Alberta Hansard — 14 August 1986, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 21, Session 1)

19860814

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

August 14, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 1071 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Thursday, August 14, 1986 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to file the answer to Question 136. MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to file a response to Written Question 160. MR. KOWALSKI: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to file with the Legislative Assembly copies of the Alberta Water and Was tewater Facilities Survey, 1985. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. HERON: Mr.

Speaker, it's with the greatest amount of pleasure that I introduce to you, and through you to members of this Assembly, a distinguished young Albertan. Firstly, I would like to introduce Margaret Enders, who was recently awarded the Prince of Wales Scholarship to study at the United World College of the Atlantic. This is one of the two scholarships established by the province to commemorate the visit of His Royal Highness Prince Charles to our province in 1983. Margaret is accompanied by her mother, Barbara Enders; her grandmother, Esme Byers; and a lifelong friend Mrs. Mary Norman.

If they would please rise in the members' gallery, I would ask that we extend the usual warm welcome. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Crude Oil Prices MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the first question to the Premier. The Minister of Energy said yesterday that Alberta producers have lost some $250 million this year due to unfair pricing practices by refineries, yet the meetings with the oil companies on the issue were only held last week.

Given that my colleague from Calgary Forest Lawn drew the problem to the government's attention in question period on June 25, why did the Premier not direct his government to take some immediate action instead of letting the Energy minister wait nearly two months to get on with it? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy did not say "unfair pricing tactics." In the course of deregulation of pricing there has been a considerable period of adjustment. That was acknowledged from the very beginning. Secondly, there was the subsequent sudden drop in energy prices coming along with deregulation.

It's obvious that it caused some additional period of adjustment. Meetings have been going on with the industry through the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission for some time. As well, we were exploring the transportation and quality plus the conversion of U.S. pricing to Canadian dollars that is necessary. In fact, sometime ago the marketing commission had meetings with members of industry, and we think we will be able to bring this matter to a successful conclusion. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, there was a period of adjust ment, but certainly not for the majors or the refiners.

My question is: in this discussion will the government see that our producers, who are desperately in need of this money, are repaid the $250 million that we believe is rightfully theirs? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, this was not a matter of unfair pricing but rather a judgment made by a variety of companies as to how to convert from world prices established in Saudi Arabia; London, England; and Cushing, Texas. Those are complicated matters, and I think the members of the industry that I've talked to, both small and large, are very pleased that we are moving to bring it to a successful conclusion.

MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I think they'd be more pleased if they had the $250 million. By that answer, obviously we're not going to get the $250 million back. My question to the Premier is simply this: could the Premier be a little more explicit? What will the provincial government do in the future to make sure our producers are fairly paid by the refiners? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, we believe that we'll be able to work out a scheme by consultation with the people involved.

I might also say that there were periods of time when our producers were paid more than the world price and that there was an adjustment both ways. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question to make sure that we totally understand the Premier on this matter, so he's not misquoted. The Premier is saying that at this time he is satisfied that the $250 million the refiners took from the producers was fair and equitable and that the government is not going to do anything about that $250 million. MR. GETTY: That's not what I said, Mr. Speaker.

How ever, we have Hansard for the hon. member to acquaint himself with what I just told him. MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier. In addition to the $250 million rip-off our absent Minister of Energy has talked about, the rip-off of the increase of nearly 40 to 50 percent in refining a gallon of crude, is the Premier going to do anything about . . . SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question. MR. TAYLOR: That's the question. What's he going to do about the rip-off in refining crude? That's two more rip-offs. The third rip-off of is that 10 cents a gallon more is being charged to process unleaded gasoline.

Two hundred and fifty million dollars is just the head of the iceberg, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would point out with due respect to the Member for Westlock-Sturgeon that the nature of the

1072 ALBERTA HANSARD August 14, 1986 last two paragraphs could hardly be described as a succinct supplementary. However, the Chair is rising to point out a comment made to the House about two days ago. Citation 316 from Beauchesne: . . . it has been sanctioned by usage that a Member, while speaking, must not . . . (

c) refer to the presence or absence of specific Members. The Chair would respectfully bring that to the attention of the Member for Westlock-Sturgeon. The Chair awaits the reply of the hon. Premier. MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, gasoline prices at the pump, as was mentioned yesterday by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, are controlled by competition, and that's the preference for this government.

We do not believe in excessive regulation at the consumer level, and as we go through this period of adjustment — new deregulation, suddenly changing prices on the world scene, and so on — I think those processes will act in the right way. There's always a desire that everything be perfect all the time. Neither governments nor market forces are able to work that way, to have everything perfect all the time. As I said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, we have that great, wonderful darling of the NDP and the Liberals, Petro-Canada, and they wouldn't do anything terrible like that. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question to the Premier with regard to the price paid by the refiners. Is that price a competitive price? If that is so, could the Premier indicate the reason for intervention on the prices paid by the refiners? MR. GETTY: There appears to be no reason to intervene at that price level. Gainers Dispute MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the second question to the Minister of Labour. Striking Gainers' employ ees continue to be arrested daily for trying to persuade citizens not to buy Gainers' products.

My question is: has the minister any plan to try to get both sides together to negotiate an end to this socially disruptive strike? DR. REID: First of all, Mr. Speaker, dealing with the

preamble of the hon. Leader of the Opposition: if the employees — I hope and presume they are employees of Gainers who have been doing these things — were to read the appropriate

section of the labour Act, they would not be subject to arrest. If they obeyed the legal injunction, likewise. In regard to the government's activities with regard to this dispute, I have said on many occasions, both within the House and outside, that our main purpose was to achieve a resolution and a settlement of the strike by collective bargaining so the employees of Gainers could go back to work. We gave both sides the optimum chance by appointing a disputes inquiry board. After a thorough investigation, Mr.

Dubensky came up with recommendations which he felt were equitable, and both sides rejected those recom mendations by large majorities. The democratic process has been performed, and the people themselves have spoken. MR. MARTIN: I wasn't asking about ancient history. I was asking about what's happening now. To be a little more specific, my supplementary question to the minister is: has the minister appointed a departmental mediator, and if not, why not? DR. REID: Mr. Speaker, for many weeks now, since the strike vote was called, there has been a departmental mediator appointed.

That individual is still available at the request of the parties if they wish him to be involved. MR. MARTIN: It's well known that we believe the laws are the cause of this dispute, so I think the minister has some responsibility here. A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister be prepared to intervene per sonally to try to end this dispute? DR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to take

part in the debate that was just invited by the Leader of the Opposition with his remarks about the labour laws, but I would take the opportunity once more to state that we have now appointed the committee which will look at and review all the labour legislation. That will be done thoroughly and with due speed. Whether that will affect the situation and whether the recommendations will involve a situation such as that occurring at Gainers I cannot yet predict. That would be beyond my ability at this time. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question.

Given that this committee, if it ever reports — it may be in the Middle East or somewhere else, and that will take a long time. I asked him if he would intervene personally. I take it by the nonanswer that he won't. Is the minister saying that he's just washed his hands of this situation no matter what the social cost of the matter? DR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman doesn't know me. I don't wash my hands of that kind of situation very willingly. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, to the minister. Has the minister asked the committee for an interim amendment that would protect the jobs of those presently on strike?

DR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the jobs of those presently on strike are protected under current legislation. When a set tlement is achieved, they will get their jobs back. MR. DAY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the main question, which had to do with the boycott. To the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Has his department been able to assess the negative effects on the people and economy of Alberta by a boycott of any of their products? MR. SHABEN: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Economic Development and Trade has not undertaken a study of the consequences of boycotts or secondary picketing.

We do, however, recognize the importance of the food processing industry to the people of Alberta in terms of its importance not only to primary agriculture but to the value adding and the creating of jobs. We continue to work within the department to promote manufacturing of food products and other value adding in order that Albertans have the oppor tunity to process and upgrade the products within the province. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Is the minister in a position

August 14, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 1073 to indicate if the department has done any study as to what long-term effects this dispute will have on the hog industry in this province? MR. ELZINGA: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge there has been no study done, but I can share with the hon. member that we are constantly assessing this situation. To underscore what the hon. member of our cabinet has just indicated, we're very conscious of our food processing sector. That's why we have a number of worthwhile programs to further the food processing sector. Grain Prices MR. TAYLOR: Mr.

Speaker, this question is to the Minister of Agriculture. It is my understanding that both ministers of Agriculture support a domestic wheat price of $10 a bushel. This price does little for Alberta farmers, as only 10 percent of our wheat is sold domestically. In view of the havoc and competitive disadvantage and unemployment that $10 domestic wheat would create in our milling and baking industries, would the ministers agree to meet rep resentatives of the milling and baking industries to explain to them how a $10 domestic wheat price will result in their opinion in only 5 cents a loaf,

whereas the bakers think it will be a 15-cent increase a loaf? Would they meet them? MR. ELZINGA: Mr. Speaker, I'm more than happy to meet at any time with anybody. I'm even happy to meet with the hon. Member for Westlock-Sturgeon. I can assure him that our door is always open to meet with represen tatives, whether they be from the agricultural sector or any other sector, as the door of this government is open. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I can understand his pleasure at being able to hobnob with the opposition.

Will the minister assure the Alberta farmers that this government will become much more progressive and less conservative, if you'll pardon the expression, in marketing assistance for Alberta agricultural products and services? MR. ELZINGA: Mr. Speaker, I'm again surprised at the hon. member.

If he would read some of the presentations in the estimates and do a little more research rather than pass all his glib comments to simply cover up his lack of substance, he would be aware that there are worthwhile programs such as SIMS and RAPP that relate to the food- processing sector, which this government is very involved with. We're also very encouraged by the high profile that agriculture received at the first ministers' conference. That was due to the superb leadership offered by the Premier at that conference and the sensitivity he showed in ensuring that agriculture received the high priority it did.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair hesitates comment with respect to the Minister of Agriculture, but there is a difficulty within the Assembly of using various bits of alphabet soup to describe programs. It especially comes to a head at this time. The Chair thought that I heard "sins" being "rapped." Perhaps the hon. Member for Westlock-Sturgeon would care to move to the supplementary. MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the minister, who must be worrying about his job to have to praise the Premier that highly.

As a positive suggestion, could the minister increase the marketing initiatives for Alberta agricultural products and services by the government revitalizing or replacing the marketing council? MR. ELZINGA: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated in the past, since assuming the responsibility of Minister of Agri culture, we are going to reassess and revitalize all the boards and commissions that come under our jurisdiction. We hope to do so within the next number of months.

I'm sure the hon. member can understand that to date we have not had an opportunity to pursue that as vigorously as we would have wished, but we are going to pursue that to make sure it is very responsive not only to our consumers but, more importantly, to our agricultural sector. Mr. Speaker, since you were kind enough to point out to me, may I share with you that SIMS is the strategy for improved market share and RAPP is the rural agricultural product promotion, which are very valuable programs in offering additional incentives to our food-processing sector. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, to the minister.

