LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Wednesday, May 3, 1972 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 pm.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair.] PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SELECT COMMITTEES MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Select Committee appointed by this House on the 21st day of April, 1972, I beg leave to submit a report that the committee has held its first organizational meeting one half hour ago and at that meeting, has decided not to present to the House an interim report on the Gray Report that was tabled and read in the House yesterday afternoon. MR. ASHTON: Mr.

Speaker, on behalf of the Private Bills Committee, I wish to submit a report with respect to the petition of the City of Calgary for

an act to terminate certain agreements between the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the City of Calgary, and with respect to the petition of Orville V. Berkenshaw for

an act respecting Great Way Merchandising Limited and the Securities Act, I find that the rules of the Assembly with respect to the payment of fees and advertising in local newspapers and the Alberta Gazette have been duly complied with and I recommend that leave be granted to introduce the bills. head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill No. 66 The Hospital Visitors Committee Act, 1972 DR. McCRIMMON Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present Bill No. 66, seconded by the hon. Member for Stettler, The Hospital Visitors Committee Act. Under the provisions of

section 39 of The Public Health Act, the Board of Visitors to visit hospitals was established January 1, 1960 by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. The Department of Health Act came into being in 1967 and provided for the Minister of Health to establish a Board of Visitors who may, from time to time, visit, inspect, and examine hospitals, sanitoriums or other institutions operated or administered by the department or their records. With the amalgamation of the Health and Social Development under The Department of Health and Social Development Act, the Minister of Health and Social Development was given the power by

section 5 of the said act to establish a board, committee, or council who may, from time to time, visit, inspect, and examine hospitals, sanitoriums, or other institutions operated or administered by the department. The proposed legislation would result in the cancellation of the former committee and result in the establishment of a Hospital Visitors Committee appointed by cabinet. The committee established of 12 members appointed by the Lieutenant Governor, would have the right, Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2713

42-2 ALBERTA HANSARD May 3rd 1972 from time to time, to visit all hospitals for the purpose of reviewing and inspecting them in the manner in which they are operated. The committee would not have the right to inspect financial records, nor records relating to diagnosis, treatment or care provided in respect to the individual patients.

The committee would not attempt to act as a medical ombudsman, but would examine hospitals in a general way in order to inquire into the care, treatment, rehabilitation, and general attitudes of the patients in the hospitals, the general attitudes of the hospital employees, and the planning and programs, the co-ordination of programs for the care, treatment, and rehabilitation of patients in the prevention of disease. [Leave being granted, Bill No. 66 was introduced and read a first time.] MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon.

Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs that Bill No. 66, The Hospital Visitors Committee Act be placed on the Order Paper under Government Bills and Orders. [The motion was carried without debate or dissent.] Bill No. 67: The Legal Profession Amendment Act, 1972 MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill, being The Legal Profession Amendment Act, 1972. Number one, it provides for three amendments. The first deals with the admission to the practice of law of members who have worked in the Department of the Attorney General.

The second deals with benchers who have been members of a committee of inquiry, sitting when the applicant appears before the entire benchers, and the third prohibits a municipality from requiring a member of the Law Society to have a licence from the municipality in order to practise his profession. [Leave being granted, Bill No. 67 was introduced and read a first time.] Bill No. Pr. 10

An Act respecting Great Way Merchandising Ltd. and The Securities Act MR. HINMAN: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill, being

An Act respecting Great Way Merchandising Ltd. and The Securities Act. The single clause purports to declare that a certain agreement used by this company shall not, and shall be deemed not to have been, a security under The Securities Act. [Leave being granted, Bill No. Pr. 10 was introduced and read a first time.] Bill No. Pr. 7

An Act to Terminate Certain Agreements Between the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the City of Calgary MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Private Bill No. 7,

An Act to Terminate Certain Agreements Between the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and the City of Calgary. Mr. Speaker, the petitioners for this private bill are the City Council of the City of Calgary. The members are all aware that under The Railway Act, passed before the Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2714

May 3rd 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 42-3 turn of the century, railway property was largely exempt from property tax. In recent years this exemption in perpetuity has been altered by federal statute and by some provincial statutes, but in the meantime, in 1911, while the railway properties were still totally exempt, the City of Calgary entered into a bilateral agreement with the CPR, whereby the CPR made a voluntary ad hoc payment of $37,000 a year, which was considered to be in lieu of taxes. This agreement was confirmed and ratified and entered into again in 1954.

The City Council of the City of Calgary maintains that the proper taxes to be paid by the Palliser Hotel should be in the neighbourhood of $250,000 a year, as opposed to the $37,000, and therefore they are asking for this act to terminate those bilateral agreements of 1911 and 1959. [Leave being granted, Bill No. Pr. 7 was introduced and read a first time.] head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS MR. SCHMID: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to you and through you to the members of this Assembly 50 students from Grade VI of the Mill Creek School.

Especially, I would like to thank their teachers who brought them down here; Miss Gail Lorenz, Mr. Avery Stewert, and Mr. Marvin Tobert. I hope they enjoyed the lectures they had in the past 60 minutes and hope that they will enjoy the democratic process which is going on down here. I would like them now to stand and be recognized. DR. HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, in the public gallery this afternoon we have 86 visitors from my constituency of Edmonton Belmont. Eighty-five are grade X students and one is their supervising teacher, Mr. Bob Berube.

I echo the sentiments in the purpose of the visit as expressed by my hon. colleague, the hon. Minister of Youth, Culture and Recreation. Would they please stand with their teacher and be recognized by this Assembly. DR. McCRIMMON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to you and through you to the members of this Assembly, a former member of this House who sat in the House for 15 years. He was a Social Credit member from my constituency for 15 years. We are delighted to see him back. He is in your gallery. I would ask that Mr.

Glen Johnson now rise and be recognized by the House. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Syncrude Tar Sands Development MR. DIXON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Mines and Minerals. It is regarding the proposed Syncrude tar sands development. Last week when I asked a question of the hon. minister regarding the Syncrude proposal, he suggested that I hold my questions until he had had a chance to meet again with the company, which I understand he now has.

While he is bringing us up to date on the tar sands development, one particular question I would like to direct to the hon. minister -- was the Syncrude company able to appoint a Canadian contractor for the initial phase of the planning and construction of this huge project? Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2715

42-4 ALBERTA HANSARD May 3rd 1972 MR. DICKIE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I mentioned last week, we had a meeting scheduled this week. I did meet yesterday morning with Mr. Frank Spragins who is the President of Syncrude Canada Limited. I would say we achieved two objectives at that meeting. The first was to deal with Clause No. 4 , that we had attached to the conditions of the Syncrude application.

Hon. members will recall that condition was that they would employ residents of Alberta; they would use construction firms resident in Alberta; they would purchase equipment and supplies manufactured in Alberta; and they would use engineering services in Alberta, where it was reasonable and practical to do so. The condition also provided that we would have quarterly meetings with the liaison committee of Cabinet. Yesterday's meeting was to achieve the objective of setting up the first quarterly meeting.

We have scheduled that meeting now for some two weeks hence, in which we will review with the managing contractor, as well as Syncrude, the terms and conditions. They have outlined briefly how they propose to carry on those meetings. I might mention that although the condition provides for quarterly meetings, the suggestion was made that in the initial instance it might be desirable from the government's point of view, so they are kept fully abreast of it, to have the meetings more than each quarter. So we have set that up, and that is in progress now.

The second point that we discussed concerned the overall growth of Fort McMurray, and the effect and implications of the Syncrude development in that area. That involves more than just the Department of Mines and Minerals. It involves my hon. colleagues, the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs, the hon. Minister of Telephones and the hon. Minister of Industry and Commerce. We have set up another meeting with Cabinet to discuss the development of Fort McMurray, so that all aspects are looked at as the Syncrude project progresses. That deals briefly with the meeting we had.

I think the hon. member had one further question, and that dealt with the managing contractor engaged by Syncrude Canada Limited. That contractor is Canadian Bechtel Limited, which is not a Canadian firm, but has engaged over 1,000 Canadians in their organization. MR. DIXON: To the hon. minister, Mr. Speaker. I suppose it is difficult for the company to find a Canadian contractor with the experience to qualify. They made an attempt, did they, to find a Canadian contractor? MR. DICKIE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

We reviewed that with them at the time and just before they finalized the engagement of Canadian Bechtel Limited. At that time I asked the president of the company if he could detail, by way of a letter, the reasons how this developed, and the criteria they followed for hiring that managing contractor. I would be pleased to table that letter which I think fully sets out the reasons. I don't think I would do it justice if I just highlighted that letter in the question period, so if the hon. member wishes, I would be glad to table that letter. MR. DIXON: One final supplementary question then.

The Minister of the Environment could answer it. There are some problems regarding environmental control of the oil as far as accidental overflow getting into the river, and I was wondering what precautions are taken. Will this plant be farther away from the river than the present Canadian Oil Sands plant? Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2716

May 3rd 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 42-5 MR. DICKIE: I am glad you mentioned the Minister of the Environment. In my answer I did omit to mention that the Minister of the Environment will be set in with this committee, and I'm sure he would like to answer the question that you have just asked. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister is not in his place at this particular time. That is a question that I will take up with him so he can give you an answer tomorrow. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Mines and Minerals. MR.

SPEAKER: We are going to have to get supplementaries organized in numerical order. Perhaps the hon. Member for Calgary North Hill followed by the hon. Member for Little Bow. MR. FARRAN: A supplementary for the hon. minister on the same subject of the tar sands. For the Great Canadian Oil Sands contract a similar situation occurred where Bechtel got the prime contract, but there was influence brought to bear, I think, through negotiation for Mannix Ltd., an Alberta company, to have a sub-contract on a large portion of the work.

Will the government use its best endeavours to see that as much as possible is sub-contracted to Alberta companies? MR. DICKIE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I can give the hon. member that assurance and that was really one of the main purposes of condition 4 that we attached to the Syncrude permit.

I think I could also add that certainly in the discussions that we have had with Syncrude Canada Ltd., they recognized this and are looking forward to meeting with our liaision committee to review these various sub-contracts that are let with a view to make sure that Albertans, as well as Alberta-based companies, have an opportunity to participate in this project. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question to the hon. minister is as follows. I quite well understand that Bechtel has the capability of doing the work.

One of the concerns that I have had over the past two or three years is that there hasn't been an Alberta company capable of doing this and the reasoning that can continue whereby business always goes to such a company as Bechtel. My question then is, to the minister, what steps will be taken by the government to assist an Alberta-based firm to develop the capability to do the work for which Bechtel is presently being used in the form of a crude contract? MR. DICKIE: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very good question.

