Alberta Hansard — 27 March 1972, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 17, Session 1)

19720327

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Monday, March 27, 1972 2:30 p.m. (The House met at 2:30 pm.) PRAYERS (Mr. Speaker in the Chair.) head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce to you and through you to the members of this House 80 Grade IX students from the City of Red Deer from West Park Junior High School who are located behind me in the public and members' gallery. They are accompanied today by their teachers Mr. Roy Brown and Mr. Brian Taylor, together with the bus driver, Brad Boulding. Could I ask that they stand and be recognized please. MR. STROMBERG: Mr.

Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce to you and through you to the members of this Assembly, my first group of students from the Rose constituency. We have 27 students here from the Grade V class of the Charlie Killam School. With them are four parents, Mrs. Helgeland, Mrs. Balding, Mrs. Madison, and Mrs. Ofrim and their teacher Marilynn Brawner. May I ask the students who are in the public gallery to stand and be received by this Assembly? MR. JAMISON: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we have with us this afternoon 55 students from Paul Kane High School in St. Albert.

It seems to me that on March 27th we might assume that we have 55 non-dropouts observing our activities in the Legislature this afternoon. I congratulate their teacher Fred Schoenrock for including this visit in their study on the day that our new Premier will speak to the Assembly. Will the students of Paul Kane stand and be acknowledged by the Speaker through him to the members of the Provincial Legislature? MRS. CHICHAK: Mr. Speaker, I wish you to introduce to you and through you to the House, members of the St. Basil's Separate School who are 45 in number. The students are accompanied by their teachers, Mr.

Harry Porochiwnyk, Mrs. Manning, Miss Eriser, and Mr. Semkow. I think that again we want to congratulate them for their interest in viewing and becoming familiar with our democratic processes. I would like to ask them to rise and be recognized by this Assembly. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 953

18-2 ALBERTA HANSARD March 27th 1972 head: ORAL QUESTIONS Cancellation of Insurance Policies MR. WILSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the hon. the Attorney General. Has any consideration been given to requiring insurance companies to advise the Motor Vehicles Branch when insurance policies are cancelled for non-payment? MR. LEITCH: Not by my department at the present time. I believe that was a question that was considered by the committee that reviewed insurance last year. MR. WILSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Minister, do you not feel that this minor precaution would be most useful and inexpensive in protecting responsible drivers from uninsured drivers? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I don't propose to get into a debate with the hon. member although that is obviously where he's trying to lead me during the question period. I should say that I doubt very much that it is inexpensive, administratively, and I very much doubt that it would provide the extent of the protection that the hon. member seems to think it might. MR. WILSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Would the minister advise us, then, in what other areas he feels that he will be able to give us assurances that we won't have uninsured drivers on the roads? MR. LEITCH: Well, Mr. Speaker, I call to the hon. member's attention that there are, at the moment, in The Highway Traffic Act very severe penalties for owning or operating a vehicle that's uninsured. As the legislation now stands, I think the penalty is $1,000 minimum for a corporation, going up to $2,500; a $250 minimum for an individual, going up to I believe, $1,000.

So there are very heavy penalties provided in the existing legislation for people who drive while they're uninsured. That is one means of protection. I should also call to the hon. member's attention that even if a vehicle were uninsured and its owner or driver insolvent, it doesn't necessarily follow that people whom he may injure or whose property he may damage have no means of payment, because they would still have recourse to The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund. Alberta Coat of Arms DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the hon.

Minister of Youth, Culture and Recreation, and I would like to know, hon. Sir, if there has been anyone in your department who has been assigned to change the Alberta Coat of Arms? MR. SCHMID: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer to the hon. member. It is not a matter of changing the Coat of Arms, but to give some thought to adding a base to the Coat of Arms of Alberta. Usually a base is Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 954

March 27th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 18-3 added to the shield of any one shield design, and we are considering looking at the possibility in this case of adding a base to the shield of Alberta. DR. BUCK: A supplementary. Will this be brought before the Legislature, hon. minister, before you make any changes? MR. SCHMID: Very much so, Mr. Speaker. If there should be any change contemplated or addition contemplated to the shield of Alberta, it will definitely be brought before the House. Property Tax for Education MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation at the 1973 session to eliminate the property tax for educational purposes? MR. RUSSELL: Well, Mr. Speaker, one of the terms of reference that has been given to the Task Force on Provincial-Municipal Financing, deals with the removal of the education portion of the property tax requisition on residential property. MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary. Mr. Speaker, that being the case, and assuming that such legislation will be introduced; is the elimination of the property tax from the property of senior citizens now going to last only for one year's duration?

MR. RUSSELL: No, Mr. Speaker. I think that is an incorrect assumption. We have said on many occasions that one of our first fields of priority would be the senior citizens. It has been a very common complaint with respect to senior citizens about the fairness and ability to pay that education requisition. So despite the fact that the task force has a tremendous amount of work yet to do in reviewing finances and legislation, we pressed ahead with this very -- to us -- important item. MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary. Then I take it, Mr.

Speaker, that the hon. minister assures the House that these benefits will be carried over insofar as senior citizens are concerned into any alternate legislation? MR. RUSSELL: I think that is a fair question, Mr. Speaker. Certainly, we are fairly well committed to making these recommendations and these major changes. As I've said before, the senior citizens are at the top of the list and we were eager to proceed with step one at this session. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 955

18-4 ALBERTA HANSARD March 27th 1972 Premier's Visit to Asia MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the hon. Premier. In view of your announced trip to Japan and your proposed trip to the Soviet Union next year, are you at this time reconsidering your position re the trip to the People's Republic of China? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I am not able to answer that question at this time. We are still in the process of making some final conclusions with regard to both of those proposed trips.

I would frankly hope that within the course of a matter of weeks we could be more definitive about it, and deal specifically with the matter raised by the hon. member. I will make a note to try to do that. MR. NOTLEY: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, again, to the hon. Premier. In view of the initiatives that are being taken to widen our trade relations with the Far East, including the People's Republic of China, has the government considered consulting with, perhaps, the one outstanding Canadian expert on China? I am referring to Mr. Chester Ronning, who is a resident of this province.

Have you as yet consulted with Mr. Ronning on seeking advice as to what approach we should take, and if you haven't, are you going to? MR. LOUGHEED: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That is one matter we are considering doing with regard to the possible extension of our trip to China. We, of course, are well aware of the difficult delicacy in these matters of making a mission to any one particular country, and then expanding beyond that to other countries. That is a matter causing us some concern.

I am sure the hon. members of the House are aware that through the Department of Agriculture we are participating in a trade fair in Peking at this time. But we will follow through with the comment that is made by the hon. member. I will try to give an answer in a matter of weeks. MR. HO LEM: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Has the hon. Premier given any consideration to taking an oriental member from this House? Edmonton Television MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of doing my hon. colleague out of a trip, I would like to ask a question of the hon. Minister of Education.

In light of certain statements made by educators in Alberta during the weekend concerning the future of educational television in Alberta, and more specifically, in Calgary and Edmonton, have the Department of Education or you, Sir, commenced any discussions or meetings with any representatives of CARET or MEETA to insure their continuance of operation? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, no, we haven't done that yet because we have not yet seen the need for it as it is really a strictly hypothetical matter at this time.

The Calgary board, I gather, will not be making a further decision until tomorrow night as to what is going to happen to CARET. There have been statements in respect to MEETA, but to my knowledge, they have not come from the elected board in Edmonton. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 956

March 27th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 18-5 Certainly, we are keeping a close eye on it. But not knowing what will happen, we would not be acting on a speculative or hypothetical matter at this point in time. But it might be necessary in a few days. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, if the boards do decide in the manner indicated over the weekend -- that there would be a substantial cutback in funds -- would the hon. minister give an undertaking to establish some immediate initiative here to see that we do, in fact, have ETV in the two cities of Calgary and Edmonton? MR. HYNDMAN: Again, Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat hypothetical.

However, in the event that there was a change in the membership of either of those two organizations, it would be a new ball game. In my view it would not be a question of any panic. We would be looking at a new pattern for both of those partnerships. Such a move taken by either of those boards named would, of course, be a loss of local autonomy, which these boards themselves initiated, in the sense that they decided some two years ago that they wanted a decentralized kind of educational television operation.

So if that move were taken, it may mean that the government -- which has been a relatively silent partner in both organizations -- might not continue to remain a silent partner. Certainly, in my view, the government would not do anything which would endorse a proliferation of television studios in educational television in the province. Edmonton Public School Board MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, perhaps this question will not be quite so hypothetical. Has the government arrived at its decision on the request from the Edmonton Public School Board for special financial assistance? MR. HYNDMAN: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, it has and the request for special financial assistance over and above the money is approximately $4 million over last year. We were not able to accede to it this. Commission on Educational Planning MR. CLARK: One last supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Education. What approach does the government plan to take in the distribution of the report of The Commission on Educational Planning? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I think that is an important question.

It is one I want to deal with at greater length because we are developing plans at this moment which will bring about, I think some novel approaches in the method of dissemination and acquiring feedback of The North Report, expected some time in June. Teacher Bargaining Rights MR. BENOIT: Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. Minister of Education. Does the hon. minister or his government plan to make any changes in The School Act pertaining to the bargaining rights of teachers, Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 957

18-6 ALBERTA HANSARD March 27th 1972 particularly in the matter dealt with in

Section 65-6 of The School Act? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker. I'm not familiar just at this moment with that subsection but, as I mentioned to the hon. Member from Olds-Didsbury the other day, certainly there is no intention by the government to bring in any legislation which would take away the teachers' right to strike. Capital Punishment MR. DIXON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Attorney General.

In view of the fact that the Justice Department of the federal government is now reviewing the advisability of maintaining capital punishment, and the fact that legislation is to be introduced in the House of Commons during the 1972 session regarding capital punishment, my question to the Attorney General is, has the Attorney General informed the Justice Department of the federal government of his government's stand towards capital punishment? MR. LEITCH: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker. MR. DIXON: I have two supplementary questions then, Mr. Speaker. Has the federal government requested any information? MR.

LEITCH: The answer is again no, Mr. Speaker. MR. DIXON: My third question then: does the Attorney General favour any changes in the legislation? MR. SPEAKER: A question for a personal opinion is, as far as I know, contrary to the rules. Medicare MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the hon. Minister of Social Development. Where the wife is in receipt of premium free Medicare, being over 65 years of age, is the husband who is still under 65 and still working entitled to premium free Medicare? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr.