I'm sorry for the delay in starting a marketing council. I thought there were still some Tories around to be rewarded. Can the minister explain to Alberta farmers why all support services for the Department of Agriculture, at a cost of $16 million, received more funding than research and resource development, which was only $10 million? MR. ELZINGA: Mr.

Speaker, I'm very suspect when the hon. member relays figures to me, because just yesterday he indicated that western Canada only received some $16 million as it related to our grain industry, where in reality that is feed-freight assistance to the maritimes and has nothing to do with western Canada. So I am very suspect when the hon. member relates any types of figures to me, because nine times out of 10 his figures are incorrect. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Agriculture or the Premier. Last fall the former Minister of International Trade, the hon.

Horst Schmid, was supposed to lead a delegation to China to look at further exports of agricultural and other products, but we had the coronation of the Premier at that time, and that was delayed. I want to know if the Minister of Agriculture, the Premier, or the Minister of Economic Development and Trade are looking at a trade mission to China to see if we can market more of our agricultural products. MR. ELZINGA: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report to the hon.

Member for Clover Bar that just last Thursday I, along with my colleague who is responsible for economic devel opment, had the opportunity to meet with the minister of agriculture from China. We discussed a number of agri cultural concerns that are dear to the hearts of both countries. At this time may I pay my thanks also to the hon. Member for Wainwright for hosting the Chinese minister for those two days. MR. PIQUETTE: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Agri culture.

Has the minister considered recommending to the federal Minister of Agriculture that a per-farmer quota be established for domestic wheat so that small wheat producers in Alberta can more fairly benefit from the $10 a bushel price for domestic wheat?

1074 ALBERTA HANSARD August 14, 1986 MR. ELZINGA: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to hear the endorse ment of that proposal by the hon. member, even though the Liberal Party is against supporting our agricultural sector, and would indicate to him that the federal government has not yet implemented the $10 proposal for domestic wheat, as they are still assessing that. I would imagine part of their assessment is due to the fact that they are giving consideration to some type of deficiency payment this fall; at least that would be my hope.

In response to his question, I can share with the hon. member that in the event they do implement an increased price for domestic wheat, it is our hope that they do so by way of a market-neutral system, whereby that fund will be evenly spread across the board to all grain producers. Power Rates MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Transportation and Utilities is with regard to a concern about the establishment of rates for the various utility companies relative to power. In this province they have a guaranteed income with a guaranteed profit.

I was wondering if the minister could indicate whether there is going to be a review of that process of establishing power rates, particularly in rural Alberta, in the coming year. MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, I have no present position relative to reviewing the position in place at the moment, where the utility companies can apply to the PUB for rate increases whenever they may deem it necessary. For exam ple, I understand that Alberta Power has been before the PUB in the last few days as a matter of fact, for the first time in a couple of years. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister relative to the last comment. As of today Alberta Power is making application to increase their rates by 30 percent to the REAs in that respective area. Can the minister indicate whether that is in tune with the capability of rural Alberta paying that amount, or is it a place where government should be establishing some kinds of guidelines and possible verbal direction to that company? MR. ADAIR: Mr.

Speaker, relative to the figure of 30 percent, I have not heard that other than from the hon. member. [interjection] Sometimes you can be as accurate as 7 percent in some of those stories. I'm not sure exactly what the end result will be of the presentation made by Alberta Power to the PUB, but certainly we'll wait with interest on that particular one. It's my understanding that one of the main elements of their presentation was to include their costs for the commissioning of their portion of the Sheerness plant. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister with regard to the takeover of various REAs by utility companies. Could the minister indicate whether any review is made with regard to those takeovers? For example, the Rio Grande REA in northern Alberta, which the minister is familiar with, has an independent value on their REA of $5.5 million; Alberta Power offers $100,000. Is the minister's department reviewing those kinds of take overs, and is there any kind of intervention that occurs by government in matters such as that? MR.

ADAIR: I wouldn't use the term "intervention," but I might say that as recently as this week staff from the Department of Transportation and Utilities sat in on one of the meetings that related to a takeover that did not occur. The vote was not sufficient to allow the sale to the power company. We're reviewing the methods and the availability of information to ensure that both parties, before they make a decision, have the best information possible to make that decision; in essence, the REA board, which would be making the decision on behalf of its members. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, to the utilities minister.

Will his department take steps to investigate whether or not the power generation facilities could be run more economically today on natural gas as they were a number of years ago when gas was cheap, as it is today, and check whether the utility companies are paying themselves a phony price for their own coal? MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is an ongoing monitoring system in place as to the costs that are presented, in essence, to any of these particular hearings. Of course, at this time that is left to the judgment of the PUB and the ERCB relative to applications made on their behalf. MR. PIQUETTE: Mr.

Speaker, has the minister considered appointing a permanent, publicly funded consumer advocate on the Public Utilities Board so that consumer groups such as the Rural Electrification Association can be more fairly represented at such hearings without great costs incurred to them? MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is a motion on the Order Paper, and you're certainly welcome to speak to it. MR. HYLAND: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if the minister could assure the Assembly that in the event of an REA selling out to a utility company, the majority of the REA members would have to vote for that takeover. MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, the majority vote was changed a couple of years ago. Two-thirds of the members present must be in favour of that sale before it can take place. That was moved up from the 51 percent range prior to that. Peter Lougheed Hospital MR. NELSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address a question to the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care.

As the minister may be aware, there has been some concern and questions relative to the supply of beds in the new Peter Lougheed hospital in northeast Calgary and certainly some remarks made by the present chairman of the board of Calgary hospital district No. 93. Could the minister indicate if he has ordered the board of district No. 93 in Calgary not to proceed with neonatal care beds at the new Peter Lougheed hospital? MR. M. MOORE: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not ordered the board to do any such thing.

What has occurred is that the Calgary district hospital group, which has responsibility for the operation of the Holy Cross, the Rockyview, and the Peter Lougheed, was proceeding on the basis of providing full maternity services and neonatal beds at each of those three hospitals. Some expression of concern came from

August 14, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 1075 several quarters in the Calgary medical community in par ticular that providing those sorts of services in six hospitals, as opposed to the present four, might in fact have some very detrimental effect on the overall program for the city. I have asked the board of the hospital if they would defer for the moment the purchase of equipment and the staffing of the new units at the Peter Lougheed hospital and the Rockyview hospital until such time as the Calgary Hospital Advisory Council, which is a group of people for the most

part involved in the various hospital boards in Calgary, has an opportunity to review the situation and make some recommendations as to whether or not there should be any changes. It's my intention to meet next week with the chairman of the hospital board and other members for discussion on the entire matter. I might say in conclusion, Mr.

Speaker, that it was in no way our intention that the new Peter Lougheed hospital should not have those units, only that there ought to be a review, and pending that review, there should not be the purchase of additional equipment or staffing in either the Rockyview or the Peter Lougheed. It could well be that the review might conclude that the existing Holy Cross staffing might move to the Peter Lougheed or something of that nature. MR. NELSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Considering that there's a time consideration here, has the minister given any time frame for the report to come to him relative to this supply of beds for neonatal care and obstetrics within the hospital district itself? MR. M. MOORE: No, Mr. Speaker, I haven't given any time frame, but I believe it should occur as quickly as possible so that there isn't any long-term uncertainty about what kinds of facilities or services might be provided in any of the hospitals mentioned. MR. NELSON: Mr.

Speaker, is the minister giving con sideration to any other downsizing that has previously been announced to the Peter Lougheed hospital or any additional studies as to the types of bed use that may presently be on stream, considering the discussion we've just had relative to neonatal care? MR. M. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I'm not giving consideration to any downsizing at all. As a matter of fact, all that I've asked is that a review be done of whether or not those services need to be provided now and those beds need to be opened now in the Rockyview and the Peter Lougheed hospitals. I don't call that downsizing.

The hospitals are presently under construction; there's no change proposed with respect to the square footage or anything else that exists. I can say, as well, that this matter has nothing to do with a general downsizing or change of plans for hospital construction in Calgary or anywhere else. We're only looking at it on the basis that when you have some pretty learned medical people saying you're doing the wrong thing, then from my point of view I better have a look at it.

I think medical costs in this province are great enough now without our not acknowledging, when the medical community asks us to, that we may have a situation where we can save funds on operating costs over the longer term. Rosehaven Care Centre MS MJOLSNESS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my questions to the Minister of Community and Occupational Health. I understand that the minister will be in Camrose tomorrow, and I'm wondering if it's the minister's intention to authorize the closing of the Eastrose ward of the Rose- haven institute by October of this year? MR. DINNING: Mr.

Speaker, I'm very much looking forward to visiting Camrose with my colleague the hon. Solicitor General, the MLA for Camrose, tomorrow after noon. We will be meeting with a variety of people at the Rosehaven Care Centre. The hon. Member for Camrose has brought to my attention the importance of this facility in Camrose, and I look forward to meeting with the people there and hearing and seeing the delivery of the services right there in the centre. MS MJOLSNESS: The minister previously responsible has outlined patient discharge options from that institute.

Is the minister completely reversing the plan of the previous min ister to close the ward? MR. DINNING: The hon. member opposite mentioned one very important word, and the word was "options." We are exploring those options. In the interests of delivering the best possible care to those people who need that care from that kind of facility, we'll be considering that in the days ahead. MS MJOLSNESS: A supplementary to the minister. Could the minister please tell me then if in fact he will be closing the ward? MR. DINNING: Mr.

Speaker, we'll be visiting the facility tomorrow, and I look forward to discussing the matter with the people in Camrose, with my hon. colleague, and with all of my colleagues and making a decision in the days ahead. MS MJOLSNESS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister confirm at this time that there are no available approved homes in Camrose to the residents of Rosehaven? MR. DINNING: No, Mr. Speaker, I can't make that commitment.

If the hon. member would care to read the Committee of Supply debate from the evening of July 31, she will be able to see that I was very happy to announce a grant of approximately $175,000 out of this year's estimates for the provision of day facilities, day programs in the Eastrose wing of the Rosehaven Care Centre for the provision of those very, very important day programs that provide for medical, social, and recreational needs of all mentally ill people in Camrose and area.

So I'm very, very pleased with that initiative that was brought forward by my pred ecessors in this portfolio and look forward to visiting that facility tomorrow. Private Schools MR. CHUMIR: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Minister of Education. The Aryan Nations church has recently announced that it will establish a compound in central Alberta, and this raises some very important questions relating to the kind of protection children receive in this province with

1076 ALBERTA HANSARD August 14, 1986 respect to their schooling. What controls do we have, Madam Minister, over curriculum and teachers in private schools in order to ensure that the educational interests of the child are looked after in the event groups such as the Aryan Nations and other groups wish to establish private schools? MRS. BETKOWSKI: Mr. Speaker, the question goes into some detail and may be one that should be placed on the Order Paper.