I was really expecting that question to come earlier when we received the letter from Syncrude Canada Ltd., dealing with that. In our discussions with them on this point, I think that what we hope to achieve is to develop experience through this type of liaison committee so that Alberta companies are engaged, sub-trades and so forth, and so eventually they will be in the same position as Alberta companies for future projects for which they can apply and say they have the Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2717

42-6 ALBERTA HANSARD May 3rd 1972 expertise that is needed to successfully carry out a project of this nature. Use of Canadian Contractors MR. CLARK: I have a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Mines and Minerals. Can the minister tell the Legislature what company is doing the work at the Imperial Oil expansion here in town, in the City of Edmonton? And is it, in fact, a Canadian company that is doing the prime contract for the new refinery? MR. DICKIE: Mr. Speaker, I recall some meetings.

I can't recall the exact name now, and rather than try to attempt to answer that question I was going to refer to the Minister of Industry and Transportation, but he isn't in his place today. If you will leave that question with us we will have the answer for you on that. MR. CLARK: Would you also check and see whether it is a Canadian company? MR. DICKIE: Yes, I would be glad to determine for the hon. member the extent of Canadian participation or ownership in that company. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview followed by the hon. Member for Calgary Bow. STEP Program MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to direct this question to the hon. Minister Without Portfolio in Charge of the STEP program. By way of explanation I received several complaints from villagers that programs that they submitted were turned down, and in checking with officials of the program, I note that in the Peace River area no money is going to villages, that all the money is either going to towns or to the City of Grande Prairie.

I am wondering whether the minister could advise the House whether it is a policy to exclude villages and hamlets and ID's, or if this is just a set of circumstances in that particular locality of Alberta? MR. DOWLING: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The situation is this. We felt that an amount of money less than S5,000 for any particular town or village or city was just inadequate. It would allow the city or town to hire a minimum of three people for a full three-month period in the summer. So we had to make a decision.

The decision was that we would limit our municipal grants to towns and cities and that the departmental programs would funnel their funds into the various areas of the province to fill in where we couldn't go. They have done a fairly adequate job, in fact a very good job of this , in particular the Department of Lands and Forests and the Department of Culture, Youth and Recreation. A great number of the smaller towns and villages throughout the province have been covered through the departmental appropriation. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2718

May 3rd 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 42-7 MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question to the hon. minister. Have you considered the situation where villages, together with either ID's or MD's would clearly have projects large enough to qualify for the $5,000? Has the government considered that sort of a situation, and whether or not they could qualify? MR. DOWLING: Yes, we've considered every possible angle. But of course, as you know, if we open it up to one municipality then of course we have to invite the others to present a project of a like kind.

We felt that in fairness to all areas of the province that we should make the rules apply in every part of the province in the same way. The Peace River country, for an example, did fairly well from the standpoint of total STEP funds. They received in percentage a good deal more than they would normally qualify for. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary Bow, followed by the hon. Member for Camrose. Insurance Companies Merger MR. WILSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Attorney General.

Has the provincial government approved the proposed merger between Rocky Mountain Life Insurance Company and another Canadian insurance company? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not quite accurate in talking about a proposed merger. There have been discussions going on between Rocky Mountain Life Insurance Company and other companies, and the government has been a party to those discussions.

Beyond saying that there have been discussions and that the government has been a party to them I think it would be improper -- because there are other companies involved in those discussions -- for me to now discuss the details of it. MR. WILSON: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has an administrator been appointed and, if so, who is the administrator of the affairs of the company? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, an administrator has not been appointed. MR. WILSON: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Is the government satisfied that existing legislation adequately protects the Albertans holding life insurance policies with this company? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, the legislation in that area is something that I have under review. There may need to be changes in it. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2719

42-8 ALBERTA HANSARD May 3rd 1972 MR. WILSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Has the government decided whether or not to introduce any further legislation that would protect policy holders? MR. MINIELY: He just answered that. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Camrose, followed by the hon. Member for Wainwright. Canadian Fertilizers for US MR. STROMBERG: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture.

Are you aware that once again Canadian fertilizer manufacturers are shipping their produce to the United States at prices which enable it to be delivered by truck back from the Dakotas and Montana to the prairie provinces for some $20 a ton cheaper than we, western farmers, can purchase it at the plant? Can you give any assurance that in the future any Canadian distributor willing to purchase off-season fertilizer produce will be quoted the same price as the buyers from other countries? DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, we are looking into the matter of all input costs in agriculture.

We'll make a special attempt to get up to date immediately in regard to the fertilizer situation in western Canada and in Alberta. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Wainwright, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary Mountain View. The Farm Implement Act MR. RUSTE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture. Can the hon. minister inform the members of the Assembly the progress being made in the appointment of a farm machinery administrator under The Farm Implement Act at this time? DR.

HORNER: I can't give the exact progress up to date, but I know that the interviews have been carried out. Whether a man has, in fact, been appointed and run through the personnel office I'm not sure, but I'll check and find out. MR. RUSTE: A supplementary question on The Farm Implement Act. Is the hon. minister aware of any further cancellations of farm implement dealerships in the province? DR. HORNER: I'm not aware of any further cancellations of any dealerships in the province, Mr. Speaker.

I would point out, of course, that The Farm Implement Act doesn't impose any obligation on the farm machinery companies to maintain dealerships in any particular area. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2720

May 3rd 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 42-9 What it does do is try and protect the dealer from the distributor or manufacturer in regard to his supply of parts, etc., if the dealership is closed and those aspects of the act are being enforced and will continue to be enforced. But the problem of making sure that the various manufacturers of farm machinery have dealerships in a variety of areas seems to me to be going a little bit further than The Farm Implement Act intends. MR. NOTLEY: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Several weeks ago I asked the hon. minister whether or not a legal case which changed the meaning of the act considerably as far as the judiciary had decided the case -- whether or not the government was prepared to make any amendments in the act this year. And at that time, if my memory serves me right, the hon. minister said that he would examine it and report back to the Legislature. My supplementary question to you is, have you examined it and are you ready with the report? DR. HORNER: I have examined this, Mr.

Speaker, and I am now having the law officers in the department and the Attorney General's department give me an opinion as to whether or not, in fact, what the hon. member says does take place. It is not our intention to bring forth any amendments to The Farm Implement Act in this session of the legislature. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary Mountain View followed by the hon. Member for Lethbridge West. MR. LUDWIG: Court House Food Services Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Public Works.

Would the minister advise whether the matter of catering services for provision of food in the new Court House has been settled? DR. BACKUS: Mr. Speaker, I believe the matter has practically been settled. I think there are a few final negotiations that have to be undertaken but the agreement and the letter of agreement has not as yet been sent out, but the matter has been pretty well settled to the satisfaction of those concerned. MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, supplementary; were services for providing food in the Court House tendered for? DR. BACKUS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. MR.

LUDWIG: Will the hon. minister advise whether the contract will be awarded to the lowest tenderer? Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2721

42-10 ALBERTA HANSARD May 3rd 1972 DR. BACKUS: The contract will be awarded based on those tenders. It was based on a score system and the highest scorer is the one who probably will be awarded the contract. MR. LUDWIG: Would the hon. minister advise -- in view of the fact he indicated that the choice of the party that will provide services has been made -- the name of the party to whom the contract will be awarded? MR. BACKUS: Sorry, I didn’t quite get that Mr. Speaker. Does he want to know the name of the party to whom the contract was awarded? MR. LUDWIG: Yes. MR. BACKUS: The highest bidder on this was a Mrs.

Lappa, and I think -- provided certain conditions are fulfilled as a result of it -- that this lady will be getting the award. MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, did I understand the hon. minister to say that the highest tender was from Mrs. Lappa and that she will get the award? DR. BACKUS: No, Mr. Speaker, he misunderstood. I said the person making the highest score in the tendering, and the scoring is based on the various services that are expected to be provided. MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that it is well known that this lady, Mrs.

Lappa, has been attempting to obtain this contract, would the hon. minister table all the tenders? [Interjections] SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order! Point of order! MR. LUDWIG: Would the hon. minister table all the tenders and all the correspondence with reference to this matter? [Interjections] Mr. Speaker, I have put a question to the minister and there has been a lot of heckling and kibbitsing from the hon. members -- I would prefer your decision on this matter rather than his. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is asking for production of documents and perhaps he would like to make it a Motion for a Return.

Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2722

May 3rd 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 42-11 MR. LUDWIG: Yes, I will, Mr. Speaker, but all I do want -- the question is complete -- I'd like to have him table this but if he wants it in writing I'll oblige him. MR. HYNDMAN: You're the lowest scorer. MR. GRUENWALD: Financial Assistance for Schools Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Education if I may. Mr. Minister, has any special financial assistance been given, or any promise of assistance, to any school board in the province, either for the operation or for capital grants in that particular district during this year of 1972? MR.

HYNDMAN: Which district was that, Mr. Speaker? MR. GRUENWALD: Has it been given to any school board or school district in the province? MR. HYNDMAN: No, Mr. Speaker, so far this year there has been a continuation of the policy announced last year which was essentially a 6% increase in school costs for the year ending December 31st, 1972. MR. GRUENWALD: So then there has been no special assistance given to anyone.

How many school boards approximately, and what school districts - - other than the Edmonton public -- which were acknowledged earlier in the session, have made an appeal to you and asked for special assistance? MR. HYNDMAN: Quite a number, Mr. Speaker. Let's see, the Wainwright people were in, and Leduc -- well there were quite a number. I think there would be 10 or 15, in one way or another, came in to see me, and a number of others have written to me, and even further than that, others have been in touch with my department. MR. GRUENWALD: Further on this area of finance, Mr. Minister.

There was a plebiscite which was defeated in Wainwright some time ago, and just recently one in Leduc, I believe. Wainwright, I understand, is going to go for another plebiscite, if this is correct. Have you given any thought to limiting the number of times a school district could go for a plebiscite in any one particular year? MR. HYNDMAN: Well not this year, Mr. Speaker. Yes the initial Wainwright vote was lost by some 45 votes and they will be voting on their second plebiscite tomorrow.

But at the moment no thought has been given -- certainly this year -- to any change in legislation which would reduce the frequency of such procedures. Next year the whole question is wide open, insofar as a completely new plan would be developed. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2723

42-12 ALBERTA HANSARD May 3rd 1972 MR. COOKSON: Supplementary to that, Mr. Speaker. Is the hon. minister aware of any other plebiscites that might have to be held with regard to requisition? MR. HYNDMAN: Well it's a difficult question to answer, Mr. Speaker, as to what plebiscites might have to he held. This is a decision of the local school boards. They don't have to get permission from the government or the minister to hold a plebiscite.