Speaker, that is a question relating to the Health Care Insurance Commission which, in the normal course, would be answered by the hon. Minister without Portfolio in charge of that commission, but my understanding very briefly of the rule is as applied by the commission, that in the circumstances you have described, there will be premium free coverage for both parties. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 958

March 27th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 18-7 Humane Fur Trapping MR. JAMISON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Lands and Forests. Is this government prepared to take a stand on the use of leg hold traps in Alberta during the current session? MR. WARRACK: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is a rather serious and a very difficult matter. It is a matter about which I get a considerable amount of correspondence, and there is no obvious answer to it. The basic problem for the information of the members, Mr.

Speaker, is the problem of a trap which catches the animal by the leg so that you have a very painful kind of circumstance. Also the animal dies as a result of exposure, which is in the view of a number of people in Alberta and across Canada, a very cruel thing. The effort is to promote an instant kill trap that will kill an animal immediately so as to relieve the suffering. The Department of Lands and Forests in representing this government, does make a research grant each year to research being conducted to develop an effective trap to handle this kind of situation.

There is research being conducted in Canada at the University of Guelph and also McMaster University in Hamilton. So at the time a reliable and inexpensive trap is available through advancing technology, it would be my hope that we could accommodate these trapping needs that many people have as they make their living in marginal areas in Alberta in such a way as to not inflict undue cruelty on animals that are in Alberta. MR. WILSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the hon. Minister recall whether or not any of the correspondence that he referred to came from the Canadian Association for Humane Trapping? MR.

WARRACK: An extremely large amount. MR. WILSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Does he weigh with much favour their suggestions in this regard? MR. WARRACK: Yes, indeed Mr. Speaker. Their suggestions are that we work collectively together to develop the technologies such that we can have it both ways in terms of an effective trap and at the same time, a humane one. MR. HO LEM: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister. Will there be any increase in grants given to this development so that we can bring Alberta's grant in line with that of other provinces? MR. WARRACK: Mr.

Speaker, even though that it is a budgetary matter, I do happen to know the answer, so I'll say it now. The answer is no for the fiscal year of 1972-73 inasmuch as the estimates as they pertain to this particular year, were prepared by the old government. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 959

18-8 ALBERTA HANSARD March 27th 1972 MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton Highlands followed by the hon. Member for Stony Plain. Grants for Freeway Construction MR. KING: Thank you Mr. Speaker. A question to the hon. Minister of Highways and Transportation. Could he advise the members of the Legislature whether or not grants, which are made by the provincial government for freeway construction, are conditional upon the constriction of any particular freeway or are they available to be used at the discretion of the local municipality for any freeway or any bridge? MR. COPITHORNE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The grant is available for freeways and for bridge construction within the city, and it is okayed by the department to be spent on those particular projects. MR. KING: A supplementary Mr. Speaker. Just to be clear on this point then, the grant is not restricted by the province to a specific freeway or bridge, but the decision as to which freeway or bridge may benefit from this money is a decision made by the local municipality and confirmed by the Department of Highways? MR. COPITHORNE: That's correct, Mr. Speaker. MR. KING: Another supplementary. Mr.

Speaker, in that case then, with the present policy of the Department of Highways and Transportation what would be the reaction of the department to a grant made in the expectation that a freeway would be constructed if that road was never developed to freeway standards, but was left as an arterial road? MR. COPITHORNE: Mr. Speaker, that would be taken under consideration on advisement of the city. We usually leave the programs for the city's priority. Closure of Rural Grain Elevators MR. PURDY: Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture.

Will the provincial government be making submissions to the grain companies in rural Alberta that have closed down? Closing down of these operations have caused delays in harvest and extra expense to the farmer by having to haul his grain over 30 miles for delivery. DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, yes the whole area of elevator rationalization in conjunction with the federal studies that have gone on, is being considered. This is one of the areas in which the Alberta Grain Commission will be involved. In addition to that we hope that they Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 960

March 27th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 18-9 will take into consideration the some 69 municipal seed-cleaning plants in the province to provide an overall organization of storage and buying facilities for grain in Alberta to make it fair for all of our producers. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Drumheller followed by the hon. Member for Clover Bar. MR. TAYLOR: May I direct a question to the hon. Minister without Portfolio in charge of Medicare? Does a 30 year old man who is married to a 68 year old woman .....[Laughter and interjections].... May I please repeat t he question.

Would a 30 year old man who is married to a 68 year old woman, be entitled to premium-free Medicare? MISS HUNLEY: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a hypothetical question and also I don't think it's any laughing matter. However, I would say the answer is yes. MR. TAYLOR: Did I hear the answer was yes? One supplementary then, if the 68 year old woman died would the man then be cut off? [Laughter] MISS HUNLEY: Mr. Speaker, there is considerable levity in this House concerning what could be quite a serious matter.

It is my intention to bring to the Legislature some amendments to the Act, which indeed would talk of this as far as the payment of premium goes. This will take care of a situation which might arise in the event of this hypothetical situation. MR. TAYLOR: One more supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the hon. minister entertain a similar question where the man was the older of the two? MISS HUNLEY: Yes I would. Development of a New Edmonton Airport DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address this question to the hon.

Minister of Industry and Transport, and after all previous discussion I almost forgot what the question was. But the question is, hon. minister, in view of the fact that the hon. Member for Edmonton Kingsway is trying to build a fourth airport in the Edmonton area, I would like to know if your department has looked into the feasibility or has any representation been made to Ottawa in respect to an airport which would be situated fairly close to the Fort Saskatchewan area and which could be used as a light industrial airport? MR. PEACOCK: Mr. Speaker, at this time we haven't.

Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 961

18-10 ALBERTA HANSARD March 27th 1972 Natural Gas Price Increase Hearing MR. NOTLEY: I would like to direct this question to the hon. Minister of Mines and Minerals. Is the position of the Government of Alberta and Chevron Standard Limited identical on the issue of the natural gas price increase? MR. DICKIE: Mr. Speaker, I have said I am not in a position to answer that at this time. I will check that information and let the hon. member know. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Mines and Minerals.

Would the hon. minister explain why the Government of Alberta and Chevron Standard were both represented by the same law firm at the hearings before the Energy Resources Conservation Board? MR. DICKIE: Well, Mr. Speaker, as I tried to answer the hon. member the other day, we don't have all the information with respect to the field price hearings. He has raised the question and certainly when we are checking this information, we will get this information and advise him accordingly. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question. I think the hon. minister misunderstood my question.

It was with respect to the legal representation, the legal counsel at the Energy Board hearings. It is my understanding that the legal counsel for the Government of Alberta and the legal counsel for Chevron Standard both came from the same law firm. I wonder if the hon. minister would explain what the reason was for this situation. MR. DICKIE: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is a question that I would like to check into. I assume that what the hon. member is suggesting is that there were two members of the same firm appearing at that hearing.

My understanding is that there is a representative appearing as an observer for the government but there would be no one else appearing from their firm at that hearing. MR. NOTLEY: A further supplementary. Will the hon. minister then relate to the Legislature at the earliest possible opportunity just exactly what the situation was with respect to legal representation at the hearing? MR. DICKIE: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, we'll certainly be pleased to check right away to find out what the position was and the standing of the legal firm that was representing the government and see if there are other members of that firm also appearing at that hearing representing other companies. Protection of Consumers MR. WILSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 962

March 27th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 18-11 Premier. Does your government feel that there are any monopolistic tendencies in Alberta at this point in time, which require government protection of consumers? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, with due respect to the hon. member’s question. Although it is an important subject, I fail to see how it can be answered in the oral question period. I think the hon. member is aware of the Batten Report which was commissioned, in part, by the previous administration, and which looked into the question of pricing in the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

There has also been considerable debate in this House over the years as to the follow up on the Batten Commission Report. There were some specific references to the matter raised by the hon. member, but I don't feel that I am in a position to go beyond that at the oral question period except to take notice of the member's interest in the subject. MR. WILSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Does the Government of Alberta plan to make representation to the current series of seminars sponsored by the federal government on Bill C256, The Proposed Competition Act? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, I hope I made myself clear on Friday last; that the attitude of the present administration in Alberta is, that only in an exceptional case do we feel it is in the best interests of the provincial government to appear before federal bodies, or federal seminars, or federal boards. And I hope that I made myself clear on Friday that there will be exceptional cases and those exceptional cases are obviously when we have no other effective route of representation. I would think we will take the matter under advisement but the probability would be that we would not. MR. WILSON: Supplementary question, Mr.

Speaker. Does the provincial government agree with current federal government thinking that Bill C256 cast the net too wide and prohibited many agreements that have no real effect on competition? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could partially answer the question the hon. member is posing to the House. First of all, if he is talking about The Competition Act, he probably knows that it has been changed considerably by the government and will not appear in the state that it originally was placed, so that Bill C256 as such really has no relevance.

However, we had an opportunity within the last week to have people representing the federal government and Mr. Andras come to Alberta to give us most of the changes that will be made in the Competition Bill when it finally does reappear; members of several departments met with these officials from the federal government. There is not much sense reacting to the original bill, when in fact, it is now changed. So we are assessing the changes which they have decided to make in this Competition Bill, and then of course, we will react to it.

I hope we will be able to get a good audience from the federal government -- I'm sure we will, they seem to be very happy to have as broad a consideration as possible from all the provinces. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 963

18-12 ALBERTA HANSARD March 27th 1972 MR. WILSON: Supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs, Mr. Speaker. Is the provincial government in agreement with the proposed Competitive Practices Tribunal? MR. GETTY: Well, Mr. Speaker, we have not taken a stand on that matter because we don't know if it's going to be in the new bill or not. It does not make much sense, as I pointed out before to the hon. member, to react to something that we don't even know is in existence. MR.

SPEAKER: I would suggest this perhaps should be the last supplementary, and if the question requires further amplification, it might be made in the form of a written question. MR. WILSON: All right, sir. Inasmuch as recent newspaper publicity indicated that the Competitive Practices Tribunal would be in the new Competition Act, I was wondering if we might have the provincial government's position. And if they don't have it now, would you tell us when we might expect your position? MR. GETTY: Certainly not, Mr. Speaker. This government will not react to what happens to be found in newspapers.

We will react as a result of discussions with the people who are proposing the new bill, and then we will be able to come up with a position -- certainly not to things you happen to read in newspapers. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Lacombe followed by the hon. member for Calgary North Hill. Importation of Pork into Alberta MR. COOKSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Agriculture a question. What effects are the import of hogs from Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia having, if any, on the markets in Alberta? DR. HORNER: Mr.

Speaker, that is a matter that has been of some concern to us in the department and also to the Hog Marketing Board. They have done a study of it, and as far as we can tell, it has not had any effect on the price paid to the producer in Alberta. The House might be interested to know two things -- one that Manitoba shut off the hogs coming from outside their boundaries into their packing plants within Manitoba, and as a consequence of that action, 70 people were laid off in the packing plants in Winnipeg.