With respect to the controls on private school education, I guess the control that passes through all four categories of private schools in this province is the one of curriculum, which is the one that I control. If a school is teaching a curriculum, to cite the example the hon. member has used, which perhaps teaches intolerance of others, it would not be an approved curriculum in our school system, private or public. MR.

CHUMIR: Could the minister confirm that category 4 private schools can hire teachers who have no teaching qualifications or who have been decertified so that, for example, Terry Long or Jim Keegstra could teach in such category 4 schools? MRS. BETKOWSKI: No, Mr. Speaker. Although no public funding passes to the category 4 private schools, the teachers must be certified, and that certification process is done by me.* MR. CHUMIR: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that is not correct, and I'd like to challenge the minister on that point.

Let the House be aware that that is not correct with respect to category 4 schools. MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. member. Points of order come at the end of question period. It's a dispute over facts at any rate. Would the Member for Calgary Buffalo please continue with his supplementary. MR. CHUMIR: Does the government have any plans to abolish category 4 schools, as recommended by the Ghitter report, in order to ensure that teachers in all schools in the province are qualified and approved? MRS. BETKOWSKI: Mr.

Speaker, the question of all private schools, whether they be teaching special education needs or any of the other three categories, is part of the very important review of the School Act, which I am in a process of reviewing, as the hon. member knows. I will be presenting a new Act, as I indicated, in the spring of 1987, as best I can judge at this point. MR. CHUMIR: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could confirm that under the present rules relating to category 1 private schools, the Aryan Nations group could receive public funding from the province for such a school? MRS. BETKOWSKI: Mr.

Speaker, the question is hypo thetical because no application for private school status has been sought by the group that the hon. member names. I think it is important, however, to assure Albertans that there are checks and balances within the system. I spoke earlier about my approval of curriculum, which is needed for all categories. I will double-check my facts with respect to the point of order that the hon. member raised. MS LAING: To the Minister of Education. How is the curriculum that is taught in the school monitored to be sure that an approved curriculum is in fact being taught in the school? MRS.

BETKOWSKI: Mr. Speaker, my responsibility, as I've said in this Legislature before, is the efficient and effective education of students under the age of 16 in this province. I take that responsibility very seriously, whether those students are in public systems, private systems, or home schooling. With respect to checking the curriculum that those students are learning, whatever the circumstances, I will say that is a responsibility I take seriously, and there are inspections of all those schools on a constant basis. Water Resources MR. ALGER: Mr. Speaker, my question today is to the Minister of Agriculture.

The province provided a magnificent amount of funds for farmers to improve their water storage facilities, and the completion of all this work was to have been done by October 31 of this year. My question to the minister would be: will the minister please strive to elongate the actual construction period to the end of the year? MR. ELZINGA: Mr. Speaker, because of the strong rep resentations made by the hon. Member for Highwood, I'm happy to report we are going to do just that. We are going to extend the program, whereby work will be carried out until the end of this year. MR. ALGER: A supplemental question, Mr.

Speaker. Does the minister agree with me that water is and always will be an important factor in agricultural Alberta, and will the minister consider budgeting for another water storage pro gram in 1987? MR. ELZINGA: Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to concur totally with what the Member for Highwood has indicated. Just by way of underscoring our concern, as he is aware, last year we expended some $2.5 million on that program. Our budgetary allocation for '86-87 is $2.8 million, and as we go into the budgetary process, we will give it full con sideration. MR. ALGER: Mr.

Speaker, the members opposite may not realize, but you never miss the water until the well goes dry. I have one more supplemental to the Minister of the Environment. Is the minister prepared to implement a similar policy with respect to the emergency well water supply program? MR. KOWALSKI: No, Mr. Speaker. I indicated that the program would terminate on July 31, 1986. The program has terminated, and we will not be accepting any further applications after that date.

However, if an individual had an application approved prior to the end of July of this year and he had not been able to obtain the services of a well-driller, we will accept the application and pay for it even though the well will have been drilled after July 31, 1986. MR. PIQUETTE: To the Minister of the Environment. Will the minister reimburse farmers who got into difficulty last year with the well-drilling program because of the lack of proper information on the letters that were given to farmers See member's explanation on p. 1077.

August 14, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 1077 about who they should contact for the permission to do test drilling? MR. KOWALSKI: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman asked me that several days ago, so I know the answer to the question. It has not been fixed or anything. There are approximately 250 well-drillers in the province of Alberta. We've undertaken investigation in terms of where there would be problem areas, and it turns out that only a handful of well-drillers may not in fact have provided correct information in all cases to individual farmers who made application. Mostly it comes down to a misunderstanding.

The handful of well-drillers where there have been mis understandings have been contacted. It has been brought to their attention what the program is all about. Should the hon. member or any other hon. member have a situation where it can be clearly shown that there was something fraudulently done, I'd be happy to undertake a review of those specific ones on a case-by-case basis. Amusement Ride Standards MR. SIGURDSON: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour regarding amusement rides at West Edmonton Mall.

The Mindbender inquiry was told Tuesday of yet another warning memo to Triple Five about main tenance procedures. Is it or is it not the policy of the department that letters or memos from officials which have such serious warnings like this should be brought to the minister's attention? DR. REID: Mr. Speaker, there are all kinds of memos within the department; some are sent to the minister's desk and some are not. I am not aware of having seen this particular letter that was sent to West Edmonton Mall management, but I can check into where it went, and I'll get back to the hon. member.

In relation to the inquiry that is going on at West Edmonton Mall, I might add that it's not my intention in any way to try to second-guess the eventual recommendations of the commissioners of that inquiry. I won't be commenting upon any of the articles in the newspaper until they complete their inquiry and make their report to me. MR. SIGURDSON: Surely memos that warn of such catas trophe should cross the minister's desk. However, has the minister had the opportunity to review which of the depart ment's senior staff or other ministers saw the letter that warned of the potential catastrophe?

For clarification, that's the letter the minister said never crossed his desk. DR. REID: No, Mr. Speaker. MR. SIGURDSON: On Tuesday the minister said that the submarine ride was not inspected after the Mindbender accident because it was in the Waterpark rather than in Fantasyland. Why did the minister decide to make this potentially dangerous sort of distinction of the mall's oper ation of amusement rides? DR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I think I've explained that in the House before. I went out and had a look at the roller coaster on the Sunday immediately following the accident.

At that time, along with senior staff in the department, I went around Fantasyland; that took several hours. At the end of that time, it was decided that the whole of Fantasyland would stay closed the following day. During that period of time, the rides would be subjected to further inspections, and only those rides which had been cleared by those further inspections would open. I understand that over a period of some days the whole of Fantasyland, with the exception of the roller coaster and one other ride, was reopened.

The rest of the West Edmonton Mall area is of considerably more recent construction than the original part of Fanta syland, and the rest of it has, I understand, been progres sively subjected to inspections. With regard to the submarine incident, I have some preliminary indications from the department, and again that ride will not reopen until suitable safeguards are installed. MR. SPEAKER: The time for question period has expired. The Minister of Education wishes to supplement the previous answer. Private Schools (continued) MRS. BETKOWSKI: Mr.

Speaker, I wish to clarify that I was in error with respect to the certification and hiring for category 4 schools; the Member for Calgary Buffalo was right. However, I would confirm that in fact I do approve any curriculum which is being taught within the category 4 and that that curriculum receives very, very careful scrutiny from my department and from me before that category is granted.* MR. CHUMIR: Mr.

Speaker, perhaps then I would just confirm the tenor of the minister's answer; that is, that means that in a category 4 private school, a teacher need not be approved or qualified in any way and may in fact be decertified. That person could still teach in a category 4 private school under Alberta rules. MR. SPEAKER: The process is a bit difficult and is actually out of order. The time for question period has expired. The minister graciously made remarks.

Any further remarks, which the Chair would now construe as being supplementary questions, should indeed take place outside of the time of the Assembly as a whole. MR. TAYLOR: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. My under standing, after some length of a week or so, when I was refusing unanimous consent, was that when a minister makes an announcement — and this is what I deem this to be — one question was then allowed by the questioner. [interjec tions] What was that if it wasn't an announcement? MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member for Westlock-Sturgeon, the hon. Minister of Education was not making an announce ment.

The Minister of Education was being gracious enough to admit an error in previous questioning as responded to quite properly by the Member for Calgary Buffalo. It is a correction for the purposes of the record, period. ORDERS OF THE DAY head: MOTIONS FOR RETURNS MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, the government proposes to deal with some of the motions for returns; however, I would move that motions for returns 158, 163, and 165 stand and retain their places on the Order Paper. See p. 1076.

1078 ALBERTA HANSARD August 14, 1986 [Motion carried] 154. Mr.

Hawkesworth moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing copies of all contracts, letters of understanding, letters of intent, and other contractual instru ments authorized, signed, endorsed, or otherwise formalized, where those documents constitute agreements between the government or any agent of the government or of the Crown in right of Alberta and Ski Kananaskis Incorporated, or where those documents formalize an obligation undertaken by the government or any agent of the government or of the Crown in right of Alberta to Ski Kananaskis Incorporated. MR. HAWKESWORTH: Mr.

Speaker, I wasn't given any indication from the other side whether they're going to accept this particular motion or not. In the absence of that, I believe it is a debatable motion. MR. MARTIN: He says that they are going to. MR. HAWKESWORTH: Okay; with that indication, Mr. Speaker, I'd be pleased to make the motion and take no further time of the Assembly. MR. HORSMAN: On behalf of my colleague the Minister of Recreation and Parks, the government is prepared to accept the motion. [Motion carried] 162. Mr.

Sigurdson moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing copies of the studies and/or reports, preliminary and/or final, on the basis of which the hon. Minister of Manpower stated on Wednesday, July 23, 1986, page 727 of Hansard, that "the average wage under the community element of the summer temporary employment program is in fact $5.20" and that "the average wage under the [Alberta wage subsidy] program is $6.40." MR. ORMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have for tabling Order for a Return 162, which I would like to file with the House. [Motion carried] head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 201.

Moved by Mr. Oldring:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the government to consider establishment of a consumers' advo cate for the purpose of intervening at Public Utilities Board hearings and to provide expertise to affected consumer organizations. [Adjourned debate June 17: Mr. Jonson] MR. JONSON: One thing, Mr. Speaker, about having debate adjourned upon you is that you get two rounds of pounding of the desks. Mr.

Speaker, at the time debate was adjourned on Motion 201, I was indicating that there are a number of alternative approaches that might be taken toward having the Public Utilities Board serve the interests and needs of consumers and consuming groups. I'd like to mention a few additional points along that line. I think that one of the things we have to look at in terms of being able to maximize the effect of this motion is to make sure that it's going to look at the overall problem of adequate representation for these people and not zero in on only the method of having a consumers' advocate.