So I would leave it to each of the boards to make their decisions as to which way they would wish to go in the event that their priorities are such that would demand more money for this year. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary Millican followed by the hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury. Foreign Ownership Report MR. DIXON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the hon. the Premier. It's regarding his report yesterday -- the Premier's report that he gave in the House on foreign ownership as far as the federal government policy was concerned. Is the Premier aware of the comments by the hon. Mr.

Stanfield, Leader of the Opposition, where he claims the report does not go nearly far enough? I was wondering, does the Premier agree with this view? And if he does not, does he plan to inform Mr. Stanfield and his members in Ottawa that this could have an adverse effect on our province? AN HON. MEMBER: You're out of order! MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I think it was an ingenious effort by the hon. member to try and get me to make a statement about a subject which I'm not disposed to do at this time. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury followed by the hon. Member for Calgary Bow.

Financial Assistance for Schools (Cont.) MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Education, following up on the question from the hon. Member for Lethbridge West. Will the hon. minister consider amending the regulations so that a school board can not go to plebiscite more than twice in one year? MR. HYNDMAN: Well certainly not this year, Mr. Speaker. The question is getting somewhat hypothetical insofar as May 15th is the last date on which any school board can have a plebiscite.

The question regarding next year, of course, is hypothetical, insofar as all the regulations, and indeed much of the law, may well be changed. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2724

May 3rd 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 42-13 MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, supplementary question then. Can I ask the hon. minister if he has any intentions of changing the date of May 15th for school boards to hold plebiscites? To move it back? MR. HYNDMAN: No, Mr. Speaker. I do not. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary Bow followed by the hon. Member for Stony Plain. National Housing Act Discussions MR. WILSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs. Will the provincial government be discussing with the hon. Mr.

Basford, at his upcoming meeting here in Edmonton, the merits of replacing the urban renewal program with neighbourhood planning, with a view to stressing rehabilitation of existing housing? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I think that question would best be handled by our Minister of Municipal Affairs. MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, it would be rather difficult to discuss this with Mr. Basford in Edmonton, as he's not going to be here.

Officials of his department will be in Edmonton discussing -- on a confidential basis with officials from the province and from the municipalities -- certain proposed amendments to the National Housing Act. MR. WILSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs advise us who all will be coming from Ottawa, and who all will be negotiating on behalf of the provincial government? MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, there are two officials I believe from Central Mortage and Housing Corporation, and two officials from the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs. MR.

RUSSELL: As I understand it, there are no negotiations. It is a fact- finding and discussion period which will be held. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Stony Plain followed by the hon. Member for Calgary North Hill. Fingerprint Tests For Cheque Cashing MR. PURDY: Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. Attorney General. Are you aware that one of the major food outlets in Edmonton -- a grocery Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2725

42-14 ALBERTA HANSARD May 3rd 1972 store -- is asking people to submit to a fingerprint test before cashing personal cheques? MR. LEITCH: No, Mr. Speaker, I wasn't. I recall some time ago reading a pamphlet where that type of service was recommended, but I wasn't sure, or I didn't have any knowledge of it being used in Alberta. MR. TRYNCHY: Mr. Speaker, maybe I can answer that question -- MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member wish to move into one of the empty chairs in the front row? AN HON. MEMBER: It will be one step forward. MR. MOORE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Are you aware that the hon.

Member for Whitecourt had that actually happen to him? MR. LEITCH: No, I wasn't, but I expect I will hear about it. MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. member alleging a breach of privilege? Security Trust Bankruptcy MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. Attorney General. This is a follow-up to the question from the hon. Member for Calgary Bow regarding protection for policy holders of Romoco. Under the legislation you inherited, is there any hope for recovery for the sorely burned Alberta investors in Security Trust? MR. LEITCH: Mr.

Speaker, there has been for some time a receiver managing the affairs of Security Trust, and under the existing legislation the assets of that company go first to the payment of depositors. The most recent reports I have received as to the management of the assets of that company indicate there is some possibility -- but I certainly wouldn't consider it a very large possibility -- of the affairs of the company being wound up in such a way that the depositors are all paid in full and there may be some small amount of assets let over for distribution among the shareholders. MR. WILSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of investors in Security Trust in my riding. Am I to tell them that there is small hope for the shareholders in this Alberta company? Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2726

May 3rd 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 42-15 MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I don't know that I can add anything to my prior remarks that will help the hon. member in what he should say to his constituents. As I have indicated, there is a possibility -- I don't consider it a large one -- of there being some assets available, some time down the road, for distribution among shareholders. MR. FARRAN: Another supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Under the legislation which presumably was passed by the last government, did the province not guarantee a provincially-chartered trust company? MR.

LEITCH: They didn't guarantee the shareholders a return on their investment, nor were they assured that they would get back their investment. MR. FARRAN: A supplementary again, Mr. Speaker. What about the depositors? Did they guarantee that the depositors would not be hurt? MR. LEITCH: Yes, Mr. Speaker, for the Alberta trust companies there is an arrangement with the Canada Deposit Corporation, whereby depositors' funds are guaranteed. So all those who deposit in Alberta trust companies are assured by that guarantee of recovery in their deposit. MR. WILSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the hon.

Attorney General. Are all other Alberta licensed life insurance companies and trust companies in good standing with the superintendant of insurance and/or the Attorney General's department at this time? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that is not a supplementary. We have embarked on an entirely new subject. In addition, Mr. Speaker, that is an item that would require considerable detail and I would ask that the hon. member put in on the Order Paper. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Wainwright, followed by the hon. Member for Little Bow. Honoraria for Committee Members MR. RUSTE: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the hon. Premier. Firstly, I'd like to refer to an Order in Council of April 24, appointing a Fish and Wildlife Advisory Committee, and it authorizes remuneration as follows: at a rate of $25 for every day or part thereof. And then a ministerial order, also dated in April, appointing the Alberta Grain Commission, sets out the remuneration for services rendered at the honorarium rate of $50 per day. My question to the Premier is, why is there a difference in the rates for these two committees? DR. HORNER: I imagine, Mr.

Speaker, that the difference in remuneration has to do with the difference in the activity of the two committees. One might take the people away from their ordinary farming duties for a Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2727

42-16 ALBERTA HANSARD May 3rd 1972 longer period than the other, and having consideration for this, that would be the difference between the committees. I would agree with the hon. member that a review of the remuneration paid to these various committees should be undertaken so that it is uniform throughout the various departments. Conservative Handbook MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question to the hon. Premier. Has the Premier made a decision to table the Conservative Handbook? DR. HORNER: Forget it. AN HON. MEMBER: What do you want it for? Use of Canadian Contractors MR. DICKIE: Mr.

Speaker, before you conclude the question period, I have the answer for the hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury, if you'll permit me to give that answer at this time. I believe the hon. member was asking about the engineering firm on the Strathcona project. The engineering firm is C.F. Braun, Canada, Ltd. That is a United States company, but the project engineer is Art Worth and he is a Canadian. I might also add, Mr. Speaker, that Imperial Oil have given assurance to the government that all engineering services, except the process design, will utilize Canadian engineering firms.

In addition to that, they have stated that it is Imperial's intention to purchase 75% to 80% of the material and equipment for this project from Canadian suppliers. Conservative Handbook (cont) MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the hon. Premier. Could the Premier advise me as to what are the problems in the delay, and if he intends to make a decision prior to the end of the session? If there are some problems, I'm certainly a tolerant person, Mr. Speaker, and I'll understand those problems, I'm sure. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that the hon.

Member for Little Bow is a very tolerant person. It's a matter of whether or not it is a government document, as distinguished from a document that is not a government document. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Drumheller, followed by the hon. Member for Lethbridge East. Public Utility Commissions Board MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address a question to the hon. Minister of Telephones and Utilities. Does the hon. minister sit as chairman of the Board of Public Utility Commissions? Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2728

May 3rd 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 42-17 MR. WERRY: In no way, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated in the House yesterday, the board is an autonomous quasi-judicial body. The members are appointed for ten-year terms and the current chairman has two years to run on his current term. There is no direction received by the Public Utilities Board from any government minister or a member of the Executive Council. MR. TAYLOR: Supplementary then, Mr. Speaker. Would there be any purpose in citizens' committees in improvement districts who are very dissatisfied with gas rates, appealing to you as the minister of that department? MR.

WERRY: Yes, Mr. Speaker. At the present time we are trying to establish some method of reviewing the problems of both REA'S and gas co-operatives that are experiencing difficulties with pricing, with construction costs, etc, and even though I do not have any staff that has expertise in this field, I can, through the various departments, get the answers that the hon. member would require for his constituents. MR. TAYLOR: Supplementary, would the minister then make representation to the Board of Public Utility Commissions on behalf of local citizens and communities? MR. WERRY: No, Mr.

Speaker, that would have to be made by the individual citizens or the co-ops themselves or the REA'S, and they would receive from the Public Utilities Board their written

interpretation of the various acts and regulations that they administer. MR. TAYLOR: One more supplementary then, Mr. Speaker. What would be the purpose of making the appeal through the minister in the first place? Is it just an exercise? MR. WERRY: We're quibbling in semantics, I think, Mr. Speaker. There would be no appeal to the minister. I took it as just being a general question that I would intervene or help to assist these people in raising the question to the chairman of the Public Utilities Board, and in no way did I hope to indicate to the House that I would appeal on their behalf. MR.

WERRY: I am sorry if I left that impression with the House. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge East, followed by the hon. Member for Vermilion-Viking. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2729

42-18 ALBERTA HANSARD May 3rd 1972 Funds for St. Mary River ID MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture. I was going to ask the hon. Minister of the Environment, but he isn't here. Is the government of Alberta still negotiating with the federal government to get some capital expenditure funds for the St. Mary River irrigation district, which is presently operated by the water users? DR. HORNER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Metric System MR. COOPER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs.

What stage has been reached in the plan for the conversion to the metric system of weights and measures in Canada? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, the subject has been discussed once before in the question period, at which time the hon. Minister of the Environment gave some discussion. I am not completely sure what state the federal government is at. If it interests the hon. member, I will certainly get it for him.

Since it was discussed in the House before, somebody contacted me to let me know that it would cause a great deal of trouble with the old saying in football, 'first and ten', inasmuch as we would now have 'meters' involved. MR. COOPER: Does the hon. minister ever expect -- maybe this is an opinion -- that this conversion will take place? MR. GETTY: Would I ever expect? I just couldn't speculate on that, Mr. Speaker. MR. WILSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the hon. Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs aware that on Monday, the Federal Trade Department appointed Mr. Duncan R. B.