Secondly, there is an action before the Supreme Court in Manitoba in relation to the Hog Marketing Board there stopping hogs from coming in from outside the province to be processed in Manitoba. We think this would be a real backward step in Alberta. We are looking at other ways of equalizing the check-off towards our producers, and we are thinking of a marketing fee equivalent to the check-off which would be paid on all hogs coming in from outside our boundaries to be processed in Alberta. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 964

March 27th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 18-13 Parking at SAIT MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the hon. Minister of Public Works. When can residents in the area surrounding the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology expect some relief from the nuisance of students parking their cars in that area? DR. BACKUS: Mr. Speaker, my latest information, which was the progress report up to February 29th, is that the parking structure for SAIT will be completed at the end of this month or early in April.

At the end of February it was 85% complete, and at that time they gave an estimated completion date of March 31st. This of course is dependent to some extent upon the weather, but it is thought the ramp was being prepared for the last pour which should take place before the end of the month. MR. FARRAN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would you consider conferring with the hon.

Minister of Highways and the city traffic engineer of the City of Calgary to see whether some extra relief could be provided by making the 10th Street entrance an entrance rather than an egress only to take some of the weight off of the Rosedale district where students are parking their cars in large numbers? DR. BACKUS: Yes I would be perfectly happy to consider this, and will discuss it with the appropriate people. Development of a New Edmonton Airport (Cont'd.) DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I would ask a question (sort of a follow-up question) to the hon. Minister of Industry and Transportation.

This is in regard to the proposed airport site in the municipality of Sturgeon, across from Fort Saskatchewan. I would like to know Sir, has there been any official representation made to your department on this matter from the people that are developing this site, or are proposing to develop the site? MR. PEACOCK: I already answered, Mr. Speaker, that I had no knowledge of it. DR. BUCK: Well I am asking a different question, hon. Minister. I am asking you if that group has made any representation to your department? MR. PEACOCK: I haven't had any. Automobile Registration Information MR. MOORE: Mr.

Speaker, a question to the hon. Minister of Highways. He announced in the House on Friday last that his department would no longer be selling the complete list of Alberta automobile owners. Will your department continue to provide information on an individual basis with respect to the ownership of a car, such information that Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 965

18-14 ALBERTA HANSARD March 27th 1972 may be required by service stations, or auto body shops, for purposes of identifying the owner of the vehicle? MR. COPITHORNE: Mr. Speaker, there will be information available for patrolling, for police protection and so forth made, but it will be on a confidential basis. MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Do I understand that it may not be possible for any Albertan now to submit a license to your department and find out the name of the owner of that particular car? MR. COPITHORNE: Mr.

Speaker, if the person goes through the proper channels I suppose he could find out who owns the car, and so forth. Federal Firearms Act MR. STROMBERG: Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. Minister of Lands and Forests. Will you be taking representation to the federal government on Alberta's objections to Bill C5? DR. WARRACK: I'm sorry. Nr. Speaker, I would need to be enlightened on the contents of Bill C5. MR. STROMBERG: This is The Firearms Act. DR. WARRACK: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This important question was brought to my attention about ten days ago.

I had the opportunity to consult with the executive of the Alberta Fish and Game Association in that regard. I have a response from their initial look and they do not feel that this will be difficult for them in terms of the sportsmen of Alberta. At the same time they have asked that a legal examination be done by one of their own people and they are going to advise me as soon as that's completed. I do not have that information as yet.

I've also, at the same time, asked our Director of Fish and Wildlife Division, as well as our departmental solicitor, to do an independent look at the same legislation in terms of what detrimental impact it might possibly have on the sportsmen of Alberta. MR. STROMBERG: A supplementary question. Will you notify this Assembly of the correspondence that you will be receiving on this? DR. WARRACK: I would be happy to provide whatever information any member of this Assembly might wish in regards to that important topic. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview followed by the hon.

Member for Edmonton Calder, and then the hon. Member for Calgary McCall. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 966

March 27th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 18-15 Men's Hostels MR. NOTLEY: I would like to direct this question to the hon. Minister of Health and Social Development. Has the hon. minister anything to report to date on the conditions at the Edmonton and Calgary men's hostel relating to the quality of meals? Several weeks ago I raised this and you suggested you would look into it, Sir. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I thought I should get in touch with the hon. member some time and suggest that he and I go over and try one of the meals and I might yet do that.

I did get a report in writing, which was in glowing terms, of course, from the officials of the department. It included the menus. The menus look pretty good, as a matter of fact. Of course, this doesn't really answer the question as to quality, so the answer to the hon. member's question would simply be that I have a progress report, to the extent that I have a written report from the department including menus which I would be glad to share with the hon. member. But if further details such as a more independent analysis of it is required, I'd be open to suggestions in that respect. MR. NOTLEY: Well, Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question. I'd certainly be prepared to go with the hon. minister on a surprise visit any time that we can get together on that. However, I would like to ask him more specifically if he would give the House an undertaking that we can have an independent report rather than just a report from the officials involved. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I don't think I'm prepared to give an undertaking in regard to an independent report. It's a matter that I'm still giving consideration to, as to whether or not that would be justified in the circumstances. MR. WILSON: A supplementary. Mr. Speaker.

Does the staff eat the same meals as the hostel residents? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I don't know the answer to that question. Edmonton Plaza Hotel Development MR. CHAMBERS: Mr. Speaker, a question for the hon. Minister responsible for Tourism. I understand that the Edmonton Plaza Hotel development has just been announced, and I wonder if the minister has any information on this project which he would care to contribute to the House. MR. DOWLING: Mr.

Speaker, I have followed with interest the proposal for the development of the Edmonton Plaza, and I didn't know the name of it until today, but it's to replace the old post office building downtown, and it's to replace it with a hotel that has accomodation for some 400 people. It's a multi-million dollar project involving Oxford Leaseholds and the Western International Hotel chain, and the proposal is to have the demolition of the post office building Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 967

18-16 ALBERTA HANSARD March 27th 1972 commenced this summer and to start construction this fall if possible, and the completion date is 1974. It involves underground passage ways with the present commercial area below the AGT Building and eventually below the Hotel Macdonald. It ties in with the library parking area and provision has been made for allowing space for rapid transit beneath the city streets, if it eventually comes. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary McCall, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary North Hill. University Student Quotas MR. HO LEM: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the hon.

Minister of Advanced Education. On the subject regarding the possible limitation and the setting of quotas affecting the number of foreign students attending Alberta universities. Has the hon. minister taken a position on this issue? MR. FOSTER: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would like to restate the issue. I don't quite understand what he's getting at. MR.

HO LEM: The issue is, Sir, the subject regarding the setting of quotas, and also the increasing of tuition fees to foreign students have been brought up in the local press for the past ten days or so, and of course, as a result, the students are quite disturbed about what is going to happen. MR. FOSTER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to deal with this question briefly, not related to the matter of foreign students, but really to the matter of quotas alone. And this is basically tied to the matter of the financing of advanced education. It seems to me that there's a real policy question here.

If you say, for example, we will provide $91.1 million for operating universities in the fiscal year, does that mean that they can therefore limit enrolments because they may say, "Well we can only educate 'X' thousands of students on that many dollars." In other words, Mr. Speaker, by simply the government saying to advanced education we have so many dollars for education, is that by implication encouraging these institutions to limit enrolments and abrogate, if you will, the open door policy of advanced education. It's an excellent question, Mr. Speaker. It's a policy question.

Certainly we do not intend to change or recommend a change of the open door policy at this time. I think it will be very interesting, Mr. Speaker, to see what the Commission on Educational Planning may have to say about this entire problem. I think it's very narrow, Mr. Speaker, if we place this only in the context of foreign students. It's much broader than that and the implications and ramifications are much greater. Now, I don't know if that's been clear, but it's a policy consideration that can't be answered with a simple yes or no. MR. HO LEM: Supplementary, Mr.

Speaker, in that the foreign students have expressed concern, will the hon. minister be willing to meet with the representative of the Foreign Students Association in order that you may hear their views? Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 968

March 27th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 18-17 MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to meet with representatives of any student association at any time, by all means. MR. NOTLEY: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Do I take it from the hon. minister's answer that we are going to have to await the Worth Commission report before we can get a definitive explanation of government policy in this respect? MR. FOSTER: That is not what I am saying.

I am saying, that at this time I have no intention of recommending to this government that we impose a quota system anywhere in advanced education, or that we reverse, if you like, or amend the open door policy in advanced education. But at the same time, I think we have to consider the effect of providing 'X' millions of dollars to education, and what that does on the system. So I think that answer is fairly clear. I cannot say, Mr.

Speaker, whether or not the universities will find it necessary, for departments or the university as a whole, to propose a quota system in terms of the universities, or colleges for that matter, meeting their own obligation. If that is their intention, and that is the recommendation, then of course, I would like to meet with them or anyone else who wants to make a comment on that problem. MR. CLARK: A supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Advanced Education.

If in fact, one or all of the universities or any of the colleges, or NAIT or SAIT were in a position they felt they would have to reverse the open door policy which has been in effect for some time, would the government reconsider their financial commitment to that particular . . . MR. FOSTER: I must point out again, Mr. Speaker, that this is very plainly a hypothetical question, and under No. 171 in Beauchesne it does not qualify. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary North Hill. We have time for one final question. Grants for Freeway Construction (Cont'

d) MR. FARRAN: One short question for the hon. Minister of Highways, then. Mr. Speaker. Pursuing the question from the hon. Member for Edmonton Highlands, do I take it from your answer that the cities exaggerate their case when they say that they can only get to 75% provincial grant for major arterials if they adhere to the very rigid standards laid down by the Department of Highways? MR. COPITHORNE: Mr. Speaker, I was not able to hear the last part of the hon. member's question. Would he please repeat it. MR. FARRAN: I will put it on another day, because I think you are running rapidly out of time. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 969

18-18 ALBERTA HANSARD March 27th 1972 ORDERS OF THE DAY head: BUDGET DEBATE MR. LOUGHEED: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, the first matter that I would like to raise in this House, as other hon. members have done with consistency and sincerity, is that I am very proud to have moved, seconded by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, that you, Sir, be elected as speaker of this Legislative Assembly.

It comes as no surprise to me, nor surprise to any who have known you, that in the very short time in this first session of the 17th Alberta Legislature, you have already commanded the respect of hon. members in all corners of this Legislative Assembly. Mr. Speaker, I do have to say a word as an aside about an arrangement for today's proceedings that appears to be slightly different. Prior to the session commencing, I was asked by the Clerk what we should do with the vase of flowers that has divided the hon. Leader of the Opposition and myself in reverse roles in previous occasions.