One additional measure that could be taken, Mr. Speaker, is that we could encourage the board to assign staff to better communicate with the public through the complaints and inquiry office. This is a current arm of the Public Utilities Board that is supposed to be there for a good, constructive purpose. Certainly that aspect of their operations could be reviewed and perhaps made more effective. I also do not think we should underestimate the need for greater communication in terms of the overall operations of the board.

It sometimes takes on the aura of being a rather secretive operation, and I don't think that is always the intention of Public Utilities Board members. They have a technical duty and a very busy schedule, and sometimes the very important matter of relating what they do to the public in understandable terms is forgotten. Also, Mr. Speaker, I believe that some time ago there was a seminar conducted on the utilities board operations. I think this was during the formative stages of the board and its operations.

It might be the time in history to repeat that exercise with a view to a broad discussion of the effectiveness of the board in representing both the sellers of utility services as well as the consumers, and perhaps it could even have a general discussion for the better information of all of the long-term future of utility services in this province.

One last alternative or additional matter that I think might go toward solving the problem referred to in the earlier debate is that the staff, who are very important to the operations of the Public Utilities Board and in the long term try to get the best possible evidence and present it in as neutral a form as possible, might be required to give their evidence to the board in the public forum. That way their evidence would be subject to cross-examination by utility customers or groups representing utility customers.

The whole impression that people get of the work that staff does and the role they serve in the Public Utilities Board hearings might take on a much more positive outlook in terms of the public's perception. Mr.

Speaker, although some critics of the Public Utilities Board hold a somewhat unreasonable expectation that rate increases should be eliminated or that all aspects of rate increases can be sufficiently explained to all consumers, as the previous debate has I think very well indicated, the whole process of the Public Utilities Board hearings, par ticularly as this process applies to utility customers, should be reviewed, and all possible means of improving the process should be undertaken. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would like to propose an amendment to the motion.

I have copies to distribute, and I would like to read the amendment into the record.

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the government to consider means whereby utility customers could be encouraged and assisted to participate in hearings before the Public Utilities Board. Mr. Speaker, I believe the amendment would accomplish the overall objective set out by the mover of the motion from Red Deer, and I think the mover of the motion would certainly concur with the amendment. It would provide for a broad and thorough look at the operations of the Public Utilities Board as it applies to the representation of utility

August 14, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 1079 customers' interests. It would not mean that this review would have to be limited to the provision of a consumers' advocate, although that might very well be one of the outcomes. The other aspect of the amendment that I would like to focus on is that it refers to utility customers, and those are the people who are directly concerned by the various factors and points that were made from many constituencies earlier in the debate. Mr.

Speaker, I think this amendment would accomplish the overall purpose of the original motion and hopefully lead to good and creative measures to improve the situation. MR. SPEAKER: We have an amendment. MR. TAYLOR: I would like to speak against the amendment, Mr. Speaker, because in my opinion it emasculates a very good initial motion by the hon. member from Red Deer.

If the member from Red Deer agrees with the amendment, I can only surmise that once he had been in the Legislature long enough to get over his youthful exuberance and initial reaction, the older minds on the front bench frightened him into taking this watered-down solution that is now presented. I would like to hear the member from Red Deer say that. MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, we have a point of order. MR. DAY: On a point of order. If that could be clarified to Red Deer South, not just Red Deer. MR. TAYLOR: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. I should have said the Member for Red Deer North.

I thought the Member for Red Deer South would be proud to be associated with it. Speaking to the resolution of the Member for Red Deer North, I think it's a very good resolution, and it carried with it the . . . Isn't it Red Deer North? Red Deer South? I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. My double and triple apologies to the Member for Red Deer North. I'm not gaining on this. If you'll pardon me, I'll just keep on going. MR. SPEAKER: Is this on the point of order? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is a point of privilege more than anything. I perhaps misled the hon. Member for Westlock-Sturgeon.

In my remarks it should have been Red Deer South. MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps the solution is to refer to the mover of the motion. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, if the mover of the motion has agreed to the amendment, I can only surmise that the mover must have had some pressure put on him from the front bench to in effect emasculate a very good motion indeed, a motion that anybody in the opposition would enjoy being identified with. In effect the amendment just says to give them the means.

What I took to be the whole idea of the motion when the mover made it was to have a consumer advocate with teeth, a consumer advocate who had a range of experience in continuously meeting with the public utilities commission and, more so, taking on the rather monopolistic system of power companies we have in the province that have all the legal aid and mechanical and engineering facilities at their fingertips at the expense of the taxpayer, I let you know. A utility company's legal and engineering fees are a deduction from their earnings before they calculate income tax.

Yet if consumers go out and retain lawyers or advocates, nine times out of 10, unless it's in their line of business, they're not allowed that deduction. That's the first thing that's very . . . [interjection]. As a matter of fact, as my colleague on the left rightfully pointed out — I think the hon. minister across had many, many times in her profession before she entered the House taken money from companies knowing full well that they would not only deduct it from their income tax but maybe even build it into the rate base.

So the consumer pays for it twice: it gets deducted from the income tax and gets built into the rate base. The point is that what we want here is a consumers' advocate who is there not at the cost of the consumer. A consumer can ask and enroll this advocate to act on his behalf and most of all be not only reactive but proactive. One of the problems with having this motion as amended is that it only encompasses acting for the utility customer.

Many people think that in deciding power rates in the future there is great room for proactive solutions, not just reacting to what the power company says, not just reacting to whether the power company has asked for too fancy a wire, too many poles, too big a generating facility, or for the line to be too high in the air. How about alternative methods? Right now, and under this motion too, the consumer is put in the position of just reacting to what the power or utility company suggests and is not able to come forward and say: "Why hasn't the power company purchased power from people running wind mills?

Why hasn't the power company worked out a system whereby they can purchase power from a methane manu facturer or from vegetation or waste handled by big cities?" The town of Ryley wants to take the waste from the city of Edmonton and try to manufacture it into gas and power that could be sold back into the utility system, and nothing is being done about that. A consumers' advocate not only could stand up and defend what the utility company is proposing but could in his own way propose alternatives to what the power or utility company is suggesting, which would mean a lot indeed.

I know we've been raised with the idea that the utility companies in this province can do no wrong, and at another time I'll get a chance to debate the whole question of the Public Utilities Board. The Public Utilities Board used to be a quasi-judicial body when it was set up by the old United Farmers and the old Liberal government in the 1920s. Yes, Virginia, Liberals ruled this province for longer than the Tories have if you look at your books; they were actually in power longer than you people.

If you want to look at your own mortality sometime, pick up the books and read what happened to the early Liberal Party in this province. Nevertheless, they set up a utility board that was absolutely independent. Since the early '70s, this government has virtually turned the Public Utilities Board, in spite of the excellent appointments that have been made to it, into a servant of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, into a servant of the front bench by changing the period of time the commissioner can serve at the request of the Lieutenant Governor: no set period of time.

They also changed the salary, instead of being a set salary like the Supreme Court, to one that is set from time to time by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Worst of all, it had a set number of people of it for years; now the number on the utility board can be expanded or retracted as the Lieutenant Governor in Council may direct. If there has ever been a time in

1080 ALBERTA HANSARD August 14, 1986 the history of this province when we needed a consumers' advocate for utilities, a real consumer advocate with teeth, now is the time. I ask you not to vote for this watered-down, emasculated — and that's as refined as I can get — amendment that's been put forward today. Thank you. MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I would like your ruling on this alleged amendment. With respect, in fact it is not an amendment at all; it is a new motion. The motion on the Order Paper proposes the establishment of a consumers' advocate. This does not.

It proposes nothing except the general encouragement of citizens to participate. It is not an amendment at all and is out of order. MR. SPEAKER: The Chair failed to receive advance warn ing of the amendment and has been looking at the matter and is prepared to listen to other points of view on whether or not this is indeed an appropriate amendment. On the point of order, the Member for Ponoka-Rimbey MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, I would submit that the general principle behind the motion is that of providing more adequate representation for the utility customers of the province, the people using the service.

I believe the intent and wording of the amendment serve the same broad general purpose or principle, and therefore I would submit that it is in order. MR.

HORSMAN: On this particular point of order which has been raised, it has been my understanding that when motions are on the Order Paper relative to a specific issue or a specific method of dealing with agencies such as the Public Utilities Board or any other matter which zeros in on a specific recommendation for dealing with issues, it is in order to expand upon what has been suggested by the mover in the original motion to make it possible to have additional methods of dealing with the issue contemplated in the original motion.

In this particular case, the original motion asked the government: . . . to consider establishment of a consumers' advocate for the purpose of intervening at Public Utilities Board hearings. This amendment provides a mechanism whereby utility cus tomers would be "encouraged and assisted." In that respect "encouraged and assisted" could very well include the specific which is the intent of the original motion.

It could indeed, and perhaps debate will centre on other methods by which members of the public in this particular case could avail themselves of encouragement and assistance in terms of participating in the hearings. Therefore, I would suggest that the motion expanding the opportunities for the public in this particular case is in order, and I would ask that you so rule. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Member for Edmonton Kingsway first and then the Member for Westlock- Sturgeon. MR. McEACHERN: Mr.

Speaker, in answering the point raised by the hon. member opposite, he is suggesting that the word "assisted" could be interpreted as meaning that the customers could find someone to assist them, and perhaps that would take the role of an advocate, in which case this amendment would be meaningless because we would be talking about the same thing. Clearly, the person that moved this amendment had something other than that in mind.

I concur with the Member for Edmonton Strathcona, who said that if you change it from talking about a specific consumer advocate to just saying that we will encourage the customers themselves to be their own advocates, those are two very different things. So I think, Mr. Speaker, the motion is likely out of order. MR. TAYLOR: Speaking to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the operative words in both resolutions . . . In the resolution that was originally presented, it says, "for the purpose of intervening." Intervening is not always co operative. Intervening is not often always nice.

Intervening could be mean. The other one says, "assisted to participate." What is this? Tea and sandwiches? A free bus ride? Certainly "assisted to participate" doesn't prove any point of order . . . MR. HORSMAN: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order. MR. TAYLOR: Okay. MR. HORSMAN: The hon. leader of the Liberal Party has spoken to the amended motion. MR. TAYLOR: No, I'm talking about that point of order. MR. HORSMAN: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it is quite out of order for him to speak on a point of order relative to the relevance of the motion.

He has spoken to the amendment. MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the wisdom of the Attorney General on this point, that the Member for Wes tlock-Sturgeon, having spoken with respect to the amend ment, therefore gave tacit approval to the fact that the amendment was indeed a proper amendment. The Chair apologizes in that respect. MR. TAYLOR: Why didn't you stop him? MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has been asking himself the same question. The Chair appreciates the cogency of the arguments as presented, especially by the Attorney General, and he is persuaded thereby.

Nevertheless, the Chair must rule the amendment out of order because the form is defective. This is the difficulty of not having received the supposed amendment earlier. The amendment as printed really is a substitute motion, and it is defective in form. It really should say that in the original motion X number of words should be deleted and, following upon that, Y number of words should be put in place. Therefore, the Chair rules that the amendment is out of order, and perhaps the Assembly could return to the original motion. MR. WRIGHT: Speaking to the motion on the Order Paper, Mr.