McArthur, the president of Inland Cement Industries Ltd. of Edmonton, to the Metric Commission? MR. GETTY: No I wasn't, nor do I appreciate the significance of the appointment. MR. WILSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the hon. minister aware that the federal government has established this commission to prepare a

schedule for the conversion of the Canadian economy to the metric system, and that it is of significance to Albertans? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, it was the hon. member who raised the question originally, I believe, when it was discussed in the House. We had Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2730

May 3rd 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 42-19 some considerable detail passed on to him. Frankly, there are certain priorities, Mr. Speaker, that are very important to the people of Alberta, that we are attending to as quickly as possible. Some do not have the same priority, and therefore, Mr. Speaker, they do not get the same attention. AN HON. MEMBER: Agreed. Speech Pathologists MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might take this opportunity to reply to a question asked a couple of days ago. The hon.

Member for Spirit River-Fairview had asked a question in regard to the number of professional people who were Canadians at the Speech Pathology Department at the Glenrose Hospital. The answer, in substance, is along the lines that I gave him the other day. I indicated at that time that this was a ready and reasonable explanation so far as my knowledge was concerned, but that I would seek an explanation. The explanation is that there were not sufficient graduates from either the University of Toronto or McGill University to fill the needs of the Canadian programs.

These were each graduating 15 speech pathologists a year, and they were absorbed historically in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. As a result, the Glenrose became totally independent on speech pathologists available in England. The University of Alberta will be graduating some speech pathologists this year. Starting next year, my understanding is that there will be 15 graduates a year from Alberta, who will be available to fit in to the programs in Edmonton and the rest of Alberta, and probably, generally in western Canada.

The question was further asked, whether or not one of the reasons for the small number of Canadians might be that the pathologists had to be accredited by the American Speech and Hearing Association. The answer is no. MR. NOTLEY: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Glenrose giving any consideration to preferential treatment for Alberta graduates in the years ahead? MR. CRAWFORD: I don't think that I could foresee a blood bath in the competent staff over there as Alberta graduates become available.

But I would say assuredly to the hon. member that where the qualifications are equal, and where there are vacancies in the establishment, and applications are made and Albertans apply, it would be my intention that they be given preference. Foreign Investment Control MR. DIXON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. the Premier.

I was wondering if he could inform the House if the federal legislation will have any retroactive feature in it as far as foreign control is concerned -- foreign investment control in the different companies -- and is he aware of any Alberta company at the present time negotiating with an American concern for a takeover? Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2731

42-20 ALBERTA HANSARD May 3rd 1972 MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, on this subject, having regard to the fact that I have just received the report from the chairman, as the other members did, of the Select Committee of the Legislature, it wouldn't be my view that I would be disposed towards answering questions with regard to the matter, particularly the second part of the hon. member's question. As to the first part, my recollection -- in terms of a cursory review of the document -- is that it would not have a rectroactive effect.

It would come into force at the time at which it was proclaimed, and then take effect from that point on. But that is about all I can say at this time. ORDERS OF THE DAY head: MINISTERIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the House that the report of the Commission on Educational Planning, headed by Dr. Walter Worth, will be off the press in mid-June. We will make it available to MLA's at the earliest possible moment and preparations are already underway to ensure the report has the widest possible distribution to all Albertans.

Copies will be made to all public libraries and all associations whose members might not otherwise have access to the report if they lack means. Additionally, the report will be distributed by direct orders to, not only the Queen's Printer, but also major book stores and department stores all over the province. A nominal amount of $5 will be charged for the report, and by that means we hope to recover the major cost of production. The cost has been kept deliberately low at $5 because we are hoping that the report will prove to be a best-seller in every sense of the word.

The government and the Department of Education, indeed both departments, Mr. Speaker, will not be taking any position immediately the report is issued. We will be studying it, and I would urge all MLA's in the House to plan now to seek comments from their constituents, to encourage study groups over the summer to review the report, so that when the Legislature convenes again in the fall we can get back to education and to the report in particular.

I might say that the report, we are told, is going to be at least as colourful and as readable as the Hall-Dennis Report in Ontario of some years ago, and we are indeed already getting requests from many parts of the world for the Worth Report due in mid-June. head: COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY head: GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Second Reading) Bill No. 64: The Surface Rights Act DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move second reading of Bill 64, The Surface Rights Act, seconded by the hon. Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs. MR. TAYLOR: Mr.

Speaker, on a point of order, I was wondering if the hon. minister in the government would hold this bill for a few days. It was just tabled last Friday; it is quite a thick, comprehensive bill, and we haven't completed our study of it. We would certainly appreciate it if it could be held for a couple of days. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2732

May 3rd 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 42-21 DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, if I could just raise a point with the hon. Member from Drumheller. It had been my intention to speak very briefly and if it was agreed to second reading I would then move that the bill be referred to the Standing Committee of the Legislature on Law and Law Amendments, so that not only could members go over it in some detail, but representations might then be made to by the various farm organizations, the landmen, and petroleum associations, etc., to that Standing Committee the legislature.

I apologize for not indicating that at the intitial first reading of the bill, but I had made it public prior to that that the undertaking would be referred to the Committee. So with that undertaking, we would appreciate going ahead today so that we can, in fact, make the motion immediately . If we get second reading, it can then be referred to the committee. MR. TAYLOR: Mr.

Speaker, on the point of order, that puts a different complexion on it entirely, because we will then be able to discuss the principle when it returns to the Committee of the Whole and this procedure is quite satisfactory. [The Motion was carried without dissent; Bill No. 64 was read a second time.] DR. HORNER: Mr.

Speaker, if I could then now move that Bill 64 be referred to the Standing Committee of Law and Law Amendments for their consideration and to hear representations from interested parties on it. [The motion was carried without debate or dissent.] Bill No. 38 The Treatment Services Amendment Act, 1972 MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Advanced Education that Bill No. 38 be now read a second time. Mr. Speaker, I think that I can justify brevity in the case of this particular amendment quite fully in speaking to it very briefly.

The act, as hon. members will know, provides for arrangements made by the province for treatment of various classes of persons who are in need. There is, for example, a

section which provides for the treatment of polio sufferers; there is, for example, a

section which provides for arrangments being made for the treatment of multiple handicapped people. That is the

section that has in it the provision that the College of Physicians and Surgeons might be an advisory body to the government in regard to programs.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons and the Canadian Medical Association and the Alberta Medical Association have undergone a few minor structural changes, with the result that the medical people themselves have asked us to consider that the Alberta Medical Association -- rather than the College of Physicans and Surgeons -- be the medical body treated as the advisory group for the purposed of this legislation; and that is all that this amendment sets out to achieve. [The motion was carried without dissent; Bill No. 38 was read for a second time.] Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2733

42-22 ALBERTA HANSARD May 3rd 1972 Bill No. 40 The Weed Control Act MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Member for Lloydminster, second reading of Bill No. 40. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill, as I indicated during first reading, is to provide a workable vehicle through which to control the spread of noxious weeds in both rural and urban Alberta.

The context of the bill, being a completly new bill, has many clauses which I’m sure the hon. members would perhaps be concerned about, and I shall certainly attempt during Committee of the Whole to elaborate on all sections of the bill and not spend any great deal of time discussing it at this time. [The motion was passed without dissent; Bill No. 40 was read for a second time] Bill No. 43 The Cultural Development Amendment Act, 1972 MR. SCHMID: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Member for Peace River, that Bill No. 43 be now read a second time. The act of 1967 remains substantially the same.

This bill permits smoother and more flexible operations of the branches, particularly in their dealings with the public. It permits us to conduct workshops, seminars, conferences and exhibitions. I give you as an example the music work shops in Lethbridge and Camrose. Again the act gives us proper authority and simplified operating procedure for a Cultural Heritage Conference to be held in June. A gathering, I might add, that is exciting interest, not only in this province, but in other provinces of Canada as well.

Under this bill we are given authority to hire instructors and lecturers, as well as tent buildings. Vexation, delay, and much of what the public refers to as red tape, is reduced to a minimum. I think it is safe to say that our Cultural Development Branch is becoming the envy of other branches across Canada. The wonderful work they are doing should certainly be a source of pride to us all.

The powers inherent in the Act are simply based from which the minister may authorize their activities in the programs carried out by the Cultural Development Branch, and the changes, I feel sure, will greatly improve the efficiency of administration without in any way, diminishing the control now exercised by the Legislature and the Lieutenant Governor in Council. [The motion was carried without dissent; Bill No. 43 was read a second time.] Bill No. 44 The Alberta Housing Amendment Act, 1972 MR. DOAN: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to move second reading of Bill No. 44, seconded by the hon.

Minister of Municipal Affairs. This bill will amend

Chapter 175 of the revised statutes of Alberta 1970. Mr. Speaker, a great deal of explanation will not be necessary on this bill as it only changes four small sections in the act, as reference mainly to mobile homes and mobile home parks. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2734

May 3rd 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 42-23 The first change is in

Section 2 under definition and simply defines all types of mobile home units that could be considered under The Alberta Housing Act.

Section (e1) defines mobile homes, and means any vacation trailer or house trailer that provides therein living, sleeping, eating, food preparation and sanitary facilities, or any of them, for one or more persons and that is capable of being moved from place to place, under its own power, pulled, or carried. The next

section (e2) , in the same manner describes what is included in the definition of a mobile home park and means: any area of land designed to provide services such as roads, streets, sidewalks, water, electrical, sewage, gas, communication or other services or facilities to mobile homes. Since the Alberta Housing Corporation was established in 1970 it has expanded at a rapid rate.

Now, where in the opinion of the corporation, sufficient money is not being made available by lending institutions for the housing purposes which now include mobile homes, the corporation may make loans for the purpose of construction or improving of mobile home parks. Having become involved in a great deal of financing under the Alberta Housing Corporation, it therefore amends

Section 5 of the act by striking out the words, "Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs" and substituting the words "Deputy Provincial Treasurer", so the affairs of the corporation shall be conducted by a board of directors which shall consist of the Deputy Provincial Treasurer and the executive director of the corporation as members.

Also, under this amendment, it allows that the corporation may each year pay to any municipality within which any of its premises are situated, a grant not exceeding the amount that would be recoverable by the municipality if the premises were subject to the business tax of the municipality for that year. Mr. Speaker, in order to make The Alberta Housing Act more acceptable to the general building trade, and particularly to the lower income groups who may be wishing to purchase mobile homes and locate on mobile home parks, I would ask the Assembly to support this amendment to The Alberta Housing Act. MR.

TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, the idea of mobile home parks is, I think, a very excellent one. I think also that in the consideration of this bill which is an attempt to help mobile homes, we have to consider a few other items. Otherwise the mobile home owner is going to be left in an unfair position.