I told him I thought the flower pot was an attractive part of our Assembly but I would prefer it moved down, not with any reference to the hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury. I see it has been unilaterally moved today -- I regret that. Mr. Speaker -- but at least I have the opportunity to stand above it. Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my congratulations to every newly elected member of this Legislative Assembly. I know when I rose for the first time in the 1968 session to speak in this House, I felt that as far as I personally was concerned, it was a moment in my life of extreme significance.

And I know too, that members on both sides of the House have had that same feeling, that unforgettable experience of rising in a parliamentary institution to present views on behalf of their constituents. I extend my personal congratulations to each and every one of the new members. Mr. Speaker, in my first address in my new responsibility in the Legislative Assembly, I would like to say to you, Mr. Speaker, and all of the members, that I do recognize the very large responsibilities that I assumed on the 10th day of September. I also recognize, Mr.

Speaker, that the decision of the public on August 30th, 1971, was a very clear mandate to the Progressive Conservatives for new directions in Alberta. And, Mr. Speaker, I intend to assure that the mandate is fulfilled and that those new directions are commenced and followed through. But I would like to say this, and it is a very difficult matter to state. I recognize too, that there is a very delicate balance between the carrying out of a mandate within a legislative Assembly and the utilization of a majority position in an Assembly. That delicate balance is a very hard one to fulfill.

I'm sure over the course of this 17th Alberta Legislature, there will be times when I personally, and all members, will feel that we did not recognize the balance. But we will try to do so. I want members to understand that we recognize that there is a very important distinction between the fulfilling of the mandate given the majority party and the utilization of the vote of the majority party in terms of the democratic process. I would like to say a word, Mr. Speaker, about the parliamentary system. In my view, and I am sure the view of all members, it has its defects.

But I haven't any question in my mind that it is the most effective system of democratic action that we know today in our modern world. Certainly, there are areas of improvement, and need for reform. But that is not to say, that the system itself, basically the parliamentary system, doesn't fulfill better, by far, than any other approach, the need for democracy in action. I would like to recall for the attention of the members a discussion that I Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 970

March 27th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 18-19 had with the Prime Minister at lunch in November. At that time there was a considerable amount of criticism that the Prime Minister was attempting to convert the office of Prime Minister to that of President. Mr.

Speaker, we dicussed and considered that and it was his view, and I share that view, that actually, in the parliamentary system it is quite clear that the influence of the parliamentary leader on the government side, exceeds that of the congressional leader in that it imposes an even more important responsibility upon the leader of government in the parliamentary system. Mr. Speaker, I think already in this first session of the 17th Alberta Legislature, we have made some significant improvements.

We have made the improvement with regard to the television and radio, who in turn made their decision on the coverage of our proceedings and we have opened up the House for that purpose. We have made the decision with regard to Hansard, even though it appears to be having certain short-term technical problems. But we made two other changes that I think, frankly, were more important, at least to me they were more important. One was the involvement of government members, not members of the Executive Council, in presenting bills which formed part of the government legislative package.

We have seen evidence, as recently as last Friday, of the merit of relying upon the knowledge, and the expertise, and the understanding of members on the government side with regard to particular matters of legislation. We also saw something that I felt probably was as significant as any other, and that was the debate that we had on the bill submitted by the hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Leduc, a bill submitted by a private member which was discussed at second reading stage. I hope we will - and I know we will - have many good debates in that period on Thursday afternoon at 4:30.

I think it was an excellent and a very significant improvement in the parliamentary system. I would like to say a word too, with regard to the monarchy. This institution seems to be fairly constantly under attack from certain quarters. I pledge myself to a counter-attack because, as I have said before in this House, I believe that the institution, as represented by our wonderful Lieutenant-Governor in this province, shows something that is important to Albertans - that the institution of the monarchy is above the political battle and the warfare. It has a very important role to play.

As I have said on other occasions, it's not the power that the monarch takes onto herself, but the power that she denies anyone else, that is so critically important. I was pleased with the response to our invitation, and the unanimous support of the Legislature, to that invitation to Her Majesty to come here in either 1974 or 1973.

I am pleased, too, with the progress that the government has been able to make, and hopefully there will be more to announce soon, with regard to the clear reinstatement of the important traditions of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as part of the basic history of this part of Canada. I think it's that important to us. Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to the contribution of members from all parts of this Legislative Assembly. I think they have been excellent, and I refer back to my friend Mr. Marvin Moore when he spoke in this House.

He said that regardless of possible complaints or editorial criticism he felt it was his responsibility to speak up in this Chamber with regard to the needs of his constituency, and went ahead to do it, I thought in the most eloquent manner. The hon. Member for Whitecourt certainly started properly in that regard. I hope that we will always hear expressed in this Assembly something that I consider as significant as anything else, addresses, speeches, remarks and contributions by members as to the needs of their individual constituencies.

Because what is unique about this parliamentary system is that every single one of us is part of a kaleidoscope of Alberta life and society, and represents every single voting citizen in the province - and the people Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 971

18-20 ALBERTA HANSARD March 27th 1972 generally - through the constituency system. So I say to members on both sides of the House, let us not in any way back up on them. It is important to express these needs. I would like to pick out two hon. members for comment, with due respect for all members. (I see that some members are not in their seats.) But before I do so I would like to make a specific comment with regard to opposition contributions in these debates, which I hope will be taken in the way that it is presented.

It is extremely difficult for government to decide between conflicting needs in the various constituencies unless there is a clear awareness of those needs. So, recognize that it's natural and desirable in the course of the adversary system here in debate that the proposals made by government be attacked, hopefully with alternative constructive suggestions. At the same time members opposite will feel as strongly as they can the need to express the particular problems of their own constituents. How else, Mr.

Speaker, can the government be aware of the air conditioning problem in the hospital in Medicine Hat, unless the members express these matters on the floor of the House. We hear them from the government's side, we hear them as well, let's be frank, in government caucus. It's equally important that we hear them expressed here and I would like to if I could, mention two. The contributions in the Legislature made by the hon. Member for Lac La Biche-McMurray, Dr. Bouvier.

I have some knowledge and understanding of his constituency and he presents a very difficult problem, because of matters I intend to deal with today, related to the inter-relationship of federal and provincial programs. I think, too, the remarks made by the hon. Member for Stettler, expressed well, on a given evening in this House, the way of life of the smaller centres of Alberta. It is something that I hope every member will recall and think about in terms of the development of our policies. I am sorry the Member for Lethbridge West is not in his seat.

The way that he expressed the growth of the smaller cities of Alberta, in his contribution, was one that I thought was most effective and certainly a challenge to some of the ministers on this side of the House. I thought the contribution by the hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood regarding the difficulty of older schools in the centre urban core was also of significance to all of us. There were many, many more, Mr.

Speaker, but I did want to make mention of these constituency matters which were raised in debate because I think that they were very worthwhile and we look forward to that extending through the whole course of the 17th Alberta Legislature. In my view, and without casting aspersions upon the past, the quality of the debate in this 17th Alberta Legislature has been outstanding and I would like to say that all members have made important contributions. Mr. Speaker, I represent a constituency.

You spoke about yours, sir, when you were given your difficult assignment, I would like to speak about mine, because in the parliamentary system I represent here some thousands of voters, some thousands of people. My constituency is Calgary West and it is truly, in my view, a cross-

section of urban life in our metropolitan centre to the south. It is that strip that is situated, as many of the Calgary members know, on the western side of the city. It has an interesting feature which has some bearing upon my own views. There are a very large number of the people in that constituency who are involved, directly or indirectly, in the petroleum industry and the prosperity of that industry. I held a pre-sessional meeting in a shopping centre, as the MLA for Calgary West and that, Mr. Speaker, was a store-front representation.

I couldn't believe the number we had and the variety of the matters that they raised. And I intend to repeat these representations again and again, as they are as close as you can possibly get under the present circumstances to the needs of your constituents. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 972

March 27th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 18-21 There is one feature of my constituency of Calgary West I would like to mention. It has something, and I would challenge others in debate and even the Member for Stettler. It has an amazing aspect of community life; almost the highest degree of participation in community life in terms of the community organizations of any part of Alberta that I’ve visited. The reason I mention it is because I think community life is the outgrowth of the family life that is part one of the values that we hold so important in our Alberta society.

There is one other thing about representing the constituency of Calgary West. Very many of the people have come to my constituency from the rural parts of Alberta and have moved there from smaller centres. And I do hope that throughout the course of this 17th Legislature, we can debate vigorously problems between the country and the city, but do it on the basis of recognizing throughout, that all Albertans are involved. Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to report on some of the highlights of our administration for the first six months.

Many matters of reorganization have been dealt with by other ministers or will be in a few days hence. But I think it is important to dwell for a few minutes on the questions of reorganization that were raised in our mind, that have been followed through with since that time. I sensed on September 10th, in fact I sensed some years earlier, that there was an important need for substantial reorganization of the Executive Council in Alberta.

And one of the important objectives, is to assure that from a departmental ministerial point of view, one minimizes whatever empire building is natural, by the very nature of people themselves. That there be a higher degree of inter-departmental co-ordination, and I looked and I studied to the extent that we were able, the efforts of the previous administration with regard to the Human Resources Development Authority, which in essence had that same objective.

Our conclusion, for whatever the reasons might have been, is that that attempt was unsuccessful, I hasten to add, however, though, that that authority has on a project level, done some very important and some very useful work. But with regard to the matter of inter-departmental co-ordination generally within government, I did not feel that it satisfied the needs that we felt were important at the start of the 17th. The Cabinet structure, of course, is well known with regard to the new portfolio and the Legislation is before the House.

But I would like to make a comment about the Department of Health and Social Development. I admit, that on the other side of the House a year ago, we took issue with the merger of these two departments, but when we assumed office, it was a fait accompli. And we were faced with an important decision. The decision we made which has been related by the hon. minister, is that that merger will continue for a trial period.

I felt that the hon. member for Wetaskiwin Leduc, earlier in this Legislature, made a very useful contribution in attempting to explain some of the very important benefits that would accrue from that merger if we could make it work. The difficulty is the demands that are placed upon the elected minister, to deal with the individuals that are involved in the individual needs and concerns. We have made one step in that direction as members know, to bring in the hon. Minister without Portfolio, Miss Hunley, to assist the hon. minister, Mr. Crawford. It is going to be a very difficult task, and a major portfolio.

