Alberta Hansard — 17 October 1977, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 18, Session 3)

19771017

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

October 17, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1489 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Monday, October 17, 1977 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] [Mr. King rose] [interjections] MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, it takes me a moment to compose my thoughts when I enter the Assembly. I rose to a miscue. [interjections] head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 51 The Wildlife Amendment Act, 1977 MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill, being The Wildlife Amendment Act, 1977.

The purpose of this bill is to assist our citizens by provid ing an opportunity to better protect areas critical to the maintenance and sustenance of wildlife, to acquire lands which are critical to wildlife and to manage said lands, to provide effective adjustments to enable the designation of problem wildlife and prescribe control programs, to strengthen the act in relation to dangerous hunting practices, and to remove a number of lesser offences from the manda tory licence suspension requirement. [Leave granted; Bill 51 read a first time] Bill 61 The Farm Implement Amendment Act, 1977 MR. MOORE: Mr.

Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill 61, The Farm Implement Amendment Act, 1977. The purpose of this bill is to clarify and strengthen certain aspects of the existing Farm Implement Act with respect to warranties and provision of parts. [Leave granted; Bill 61 read a first time] Bill 74 The Environment Conservation Amendment Act, 1977 MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill 74, The Environment Conservation Amendment Act, 1977. This being a money bill, His Honour the Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor, having been in formed of the contents of this bill, recommends the same to the Assembly.

The purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to change the name of the authority to the environment council of Alberta, to provide for administrative changes inso far as the appointment of members, and to clarify the functions of the new council. MR. CLARK: The wreckage is complete. [Leave granted; Bill 74 read a first time] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, I wish to file with the Legislature Library copies of the written submissions on Bill 55, The Condominium Property Amendment Act. The hearings were held on September 22 and 26. MR.

KING: I was waiting for the Minister of Agricul ture, Mr. Speaker. This is definitely not my day. I hope that changes immediately. I would like to file with the Assembly, Mr. Speaker, a petition which has been signed by in excess of 5,200 women from about 160 centres within the province of Alberta. The petition requests a particular property regime for the distribution of matrimonial property in the province; namely, retroactive deferred sharing. The petition is not submitted to the Assem bly asking for particular redress from a particular individual. For that reason, Mr.

Speaker, it was not presented as a petition to the Assembly earlier on the Order Paper. At this time, I would also like to point out if I may, Mr. Speaker, that we have representatives in the gallery from 13 groups across the province which have circulated the petition. They include Options for Women, the Alberta Status of Women Action Com mittee, the South Peace Regional Council of Women, the Women's Institutes, and various professional, community, and other interest groups within the province. MR. MOORE: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to table three copies of the annual report of the Alberta Agricultural Development Corporation for the year ending March 31, 1977, as required by statute. I would also like to file, Mr. Speaker, a copy of the final report of the Lake Wabamun thermal water use project. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS DR. McCRIMMON: Mr. Speaker, it's my privilege and pleasure today to introduce to you, and through you to the members of the Assembly, 14 grade 7 students from Crestomere School, 12 miles west of Ponoka. They are accompanied today by their teacher Carol Koleyak, parent Mrs.

Hoar, and bus driver Russell Adams. They are seated in the members gallery. I would ask that they rise and receive the welcome of this Assembly. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Status of Women Report MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd planned to address the first question to the Premier, but I'll direct it to the

1490 ALBERTA HANSARD October 17, 1977 Deputy Premier. It's on the question of the status of women. Is the government considering legislation, or considering establishing a women's secretariat to advise the government on action on the recommenda tions of the Alberta Status of Women group? DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, not at this time. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, then a supplementary question to the Deputy Premier.

In light of the Pre mier's comment in Hansard — I believe it was November 1, 1976 — when he indicated that no further [talks] with the group would be productive, can the Deputy Premier advise the House whether the government plans to appoint a citizens' council on the status of women so the government would get some formal input on women's issues? DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, I think that matter will receive continuing consideration by the government, but no definitive action has been taken on it. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Deputy Premier.

Is the government consider ing appointing a minister responsible for the status of women, as requested in the brief presented to the government? DR. HORNER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think if the hon. leader will read the response we made to the brief, he'll have his answers to the variety of questions he is now asking. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Deputy Premier. Is the government in an inflexible position as far as the response it gave to the Status of Women group some months ago?