At one time the mobile home owner was receiving a great number of benefits at the expense of society and now it would appear that the pendulum may be swinging too far the other way because when they are now required to pay ground rent for parking, then taxes, they do not have the benefits or streets, of street lights; many pay additional for sewage. The load on the mobile home owner is becoming pretty heavy and it's causing a great deal of concern to many people who have invested in mobile homes, a sum equal to that to which they might have purchased property and a home.

So I think that along with making these mobile home parks possible, we also have to make sure that we're not letting this pendulum swing too far and putting the owners of mobile homes in an unfair position, paying more than their share and paying for benefits that they don't receive but that other people in the same community are receiving. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to make several comments on this bill following up on the statements already made. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2735

42-24 ALBERTA HANSARD May 3rd 1972 I have a number of mobile home owners in my constituency who brought to my attention the real problems that these people, by and large younger people, have. And I think perhaps many of us aren't really aware of the fact that the total that they pay -- when you include the rent for their stalls, and you add to that rent the fee that must be paid to the province -- that in actual fact the total in most cases is somewhat higher than would be paid by an average homeowner in a particular community.

So I really do feel that it's necessary for us to examine ways and means of bringing back a better balance in this whole situation, and relieving the rather unfair burden that many of these people have to pay. As I mentioned of mobile home owners are young people, who are just getting started. As I listened to them in their submissions to me, and heard the rates that are being charged by mobile home parks elsewhere in the province, I really found myself quite surprised at just what some of these monthly charges are, and how few services are really provided for rather extravagant monthly charges.

Obviously, in order to bring some genuine competition into this field, we have to make provision, Mr. Speaker, for public mobile home parks not to take over the business from private parks owners, but in the larger centres, at least to make the market place work a little better. I think this is especially so in our growing centres. I can cite the City of Grande Prairie for example, where as we all know the city is mushrooming in consequence of the Proctor and Gamble Pulp Mill.

But largely because of that increase, the mobile home owners in the City of Grande Prairie are forced to pay rather substantial monthly payments for their stalls, and I think provision made so that the municipalities can acquire land and set up their own mobile home park in competition with the private operators is something which would be desirable. One other point I'd like to make here, Mr. Speaker, on this matter. It deals with the depreciation

schedule that is used to calculate the fee that the individual mobile home owner pays to the province. It seems to me that that depreciation

schedule is much too long. By the time the period ends the real value of the mobile home is so much reduced that these people are in fact paying fees on a mobile home which isn't worth nearly as much, in actual fact, as the depreciation

schedule claims that it is. And this is something which I believe the government should consider as well, when looking at the total problems faced today by the mobile home owners. [Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.] [The motion was carried without dissent; Bill No. 44 was read a second time.] Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2736

May 3rd 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 42-25 Bill No. 45: The Department of Culture, Youth and Recreation Amendment Act, 1972 MR. SCHMID: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Manpower and Labour, that Bill No. 45 entitled The Department of Culture, Youth and Recreation Amendment Act, 1972 be now read a second time. In speaking briefly on this bill, I would inform the hon. members on both sides of the Assembly that the original act was passed just a year ago. In fact, it came into force on April 1, 1971.

At that time, as many members will be aware, several branches and related institutions previously under the Department of the Provincial Secretary were amalgamated. It has included 4-H and Junior Forest Warden Branch, Recreation Branch, the Youth Services Branch, the Provinicial Museum and Archives, and the Jubilee Auditoriums. Since the basic objective of my department is to initiate, foster, and encourage the orderly development of all constructive forms of culture, youth and recreation activities, this incorporation was a logical one.

Understandably, in the ensuing year we have run into what might be called operational handicaps, while at the same time we have discovered new ways of enhancing our programs among the public. Essentially the purpose of this bill is to enable us to simplify certain day-to-day operations, while facilitating our working relationship with the public. It will, among other things, encourage and promote maximum interest and participation in all forms of constructive sport and physical fitness programs.

In the area of warm human relations between government and people, may I suggest that if there is any area in which government and its people should come together in mutual warmth, it is in the area of cultural development. We need ways to create a responsive relationship with the public, especially the young people. One of the things we are planning on doing is the preparation of a departmental seal. A seal of this sort has special meaning.

For example, when an achievement award is earned by a child who pursues a musical education at a workshop in Camrose, that simple item is a visible, very meaningful proof of her accomplishment. In such situations, of course, we should have the authority to reproduce it mechanically, for achievement certificates are presented to many eager young people who sacrifice their summers to enrich our present and our future. [The motion was carried without dissent; Bill No. 45 was read a second time] Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2737

42-26 ALBERTA HANSARD May 3rd 1972 Bill No. 47 The Alberta Income Tax Amendment Act, 1972 MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Education, second reading of The Alberta Income Tax Amendment Act, 1972. Mr. Speaker, when I first introduced this bill into the Legislature, I indicated that the principle of the bill was to bring the provincial income tax legislation into conformity with federal income tax legislation. I also indicated that there were some concerns on the part of our government with respect to some of the provisions in the federal tax revisions. Mr.

Speaker, I will not say again what I said on the introduction of the bill. But for the information of members who are new members in the Legislature, I would just like to review the historical background of the Alberta Income Tax Act in Alberta. This background goes back to the years 1932 and 1940 when Alberta actually levied and collected its own personal and corporate income taxes. They rented these taxes to the federal government during the next 21 years, 1941 to 1961, under the War Time Tax Rental Agreements, and subsequently Dominion-Provincial Tax Rental Agreements.

Taxes were levied, but the federal government collected these taxes during that particular decade, 1961 until the present time. [The motion was carried without debate; Bill No. 47 was read a second time] Bill No. 48: The Livestock Brand Inspection Amendment Act, 1972 MR. J . MILLER: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Member for St. Paul, second reading of Bill No. 48, being The Livestock Brand Inspection Amendment Act, 1972. The Livestock Brand Inspection Act, 1971 replaced the older Stock Inspection Act. This was necessary to deal with the different methods of transporting cattle.

For example, formerly cattle were either trailed to market or else transported by rail. Nowadays, the transportation is mostly done by trucks to many markets.

Whereas in former years, the movement of cattle was mainly from farm to packing plant, we now have many livestock markets and cattle being sold from the producer to the feeder and then to the packing plant. As you can well see, the need for identification of the cattle through these transactions has increased tremendously.

This bill has been made necessary to rectify some of the problems which presented themselves from an administrative standpoint in the actual brand reading of cattle, and to overcome legal complications which have arisen by virtue of the wording of the act. [The motion was carried without dissent; Bill No. 48 was read a second time] Bill No. 49: The Meat Inspection Act MR. FLUKER: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Member for Lloydminster, second reading of Bill No. 49, being The Meat Inspection Amendment Act, 1972.

The Health of Animals Division of the Canada Department of Agriculture estimate that they inspect approximately 85% of the meat slaughtered in Alberta. A large proportion of this federally inspected meat goes to eastern markets. The remaining 15%, which is Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2738

May 3rd 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 42-27 not federally inspected, all remains within the province, and accounts for 15% to 25% of our domestic consumption. Some cities and municipalities have local by-laws requiring that all meat consumed or sold within that municipality be inspected, and it is under this authority that cities such as Lethbridge and Red Deer provide five o'clock type post-mortem inspection, which is somewhat less adequate. An anti-mortem inspection is essential to detect some diseases such as milk fever, which is not evident at the animal's death.

The post-mortem inspection must be conducted immediately upon slaughter of the animal; in the first instance to prevent animals inspected with contagious disease from entering coolers, and secondly to ensure that proper identification of the carcass is made and recorded by the inspector. The primary reason for meat inspection must be to safeguard the health of our human population. Our citizens have the right to the assurance that all meat and treat products offered for sale have been subjected to a thorough and proper inspection procedure and have been passed for human consumption.

We have had a number of instances in the past where human cases of food poisoning have been traced to improper slaughtering and handling of meat animals and inadequate and unsanitary facilities. There is a strong possibility that more cases of this will occur unless the government of Alberta takes steps to ensure that all meat and meat products offered for sale have been properly handled under sanitary conditions. A second obvious reason for the provincial meat inspection program is the increased markets that will be opened up to our small operators.

At the present time the country plants are unable to market their products in either the chain stores in their own areas or in the larger urban centres because of the lack of inspection. It has been shown in other provinces that once a small rural plant has meat inspection service provided for them, its business will double and triple in a very short time, thus providing much needed industry in rural areas, coupled with the extra employment it provides. There are approximately 95 abbatoirs in the Province of Alberta which could eventually come under this program.

Approximately half of them have the necessary standards of construction and facilities in order to begin this program immediately. All they require is the incentive to provide the best possible sanitation and management procedures which will be provided by the presence of an inspector in the plant. Even without any outside influence there are five or six new plants being built in the province every year and these are, without exception, being built to a superior standard. Our hope is that within two or three years we will be prepared to provide inspection in 50 or 60 of these small plants.

It is our hope that the competition provided by the newer and better plants which have inspection, would force the others to either upgrade their slaughtering facilities to our standards, or to close down their operations and use the plants operated by their competitors. This process is happening now in our areas. It is not our intention to legislate anybody out of business, but instead, to have the economic realities force them to come under this program. Although the act provides that all meat is to be offered for sale for human consumption, it must be subjected to anti-mortem and post-mortem inspection.

Exemptions will be provided in the regulations for (

a) those operators who wish to do strictly custom- kill business for each animal they slaughter is returned to the farm of origin, and (

b) the slaughter of animals by the farmer for his own use and (

c) the processing of wild game animals and undrawn, dressed poultry. It is our intention, wherever possible, to utilize services of rural veterinarians to conduct the inspection service. In those Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2739

42—28 ALBERTA HANSARD May 3rd 1972 areas where there is no veterinarian or where the workload is greater than the practising veterinarian would be willing to undertake, it will be necessary to provide full government meat inspectors of the type that are now utilized by the federal government, and who would work under the supervision of the nearest veterinarian licenced as a meat inspector. This procedure would be necessary because the non- veterinarian inspector would have the authority to pass a product for human consumption, but not to condemn it.

We estimate that our ultimate requirement would be for 12 of these non-veterinary inspectors. The cost of this program is estimated at about S2.50 for each beef animal, and about 75 cents for each hog, at the present volume of business. The total cost would work out to about $250,000 per year. The increased volume of business would result in a small increase in total cost, but not in proportion to the number of animals processed because of the increased efficiency of the program with the larger volume. It would not take the inspector any greater time to inspect 20 hogs than ten, once he is on the premises.

An increased cost would be a result of the plants operating more days per week, as a result of their greater volume. Various methods of funding a program of this type have been tried in other provinces, but by far the most successful is that operated in Ontario, where the province has paid the total cost, thus allowing the small operators to compete directly with large packers who receive their service free from the federal government.