Speaker, the idea is to spend public money to help consumers with all the facts, figures, research, and so on to intervene in a way more likely to be successful, to be more equal to the vast resources at the command of the capitalists and on the odd occasion the municipal councils. We shouldn't forget that there's a much easier way around

August 14, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 1081 the problem, which is simply to take all the public utilities into public ownership. Then you don't need a public utilities board, because if the rate is a bit too high, the public gets the profits. If it's a bit too low, the public gets a good deal. The rates can be set as a matter of government policy, so you don't have to have a board that spends a great deal of necessary time, let it be said, if there are privately owned public utilities, deciding what is the fair and proper rate. It's not only the question of who gets the profits.

I remind you that Calgary Power, now TransAlta Utilities, has over the years been the most profitable public utility in North America and, so far as I know, still is. All that money, all that profit in the years since 1948, could have been going into provincial coffers, and it is a shame that it has not been. It's not only where the profit goes.

It is also the great amount of money that has to be spent on one hand by the utilities trying to conceal their profits by the use of experts and lawyers to try and make the point to the Public Utilities Board and on the other hand by the public interest groups, usually the municipalities concerned, trying to make the opposite case. So the public pays twice, and they also pay it through their rate base. I urge members to be practical about this and embark on a course of provincializing privately owned so-called public utilities in this province. MR.

PIQUETTE: I would like to speak in favour of the motion, although I think it's not complete in terms of all the amendments that could be brought to the whole public utilities question. Members of my constituency recently brought to my attention some of the real inequities relating to price increases by TransAlta and other utility companies. Their local REA was part of a hearing last year to try and cut back the rate increases demanded by TransAlta in the area. Their intervention was unsuccessful.

Not only was it unsuccessful but in the county of Athabasca they are now paying $4 a month to pay back the cost of intervening on behalf of their own REA. That didn't seem to make any sense to me. Not only was the REA faced with a larger increase because of the one given to the utility company by the Public Utilities Board but they were also penalized for having intervened to try and beat back the price. When a consumer group that is trying to advocate a decrease or at least hold the line on prices is penalized for intervening, that shows me the total inequity and lack of fairness of the Public Utilities Board.

I can't see why this should be just a motion. I think this should be a government Bill making these required changes as quickly as possible. We are already facing some additional increases this year advocated by utility companies in Alberta, some as high as 30 percent. There will be intervention by consumer groups or individuals who are not happy with the situation in terms of the economic recession we're facing in the province.

Not only that, they will have to bear the costs of intervening, and probably their chances of winning that intervention are fairly minimal in terms of looking at the past practices of the PUB, which over many years has to a large extent guaranteed a 7 percent profit margin to the public utilities operating in this province.

I'm urging the government to look at this private member's motion and take the leadership in bringing in a Bill before this sitting of the House is over so that we can make some meaningful changes and for this year's hearings we will at least have something in place whereby a consumer advocate group is publicly funded in order for these hearings to be properly paid for so consumer advocates are not being penalized for intervening to protect their own self-interest. [Mr.

Deputy Speaker in the Chair] The second point I would like to make is the whole aspect of the Public Utilities Board being the kind of institution that the average Albertan understands very poorly. In the upcoming year, before the spring sitting of the Legislature, I think what we should be doing as well is undertaking some public hearings to revamp the whole Public Utilities Board, to bring this whole process before the public so that we have a much better system by which the public is represented and the whole system is understood by the average Albertan.

At the present time it appears to the average consumer, the average citizen in Alberta, that it is a self-serving board basically working on behalf of the large monopolies we have created in this province. The small businessmen are very often upset with the whole workings of it because they don't understand the process, they don't understand how they can have any meaningful input in terms of safeguarding their economic livelihood from unnecessary increases to public consumption of power or natural gas.

Another thing that many of them are pointing out as well is that it seems to agree to increases all the time, but they have never seen a decrease; for example, when there is a decrease in the price of natural gas. It is very slow to react to that type of situation in our economy. I think we should be looking at leadership in this whole area from the Minister of Transportation and Utilities, introducing a meaningful Bill that will put in place a consumers' advocate, and looking at a long-term or short- term review of the whole utilities board in the province of Alberta. MR. MITCHELL: Mr.

Speaker, I rise in support of this motion. My support is premised, however, upon one point of clarification, and that would be to clarify the definition of the mandate of this consumers' advocate. I believe the mandate of the consumers' advocate should include not only the review of existing public utility enterprises but the responsibility and the right to review other enterprises that are not currently public utilities but which might better be handled as such in the interests of Albertans.

To illustrate my point, I would like to raise the issue of the arrangement that has currently been proposed between Bow Valley Resource Services Ltd. and the Alberta Special Waste Management Corporation under which the Swan Hills waste management plant will be built and operated. It's very clear that this project, the Swan Hills waste management plant, shares many important characteristics with public utilities. It operates in a sphere in which there is insufficient demand to permit open competition between a variety of companies that might otherwise be involved in that area.

It involves — and this is critical — a situation under which the government in all respects will be guaranteeing tre mendous returns to Bow Valley Resource Services Ltd. That represents direct cost to Albertans through taxpayers' money. Finally, it involves public safety in the extreme, and it is heavily regulated by government as a result of that.

The subject of guaranteeing returns emphasizes in partic ular the kinds of interests that the proposed consumers' advocate would, under my definition of his or her mandate, be responsible for: reviewing, considering, and finding inter est groups in this province to assist in presenting cases on

1082 ALBERTA HANSARD August 14, 1986 behalf of. The deal that I am referring to between Bow Valley Resource Services and the Alberta Special Waste Management Corporation is structured like this. Alberta . . . MR. HYLAND: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I believe we're talking about Motion 201, which does indeed deal with a consumers' advocate, but the hon. member is referring to the Swan Hills plant. I note that also under his name on the Order Paper is Motion 235, discussing that subject before the very same board. I wonder if we're not over lapping the two. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It would appear that the hon. member is indeed addressing the question of a consumers' advocate. The Chair has some difficulty in differentiating between the terminology. The Member for Edmonton Mea dowlark. MR. MITCHELL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. If I can continue with outlining the financial structure of the deal, Bow Valley Resource Services will be participating in this project in the order of 60 percent. In order to do that, depending upon the scale of the plant but assuming it's roughly a $37 million plant, they will be required to put up $22.5 million.

Owing to the financial status of that company at this time, there is some question as to whether they would have capital or whether they would have to borrow. We will assume that they will have to borrow the $22.5 million. Once that $22.5 million is put up, the deal will be structured like this. The government, through the Alberta Special Waste Management Corporation, will cover all the operating costs incurred by Bow Valley Resource Services. In addition to that, they will guarantee that the interest- carrying charges on Bow Valley's debt in this project will be covered.

In addition, they will guarantee Bow Valley Resource Services in the order of 13 percent. They will also guarantee that the tax that would be paid on that 13 percent will be paid, and the cash flow will be provided to the company for that. The irony in that is that of course this company, owing to its current financial status, will not be paying taxes, so in fact we're just augmenting, increasing, and enhancing the cash flow to that company without a particularly strong rationale for doing that.

The net cost to Alberta consumers over a period of 10 years because of this deal that could otherwise have been done much less expensively is in the order of $40 million to $45 million extra for the construction and operation of that plant or, put into today's terms, discounted at a con servative discount rate, about $23 million. For a government that is besieged as it is now with high costs and diminishing revenues, it is very difficult to understand how this could be justified under any circumstances.

These observations raise clearly and strongly the need for an outside and objective review of this kind of enterprise to determine whether it would be better handled as a public utility. Mr. Speaker, I submit that this Legislature should move with haste to pass this resolution.

Once the mandate of the consumers' advocate is properly clarified as I have laid out, it is a resolution that, once implemented, would serve to support the interests of Albertans in the very important areas of public utilities regulation and regulating those enterprises which are not now public utilities but which would be better handled as public utilities. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. R. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, it's interesting to get up and speak to a motion when I see all three parties in this House agreeing to it. I think they must have all used the same NDP researcher.

I think a lot of thought has to go into setting up an advocate to work on behalf of the intervenors to the Public Utilities Board. First of all, an advocate, given that respon sibility and understanding the fact that there isn't a citizen or a company in Alberta that agrees with a rate increase in utilities, that everybody is opposed to it — when they see that the government has a trained advocate's office, you can imagine the bureaucracy that demand would create. We would be in no position to curb that bureaucracy. I ask every member of this House to think about it.

It would start with an advocate not only here in Edmonton but we'd have offices in Lethbridge, Calgary, Red Deer, and Grande Prairie, all staffed with these experts. Mr. Speaker, there'd be no end to that bureaucracy. Every citizen would avail himself of it, because every time he looks at his utility bill, he says, "It's too high." When we look at it in that light, Mr. Speaker, I think we all have a responsibility to every one of those taxpayers to think about the cost.

I'm sorry that the good Member for Westlock-Sturgeon isn't here, because he talked about the cost to the taxpayer in his little talk and he hasn't shown any consideration whatsoever by supporting an advo cate. But that's consistent with his way of carrying on business in this House. I think we should look at what the Public Utilities Board was in the first place. What was the reason for it to be there?

The sole purpose of the Public Utilities Board as set up by the government of Alberta was to act as an intervenor on behalf of the citizens of Alberta, to review all increases in utilities and judge whether they were fair. That's the purpose of the Public Utilities Board: an intervenor on behalf of the taxpayers. Through the process we've developed companies and individuals that come and call themselves intervenors. So there are interveners going to the interveners. Then we have this type of thing come along and say that we'll have an advocate to the intervenors to the intervenors, and so on.

That's typical of socialists. Create work through their bureaucracy and control. No thought given to it. I'm sorry that some of our members over here were slipped some of the research papers from the NDP and spoke on behalf of it. I'm sorry that happened. I have to say to them, Mr. Speaker, that they were very clever in getting their research papers over on our desks. When I think of an advocate to the intervener to the intervener, it really stirs me up. I'm really looking after the taxpayer if I sit here and let this go by.

I think every one of us would sure look like something four or five years down the road from now when we look at what we created, what we were a party to. Surely we have more sense of responsibility to the taxpayers of Alberta than to do this.

If we were to do the right thing, if the Public Utilities Board — and I say "if" — is not doing its job, then we should be responsible people and look at that Public Utilities Board and say, "Let's make the thing work the way we set it up on behalf of the public of Alberta, to serve as an intervener that really looks responsibly at increases and says whether this is justified or not." For my friends sitting to my right — unfortunately, they're to my right; they're to the left of me en many things — I want to say that you would just love mere and more government in our lives, but we aren't going to allow it now.