From the Deputy Premier's comment, are we to assume the government isn't prepared to go back and reconsider some of the mistakes it has made in this area? DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, the question of whether or not one makes a mistake is a matter of opinion. I would also like to add, though, that I think the record of this government has shown that it can and will be flexible if the right cause is shown. Women's Bureau MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of Social Services and Community Health.

Is the minister considering an expansion of the Women's Bureau so that more topics of relevance to Alberta women will be covered by it? MISS HUNLEY: No, Mr. Speaker. The Women's Bureau attempts whenever possible to make use of existing facilities throughout the government, and to ensure that the various departments, bureaus, and agencies of the government are cognizant of the aims, objectives, and concerns of Alberta women, and all Albertans for that matter. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister.

The government is not then consider ing any expansion as far as the Women's Bureau is concerned? MISS HUNLEY: Not at the present time, Mr. Speaker. Public Service — Personnel MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Provincial Treasurer. Can the Provincial Treas urer advise the Assembly whether the personnel planning and career development program an nounced in the House in the spring, I believe, has yet acquired its full complement of staff? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I can't answer that from memory, but I'll check on it and report to the House later on. MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, just one last question to the Provincial Treasurer. Is he in a position to indi cate to the House whether the government has made a policy decision as to whether one-half of the pro posed staff will be able to do the work outlined by the Provincial Treasurer in the House in the spring? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I didn't catch the opening words of that question. MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, can the Provincial Treasur er indicate to the House whether the government has made a policy decision that would result in [less than] the full staff having to be hired for the program the Treasurer outlined, rather than the four people he had indicated? MR. LEITCH: No, Mr. Speaker. Alcan Pipeline MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the hon. Premier I'd like to direct this question to the hon. Minister of Energy and Natural Resources.

Can the government advise the Assembly whether or not the government of this province agreed to the provision in the Alaska Highway pipeline agreement which apparently commits Alberta to provide gas for export at the Alberta border price to make up for those quantities of gas provided to northern communities along the pipeline route? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure what clause or what part of any agreement the hon. member is refer ring to. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a word of explanation; then I'll put the question again.

This is the clause in the pipeline agreement which indicates that the communities along the pipeline route will obtain gas from the pipeline, and that that amount of gas will be made up from Alberta supplies. MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member still hasn't said who the agreement is between. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, to clarify the question then, the agreement is the pipeline agreement be tween Canada and the United States. Not the overall pipeline agreement but the specific agreement relat ing to the Alcan route.

The reason I raise the ques tion is that I contacted External Affairs today to obtain their assessment of this, and I would like to know

October 17, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1491 whether the Alberta government is aware of it and whether they agree with it. MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, not being a part of the agreement, I can't commit the Alberta government to any part of it. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. Was there any discussion with the government of Alberta concerning this particular feature of the agreement, in view of the fact that it does relate directly to Alberta gas supplies? Perhaps I could direct that to either the hon. Minister of Energy and Natural Resources or the hon.

Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs. MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I have no recollection of the Alberta government agreeing to sell additional natur al gas to any particular communities. I would recall for the hon. member, though, that the Alberta gov ernment insists as a policy position that Alberta's foreseeable future needs are taken care of first. Then the surplus, if there is any, is available first to Canadians and then, if they do not require it, it can be exported from the country. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question to either the hon.

Minister of Energy and Natural Resources or the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs. At any point in the discussions of this pipeline, was there any discussion by Alberta ministers that would relate to Alberta gas supplies making up that amount of gas which would be provided to communities along the pipeline, not only Canadian communities but in deed American communities as well? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I can't confirm any discus sions for my colleagues. I had no discussions with regard to it. It was not brought up to me.

But I could confirm again for the hon. member the policy of the Alberta government I explained in answering his pre vious question, which I think should answer any concerns he might have. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. Has the government at this time studied the pipeline treaty as it relates to this particular feature, which is not a gas swap but is in fact a making-up of gas that is used, as a part of the agreement, by communities along the route? MR. GETTY: Mr.

Speaker, the hon. member has now introduced the pipeline treaty in addition to a pipeline agreement. I don't know which one he wants me to answer for. We have copies of both within the government. But other than the policy position I gave him regarding taking care of Alberta's needs first, then other Canadians', before any could be exported from the province, I can't help him any more with regard to those two documents. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister.