These provinces where fees have been charged to the operator, who in turn, passed the cost on to the contributor, there has been a tendency to retard the growth of the program, and the service, because the farmers tend to slaughter on their own farms rather than pay for the cost of inspection. One must also consider the inefficiency of collecting many small sums of money, and the greater cost of administration with a program of this type. MR. BUCKWELL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on this bill. I think this is an excellent bill; it is long overdue.

But it has - - as I believe the mover has mentioned -- many problems ahead of it. One of the problems would be the closing out in time -- and this is what he mentioned -- of the smaller packing plants. For example, I have one in my own area which is not large enough for federal inspection, and yet it does a tremendous volume of business. We have a vet within a mile, so there is no problem. In areas where there are no veterinary inspectors, I understand veterinary inspectors will be appointed. I suppose will in turn serve a dual purpose and be the veterinarian for that area.

But I think it may be wishful thinking to think it is going to be $2.50 per head. You have mentioned that the provincial government is going to pay for it. Couldn’t this meat, after it has been inspected -- or is it only federally inspected meat that can be sold outside of the province? These are questions that I would ask. MR. HENDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a few brief comments in support of this particular bill.

I must say as a layman, when I became involved with the health department a few years ago, it was a considerable surprise to me to learn that all the meat sold across meat counters in the province wasn’t inspected before it was sold. It was surprising to find out that there was a fair bit of meat marketed in the Province of Alberta that was not inspected properly before it was placed on the retail market. I realize that the bill Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2740

May 3rd 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 42-29 has been under development within the departments of health and agriculture for at least a year now, and I would only suggest, Mr. Speaker, that certainly I consider the bill to be very definitely in the public interest. I would also like to support the decision of the government to carry the cost of this service as a provincial cost, since I think this was probably one of the main stumbling blocks in coming to grips with this particular public health measure in the past.

There is no doubt in my mind, on the base of my limited experience on the subject, that in the absence of a provincial financial support, I'm sure the program would meet with a lot of resistance at a number of places on the local level. Therefore, I just wanted to rise and go on record as supporting the bill as being, I think, a desirable public health measure in the best interests of the people of the Province of Alberta. The expenditure of the public funds involved, I believe, would be money well spent. DR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker, I hail this act. I think it is long overdue.

The one comment that I would like to make -- maybe the hon. member could answer it -- is he assured now there will be an adequate number of inspectors monitoring this type of program, and will they in fact, be adequately qualified, and if not, what would be the direction? I wasn't quite clear, I think he did mention that. Would he just clarify it again? Secondly, the other question I would like to ask for clarification, despite the fact that the hon. member opposite has just talked about it, is the cost going to be borne by the province, and is this absolutely necessary?

Is there any other way of getting around this? MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if I might enter the debate before it is closed off by the mover. This particular bill is going to be of tremendous importance in our rural areas, and it might be of some interest to know that the veterinarians in my constituency have been inspecting the abbatoir that is there over the past 12 years. While they have no record which would offer any statistics, they took one particular week and out of that one particular week, some 35% of the number of animals that were slaughtered had condemned portions in them.

So that this matter of meat inspection, I think, is tremendously important to the local abbatoirs, and I think will benefit the small towns because, as the market for inspected meat is much greater than non-inspected, it provides that access to market which is not now available. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, there's just one point I'd like to mention. I'd like to thank the hon. member for letting us know what's going to be in the regulations and I am very pleased to say there, that meat for the personal use of the grower is exempted. There is one other exemption I would like to suggest.

And that is where there is a private deal between the farmer or producer and the householder for the purchase of a quarter, or a half, or a whole critter for that matter. It seems that where the buyer and the seller are both satisfied that it probably would not be necessary. I would like to see this considered, also as a possible exemption along with the others that he mentioned. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2741

42-30 ALBERTA HANSARD May 3rd 1972 MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask a question. If I remember correctly, when this bill was introduced in the Legislature there was some indication that it be held over until the fall, and during the summer representation be received. Is it still the intention to proceed in this way? Before you close debate, would you also advise as to who the representation be made to? Is it to the Cabinet or the Committee of the Legislature -- who will receive representation during the summer? MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, just briefly I was -- like the hon.

Member for Wetaskiwin-Leduce -- rather shocked a year ago when this matter was brought to my attention. I raised it, immediately following the election, with the hon. Minister of Agriculture and I was pleased to get a prompt response that we are already in the process of drafting the legislation. I think it's important at least for the two reasons mentioned -- the public health aspect, and of course the local industry aspect, and as these have been covered I have no more to say. I very strongly favour this bill. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: May the mover close the debate? MR. FLUKER: Mr.

Speaker, I may just talk a bit about this bill. I have done quite a bit of work on it and I have quite a bit of information on it and I am well aware of what's going on in meat inspection in Alberta. I really appreciate the comments of the other members on what they think on it. First of all maybe I should answer some of the questions. We think that in Alberta we will need some 12 to 15 more inspectors and they certainly won't be veterinarians. They will probably work under the veterinarians and be trained and they will have to have a training program.

I think that at the present time there is a man in Ontario taking a course so that he can train these inspectors. We will need about 12 to 15 more of them, other than what veterinarians we have now. When you talk about cost at $2.50 for the inspection of an animal it really isn't that much, but how are you going to take this off every farmer that comes in and gets his own meat killed? All it would do would be to discourage him to bring it in and have it inspected.

I really I don't think that it's going to be that much of a load on the government to pay this inspection and certainly at $.75 a hog and $2.50 for a beef carcass. When it is inspected it is brought up to the same inspection that our federal government has now in our big packing plants. I would certainly believe then that it could be shipped out of the province for resale. Another thing, getting back, I think we should really look at fowl. I look at people killing chickens in the country and I say this about -- I shouldn't maybe say this -- Hutterite colonies who peddle them.

Lots of these hens are two and three years old and you don't know what they've had. They have all been drawn and eviscerated, they bring them, and they peddle them. DR. BUCK: [Inaudible] MR. FLUKER: Pardon ... I would say here that even fowl should be inspected. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2742

May 3rd 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 42-31 I think this bill should be held, we should study it and have a final reading on it in the fall. I think this is our intention for the fall and if you have ary submissions that you want to give to me and talk to me about, I would only be too glad to sit down and talk to the other members. But I do think it is very, very important to get this bill passed. [Motion was passed without further debate, Bill No. 49 was read a second time.] Bill No. 53: The Federal-Provincial Farm Assistance Amendment Act, 1972 DR. HORNER: Mr.

Speaker, I move second reading of Bill No. 53, seconded by the hon. Minister of Health and Social Development. This bill simply amends the act to incorporate the words 'organization and use of workers for farming in related industries'. At the present time the act deals with such things as land use, farm credit, crop insurance, rural development. We're really adding farm manpower so that we can take advantage of the federal programs in manpower and develop programs related to manpower needs in agriculture.

We hope under that the develop apprenticeships programs in specialty lines in agriculture. [The motion was carried without dissent; Bill No. 53 was read a second time.] Bill No. 55: The Universities Amendment Act, 1972 MR. HARLE; I move, seconded by the hon. Member for St. Paul, second reading of Bill No. 55. This amendment is to cure a technical defect in the academic pension plan which is presently being administered by the University of Alberta. The Federal Income Tax Act exempts from tax only those registered pensions funds able to meet the precise terms of

Section 62(1g) of The Income Tax Act. This

section requires that the pension fund be administered by a trust or corporation solely connected with that particular purpose. At the present time the pension fund is administered by a special committee but ownership of the fund remains vested in the board. The amendment will permit the board to transfer the fund to trustees to meet the requirements of The Income Tax Act. I want to emphasize that there is no question involved about the liability of individual staff members being subject to income tax on his contributions to the fund.

This amendment has been brought to our attention by the legal advisers of the University of Alberta. [The motion was carried without dissent; Bill No. 55 was read a second time.] Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2743

42-32 ALBERTA HANSARD May 3rd 1972 Bill No. 56: The Co-operative Marketing Associations Guarantee Amendment Act, 1972 MR. TOPOLNISKY: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Member for Rocky Mountain House, that Bill No. 56 be read a second time. These amendments will permit the formation of water co- operatives such as the electrical energy or the natural gas co- operatives and will allow the capital cost borrowing guaranteed by the Provincial Treasurer on behalf of the province. The second amendment will raise the limitation of the liability under the act, from $5 million to S10 million. In essence, Mr.

Speaker, these amendments will permit the guarantee of the indebtedness of water co-operatives and will also double the contingent liability limit. MR. HENDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say a very few brief words on this particular bill to say, certainly, I support the amendment. I'm sure I'm not alone when I say there are constituents in my area who would very much like to take advantage of this legislation to form co-ops in order to distribute water within the district.

They are severely hampered now by the lack of funding, or the government guarantee, which would enable the financing of at least a portion of the capital cost. I would also, however, like to make one or two comments about the basic responsibility of the Co-operative Activities Branch in this area of dealing with these co-ops. I note the smile on the face of the hon. Minister of Agriculture -- and because what I'm about to say is going to be a criticism of the past administration, he can feel free to add to it if he wants. DR. HORNER: See that you do a good job! MR. HENDERSON: I will! But it's very timely.

I was absent from this House last night, Mr. Speaker, because I felt I had to attend a meeting in my own constituency dealing with a problem with a co-operative. It wasn't water, but it was gas. And if the rules of the House will permit I would say it was such-and-such a mess -- and it's a horrible mess. I think when the governments are underwriting a portion of the borrowings, that possibly the responsibilities of the Co-operative Activities Branch should be expanded and I think this particular co- op is a case in point.

The branch approved the funding of money for a group of farmers in my constituency to enter into an agreement with a private company to build a gas distribution system. And, of course, there was somebody supposed to have money from the Bahamas or something to finance the company portion of it. The farmers have ended up, through the Co-operative Activities guaranteed financing two-thirds of the capital cost of construction -- The thing got so badly messed up that they finally had to go to court and get a court order to decide who owned the company.

And on top of that, the company that owns the system is basically in receivership. In questioning last night at the meeting, I find that there really is no evidence that there is even a supply contract relating Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2744

May 3rd 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 42-33 to the operation of the system. The farmers in question were contemplating a decision whether they should make an offer to exercise an option and buy out the company's ownership in the system, which I agree in principle, is probably a very intelligent move on their part. It's somewhat shocking, Mr. Speaker, to find out that the funding had been guaranteed the loan, through the Co-operative Activities Branch, without even any consideration as to a contract for the supply of gas.