August 14, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 1083 I have to say thank you, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Member for Edmonton Strathcona for knocking this amendment out, because I couldn't have attacked this as hard on the amend ment as I can on the motion. So indirectly I'm really indebted, and I think all the citizens of Alberta are indebted, to the Member for Edmonton Strathcona for this one thing. He at least put it back to where we can deal with it in the proper perspective. It's completely irresponsible. It's completely unacceptable.

I urge every member of this House to suddenly realize just what they're doing and defeat this motion. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before we proceed, I would draw the attention of the House to the Standing Orders. Members should not walk between the member speaking and the Chair, irrespective of their height. MS BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure one would have sympathy for the exact location of this particular seat. In fact, with the member speaking, I could have passed the other way and interrupted the flow of communication equally. Height has nothing to do with it in this particular instance — honest.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair takes note of your comment, but you're entirely wrong. MR. HERON: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to go on record as not being in support of Motion 201. I find many of the remarks made by the Member for Lacombe refreshing and right on track.

I particularly like the idea where he said, "We have the Public Utilities Board, and if it isn't working, let's change it to make it work." I also like the idea or the example he brought forth where if something's not right, just create another bureaucracy and keep adding and adding, when all the while we keep saying, "We have to bite the bullet; the economic party is over." It's not consistent to keep creating these bureaucracies while recognizing at the same time that we have serious fiscal problems this year.

Given the double whammy of the decrease in oil prices and the world grain markets, we have to take a real close look when we propose motions like this and when we stand up and advocate spending more and more money. It was with the greatest difficulty that I listened to the Member for Edmonton Strathcona and his socialistic point of view when I believe he said, "if we had the profits of TransAlta from 1948." That is the socialistic point of view: take them over and run them.

But I ask to be provided with some evidence that socialistic governments have oper ated utilities more efficiently than the private sector before ever advocating it. Also, I note the Member for Lac La Biche, in making a point, said "the monopoly of TransAlta." I would like to point out that TransAlta is not a monopoly in the province of Alberta, maybe an oligopoly at best. I want to go on record as saying that TransAlta has done a fine job in urban and rural Alberta, and I think they have performed a job to the envy of many, many provinces. Mr.

Speaker, while we may have some minor problems and minor complaints from time to time with the Public Utilities Board, I think we have a fine agency that serves this government and the citizens well, and I for one would not support tampering with that agency. I would then like to conclude by saying that I cannot support the proposal put forth that we create another bureaucracy through a consumers' advocate. MISS McCOY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make one or two comments on this particular motion.

Firstly, to correct the record, a member opposite earlier referred to the Public Utilities Board first having been formed in 1920; the fact is that it was formed by statute in 1915. He referred at the time to a long Liberal administration in the province of Alberta. He is quite right, and I would like to point out to him that it was during a Liberal administration that the board was first formed.

I would also like to point out and commend to him some reports in newspaper Hansard from the time which contain many allegations of a scandal and many hints that government members and leaders of the day were indeed involved in the scandal having to do with the railroads. It was that very case that led to the Public Utilities Board first coming into existence. Going on to other matters, I've been quite interested in following this debate, and the Member for Ponoka-Rimbey is quite right that the Public Utilities Board was set up in order to take account of the public interest.

What has troubled me throughout many of the different representations and so forth made in the debates is a tendency to simplify to such an extent that the whole of the public interest has not been accounted for.

Many, many years ago in first- year law school I had a professor who would lecture us at great length It was rather boring, but one of his favourite expressions was "text out of context is pretext." In listening to the debate on this motion, I found that one or another speaker tried to oversimplify the issue to the point where the issues have become not true to the intent that I think was behind the original motion. Consequently, I lauded the Member for Ponoka-Rimbey when he attempted to introduce an amendment which, as it turned out, was ruled out of order only because of the form in which it was printed.

Nevertheless, I laud him for his attempt, because in a truly wise way he was attempting to open the debate far enough to take into account the many different approaches that one could take. I also wish to say that I agreed with the Member for Athabasca-Lac La Biche when he stated at some length that there are many people who do not understand the process, there are many people who would wish to have meaningful input, and there are many people who would like the process to be better understood. That is one of the difficulties, and I think it was well taken up by that member.

Just for the record, I would like for a moment to speak to the question of public interest. The public interest is never a singular thing; it is never unanimous. The delight and challenge of governing is always in balancing the various different aspects of the public interest, and when we are talking about utilities, utility rates, and utility customers, each and every one of whom of course is a consumer, I think we do have to keep in mind the various different interests that are represented among them. In some cases one individual can represent several different aspects of the same public interest.

To illustrate that, let me first of all make reference to an individual utility customer who has an interest as a homeowner, who would have another interest as an employee of a company and would therefore be interested in that company's profit picture and continued stability by which his job would continue. That person has another interest as well when he is down at the municipal ice rink or when his children are there playing hockey. A farmer, similarly,

1084 ALBERTA HANSARD August 14, 1986 has many, many different interests and represents many aspects of the public interest: firstly, when he is at home on the home quarter; secondly, in his capacity as an agribusinessman; and thirdly, if he has irrigation, he would have to pay the utility rates for that irrigation system, whether it be gas or electricity.

Another one that he often has is as a surface rights owner, which is an aspect of the public interest that would directly contradict that farmer's interest as a utility customer, insofar as he would be on one hand interested in increasing the rates that the utility company pays him for the use of the surface of the land and, on the other hand, interested in reducing the costs of the utility. I could mention others.

There is no doubt that the wholesale municipal customers have a particular interest, and of course they in turn represent all the interests of their residential, commercial, and industrial customers within municipal boundaries. Then, of course, there are also large power takers and large natural gas takers in the industrial- user category which form another kind of interest. One of the difficulties that I had earlier with Motion 201 was trying to envisage how many consumers' advocates we would be considering.

As I have just outlined, surely one would need a consumers' advocate for every one aspect of the public interest. It is not so simplistic as to say one consumers' advocate can represent all those different aspects of the public interest. Again, we would be proliferating the bureaucracy, and I think there are better ways of approaching the question. The Member for Westlock-Sturgeon was suggesting earlier that a consumers' advocate would have teeth, would be intervening, would be, in short, mean and nasty, which I almost took to mean that the member was applying for the job.

However, I say that this consumers' advocate is not the only and not necessarily the best approach to take in protecting or advancing the interests of utility customers. I would encourage the Member for Ponoka-Rimbey to rise again on his amendment, having had an opportunity to correct the form, because the proposed amendment at least would have taken into account the very many other ways that could be used or approached which would indeed advance the consumers' interests. For all of these reasons, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would now move that we agree to adjourn this debate. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: All those in favour, please say aye. HON. MEMBERS: Aye. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is so ordered. 202. Moved by Mr. Stewart:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the government to consider adopting a leadership role to encour age departments of government, Crown agencies, hospital boards, and other public institutions to purchase goods and services, and in particular new products, from Alberta busi nesses whenever reasonably possible, in order to expand the economic and employment opportunities within this province. [Adjourned debate June 19: Mr. Mitchell speaking] SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question. MR. STEWART: Mr. Speaker, I rise to close debate on Motion 201.

I appreciated the debate because I think it canvassed many of the considerations that I feel are important to this issue. I particularly note the recent trade communique from the Premiers' Conference which relates to the matter of interprovincial trade barriers. I think it's an important step in the process of freer trade nationally and interna tionally. It's an acknowledgment of the difficulties that do exist as a result of these trade barriers, and I look forward to the result of the initiatives that are to be taken on the matters which the Premiers have classified as requiring urgent action.

I think it is important to note that the purposes and objectives set out in that trade communique are not in any way contradictory or inconsistent with the thrust of Motion 202. The motion is also in accordance with several of the initiatives of this government in its program to support Alberta companies, initiatives such as were described by the former minister of economic development, the hon. Hugh Planche, in a press release dated April 15, 1983, and endorsed by the then Premier and subsequently by the present Premier.

That press release announced an accelerated program of support for Alberta corporations to be undertaken by all provincial departments to ensure that Alberta con sultants, manufacturers, suppliers, and contractors would receive a fair opportunity to compete in the supply of goods and services for provincial departments. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the motion deserves the support of all members, and I therefore urge all members to vote in favour of the motion. [Motion carried] MR. HORSMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I would move that we move to the next item on the agenda, private member's public Bills. [Motion carried] head: PUBLIC BILLS AND ORDERS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Second Reading) Bill 222 Retail Business Holidays Act MR. HAWKESWORTH: Mr. Speaker, this is the first private member's Bill I've ever had the privilege to introduce in this Assembly. I'm greatly pleased to be able to rise and introduce Bill 222, the Retail Business Holidays Act, for second reading. Mr.

Speaker, when we experience those things in life that give us a boost, that make our lives better and more enjoyable, we sometimes refer to them or describe them as building blocks. When situations come our way that help us achieve our objectives and the things that are important to us, we think of them as building blocks for our future. On the other hand, when events occur that frustrate our lives, that put obstacles in our way, that prevent us from achieving things important to us and to our families, we often call those things stumbling blocks. Mr.

Speaker, for thousands of Albertans Sunday shopping has become a stumbling block, not a building block. Seven- day shopping has taken away the one day of the week they could be sure to be with their families. It has taken away the one day they could arrange to visit friends. It has taken

August 14, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 1085 away the one day when all of us in this province could seek out some refuge and pause in the working world. Seven-day shopping has prevented some of them from participating in religious observances the way they would like. Seven-day shopping has become a stumbling block, not a building block, and for those Albertans affected, they have lost some elements of their freedom.

In its decision on the Lord's Day Act in a matter between the city of Calgary and Big M drugs, the Supreme Court of Canada made some noble comments about freedom and religion, and I'd like to quote a few brief passages from that decision. A truly free society is one which can accommodate a wide variety of beliefs, diversity of tastes and pursuits, customs and codes of conduct. Then they added: Freedom can primarily be characterized by the absence of coercion or constraints.

If a person is compelled by the state or the will of another to a course of action or inaction which he would not otherwise have chosen, he is not acting on his own volition and he cannot be said to be truly free. That decision goes on and adds: Coercion includes not only such blatant forms of compulsion as direct commands to act or refrain from acting on pain of sanction — coercion includes direct forms of control which determine or limit alternative courses of conduct available to others. Mr. Speaker, many Albertans have families that depend on the income they receive from their job in a retail store.

Can they make a decision not to work on Sunday without fear of sanctions from their employer? What freedom do they really have to refuse work on Sunday? How does the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protect them from their employer coercing or compelling them to work on Sunday? For those who own businesses and shopping centres and would like the freedom to close on Sundays, how are the Charter and the Supreme Court of Canada going to protect their rights?

If a landlord in a shopping mall tells a businessperson to open on a Sunday, and if the landlord tells them to pay a fine or evicts them if they do not comply, are the Charter and the Supreme Court going to come to their rescue? Unfortunately, in the time it would take to go to the Supreme Court with problems of this nature, it's unlikely they would get any practical assistance in the short term. It seems a practical result is that unless a legislative right is equally extended to everyone, it's going to be equally denied to everyone.

