types of workers' compensation l e g i s l a t i o n in Canada, and in particular in Alberta.

By past comparisons, the progress from the period of around the First World War until the present time has actually been fairly rapid in this area, although, when one looks at it closely and examines it carefully, it never seems that it has proceeded at the pace it perhaps should have. Even so, changes have been w i d e s p r e a d over that period. I think it’s a good thing that the tradition arose some time ago in this Legislature that each Legislature at some point in its term should have a select committee of the Legislature in order to consider various aspects of The Workers' Compensation Act.

One of the advantages of having such a committee is, I think, that members are inclined to be more assured that the necessary examinations of policy are being done, and that the result should be, and has been, that policy as reduced to legislation and administration becomes more contemporary and more useful to the i n d i v i d u a l worker. The last select committee of the Alberta Legislature did what was generally regarded to be an outstanding job in its report.

That report, of course, was p r e s e n t e d to the House some time ago, and gave rise to the new act of 1973 and to the extensive amendments I had the honor of presenting to the House earlier this year. All of those excellent developments were in a large measure the result of the work of that select committee. One of the proposals of that select committee that was later legislated was the setting up of an advisory committee to the minister. I think I've been able to say to the House before, in the earlier d i s c u s s i o n s this spring, that the advisory c o m m i t t e e to the minister i