And so the company that promoted the deal has made a sales commitment to the farm people involved to supply gas for ten years. They practically went bankrupt before they got the project one-third completed. The source of gas was not supposed to be the source of gas. It's actually an emergency connection. As far as I can find out from the Co-operative Activities Branch, and indirectly through discussions with the lawyers representing the Co- operatives Association, there is no contract for the supply of gas for the system. So, I would strongly urge, Mr.

Speaker, and I feel quite confident already that the hon. minister has probably taken some action in this regard. But I think, very obviously when we're using the borrowing power of the Government of the Province of Alberta to underwrite these lendings for these operations, that the responsibility of the Co-operative Activities Branch should be expanded to the full area of the project. In this case the selling of the gas really ignored the fact that the company involved was a middle man relating to a purchaser.

And while I'm confident the Board of Public Utilities had the authority to deal with any question of supply that may be involved, nonetheless the question was completely overlooked, as far as I can find out, by the gentlemen in the co-op themselves and by the department in the government before the loans were underwritten. And in that regard it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, if we're going to expand this legislation and move into the co-op area, and I make this suggestion at this point because of the government's study that is now underway on rural gas distribution.

Without trying to anticipate what government policy may be ensuing from that study, I feel very strongly that the government will simply have to develop a better technical capability to deal with all the technical and economic aspects of these programs, not just the piece of them that deals with the marketing end of it -- it has to relate to the entire project. And in that regard, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we have another deficiency in the technical aspect of it, in the gas system that I find there is nothing in the contract about the quality of gas that has to be supplied.

In this particular operation the gas going into the system is too rich, it has too much liquid hydrocarbons in it which condense out at ground temperatures, load it up with liquid and then, of course, they can't get the gas through the system to meet the demand of a particular gentleman at the far end of the line, who I'm sure the hon. minister also knows, and of course, this happens at the time of year when they need the gas for the coldest months of the year.

There certainly has got to be something included in the Co- operative Activities program to deal with the quality of the product that is going into this system, regardless of whether it is water or whether it is gas or -- I guess there is not a problem of quality in electricity. There has been enough experience with other co-ops relating with other parts of the province where the experience has been pretty dismal.

I think it is really a mistake to allow a group of well- intentioned individuals who want to have the benefits that the water system or a gas distribution system in a rural area would bring to them and to allow them to get mixed up with what, in my mind in this case, was a pretty marginal preposition and promotion. It is a Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2745

42-34 ALBERTA HANSARD May 3rd 1972 different matter entirely in comparing it to the REA'S where at least the groups are dealing with one or two large corporations, than it is to get mixed up in co-operative activities with individuals who are primarily interested in promoting an exercise which, in the final analysis, the consumers are going to have to pay for. They are going to have to pay to rectify mistakes and will probably end up paying more than they should, had a little better guidance been given by the co-operative activities branch in the first place. In closing, Mr.

Speaker, I must say I don't single out for criticism the employees, the individuals in the Co-operative Activities Branch. Very clearly, it was a deficiency on the part of direction from the government. My only regret is that I didn't become aware of some of the problems in this area a little bit sooner in my political career. Thank you. MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to agree with the hon. Member for Wetaskiwin, but in this situation I must. It hurts, but I would like to say this that the problem of gas distribution is not restricted to the Wetaskiwin area.

I think there are some three or four co- operative organizations distributing gas that run right through the Lacombe area down to Pine Lake, that are faced with the same problem. I would agree with him that it was a mistake on the part of the former government, that they didn't take the initiative. There was sufficient recommendation from organizations suggesting that had it been set up on the base of power, that the problem wouldn't have occured. The problem has occurred, it is regretable. I hope that this bill will move towards rectifying the bitter, sad situation. MR. ZANDER: Mr.

Speaker, I would certainly agree with the hon. Member for Lacombe and also the hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Leduc. There certainly have been a lot of mistakes made in the supply of gas to the local rural people. In my area we have three gas companies falling all over each other trying to plough in gas lines. Eventually, I think it got into court and I don't know whether it is settled now or not. But I think the problem is not only there, but I think it is in the Co-operative Activities Branch, the personnel in that branch.

I spent some three hours in that branch and when I walked out I was no smarter than when I walked in, because they are hopelessly lost. MR. HENDERSON: That's not the fault of the branch. MR. ZANDER: That is the fault of the people that are in there. They are not acquainted with the situation. I think they should be oriented in the field before they go into that office. Most of those people still think that you run gas on wire, on power lines.

I am really perturbed about. . .well, I am not saying that all of them are that way, but I am really perturbed when I walk in there and I start talking gas and it is just too far above their heads. They don't know what the problem is out in the rural areas. I think they should be educated, taken out there and shown what the problems are and then say, go back and rectify them. This is the only thing I wanted to say, Mr. Speaker. [Mr.

Speaker resumed the Chair.] [The motion was carried without dissent; Bill No. 56 was read a second time.] Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2746

May 3rd 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 42-35 Bill No. 57: The Energy Resources Conservation Amendment Act, 1972 MR. DICKIE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Education that Bill No. 57, being The Energy Resources Conservation Amendment Act be now read a second time. Mr. Speaker, the principle involved in this bill deals with a practice that's followed by the Energy Resources Conservation Board.

That practice is to have the administration costs of certain acts shared 50-50 between the government and the industry. [The motion was carried without dissent; Bill No. 57 was read a second time.] Bill No. 61: The Social Development Amendment Act, 1972 MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Advanced Education that Bill No. 61, The Social Development Amendment Act, 1972, be read a second time. Mr. Speaker, the act, in general terms, provides for the granting of social allowance to employable persons and to unemployable persons with children.

The proposed amendments are directed to the right of privacy of the individual in regard to record keeping and the disclosure of the records the department has in regard to individuals, and has also in it the empowering sections required to go ahead with the termination of the voucher system. This particular aspect of it has been discussed in the House, and I’ve indicated in respect to the termination of the voucher system, that it would be phased over a period of years. This first move would be for the purpose of having that done in one regional office. MR. R. SPEAKER; Mr.

Speaker, I would like to make a remark or two with regard to Bill No. 61. I think there are three basic questions I would like to ask and then make a comment as to our point of view. The first question is with regard to the

section or the principle in this act which talks about secrecy. I want to make it very clear, in making statements with regard to this that in no way do we on this side of the House want personal type of information, such as that about the mental, physical or emotional health of the individual made public. Nor are we thinking in terms of the financial situation or the financial information about a person as to his personal affairs, because that’s the business of the individual himself.

But one of the concerns that we have, and it is the concern that is related in each of the three question, is basically, how do we account for the public funds that are expended in support of persons that are on public assistance? The questions follow that general statement. First of all, how can an MLA obtain information on social allowance or social assistance recipients outside of the House in the community, or in the Assembly?

I well recognize that we have a certain immunity here in the House and could make certain statements, but at the same time, under what ground rules could the minister make available information on a particular case to us in the Assembly? That’s number one. Secondly, under what ground rules could information be made available to the MLA with regards to a particular welfare recipient? As I read the amendment to the bill and the principle in the bill Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2747

42-36 ALBERTA HANSARD May 3rd 1972 here at the present time, there doesn’t seem to be allowance made for that. The second question is, how can a member of a municipal council receive the same type of information? It seems that in discussing the principle of secrecy here, that a municipal councillor who is responsible for expending public funds hasn't access to that information. And if he does gain access, say through the secretary- treasurer or the social development department of that council, what responsibilities are placed on his shoulders if he makes it public in the community? The third question is a

summary question that I would like to ask the hon. minister. How do these two respective areas I have talked about -- the MLA area and the municipal councillor area -- act responsibly in their duties to check on the accountability of funds being expended without being able to receive necessary information, as to the sum dollars or the monthly dollars that have been expended, either in provincial funds or municipal funds, on a particular individual? That is the only information I am talking about at this time.

To support that concern, I think we should relate back to an incident one or two years ago that happened in one of the eastern provinces, where there was a change of government; and upon inspection of the files, it was learned that some of the people who were on welfare payments, belonged to a political party. When the examination was made of their cases, they really were not eligible for the funds that were being expended.

Our point is that if this is the case, and there really isn't access to the files, or even access to the gross dollars that are being spent on an individual, how can we maintain accountability? I am sure we all want to do that -- to be accountable -- I believe this has been supported very much by our discussions that have been in the estimates. Mr. Minister, if you could comment on these questions, I would appreciate it very much. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to do that. I would be closing the debate if I do that, though, at this time. I look to see if anyone else wishes to speak. MR.

SPEAKER: May the hon. minister close the debate? MR. DRAIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few brief comments in relation to Bill No. 61. I have found many instances -- you have, as an MLA, to justify the position that the social worker has taken in many cases. This does not necessarily imply that you have to take the position of a disclosure of personal files. But certainly, you Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2748

May 3rd 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 42-37 Continued on Page 38 Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2749

42-38 ALBERTA HANSARD May 3rd 1972 have to have some personal background, insofar as your presentation. I think probably with so much reaction -- in many cases, unjustified reaction -- towards social assistance payments that if an MLA, as such, cannot personally define in his mind the position there is in regard to payments like this, I would think he would then have no position to take. This would mean that, in fact, he was not properly accepting part of the responsibilities as I see them. Certainly, there are so many areas of lack of knowledge in social assistance. They say, "Look at this fellow over here.

He is on social assistance and he is perfectly healthy." You know that this particular man has a heart condition, or he has emphysema, or some other reason. With the total implication of all this being a dark and sinister secret, this to me is wrong. There is another aspect. I further question the implication of this bill that by some logic it is defined that the subject who is receiving assistance is, in effect, committing some sinister deed. I say this also is wrong. If this person justifiably should have assistance, I do not see any reason why this can be classified as a dark and sinister secret. MR.

DIXON: Mr. Speaker, I must bring forth a strong objection to the principle of this bill because I think really it is an insult to this Legislature, and to the members here on both sides of the House. I believe that a member of the Legislature duly elected by the people of his constituency, should not be barred by legislation from inquiring into a personal record that he may be asked to pass judgment on.

I think there hasn't been an hon. member in this House that hasn't been approached by someone, either the person concerned who is receiving welfare, or by somebody who is concerned that the hon. member should be able to investigate cases in order that an hon. member of this House can come to a fair and just decision. How can we decide, or give information, without all the facts?

And I think we are going to allow every lawyer in the country and everyone else the privilege to go in here, yet we are going to deny the people who are duly elected to represent each and every individual in his constituency regardless of how they voted. I really think that we should give serious consideration to taking a second look at the principle of this bill, because I think that every government is entitled, when public money is being spent, to investigate as to whether that money is being spent properly.