Have any representations been made on the inclusion of an all-events tariff— a tariff which would guarantee that U.S. users pay all the operating costs — which I gather is one of the things that is not as yet resolved in the discussions between Canada and the United States? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is asking whether I know of all the things Canada and the United States might have discussed, I could not speak for Canada in that regard. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary question. This relates directly to the question I put before.

In light of this all-events tariff having a con siderable bearing on the ability to obtain venture capi tal, at this point is the government of Alberta giving any consideration to, or has there been any discus sion concerning, possible investment in the pipeline from the Alberta heritage trust fund? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, that's been referred to before publicly by the Premier. I believe his answer — it hasn't come before cabinet — was that some portion of the pipeline might be a logical investment in a debt investment for the heritage trust fund. However, no request has been made to the Alberta government.

I imagine that if such a request were made, we would give it serious consideration. Hog Marketing Report MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Agriculture. Could the minister indi cate whether the report on hog pricing being pre pared by Hu Harries and Associates will be made public, and when the report will be available? MR. MOORE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I intend to make the report public. I expect that would be during the course of next week, shortly after October 22. MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

Phase three of the contract with Hu Harries and Associates states there will be no public release of information that's being prepared by specific firms or individuals. What method will the government be using to make decisions regarding this type of infor mation when it's released? MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I don't have with me a copy of the contract between the government of Al berta and Hu Harries and Associates. But the intent and meaning and purpose of the

section dealing with confidential information was that Hu Harries and Associates, in developing a report, have access to all information from a number of different packing com panies in Alberta. The requirement is that Hu Harries report on the price relationship which should exist between Alberta hogs and hogs at other North American centres but divulge only the results of such work, not confidential information about the various companies involved in the study. MR. MANDEVILLE: One final supplementary ques tion, Mr. Speaker.

Does the government have any proposed legislation which would prevent the Alberta Hog Producers' Marketing Board from withholding hogs from the market place? MR. MOORE: Could the hon. member repeat that please, Mr. Speaker.

1492 ALBERTA HANSARD October 17, 1977 MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, the question is: does the government have any proposed legislation which would prevent the Alberta Hog Producers' Marketing Board from withholding hogs from the market place? MR. MOORE: Without purporting to give a legal opin ion, Mr. Speaker, I believe that if the hon. member would research the Agricultural Products Marketing Act, which we presently have, it would indicate that that authority is already in place. Public Service Pay Differentials DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address my ques tion to the hon. Provincial Treasurer, and just a short

preamble so the minister and I both know what we're talking about. As of the end of March 1976 there was a difference of about $3,500 between the start ing salaries of men and women in the public sector, and last year there was a $4,500 difference. Mr. Speaker, my question is: is the minister considering any action to stop this increasing dollar gap between men's and women's salaries in the public service sector? MR. LEITCH: Mr.

Speaker, I'm not sure of the figures the hon. member has quoted in his question, but they do relate to salaries earned by women in the provin cial government service, as compared with men. On both occasions when I've dealt with this matter before, Mr. Speaker, I've pointed out that the principal reason for that difference is that we have more female than male applicants for the lower paying jobs in the government service, and more male than female applicants for the higher paying jobs. I've also stressed, which is the case and is the action this government has taken, that its policy is equal pay for equal work.

Whoever is doing the work, the pay is the same. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister. I'd like to know if the minister can table in this House the studies that show that men and women do receive equal pay for equal work from this government. MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure what studies the hon. member is referring to. I've said that is the policy, and I know of no instance where that policy isn't followed. Day Care MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Social Services and Community Health.

What action does the minister plan to take with regard to implementing the recommendations of the day care task force? MISS HUNLEY: I've been meeting with a number of organizations, including private day care operators. We've assessed the implications of the task force report and have drawn up a set of regulations, which we're presently considering. When the implications of those regulations are known, we'll be publishing the new regulations. MR. CLARK: A supplementary question to the minis ter.