For many Albertans the Supreme Court judgment on the Lord's Day Act has served as a stumbling block, not a building block. I ask today: who is going to protect the freedoms of those Albertans affected by this decision who wish to create building blocks for their future? To all members of this Assembly, Mr. Speaker, I say that Bill 222, the Retail Business Holidays Act, represents a building block for those Albertans in three ways.

First of all, it will place responsibility for regulation of seven-day shopping where it clearly belongs and where it will most effectively be carried out, that being at the provincial level. Secondly, this Bill will protect the rights and freedoms of retail workers to have a regular weekend day off, to be with their families and their friends, and to participate in and enjoy their community. Thirdly, Mr.

Speaker, this Bill will protect those small businesses which have traditionally done the bulk of their business on Sundays and who presently face overwhelming competition from large retail chains and mul tinationals. In 1985 the government amended the Municipal Government Act which allowed municipalities to control the hours of business in their jurisdictions. This followed the striking down of the Lord's Day Act in the judgment I previously quoted.

At the same time as making that amendment to the MGA, the provincial government increased the maximum fine for an offence under municipal bylaws governing open ing hours from $500 to $2,000. When he announced his intentions to pass on the responsibility for this issue to municipalities, the then Attorney General said: Given the wide diversity of views likely to exist throughout Alberta among citizens in large and small communities, decisions in respect to store openings and closings should remain in the hands of locally elected councils . . .

He was in effect saying that if you want building blocks, you're going to have to go to the towns and cities all over Alberta in order to get business closing bylaws passed. Don't look to this government for building blocks on this particular issue. Mr. Speaker, taking on that responsibility has been a nightmare for those municipalities who have chosen to do what the provincial government recommended. For example, last fall a plebiscite was held in Red Deer.

Sixty-one percent of the people voting in that plebiscite voted against seven- day shopping, and the council passed a bylaw forcing all businesses, with some of the same exceptions that are proposed in Bill 222, to close on Sunday or for 24 hours within the next seven days. Red Deer's lead may be one for other municipalities to follow, but they've run into problems that I'm certain will convince other municipalities from passing such bylaws within their jurisdictions, because the experience of Red Deer has proven this legislation is a stumbling block to solving this particular problem. Why?

I understand they're currently fighting a court challenge to that bylaw launched by the Brick Warehouse and London Drugs. When determining whether to proceed on this particular matter, we dealt with this when I was a member of the city council in Calgary. We were very conscious of what was occurring in the city of Red Deer. One of the arguments which persuaded that council not to proceed with a bylaw, as Red Deer had done, was that it would be very expensive to enforce and would likely be challenged the moment it was passed.

By the time you add up legal fees, the cost of a possible referendum, the cost of hours of council debate, staff time, surveys, and go through all the steps that a municipality might go through to defend itself in the Court of Queen's Bench, the Court of Appeal, or the Supreme Court of Canada, you could easily be looking at costs in the order of $200,000 to $250,000. In fact, the experience of Fort McMurray bears this out. They passed a bylaw and it was attacked in court.

As I understand it, they lost that particular case in court, and because of the expense and time involved in an appeal, they have decided not to pursue it any further. So in that instance, their bylaw is no longer in effect. This government said municipal governments would be the building blocks for their citizens who wanted action on this particular issue. So far, Mr. Speaker, these bylaws have proven to be nothing but stumbling blocks. The pro vincial government could have provided financial assistance to those municipalities taking on this particular kind of legislation.

They could have provided research staff, and

1086 ALBERTA HANSARD August 14, 1986 they could have provided legal staff to assist Red Deer or Fort McMurray or Lethbridge in defending their bylaws, bylaws which they proceeded with under that amendment to the Municipal Government Act. They could have chosen to provide building blocks underneath this legislation they passed last year. They have not done so. They still remain a stumbling block when it comes to local municipalities having to defend legislation they've enacted under that particular amendment to the Municipal Government Act. Mr. Speaker, the Lord's Day Act was struck down because the Supreme Court ruled that the Christian

interpretation of the Sabbath could not be the deciding factor in the hours of store openings. That doesn't change the fact that for most families Sunday represents a traditional day of rest. You create stress within families when one member works both weekend days and the remainder work only weekdays. Marriage partners may be finding it impossible to find the time they need for themselves and for their children. We need to provide building blocks for families, Mr. Speaker, not stumbling blocks.

I believe Bill 222 would provide the opportunity for retail workers and their families to be together for at least one recognized day in the week to re establish bonds and participate in the leisure activities within their communities. I believe we need to provide building blocks for individuals and communities, not stumbling blocks. In regard to small business, Mr. Speaker, it's a fallacy that Sunday shopping creates a significant number of jobs and increased sales for retailers.

The net effect of wide- open shopping hours seven days a week is the increased employment of part-time workers and the elimination of family-run businesses from the retail market. A study done by the British Home Office, entitled the shops inquiry report, indicates the immediate effect of Sunday shopping is to shift employment from full-time to part-time workers. This will mean an increase in the proportion of Alberta's workers who would have no benefits or job security. The report also says there would initially be a substantial contraction in business as retail capacity is used more efficiently.

That means that those without the promotional and financial resources to make the best use of wide-open shopping will suffer and probably go out of business. Who would that be in the retail industry? It's obvious that would be the small convenience businesses, the independent grocers, and the neighbourhood retailers that have always been there for our needs, our emergency prescriptions, and our emergency requirements for a quart of milk or whatever. Their share of the market is being taken over by the large and often foreign-owned chains.

Once again, here is evidence of government not removing stumbling blocks and not providing building blocks, in this case for our small, largely family-run businesses in the retail market. Many of the small businesses in shopping malls are family run, and many of them also don't want to be forced to work seven days a week, but the leases and contracts they have with the owners of those particular shopping malls force them to stay open. In those instances, for those people and those businesses, they find government inaction on this matter a stumbling block to their needs and aspirations. Mr.

Speaker, I introduce Bill 222 because for thousands of Albertans this Bill represents a building block for their future. I'm confident it's going to do what I say it's going to do. First of all, it's patterned on similar legislation in Ontario. I don't know whether I should confess that this is legislation that was once upon a time passed by a Progressive Conservative government in that province. Nevertheless, there it is. That statute in Ontario is 11 years old and has been challenged a number of times.

In fact, Ontario is one of the few provinces who had their own legislation on business hours when the Lord's Day Act was struck down in 1985. In September 1984 the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the convictions of two Toronto retailers charged with being open on Sunday. That court found that the law in Ontario was constitutional and secular in nature. Sunday was the traditional day of rest, and closing on Sundays did not necessarily put the interests of Christians ahead of other religious groups. However, it's a matter that has since gone to the Supreme Court, and that court case began on April 1, 1986.

The decision on that matter is expected very, very shortly, and I gather considerable interest is being shown by all provincial governments across this country. There are really two cases at once as part of this challenge. The merchants are appealing their loss in the Court of Appeal decision, and the province is appealing its loss in an attempted conviction of a Jewish bookstore owner. In that particular case, the Court of Appeal directed the province to change the Act to accommodate other religions.

The province naturally doesn't want to do so, because if they did, the basis of the Act's constitutionality — that is, that it does not involve religion — might then later become a source of challenge. But we have a bonus here in Alberta. Bill 222 is better than the Ontario legislation in two important ways. First, this Bill leaves Saturday as an option, without tacitly indi cating that this is for the interests of minority religious groups. Secondly, the Ontario Act has provisions for areas of towns and cities to be declared tourist sections by municipal authorities and exempting the shops within them.

This has been the cause of a lot of the trouble in Ontario. For example, a carpet shop in Chinatown in downtown Toronto can open on Sunday, while a carpet shop some blocks away cannot open under that legislation. Bill 222 avoids this particular problem. So I think this Assembly can be confident that our efforts will not be undermined by decisions outside our jurisdiction. Mr. Speaker, people in our society live in a world full of stress.

Those who work in hospitals, psychiatric wards, schools, and community and social service agencies every day see the casualties of people who have not been able to hold up under the stress and pressures of our modern living.

The longer we allow seven-day shopping, the longer we give approval and condone a relentless drive to continue that stress and that pressure on people; and the longer we allow the machinery of materialism and the demands of the almighty dollar to dictate every action of our lives every day, the more we will see casualties like that appearing in those hospitals, psychiatric wards, and social service agen cies. The more stumbling blocks that are placed in their way, the more people are going to stumble. Mr. Speaker, where are the people who think about the future?

Where are the people who worry about the pressure that's being brought to bear on our families? Where are the people who speak for the kids when their parents aren't at home with them? Where are the people who say that the stresses and demands placed on people today are getting too far beyond their ability to cope?

For working people in the retail trade, for small businesses, for the building of families in this province, for the strengthening of individuals and communities, I ask: will this Assembly place building blocks under their feet on which they can build their lives in prosperity, happiness, and promise in this province? I

August 14, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 1087 ask this Assembly to do that, Mr. Speaker. I ask this Assembly to pass Bill 222 into law. Thank you. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak against Bill 222, I wish to base my arguments on two basic issues. The first of these deals with the wide diversity of business and business practices across this province. This Bill suggests that legislation which is desirable for large urban trading centres is exactly the same legislation which would apply in smaller and rural trading areas. I'm sure we all realize this is simply not the case.

Business done in small rural centres is done in a much different fashion than in the cities in this province and I would think in all parts of the world. The alternative here, Mr. Speaker, is to leave the reg ulation of shopping hours and Sunday shopping as a decision of the local municipalities, whose elected representatives are better equipped than this provincial government to determine what local needs, aspirations, and business and consumer interests are in their particular jurisdiction.

Secondly, I am rather surprised this Bill would be introduced here, con sidering the fact that there is no general consensus across the province that legislation of this nature would be desirable. A Gallup poll conducted in 1983 showed that 49 percent of those polled were categorically in favour of Sunday shopping, 7 percent saw some limitations as being useful, and 42 percent were opposed. Mr. Speaker, I suppose the best this government can do is represent the interests of that 49 percent or alternatively have legislation which is silent on the issue.

At this point it would be constructive to look at the history and experience on the record in other provinces which have attempted to deal with this matter on a provincial basis. The hon. Member for Calgary Mountain View brought some of this out to support his arguments. I suppose I'll bring the rest out to support mine. Ontario passed the Retail Business Holidays Act in 1975. That is the Act on which this Bill is modelled. Sunday is included as a holiday, and shopping is restricted on those days. The Act has been challenged, and the case was presented to the Supreme Court of Canada in March of this year.

Although the case is before the courts, the Ontario Solicitor General is still enforcing the Act. There are presently 3,000 cases before the provincial courts awaiting a Supreme Court decision. I ask this Assembly: is this the sort of situation we want to create in Alberta? They also passed a provincial statute in British Columbia dealing with the issue of Sunday shopping. The Act provided an opting-out policy for municipalities. Again, this begs the question: why pass legislation with an opting-out provision?