That is our major interest in this House, that we are spending taxpayers money and we have to justify why we are spending it. Whether it is on an individual or whether it is on a contract. I probably can figure out some of the reasons why this legislation was brought in, but I still think that when it comes to barring an elected official, who is responsible for the money that is being spent, barring him from inquiring to get the facts, I think we are on very poor ground. I hope that the hon. minister in the government opposite would reconsider this bill.

I have dealt with hundreds and hundreds of welfare cases in my time in this House -- and I have had no objection from anyone yet, where I have asked for a personal file in order that I can come, as a member of the Legislature, to a fair and just decision. I am one of the first people that will tell a person if I think he is receiving all that he is entitled to, I will be able to tell him that. But with this system, there is no way where I can make a fair and just decision as to whether that person who I am concerned with, because he is one of my constituents, did get his fair share.

And unless I get the information, I'm not able to come to the decision that I would like to come to. So with those few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I definitely would like to say that I am opposed to excluding the elected members from obtaining information on money that is being spent by the Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2750

May 3rd 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 42-39 government, without being able to inquire as to whether that money is being properly spent or not. MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether the definition of an official would cover an alderman. Is an official of a municipality an alderman? Is an alderman an official of a municipality, I mean. MR. SPEAKER: The question with regard to text should perhaps more properly be brought up in committee. MR. FARRAN: Well I think it probably affects the principle that the hon. Member for Calgary Millican is talking about.

If it was in order for him to object to the alleged retention of confidential documents from elected members except through the minister, there is this provision in the act that they can be provided to an official of a municipality. DR. BUCK: Along that same line I would just like to ask or make a comment in the form of a question. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Clover Bar followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood. DR. BUCK: I would just like the minister to indicate to me -- my

interpretation is possibly wrong -- of the intent of this bill and say, as an example, if I was to ask the hon. minister a question about one of my constituents, and he in reply to me said, 'Well, yes, Mrs. so and so is receiving x number of dollars or this, this, this and the next thing, and the next item,' the question I would like to know is, would this be constituting violation of secrecy of this lady's document? And this is the only question I have. I'm not exactly sure of the ramifications of the bill. MRS. CHICHAK: Mr. Speaker, I think that the

interpretation as we see it, the way it is printed here, it probably does exclude MLAs from being able to receive information unless it is properly authorized by the minister. I think the intention, and the hon. minister can certainly reply to it, was not to exclude MLAs, and if that is the case, that that was not the intention, then really it is intended that we would be included in being able to obtain such information. And I would suggest that we approve the principle on the understanding that we may make the amendment when this is brought to committee -- at least consider the amendment. MR.

FARRAN: May I ask if it's the intention to include aldermen? MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order. If the hon. minister wanted to answer a question I don't think that should preclude him from closing debate later, because the answer does have quite a bit of bearing on whether many of us speak or not. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2751

42-40 ALBERTA HANSARD May 3rd 1972 MR. SPEAKER: If the House agrees, then perhaps the hon. minister would answer the questions. Otherwise if there is no further debate, the hon. minister is closing the debate. He will likely answer them anyway. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I think that the answers to some questions, once I get going, could be quite a speech, I suppose. But I want to assure the hon. members that in my closing remarks I will deal with all of these things, I think to the satisfaction of the entire Assembly. I still think, with all deference to the hon.

Member for Calgary North Hill, that I should wait. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I would then like to make just one or two comments. I have had a great deal to do with welfare cases living in an improvement district. I find that I have to deal with these things -- whether I want to or not -- in public meetings, various clubs and in the homes of welfare recipients. Many times, first of all in the case of public meetings, I have had people in a meeting get up and say that relief was becoming a racket and make some pretty serious charges.

In order to follow these up, sometimes I go to the home of the people that are supposed to be the cause of the racket, sometimes I go to the welfare worker, but generally to the welfare worker, and find out what is the situation. In probably nine times out of ten the information indicates that it's a proper, valid case and I take it back to the meeting and the people then are satisfied. If you can’t do that, the MLA might just as well not hold a public meeting, because surely you are there to answer the questions of the people regarding public money.

Secondly, if a person has to go into the home to find out how much they are getting on welfare, what the various conditions are, it is simply increasing the work of the MLA without increasing his or her effectiveness. I spend considerable time visiting homes, but I would hope I wouldn't have to, in order to come to a decision on whether or not welfare is being fair, or exorbitant, or too much or too little to go into every home in ID No. 7. I think, as far as I know, I don't know of anyone that wouldn't give me the figure they are getting on welfare. But it's a pretty roundabout way to get the information.

In public meetings particularly, I think an MLA and a counsellor have to be in a position to answer, to say whether a thing is right. I have never yet said how much anybody was getting on welfare, at least not to my knowledge. What I generally say is that in my view they are getting enough, or occasionally I've said they are getting too much and tried to do something about it with the department.

Sometimes they are not getting enough and that's generally the case -- where they are not getting enough -- where all the information and the home circumstances and the difficulties which the people are going through, the medicine they require, the doctor's care, etc., etc., is generally not available. Sometimes the social worker doesn't know all that, and when they do get the picture then there is a right and proper increase in the welfare. In connection with service clubs, many times this matter is discussed, too, on the basis of public money.

An MLA should be in a position to say whether or not in his opinion the public money is being well spent or improperly spent, or being too exorbitant or not being generous enough. I think this is part of the function of a member. The only other point I have to mention in connection with the confidentiality is that I don't think the files of those who happen to be on welfare should become a topic of discussion in coffee shops and beer parlours and so on. I don't think any responsible MLA would Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2752

May 3rd 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 42-41 permit that to happen if he had any control over it. Whether we like it or not these figures do get out -- many times from the people who get the money themselves -- and that's from where some of the information is coming. Mostly, I think, we have to realize that welfare is to help those unable to help themselves. Welfare is for those who are having difficult circumstances over which they may or may not have had any control, but they have difficult circumstances.

They're not getting enough to eat, or they're not getting enough clothes, or their house is leaking, or many other things that happen. I think we have a responsibility to try to help them. I think the grafter is the exception, and we've come across those too. There are some professional grafters on welfare. We've had them come to Drumheller from other places, and I remember one chap who was so lazy that he wouldn't even go down to the beer parlour to pick up his own beer. He'd make his wife, who had nine kids to look after and another one on the way, ride the bicycle down.

He came to me to ask for more welfare and it wasn't very difficult to deal with him when I checked with the welfare office and found out what was happening. But what happens? He leaves Drumheller and he is found in another city -- on welfare. These grafters should be pinpointed and treated pretty rough. None of us want to hurt the wife or the kids but a fellow like that, I think, should be put in jail, and let's look after the wife and the kids in the proper way.

Well, to bring it to a head, there's information that MLA's have to have in order to do their job, and I would hope that the hon. minister will realize this and make provision for that when he makes his final remarks. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary North Hill followed by the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview, and the hon. Member for Bonnyville, I think it was. MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, I will apologize in advance to the hon. minister because I may be shooting in the dark, as the rules prohibit me from asking questions which would make it clear that my worst fears are not being realized.

I know that it must be wrong to breach the confidential aspect of personal documents from the point of view of broadcasting them to the public at large. This is an affont to the dignity of a person whether he's on welfare or not, and I would not be in favour of that. But at the same time I do believe that an elected official, particularly an alderman at the local level, must be able to obtain documents so that he can be sure that money is being properly spent. I'm more concerned about corruption by civil servants than I am concerned about freeloading or taking an advantage of a situation by the welfare cases.

It is possible, of course, to have corrupt civil servants. By and large we've been very lucky in Canada, in that most of them appear to be incorruptible, but there have been cases of corruption that have occurred in the past. This becomes even more so as this social assistance giant grows. When people get onto permanent welfare a cheque is spewed out by a computer once a month. It's supposed to be checked up on occasionally by a case worker visiting to see that circumstances haven't changed.

But it could be that somebody gets onto a permanent stipend, a permanent pension, because of the laziness, perhaps, of a case worker. Then, unfortunately, under the Alberta system which is, in my opinion, over-generous in most cases, there is no hard and fast scale for welfare. There are many discretionary areas where the case worker or the district supervisor can use his own discretion on Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2753

42-42 ALBERTA HANSARD May 3rd 1972 payment. It’s not as it is in some provinces where you can go to a local post office and pick up the scale to which you're entitled if you fall within certain conditions. In Alberta they can do anything from paying the price of a motel room to buying you a washing machine, to all sorts of variables which are in addition to the basic scale. When you have these discretionary items there is a danger of occasional corruption. So a local councillor or an alderman must have the right to ask questions.

I don't think he should have the right to wave around in the city council chambers the details of a recipient's personal life any more than a MLA should have the right to do it here. But they should be able to find out the facts of a case. Especially if there's a lot of rumour -- perhaps unfounded rumour -- in a neighbourhood. Often the facts are not nearly as alarming as the rumours, yet rumours as we all know, especially in small towns, tend to grow and to multiply, and it's in the public interest to make sure sometimes that the real facts are known.

All this may be completely redundant because it may well be that the wording of the act, or a minor change in the act, would cover these fears. The Welfare Appeal Board has been set up comprising appointed citizens at large to consider appeals of welfare cases in many districts. These boards so far have been pretty well a flop. There have not been many cases taken before them, but if they perform the proper function in the future, it may well be that they will have to have access to files. Perhaps they are covered by the people helping the department.

I believe an alderman also helps the department, and probably a MLA does too. So that is a pretty broad clause there that if they're helping the department, they can have access to files. So perhaps this is what is meant. Anyway, I believe that unless there is provision for an elected official in special circumstances, without having to go all the way through the minister to look at files, then there will be a lot of discontent at local levels.

After all, the local government is paying 20% of the social assistance costs for people on temporary welfare, that's for the first three months of their coming onto the welfare system. The people who administer it are employees of the local city council. They've got to know whether they are functioning properly. The local city council passes a budget every year. They must have complete control over how those dollars are spent. There has always been a resentment at the local level at the conflicting jurisdictions of fire marshals, for instance.

A local fire department is not totally under the control of the city council. They can wear two hats sometimes. They can sometimes say, 'look, we're not going to listen to you elected aldermen, this time we're listening to the provincial fire marshal.' Then if they want to avoid the jurisdiction of the provincial fire marshal, they say, 'well this time we're going to listen to the elected aldermen.' So it is very important that elected people are not hamstrung and hampered in the execution of their duties. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, following on some of the remarks made by the hon.

Member for Calgary North Hill. I, too, am sorry in a way that the hon. minister really hasn't been able to answer the question as to just what the role of the elected member is, because it might in fact save a good deal of the debate over the principle of this bill. But I do want to say that I share the concern that I think is implicit in this bill about the confidentially of files. But on the Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17t