I would only like to say this. That having regard to the work load, and having regard to the pressure, I doubt that there is anybody else in Alberta who has a better chance of making it work than the hon. minister. Mr. Speaker, there has been some discussion with regard to the expansion of the Cabinet, and very naturally, proper discussion. We felt it was important within an Executive Council situation to assure that we had ministers without portfolio who, although, they would be Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 973

18-22 ALBERTA HANSARD March 27th 1972 assigned specific responsibilities within tourism, in northern development and rural development, and in health care, would not be so burdened with administrative responsibilities, that they could bring, to the Executive Council, decision making a broader point of view, both geographically, but also in terms of not being tied to departmental interests. I think it has worked very very well, and I am pleased with the progress to date.

We also moved in early September to establish a Cabinet Committee structure and to some this may be old ground, but to others, to my surprise, frankly, it is not, and I believe should be reviewed on this occasion. We have established a Priorities Committee which is essentially, as our predecessors would recognize, is the Treasury Board, although with myself as Chairman.

And it's responsibility, more than anything else, is to establish priorities, and to assure co-ordination Its responsibility is more There is another standing committee of the Cabinet involved with co-ordination of education made necessary as a direct result of the division of The Department of Education. But it’s added to with the presence of the hon. Minister of Manpower and Labour and the important relationships that we see there. There is another, not so quiet, standing committee called Natural Resources and Environment, which is chaired by the Deputy Premier.

It involves the Ministers of Environment, Mines and Minerals, Lands and Forests, and Industry and Commerce. They do get involved with some important conflicting views and this is a healthy thing. They get involved, for example, in the question of the export from Alberta of ethane, by Dome Petroleum and other companies. There's the standing committee on Metropolitan Affairs described by the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs who is the chairman.

It will have to move into the question, of annexation in terms of the difficulties raised by members -- the broadening base of the metropolitan area of Edmonton -- amongst many others. There's the standing committee on rural development under Mr. Topolnisky who has, on his agenda, a number of items, and one of them of course he's referred to previously, and that is rural gas facilities. These are the on going committees of the Executive Council. There are two longer term planning committees, the Economic Planning Committee under the hon. minister, Mr.

Getty, and the Social Planning Committee, under the hon. minister, Mr. Crawford, who are charged with some important responsibilities in phase 2 and phase 3 of our administration. I would like to say more about that, later in my remarks. We have numerous naturally ad hoc committees of a special nature, but the important objective of all of this is to assure that the organizational structure is such that the minister's time in the decision making process of the Executive Council is concentrated on the major and not the minor matter. Frankly, Mr.

Speaker, I'm still far from satisfied with our progress in this regard. Many members of the senior public service of Alberta have already told me it is very much improved. We have added to it, of course, an administration that shows as Appropriation 1402 of the Executive Council; we don't intend to develop a Privy Council organization comparable to that of the federal government, but we do intend to develop some machinery which to our amazement, when we took over office on September 10th, was non-existent, of any significance.

We're looking at the Ontario model, but frankly we think that's more elaborate than necessary. Everything that will be done by the Executive Council will be done on a request for decision basis and the necessary machinery is being established. This brings me, Mr. Speaker, to the review of reorganization of various branches of our operations. There were 20 to 25 major changes made by the new administration during the first two to three Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 974

March 27th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 18-23 months of our operation. The Co-operative Activities went from Industry to Agriculture. Surface Rights went from Mines and Minerals to Agriculture. The Liquor Control Board went from the Treasury to the Attorney General because of the licensing function. The Transportation Research area went from Highways to Industry. The Drug and Alcohol Abuse Commission went from the Executive Council to Health and Social Development. The Research Council went from the Executive Council to Industry.

The Personnel Administration from the Executive Council to Manpower and Labour, just to mention a few. A considerable amount of time was spent in this particular area. Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, in this re-organization, I am far from satisfied with the result to date, but I feel that progress has been very significant and very extensive. We're in the process of evaluating a number of new approaches in government reorganization and reassessment that we will be announcing over the course of the months ahead. Mr. Speaker, hon. members may wonder why I am taking the time with this area. I'd like to explain that.

As I mentioned, the first critical matter is to assure that elected ministers, when it comes down to the major policy questions, are fully informed and briefed, have adequate time, and that they are concentrating their decision making process on the important matters of policy decision-making. And the second critical matter is to avoid if at all possible, the isolated departmental decision-making that has the ripples and waves over other departments, and sometimes works at cross purposes with the efforts of other departments.

It creates an unfortunate degree of duplication, but more than anything else, when it comes down to the citizen on the receiving end, it's a situation that reduces significantly the degree of service provided to the people of the province. So, Mr. Speaker, I think we need a review of the organizational progress that we have made to date, and I wanted to make one at this time, to inform hon. members that there is a considerable amount more intended for the future. The next subject I'd like to deal with is public participation or open government. We are committed to this approach.

The nature of our society in 1972 in Alberta demands it. We need to be better informed in terms of the public. We need to assure that the public is better informed, so that they can better understand some of the difficult decisions we have to make. And more important, as I've said on a number of occasions we need to assure that government is more responsive to the public view and to the public's feelings. However, I would like to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that there are two caveats that are important on this matter of open government.

One of them involves negotiations with other governments, the federal government in particular, or with significant industrial or labour groups. We have to make decisions in terms of the public interest as to whether or not a premature disclosure of the position of the government is wise, particularly if it's tentative, particularly if it involves a bargaining situation. It remains something that is part of the negotiations until the matter has been concluded to the best interests of the people of Alberta.

I know that there have already been questions raised in this House about that matter, with an attempt to relate it back to open government. Mr. Speaker, those negotiations, particularly with the federal government, are of such a critical nature that we feel it is our responsibility to conduct them on that basis, and when they have been completed, to report to the public on a full basis of what occurred. But that is after the discussions have concluded. Mr.

Speaker, there is a second caveat, and that comes in the area of emergency situations where the Executive Council or the government are obliged to make emergency decisions. Quite clearly they have to be made, and we are entrusted with the responsibility to make them. One of the weaknesses, in my view, is described in this very important document, the 8th Annual Report of the Economic Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 975

18-24 ALBERTA HANSARD March 27th 1972 Council of Canada that the hon. Member from Olds-Didsbury has brought into the House; "A Design for Decision Making". It's the comments that are made regarding the time factor. Participation by the public involves a difficult assessment of time because that assessment can be so great that as a result it has eliminated much of the benefit of the review. But I would like to raise, in terms of open government, three specifics. The first one has to do with our natural resource revenue hearing that we are proposing towards the latter half of this session.

I would like to make it clear that we are under no obligation to do this, no legal obligation whatsoever. It was not done before, it would be easy to avoid, and it has some concerns for us. As the hon. Member for WetaskiwinLeduc has pointed out, one of the concerns of this approach is the very factor of delay I mentioned a minute ago, and the uncertainty that is involved in the industry, in knowing where they stand. We are aware of that, and concerned about it.

I would like to say that during 1962, when that process was last undertaken, I am given to understand that the actual decision was not done and not made until the latter part of June. So those automatic critics should be well advised to remember that this administration, with regard to this hearing, is under no legal obligation to hold it. If we wanted to follow the practice in the past, we could merely close the door of the Executive Council and then come out with the decision by way of regulation. Mr. Speaker, I will have more to announce about that subject later.

Another area is the question of a mobile government. I am sure many hon. members have noted that one appropriation that has substantially increased is the travelling expense for hon. ministers under No. 1402, and that is intentional. My evaluation as to the effectiveness of the hon. ministers is going to be based a great deal on the way in which they are travelling to the corners of this province.

I hope, rather than complaint about the size of that expenditure, that the complaint we will hear in latter sessions, and a very justifiable one, will be about the degree to which the hon. ministers in given responsibilities, have or have not been around the province. And that, I hope, is something we will hear in the second session. Mr. Speaker, open government is not just for the people of the City of Edmonton and environs; open government is for the whole province of Alberta. Another part of our approach to this area involves the matter of position papers. This is not entirely a new approach.

Certainly, the previous administration presented an excellent one with regard to the oil sands development policy, but we intend to be more extensive. And I refer hon. members to the Economic Council of Canada Report, on page 85 as to the desirability of something I felt was most significant, that before policy is determined, the rationale for selecting particular objectives and strategies at the time policies are announced, and subsequent periodic reports on the progress of operating programs are made.

There must be an increasing willingness and competence on the part of officials and politicians to discuss basic policy issues in the public arena. Mr. Speaker, this cannot be used and will not be used as an excuse for passing the buck. For the elected representatives are charged with the decision-making. They also have a responsibility to represent the less vocal parts of our society. And for that reason, that is where the decision-making is involved. These position papers may be of three types: They may be definitive, they may set up alternatives, or they may leave specifics within ranges.

In all cases, the objective is to state that first, state the position and then the budgetary; and the legislative or the Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 976

March 27th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 18-25 regulatory action will come later. In this way we hope that government will be more responsible to the review of the public's mood and the public's feelings. A word about research. We will have, contrary to some expressed views, substantial arms length research by this administration. The hon. minister Miss Hunley has described that. Some of it will be the foundation of our policy consideration. Some of it will be for the purpose of public discourse and discussion, such as the Report on Educational Planning that the hon. Minister of Education was referring to today.

Five important areas are going to be dealt with by government task forces. Members are very familiar, of course, with the task force on provincial-municipal financing. But the other four are equally important. Manpower training and retraining policies; decentralization of government operation; needs, opportunities and responsibilities of the individual; and our new incentives for Albertans. They will form an important part of our new policy formulation during phase 2 and phase 3 of our administration. Mr.

Speaker, with that review, I would like now to move to the budget address and the priorities that are contained and set out on page 20. I am sure that hon. members noticed something that was not referred to by the Provincial Treasurer. That there was an important tie and link which I hope we will always be able to maintain, between the Speech from the Throne and the priorities there and the priorities contained in the budget. There were observations with regard to the Human Rights Legislation that I think I can more adequately deal with at second reading of Bill No. 1.

But I have been asked often in the last few weeks, how these priorities evolved these priorities of senior citizens, the family farm, mental health, and handicapped Albertans. Well, Mr. Speaker, they developed from my exposure and some of my colleagues' exposure during the course of debates and estimates in the 16th Alberta Legislature. They were expanded upon during the course of the past election campaign, but they came to fruition in an exercise of democracy which I thought was very significant. Some government members may have already forgotten.

At the first caucus of the government members, there was a document passed around and they were asked to list their immediate concerns. I still have possession of that document, and that document, strangely enough, was right on all fronts with the views that we have with regard to the matters of priorities. We have stated in our guidepost (No. 7) the importance of an administration setting forth in a declared way its priorities; we will always try to do that.