Why not allow the municipalities to pass their own bylaws instead, rather than opting out of a provincial statute? Provincial courts in British Columbia have ruled that the Holiday Shopping Regulation Act is unconstitutional. Again, the net effect is that the law is in virtual abeyance until the Supreme Court decision on the Ontario Act has been rendered. In Saskatchewan there are court challenges pending from Saskatoon retailers, with the cases scheduled to be heard in November.

In Nova Scotia the Retail Business Uniform Closing Day Act of 1985, again patterned on the Ontario Act, has not been broadly enforced pending the Supreme Court decision. In Prince Edward Island their Day of Rest Act is being challenged by some malls and supermarkets which have been opening on Sundays. I bring these items to the attention of the Assembly to illustrate, Mr. Speaker, that by passage of this Bill, we would be creating a further onerous burden on an already overloaded court system.

There have been mixed results in Alberta with regard to the successful application of local bylaws to control Sunday shopping. But there have been some positive experiences, Mr. Speaker. If the bylaw is properly drafted, it is useful and answers all our concerns with regard to local autonomy. The city of Lethbridge has a bylaw which has stood for more than 20 years. It has managed to keep businesses closed on Sundays, with a few exceptions. The city's solicitor said there is broad-based political support for this type of bylaw, something which does not exist for the passage of a provincial statute.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from Alberta Hansard, April 24, 1985. Debating this same issue, the government's position at that time was that there should be a comprehensive base under the Municipal Government Act for municipalities to deal with all the issues relating to retail business holidays on a local option basis.

Given the wide diversity of views likely to exist throughout Alberta among citizens in large and small communities, decisions in respect to store openings and closing should remain in the hands of locally elected councils acting in the best interests of their respective communities. That continues to be the position of this government, in contrast to the opposition's view of wanting to regulate everything from this Assembly. Mr. Speaker, it is not what Albertans want. Thank you. [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] MS BARRETT: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to address this Bill as well, and it will come as no surprise that I'm going to support this Bill. However, I'd like to make some comments with respect to those made by the Member for Stettler. For example, he pointed out that in provinces where they have Acts such as this one or similar Acts, the Solicitor General in Ontario, for example, is still enforcing the Act even though it's in front of the courts. AN HON. MEMBER: What courage. MS BARRETT: Yes, what courage. Might I say, Mr.

Speaker, that as a believer in the democratic process and in observing and upholding laws once they are established by the democratic process, I think that practice is infinitely preferable to a practice which recently went on in this province in which radar detectors were still on the statutes as being illegal but I understand the enforcement of that law was something less than a hundred percent. Mr. Speaker, the Member for Stettler also asked, some what rhetorically I believe: why not let the municipalities pass their own bylaws with respect to seven-day-a-week shopping?

I would like to point out to that member and all other members of the Legislative Assembly that the extreme difficulty with that is that one ends up with what is called a checkerboard province. Of course, that means that in communities such as Edmonton which are surrounded by a number of satellite communities, you may, for example, have the city of Edmonton, which according to the polls I have is quite opposed to seven-day-a-week retail shopping in nonessential services, voting against full retail shopping in nonessential services seven days a week while nearby communities — for example, St.

Albert, Sherwood Park,

1088 ALBERTA HANSARD August 14, 1986 or any number of the nearby communities — might not do that. In fact, what you have then is a constant transition from one area to another in order to satisfy this need. In the long run, of course, it's not an economically viable alternative. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that governments must not simply reflect but also lead in shaping public policy. The polls indicate that the trend over time is to see an actual increase in the shopping itself on Sundays, which is what one usually connotes from the statement with respect to seven-day retail shopping.

It seems to me that it would be appropriate to pass this sort of Bill and lead the way in public thinking with respect to the quality of life; that is, encourage people to do what they did for many years prior to the advent of what is called Sunday shopping. That is to do other family-oriented things or rest-oriented things.

It comes to mind that in being petitioned and lobbied by a number of people over the years with respect to this issue, I have been asked, again rhetorically: if the government is so darn sure that it's right in not passing legislation which would restrict full-scale retailing at least one day a week, is the government at least willing to conduct its hours of practice over a full seven days per week? Similarly, schools. I believe, and I'm sure I'm right, the government is not prepared to do that, unless the policy has changed or unless I'm about to be corrected when I sit down.

It seems to me that there are good reasons for not wanting a checkerboard approach to this. Mr. Speaker, there's another really important issue here; that is, as my colleague the Member for Calgary Mountain View pointed out, the tendency of Sunday or seven-day-a- week retailing to affect the small retailers, the independent retailers, and actually affect employment.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers presented a brief to all members of the Legislative Assembly on August 8, 1983, in which they cited four particular reasons why they would like to see some kind of solution to this problem, preferably by way of

an Act similar to that which I am supporting at the moment. They point out a drastic reduction in revenue presently derived from Sunday sales, representing up to 30 percent of the total volume of weekly sales. What that means, of course, is that if consumers have X amount of dollars to spend over six days a week, if full-scale retailing is allowed seven days a week, their X amount of dollars isn't going to increase.

Of course, the effect of that is that overhead associated with being open seven days a week increases, and the prices to consumers may in fact have to increase to reflect or embrace the costs associated with the additional day of being open. They also note that layoffs and reduced working hours for employees in the order of 1,000 person-hours per month per independent store is a real cost associated with their study on the matter. I'm not in a position to vouch for the exact accuracy, but I believe they did a very comprehensive study.

In any event, I think the case is made very clearly by a number of organizations, in particular with respect to full-time jobs. Mr. Speaker, they identified one item which I consider extremely important because it addresses the nature of our overall economy. That is, they talk about the monopolization factor which goes along with the more powerful stores being able to afford to stay open seven days a week or until midnight, as apparently is the case now in Edmonton, and its economic impact on smaller retailers.

Of course, what this gets at is that there are some chain stores which really have the wherewithal to do this. Once they've been able to capture an increasing share of the market — and that's the way retailers look at it; market share is everything — they can hold it by virtue of having accommodated all these millions of hours and at the same time by virtue of having become even more of a monopoly or, to be strictly technical, an oligopoly. They also have a greater power to raise their prices, so no benefit is in fact ever felt by the consumers. A really important point, I would argue, Mr. Speaker.

Similarly, the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers argued that the chains of convenience stores themselves would benefit from this, but the independent grocers would not, and I'm just using grocers for an example. One then has to ask about all the rhetoric about entrepreneurship and being a self-initiating businessperson in this context. Of course, I think the rhetoric is coming from the other side of the House. In the first place, it's very difficult to initiate a small business in this province.

In the second place, if one is going to do so in the small retail sector, what incentive is there if there is absolutely no regulatory pro tection against environs which encourage the oligopolistically inclined participants to take over whatever market share those smaller retailers may have hoped to get? Mr. Speaker, I do have another point here. I happened to start glancing at some figures with respect to employment in this province. I note there is a steady increase in the percentage of Alberta jobs going to part-time jobs in the last many years.

The Minister of Manpower prior to the 1986 election had been on record noting that Sunday shopping might be really good for jobs. He did specify that it might be really good for part-time jobs. In that I might not contest him, because as the British Home Office study my colleague cited a few minutes ago indicated, in Britain it has been fairly clearly assessed that seven-day-a-week retail shopping may increase part-time jobs but at the great expense of a decrease in full-time jobs.

For example, I note that in 1976, 13.13 percent of all jobs in the province of Alberta were part-time, and by 1984 that figure had risen to 15.74 percent. What we have is an increase in part-time employment, some of which I'm certain can be attributable to the provisions under existing law which allow for retailers of virtually any stripe to be open any time they so choose. What I'm getting at here is that there has also been a decline, relatively speaking, in the number of full-time jobs. Full-time jobs are better for income security, for economic stimulation, and for an economy overall.

They actually help drive an economy in a more profound way and in a more specific direction than do part-time jobs with respect to the industries with which they are associated. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would argue that there are an awful lot of economic reasons why we would want to support this sort of measure. On many occasions I hear in this Assembly that restricting people's rights is a flaw in attitude. I have had occasion to point out that we restrict people's rights when it comes to driving motor vehicles, for example.

We put yellow lines down the middle of the road, construct traffic lights, and that sort of thing. We do this for the betterment of all people. I believe the fact of the matter is that most people aren't chomping at the bit to get into stores on Sundays, which we understand to be the traditional day of rest. People can actually live with full-scale retailing occurring six days a week and going to facilities which carry products to meet essential needs and services on that seventh day of the week and not being sincerely affected, Mr. Speaker.

I think it might take a little bit of political courage to support this Bill. I'm sure it would from the government

August 14, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 1089 side of the House, in any sense. However, I bid we do so anyway. MR. MUSGROVE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a few comments about Bill 222, not necessarily against or for the Bill. But I would like to support some action that was taken by our government in 1985 concerning retail holidays. We're into a different life-style. Just to show an example, I would like to talk a little bit about the history of one of the major towns in my constituency. Some years ago — I believe it was probably in the late '50s or early '60s — there were only five retail days in that town.

I don't think it's a coincidence that started about the time our labour legislation allowed for a 44-hour work week. Consequently, all the retail stores in that town closed on Saturday and Sunday. After a few short weeks they decided that didn't work very well, because in a town that brings in a rural community, Saturday is generally the big day. So they started closing on Sunday and Monday. But there were some problems there because banks opened five days a week and closed Saturday. The stores were of course open on Saturday and closed Sunday, and it caused some problems. Mr.

Speaker, because of the competition created by other towns and because of the holidays for the bank and the town, they started staying open six days a week through part-time help. Just to show what happened historically, during that time you weren't allowed to charge for professional sports on Sunday. I can recall being at ball games and hockey games during those days when they would pass the hat around to collect to pay the expenses of the team; to have a charge at the gate was not legal. At that time, legislation was changed so they could charge for Sunday sports.

But the communities considered it quite sacrilegious, and there was quite a lot of press coverage over it. Nowadays, to mention not being allowed to charge for Sunday sports would be something the population of Alberta would consider very detrimental, because it would rule out sports on Sundays. That's just an example of how our life-styles have changed through the years. There was a poll taken in the town of Brooks in 1985 to see what people thought of Sunday openings, and there were 533 people polled. Of those, 103 said they were not in favour of Sunday openings.

There were about another 49 percent that had some concerns but didn't voice an opinion against it. The balance of the 533 were noncom mitted, so they obviously weren't concerned whether or not they had Sunday openings. In a farming community, particularly during harvest and haying time, farmers generally work seven days a week because of weather conditions. Our farm repair shops stay open on weekends during those times. To have a regulation that says they must close those days would be a detriment to that farming population. Breakdowns generally can't be scheduled, and if

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19860814
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L21 S1 19860814 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	8a9f57cea6bee7f842141dc20c312f391fa2daf9

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