We know that we are setting up, therefore, for critics, an easy attack and that the easy way out would be to avoid the declaration of priorities, but we don't intend to take that approach. We intend, in phases of our administration, to set them forth. I would like to deal briefly with these priorities. With regard to senior citizens, I recall the contribution in the budget debate by the Member for Edmonton Strathcona when he brought out a pamphlet and read down the items of progress that have been made in terms of senior citizen reform.

And I recall too, discussions I had last week with the Golden Age Club of Calgary. But there is one thing I would like to make clear, and I am sure that members on both sides would agree. That whatever we do in this area, I don't take it in any sense as something that we should receive thanks for doing. There is something wrong about that. What we look at in terms of the senior citizens, is that this is something which they are entitled to receive by the very contribution that they have made to the society of this province. It is on that tone that we make these moves in this area.

Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 977

18-26 ALBERTA HANSARD March 27th 1972 Mr. Speaker, members have raised, and I think legitimately raised, the concern about the amount of $50.00 that we have provided for these with rented accommodation. Frankly, we would have like it to be more. (It is the amount of the first Homeowner's Tax Discount.) There is a valid cause for concern as to the effect on rentals and what it will mean in terms of rental rates. We certainly have no intention of getting involved in questions of rent control, but we do appreciate remarks that are raised on that particular matter.

The only point that I would like to say further about it is that it is a tangible and first time recognition of something the hon. Member for Calgary North Hill has described in his opening remarks in this Legislature, as the area perhaps where the greatest need, and so for that reason I think it was an important initiative by our administration. In the second area of concern to senior citizens I am not nearly so bland in my response - not nearly.

I think in the area of education property tax it frankly didn't take me or my colleagues minutes to reject any suggestion of a means test, either in the Medicare or in the educational property tax relief for the senior citizens - not only from a dollar and cents point of view in terms of administrative costs, not only because the statistics are clear that the average income level of our senior citizens in this province is a very meagre $3,280 and a very, very few senior citizens will be involved in benefits of any significance having regard to their income. But primarily, Mr.

Speaker, because of the matter of dignity with senior citizens - because there is not a member in this Legislative Assembly that hasn't at one time or another sat down and talked to a senior citizen about a complicated form, a Medicare premium document, a property tax statement and not appreciated their concern and the misunderstandings that develop out of these forms. But more than that is the fact that the citizen is subjected to this. And so, Mr. Speaker, I reject completely the means test concept that has been raised in this Legislative Assembly. Mr.

Speaker, the second area of priority has to do with the family farm as a way of life. Some of the arguments put already in this Legislative Assembly have been, I think, most penetrating. They suggest something of a cycle, and the cycle is that as the farm population diminishes, as it affects the smaller and adjacent towns, as the people move to the large metropolitan areas, as they are in a life span area of their 50's primarily, as they try to develop and adjust to a new life style, many of them find themselves thrown at considerable psychological cost onto the social assistance list.

I think we face a very grave challenge indeed and maybe an area where all we can do is stem the tide - slow down the process. But I feel strongly, and our administration is committed to do everything within our resources, to try to do that. It makes economic sense, but it also makes very human sense. All one has to do to really get the feeling of this subject is to study the age differentials and the age in groups that are involved in many of the rural parts of Alberta. I haven't any doubt that we are going to have some disappointments.

I haven't any doubt that we are going to find in this Assembly in later sessions some pretty significant criticism of areas in which we had hope we would make success and were unable to. But despite all of that we intend to really try. We intend to place $3.1 million in family farm developments. We intend to have a 46% increase in funds allotted in this area, and more than that I am committed to having a Deputy Premier of this province responsible for agriculture. Mr. Speaker, the third priority is mental health.

If the members wish, let them - and I welcome it - read at any time the platform of the Progressive Conservatives daily-or weekly - and let them assess, in particular, the area of mental health. For my advice today is that already initial progress in these new directions has been achieved with about eight points, at least six, and possibly Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 978

March 27th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 18-27 seven, by the minister. But the statement that is important in mental health is that it is a five-year program to provide the essential funds to implement the priority recommendations of the Blair Report. It should be made completely clear to all members that we recognize this new direction in the area of mental health, that we are starting on a year one of a five-year program, and that it is going to be hard sledding to effect the reforms that we want to. But I would like to add one other item; I consider it my responsibility in my office, Mr. Speaker, to play a role.

And one of the items that is contained within this platform I would like to read: "To commit the office of Premier, to fulfilling the task of stimulating public awareness and understanding of the concept that mental health is really everybody's business and that no stigma should attach to mental health." Mr. Crawford, as the hon.

Minister of Health and Social Development, has developed many of the details and he will, during the estimates and in legislation, welcome suggestions and certainly, in this area, I think that many of the ministers of the previous administration have considerable area of scope of contribution and we will welcome their views and their thoughts. I am delighted to read into the record today a letter dated March 1, 1972, from Dr. Blair, arising out of our discussion between the hon. minister. Mr. Crawford, and myself with Dr. Blair who headed up the mental health study.

He states in his letter, which I will be pleased to table: "I am gratified to note in your plans the high degree of understanding of the basic principles I tried to convey in my report." He goes on to develop his support for our new approaches. Mr. Speaker, that priority surely is one that rises above any sort of partisan political activity, and I know that it does. The last one, Mr. Speaker, is the priority regarding handicapped children, and I flinch at the use of the word 'last', because it's overdue and serious.

Some of my most heartrending and personal experiences as an MLA came out of this area, in trying to work with citizens who had some very difficult problems. I don't think there is a member in this Legislative Assembly on either side that questions that priority and that need, and the money that we have committed. Perhaps all that needs to be said is that what is important is that the ministers who are involved are subjected to the challenge of implementation, of assuring that the funds are wisely and properly spent.

An area here has been raised which has to do with the increase of the amount for the disabled workman. I don't think it's enough. I think in retrospect we should have done more; I think we should look pretty carefully at it. At least it was the first move for many a year, but I do think we can do more. I think we should reassess it and, perhaps, when we reach the estimates, we could hear the response from the other side as to the degree of improvement that we could make. We are talking about a disabled workman having a permanent disability pension increased from $175 to $225 per month, and that's not very much.

Mr. Speaker, those are the priorities of our administration within our budget. But I thought that what I would like to do today was to develop with hon. members the interesting time that I had in November, December, January, February and March, with the budget process -- the decisions that we made -- the decisions with regard to no increase in taxes, a balanced operating budget, but a $199 million of capital borrowing requirement -- and to the mix that went into that. There were obviously alternatives -- three of them.

We could have increased taxes and hence reduced the amount of the capital borrowing; or secondly we could have reduced the capital program such as The Opportunity Fund or The Development Fund and thereby have reduced the amount of the capital requirements. Thirdly we could Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 979

18-28 ALBERTA HANSARD March 27th 1972 have cut down the capital requirements by eliminating some of the newly operating priority programs. Mr. Speaker, these were the three alternatives we faced. And I think it's healthy for the matter to be debated. I would like to present to the members the reasons why we reached the conclusion that we did, and why we considered none of those three alternatives as acceptable. First of all with regard to increasing of taxes. The economic reports are clear. We are operating under potential. We have just come out of a difficult time.

Ontario, for example, in its administration is considering a cutback of taxes, but many members have raised the importance of a budget for the working man, with average income, salary and wage levels the impact on both his take home pay and also his job opportunities for growth. And our assessment was that at this time that simply wasn't the approach that was required for Alberta in 1972-73. Mr. Speaker, we could have eliminated the capital program, or portions of it, and table D3; if members have not carefully assessed it; sets it out in some considerable detail.

Last year the capital requirements were $166 million -- this year they are $199 million. However, one could have a fairly vigorous debate about the amount that was underestimated by the previous administration, whether it was $30, $40, $50, or $60 millions in terms of the operating side. In any event there is a difference, and so perhaps those who proposed the second alternative would have had us cut out certain capital programs. Well, Mr. Speaker, to those critics, I say, which?

Would it have been the Opportunity Fund, would it have been the Agricultural Development Fund, would it have been some of the hospitals, or educational facilities? I think it's important that it be said, and not avoided. Mr. Speaker, the economy of this province, in our view, is operating below potential. It needs to be stimulated, and we feel the capital program set forth here, and I know ministers will respond to this, in my view, gets very close to a bare minimum on a capital side.

The third alternative is that we could have cut down on our capital requirements by eliminating some of the new program priorities. Which ones? Senior citizens, handicapped children, the mental health, the family farm? No, some of the overall administrative matters, some may say. But we will look forward to the estimates and to the suggestions on that score. That brings me, Mr. Speaker, to this conclusion. We had those three alternatives. They were carefully and thoroughly considered, and we came down on the approach that we made.

I am very pleased with the response from the public of Alberta to that approach in our first budget. But there is a problem of cost control in government that bothers me a great deal. Program budgeting is a technique that will help, but only help, and we have quite a way to go in this area. Many members of the senior civil service in Alberta have mentioned to me that the budget review this year was the most intensive they have seen. But I am not satisfied. I am satisfied that in six short months we were able to do as well, but I think we can do better. But there is one important limitation in this area.

We have a responsibility to the public service of Alberta. If one phases out old programs, one must phase in new programs, and one must take advantage of the talent, and the dedication and the experience of the public service of Alberta. However, if one moves on a priority new program in a field such as agriculture, one must do it with new staff. What somewhat amuses me, Mr. Speaker, is that my record of events is that every cut, every reduction that is in fact, made in that budget, has, from one quarter or another in this province, caused a cry of anguish.

Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 980

March 27th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 18-29 Mr. Speaker, we will listen to them, but we have a responsibility for fiscal management and the fact that we were able to keep the operating expenditure increase down, significantly over the average of the past, in fact over all of the past five years, is an important credit, in my view, to the administration. Miss Hunley mentioned in her remarks, Mr. Speaker, that there were a number of pet projects that got lost. There will be a number more that will get lost in the future. There are going to be some difficult priorities in terms of education, and they have been raised.

I would like to deal briefly, therefore, with our capital borrowing program. I think that it's clear from the record in terms of Alberta, that total direct and indirect debt per capita rose by 345% in Alberta in the years 1960-1968. This growth which was due almost entirely to increases in indirect debt was substantially higher than that of the other western provinces and was second only to Newfoundland. That was a period of time of importance, when we were operating a previous administration on a pay as you go policy. Well, Mr. Speaker, our approach is a user pay approach.

I feel that a capital program essentially provides services and opportunities to younger Albertans in many, many ways and that it is unfair to today's taxpayers to have a pay as you go policy and charge the entire cost of capital programs by way of either increased taxes or reduced services for senior citizens. Mr. Speaker, I think it would be wrong and bad judgment for our administration to delay the implementation of a capital program of this nature. We have already seen and heard many times expressed here the problems regarding roads.

We've heard a very good economic discussion from the Member for Calgary Buffalo with regard to this sort of program financing for capital requirements. Mr. Speaker, it's my view that the pay as you go philosophy of the previous administration which held I believe up until two years ago, was harmful to this province. I said that frequently in the past during the 16th Alberta Legislature. I don't think there's been any question that we have been consistent about that point of view. So it should be no surprise to anybody that we follow this fiscal policy. Mr.

Speaker, at this time though, March 1972, we do have some concern about our capital situation. Tabled in the Legislature a few days ago was the auditor's report of The Alberta Resources Railroad with the notation: "freight volumes have been insufficient to generate tonnage rental payments in amounts sufficient to affect payment of interest receivable on a current basis.

No amounts for non collection of the receivable has been made, although collection is doubtful, unless there's a substantial increase in freight volumes and/or tonnage rates." Frankly, I am worried about The Alberta Resources Railroad and about the refinancing obligations of our administration. Looking at the capital requirements as they stand in this budget, the debt servicing obligations are, with regard to income, under 2%. That compares with a national average of about 6%.

I am also very pleased at the response of the business and financial community of Canada to our budget, described, for example, in an editorial in the Globe and Mail and from many other quarters, as being both prudent and practical. Mr. Speaker, it is a budget that combines fiscal responsibility with priorities for people. I am very, very proud of the budget as it stands. Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal briefly with the Alberta economy as described on page 28 of the budget speech. There is that reference to the economy operating below potential and our obligation to young Albertans to stimulate it.

This province is in transition, from an economy based very largely on natural resources. It's going to take us time to make this transition. It's going to be hard to do it. A year ago in this House I referred to the necessity of taking a Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 981

18-30 ALBERTA HANSARD March 27th 1972 decade to make that transition. These days the petroleum industry is certainly one that both the Minister of Mines and Minerals and myself, and the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs, are very extensively involved in. There are many open questions. There's reference in the budget to the formulating of new policies for exploratory drilling.

There's been a good description in this debate by the Minister of Mines and Minerals of the National Energy Board's decision about the initiative that we have taken in having a review of field pricing and the very extensive amount of work we have to do to assimilate that. We hope within a matter of weeks to be getting a report from the Energy Resources Conservation Board on pro- rationing. We're in the process of reviewing land tenure; and certainly we have the hearing with regard to natural resource revenue and the royalty rates; and I will have something to say about the tar sands. Mr.

Speaker, there's one thing that can get me pretty concerned, and that is these extremist views that are taken in areas of government policy that ignore the problem of jobs. And they are becoming quite frequent in the province. I haven't any question in my mind that in the environmental area we need to strike a balance, and we've said that if that balance can't be struck, we would lean on the side of preservation of the environment. But the word was lean, not fall. Because we have probably the most difficult hurdle of our administration, as the Budget Address refers to it, in the issue of job creation.

And I, in any policy decision that I'm involved in, keep that at the forefront of my assessment in terms of the multiplier effect that exists. Certainly in the short term I am pleased with the employment situation in Alberta, and while it's far from completely satisfactory, the progress has been made with the PEP program that the minister, I'm sure, will review, and generally the comparison of a year ago is a great deal better in terms of employment.

But one factor that seems to be missed often by these extremist views is the multiplier effect of job creation upon our society and upon the Alberta society in particular. In terms of our economy in agriculture, the minister will, no doubt, describe the fund. But one of the points I'd like to raise is a comment that I'm surprised that not one member on either side of the House picked up. It's on page 12 of the Budget Address, if you want to look at it, and it's a comment that perhaps was underlying a question that came out of the question period today.

And I quote from page 12: "Despite our concern with inflation, however, the government is disturbed that the increase in the price of food products is not being passed on to a reasonable degree to the primary producers of the food products, the farmers and ranchers of Canada." Mr. Speaker, that was brought to the Floor of this Legislature earlier by the Member for Lacombe, and I suggest that hon. members should consider more extensively that sort of challenge area, because maybe there is a great deal of opportunity for this province in that particular aspect of growth, and improvement in agriculture. Mr.

Speaker, I would like to say a word about balanced economic growth. The dangers have been well expressed by other members, but there seems to be something here that isn't being described as effectively as we should in terms of public communication. I think we were clear in the election campaign. But with regard to members who sought seats in metropolitan centres, we were saying that we anticipated that growth would occur, that there was no way that government could control growth of metropolitan areas in the sense of cutting it off.

But we were saying that unrestricted and unrestrained growth was not in the best interest of this province and the Minister of Municipal Affairs has, on a number of occasions, put this challenge well. But a disturbing element is developing, if it is the policy of this new administration that we will have balanced growth throughout Alberta to the extent our resources permit and Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 982

March 27th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 18-31 feasibility would allow. For the growth of the smaller centres of Alberta we are not prepared to be thwarted by federal government interference in this area. Because if we allow it. Mr. Speaker, it will be at cross-purposes with many of the other actions and many of the other efforts of our administration -- certainly, of the Alberta Opportunity Fund, and certainly with our incentives systems. A word about the economy. Some have said that by following through of the policy of the previous administration on estate and gift taxes we have created a tax haven.

On this point I disagree completely. I have said it before, that we supported the previous administration on their views. What is involved is the welcoming of risk capital, because risk capital, in my view, is essential for the development of jobs. On the international situation, though, I would like to say a word. If you look at Alberta in terms of the petroleum situation I have described and the problems of the petroleum industry, of agriculture, of the balanced economy desire, it becomes critical that the Alberta government not operate in isolation or develop provincialism. The hon.

Minister of Industry has reminded us, for example, of the DISC proposals in the United States and their influence upon us. I would like to add an additional one. It is called the Burke Hartke Bill. And that bill before the United States Congress could have -- and I don't think the word is an exaggeration a disastrous effect upon the economy of Canada, and Alberta as part of that economy. It is a bill supported by the international unions in the United States and it is a matter that should be assessed by all members.

But I think problems and opportunities have developed in the international scene in the last few months that will challenge our administration. In the report I received from the Bank of Canada on my desk a week ago, page 22 makes this statement: "The realignment of currency has significantly changed the competitive positions of individual countries vis-a-vis their trading partners.

The impact on a country's competitive position is affected not only by the change, if any, in its own exchange rate, but also by the magnitude of the exchange rate changes made by the countries with which it trades and the proportion of its trade with each." I suggest that what that shows is the opportunity as reflected in Appropriations 1156 and 1621 (in the international field) and an opportunity that this government intends to take maximum advantage of. Mr. Speaker, this brings me in my remarks to the question of a national industrial strategy and the issue of foreign investment.

There has been a great deal of talk of national industrial strategy. I am very concerned. When we assumed office in September of 1971, to the best of our assessment, there was no Alberta industrial strategy. But even more serious, as of the moment I am speaking, there is no national industrial strategy. And the Prime Minister, in an interview in the Financial Times of March 13, 1972, in reply to the question, "what do you mean when you talk about industrial strategy?" answered, "something, I'm afraid, very general at this stage." Well, Mr. Speaker, in my view, that industrial strategy is overdue.

In a federal state that industrial strategy must be something where all eleven governments are involved. And, we in our administration, should be developing concurrently in Alberta, industrial strategy on a tentative basis, hopefully in order to assure that it molds and fits within, a developed national industrial strategy. I thought the Minister of Industry and Commerce made an excellent presentation in setting forth eleven points of an objective the other night. They certainly can form the basis of preliminary thinking with regard to an Alberta industrial strategy.

Perhaps, to Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 983

18-32 ALBERTA HANSARD March 27th 1972 some, they may be too extremely, tree enterprise. But on the other hand, a position has been presented by the Minister, in a very positive and forthright manner. And for that reason, I think he deserves credit. Our administration is challenged, but so are all members to contribute to the debate. Mr.

Speaker, we have directed our Cabinet committee on economic planning and also on social planning, to reassess the need for an Economic Council of Alberta or some better alternative, but I do think, that as we state on page 14 of the budget address, our goals unfortunately are dependent to a very large degree, to a larger degree perhaps than we would like, on the conclusion of federal government policies in many areas of concern to this province, in particular. We have heard from the hon. Minister of Agriculture with regard to the progress that he has made in his initiatives in agriculture.

I spend most of the lunch that I had with the Prime Minister talking about matters of petroleum, and the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs has tabled in this House the letter from the federal minister of the 25th of February, 1972 which shows very clearly that some progress is being made. But shortly after that we have the address in Calgary of the federal Minister of Energy who states that the timing of major natural resource projects, and I would have to take that to include the tar sands, is a matter of national economic policy.

Well, if this be so, and I wouldn't quarrel with him, then it is certainly incumbent upon both levels of government, to have enough long-term planning now and soon, to be able to establish the timing of not just the second, but the third tar sands plan, in terms of assuring that we don't reach that critical decision making stage, and be informed that other parts of Canada have the priority in those years. Mr. Speaker, another area of national industrial strategy is the matter of transportation that the Minister has referred to. And I would like to break and refer to an aside that I was personally involved in.

At a private meeting of business and financial people in December in Toronto, I thought a bit about what I would say. I spoke at length about transportation policies. When I started I could see that sort of blank look starting to come over the faces of many, as though, thats a pretty old familiar refrain. Fortunately, as I developed my remarks, the blank look seemed to disappear. And a number of the people approached me afterwards, and said; "what comes to us is that it has been a pretty steady message from out of the west, and there is a new leader and he is stating it equally as forcefully as his predecessors.

So maybe, just maybe, it must be important if it is continually reiterated and repeated as a legitimate grievance of western Canada." Mr. Getty, I believe, has summarized effectively to the members, Mr. Speaker, many of the other areas of concern with federal and intergovernmental affairs which brings me now, to the issue of foreign investment. I mentioned that I would deal with this in debate.

I think it is a very important subject for Alberta, important first of course, because as many realize, next to Ontario, Alberta is the province where United States firms in particular were responsible for the second highest degree of taxable income. There is no question it is a matter of serious consideration in this province. But I reiterate a previous remark, Mr. Speaker, and it has to do with jobs, and it has to do with livelihood, and it has to do with family life.

It's clear that obviously our predecessors - at least to the extent that we have been able to ascertain - and we welcome their correction - had no specific or definitive policy in this area. It's apparent, too, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government in this March of 1972 is having some considerable difficulty of its own developing this particular area of policy. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 984

March 27th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 18-33 The Prime Minister was quoted in that previous

article as now saying; "It won't just be a position paper; it also will be a piece of legislation." Well, Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to go too far on this issue until the federal government has declared and presented its position, shown its hand and ascertained what the possible screening process would be. And when we have had an opportunity to assess whether or not the legislation is ultra-vires of the federal authority. We have set forth our general policy for the people of Alberta in a document entitled "Participation by Albertans in our Economy".

For the challenges are to ensure a greater participation by Albertans in the ownership and control of Alberta's industry and to ensure that Alberta and Albertans gain full benefit from foreign and domestic investment. In seven new directions we are providing Albertans with investment opportunities with regard to Crown licenses, trying to look at new tax structures that might reduce the competitive disadvantage of Albertans.

We are trying to look at government regulations in the same area, to ensure that the Treasury Branches and other financial institutions are even more accessible and provide greater assistance to Alberta investors. That all industrial concerns within Alberta utilize Alberta's service industries and Alberta labour wherever and whenever practical -- and other matters of the same nature. For there is no doubt that this policy needs -- and I frankly admit -- some specifics and some elaboration. Members opposite, I am sure, will want to contribute. They have mentioned in debate earlier in this House, Mr.

Speaker, that they don't like being shut out of debate and policy formulation. Well, Mr. Speaker, it's a critical issue. We propose a select committee of this Legislature under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Edmonton Strathcona, and I would like to tentatively suggest, it be open to any additional terms of reference that involve a screening process, the key sector area, the question of take-overs, the factors of the tax structure, the impact and the consequences on the investment climate and any others. Suggestions from members in the course of the next few weeks are most welcome. But, Mr.

Speaker, because of the importance of the issue even in the short time we have had, we have taken some significant interim measures. We are in the process of developing legislation regarding Crown lands being sold to Canadian residents, Canadian citizens, which will be presented shortly in the House. We have established a policy statement on the utilization of Alberta engineering services. The key words are; "persuade and volunteer". We are watching this matter on an ongoing basis.

And so that the critics don't rise too quickly, let me suggest, with some limited experience in the construction industry, that what is important to assess in projects of this nature is not always simply the prime contractor, but the importance of the degree of Canadian involvement in the sub- contracting field. Mr. Speaker, we have not been, and of course neither have our predecessors, as effective yet in this area as we would wish. But it is one that we are watching closely and we will have an ongoing review of it. Some commentators have reviewed some of the steps that we have taken.

They have used the expression that the new government in Alberta has beaten to the punch the federal administration on a question of economic national policy. I refer particularly to the Syncrude project. We checked and reviewed the Syncrude project and the previous administration in authorizing permits reached the conclusion in their best judgment at the time and under the existing conditions, not to attach any specific conditions regarding Alberta participation to the permit approval in the development as a condition of the permit.

Although I'm sure there were conversations and discussions with regard to intent, we went further; we felt it Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 985

18-34 ALBERTA HANSARD March 27th 1972 was necessary to make conditions as within our permit. And on February 18, 1972, we set out those condition in an Order in Council. The critics may scoff, Mr. Speaker, but there are five very important conditions. I know they're important because I know the response that they're getting. I know they're important because I know what happened in terms of the negotiations. We feel we have a very difficult challenge in this area.

Our responsibility involves some $500 million of risk financing in Alberta, some 5,000 odd construction jobs, but more important, some 1,100 permanent jobs in terms of the second plant. Larger than that, we have the fact that as far as the international financial community is concerned the first project, to put it mildly, was a financial setback. The second plant must succeed, and we have to reach that balanced judgment of assuring that the second plant goes ahead and proceeds and at the same time assure that there is a high enough degree of Alberta participation.

We are gambling with very large stakes and we take this responsibility very seriously. The decision-making of course, will probably come a year from now when Syncrude comes down to the question of their proceeding and we establish our views with regard to the environment, with regard to royalties, and on condition number one that the applicants will grant to Canadian citizens who are residents of the Province of Alberta, an opportunity to purchase an equity in the Syncrude project. The nature, method, allocation and distribution of the equity to be the subject of the approval of the Government of Alberta.

I would like to move also to the fifth condition; that insofar as it is reasonable to do so, the applicants will ensure the production, processing and manufacture of by-products developed from the operation of the project will be carried out in the Province of Alberta. Well, if any members don't think that that fifth condition has some significance, than it's simply because they are unaware of the responses of other jurisdictions and many, many people who are involved in this matter. Mr.

Speaker, some would suggest a Crown corporation for the second plant -- $500 million of extra borrowing -- $500 million of debt not available to the province -- but more than that, $500 million in a risk venture as distinguished from building a bridge. (Somewhat comparable to building a railroad.) It would clearly limit the provincial financial capacity, and it ignores something very important. Mr. Speaker -- that the provincial government as lessor controls in a very effective lessor-lessee arrangement the development that exists there. Mr.

Speaker, in conclusion on this subject, we will look forward to the views of the Select Committee and hope that it will be able to report by the fall. We await -- I think I can put it mildly -- with considerable interest the legislation from the federal government on the subject. But overall we welcome investment from all over the world to Alberta, provided they meet our laws, our regulations and our views of good corporate citizenship. Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude with a final subject involving the Constitution -- well, Mr.

Speaker, if members opposite want to depart that is their privilege -- I want to deal with the matter of division of responsibility and allocation of resources, and I make no apologies, Mr. Speaker, for the length of my remarks. I think it is important that the hon. members on both sides of the House, in the middle of the legislative session, have an opportunity to have some expression of view by the government leader, on a number of important matters. This latter one in particular.

The matter that I raise is the division of responsibilities between the federal and provincial government and the allocation of resources. On page 8 of the budget speech, it is stated that a fundamental reform is required, and in Appendix B, the area is covered in terms of our presentation to the federal authority. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 986

March 27th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 18-35 Mr. Speaker, with regard to page 8, (and I do want to take the time, because of the importance, to read it:) "The evidence seems to be clear from the tax structure committee reports, that the present and proposed allocation of income tax revenues by the federal government is not even close to matching the fiscal needs of the provinces under our present constitutional responsibility.

The consequence of this failure is to force provincial and municipal governments into heavy borrowing and to rely far too heavily upon property and other regressive taxes to meet certain of their fiscal needs. The result - the taxpayer is not paying for government services in accordance with a reasonable ability to pay." Mr. Speaker, I was appalled, and I said so at the First Ministers Conference, that this subject was not even, in my view, adequately, in any sense of the imagination dealt with, and I hope that the agenda for the next one will be quite different. Some say, why so exorcised?

It's not a new situation, certainly not even necessarily a new direction. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am exercised because of how important I think it is. Because, I submit that this issue is one of the root causes, one of the two major root causes of the strains on national unity, (aside from the factors of the feelings of the people in French Canada) and the consequences of the present imbalance are many, and all are, in my view, prejudicial to the proper development of Canadian growth.

I have mentioned the result of an unfair tax system which penalizes, in my opinion, the poor, and puts pressure on the "non- ability to pay" taxes, such as property taxes. A second point, not often realized - is that it penalizes the metropolitan areas, which are within provincial jurisdiction, which are the fastest growing and are caught in the battle between federal and provincial governments. And where are those metropolitan centres? Two of the key ones are in the Province of Alberta.

It creates waste, in my opinion, by duplicating programs, by ill considered, in my view too, 'let's get there first' schemes by two levels of government. It causes very serious regional tension and contributes in a very marked degree, to the alienation that many Albertans and many westerners feel. It drags into the cost sharing area, provincial governments chasing fifty cent dollars as was so effectively described by the hon. minister, Mr. Getty.

And no better example exists than the whole area of mental health, relative to the development of federal- provincial health cost sharing, and the absence of the emphasis, in the past, upon a priority on mental health. Perhaps most important, in my view anyway, it concentrates on centralization. It concentrates on a government the least in tune with the needs of people. It concentrates on a federal government forced into an area of standardization. And there are many obvious cases of it. It creates very serious limitations on the provincial government. Why is it happening? I suppose one reason, Mr.

Speaker, is the human nature of empire building, and there is not much justification of that one. There is another reason expressed for the federal bureaucracy, that they are more competent than provincial administrations to carry out such programs. I say to that - nonsense! That's nonsense now. I think most members who have travelled right across Canada through every province would agree. I think too, there is an absence of the recognition of the various consequences that I have set forth. Perhaps that is a responsibility that I have to take, to share, and develop.

It is certainly, more than anything else, the view by our citizens and certain people of our communication centres, that it's necessary for a strong central government to avoid regional disparities. Mr. Speaker, if you want to do an assessment at 50% of the allocation of resources, the argument is valid; at 75% it hasn't validity. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 987

18-36 ALBERTA HANSARD March 27th 1972 Mr. Speaker, we simply must match the divisions of responsibilities and the allocation of resources in this country. I frankly believe that the present division is satisfactory -- but subject to a national industrial strategy. I believe that it is open to reassessment and consideration. Maybe the field of housing should have its primary, maybe even exclusive thrust, with the federal government. Maybe, and I'll have problems tonight with this one, the area of environment should have the same primary thrust.

Maybe, and perhaps more strongly put, the area of manpower should have the provincial input. But all of them are open and reasonable questions for discussion. At least we should resolve the jurisdiction with the primary responsibility. If any member in this House feels that we can let it drift and leave it as it is, then I think not only will we be doing a disservice, we will render relatively impotent any national industrial strategy. But more than that, we won't even be close to realizing the potential of Canada. Mr.

Speaker, this is unfortunately a matter of public apathy that puzzles and concerns me in this area. I believe it so important to consistently speak about it. My predecessors have too, and yet the public have shown a remarkable degree of disinterest. They consider it a normal fight for more revenue or the political consequences of being afraid to face taxation. Frankly, I am baffled at times by regional communication voices who respond in the same simple way to a very important and complex issue. Mr.

Speaker, despite the public apathy, I don't intend to leave it in its present unsatisfactory state, if I can possibly avoid it. I think the result of it would be a greater degree of fairness to our people, better service, and improvement of the metropolitan life of Canada, and an improvement in national unity. Mr. Speaker, this brings me full circle to the constitution. Last June in Victoria, the leaders of government met, they made a decision with regard to a charter, and there was a holdout province, Quebec. Mr.

Speaker, I want to reiterate and make clear on the record, that there is no commitment by the Progressive Conservative administration to that charter. We enter any future negotiations completely uncommitted by any past decision making. Mr. Speaker, there is a part of that charter that I'm very interested in, the portion dealing with human rights. In discussions with Mr. Diefenbaker, three weeks ago, he told me that I should be careful of the wording of that charter relative to human rights. There is a provision in this charter regarding an am

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19720327
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L17 S1 19720327 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	85a751595e11d591d3aba6480e0970d31ffb0d88

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