Is it the government's intention to embark on the recommendations of the day care task force by means of simply changing the existing regulations as far as day care is concerned in Alberta? Or is it the government's intention to introduce legislation which would deal with the broad area of day care in Alberta? MISS HUNLEY: As I recall the task force report, I don't think it requires legislation except in one section, the appeal provisions. That

section which relates to legis lation will be brought forward, I expect, during this sitting of the Assembly. The rest of it can be imple mented in various ways by change in policy. It has budgetary implications, as well as consideration of regulations which are formulated through order in council. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, one last supplementary question to the minister. Has the government's interdepartmental committee of, I believe it's Social Services and Community Health and Advanced Edu cation completed its assessment of the function of day care workers and skills necessary to perform the function?

Has the committee finalized its report, and are the recommendations from that report reflected in the regulations that have now been sent out to various organizations? MISS HUNLEY: I'd have to reflect and look at the information that's been forwarded, Mr. Speaker, but I don't believe that was contained in information we forwarded to the various citizens who were interested. MR. CLARK: A supplementary question to the minis ter. Could the minister give us an indication as to whether the interdepartmental committee has finished its report, and if it has, will the report be public?

MISS HUNLEY: If it's an interdepartmental report, it's most unlikely it will be made public. It's for our own use in developing day care policies and recommenda tions, so it would be most unlikely for it to become public. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, the other question was, has the report been finished? MISS HUNLEY: I'd have to check that, Mr. Speaker. I've reviewed a considerable amount of information during the course of the summer, and I'd have to check to be sure if that specific one was included. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister.

In light of the day care task force report, is the government now giving any con sideration to lifting, I suppose I could call it, the quasi-moratorium on new PSS agreements? MISS HUNLEY: We haven't had a quasi-moratorium on PSS agreements, Mr. Speaker, other than the fact that it had budgetary implications. With the guide lines we had, it was not possible to expand the PSS as rapidly as many municipalities hoped.

October 17, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1493 MR. KUSHNER: A supplementary question to the min ister if I may, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister in a position to inform this Assembly if any day care centres have been closed in the city of Calgary because they don't meet the standard required by the provincial government? MISS HUNLEY: Yes, there has been one, Mr. Speaker. MR. KUSHNER: Supplementary question.

I wonder if the minister intends to encourage free enterprise, or are the standards going to be so high that the private day care centres might have to hop out of the busi ness and the government will take over most of them? MISS HUNLEY: It's been alleged by many people in private day care centres that strict regulations would do so. They don't all share that opinion, and certainly it's not our intention to make it so restrictive that private enterprise cannot flourish in that area. Kananaskis Park MR. WOLSTENHOLME: Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Recreation, Parks and Wildlife and has to do with the proposed Kananaskis park. Will there be any cancellation of leases or grazing permits within the proposed park? MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, not within the proposed park itself within the region. If the grazing areas — and I would have to defer to my colleague the associ ate minister responsible for public lands. If it's con sistent with the recommendations of the eastern slopes policy, there would be some consideration for possible future closure in some of those prime protec tion areas.

But I'm not aware of any that would be closed because of the park announcement. MR. WOLSTENHOLME: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Will any snowmobiling be allowed on any of the leases currently in use? MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of any snowmobiling going on on any of the leases. I would defer that particular question. But before I defer it to my colleague, may I indicate that there will be no snowmobiling in the Kananaskis park. That park now has, within the boundary we announced last week, some area that has had quite a bit of snowmobiling.

We are providing some areas specifically for the snowmobilers in other regions. Sulphur Dioxide Emissions MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this ques tion to the hon. Attorney General. Is it the govern ment's intention to appeal the acquittal of Great Canadian Oil Sands on the charge of sulphur dioxide pollution, in view of the fact that the reason for acquittal in the first trial was different from the reason for acquittal in the second trial? MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, I thought that we were doing so. But I'll have to check specifically. I haven't got that detail with me. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of the Environment. In view of the fact that in the second trial Great Canadian Oil Sands was acquitted because of the lack of con tinuous monitoring for a half-hour period — apparent ly the monitoring takes place every 12 minutes — is it the government's intention to insist on continuous monitoring of sulphur dioxide emissions by Great Canadian Oil Sands? MR. RUSSELL: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that's something that goes on as a matter of course. MR. NOTLEY: Supplementary question to the hon. minister.

My question relates to the question of con tinuous, as opposed to the every-12-minute approach. Will that be insisted upon? MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, that sort of detail is one which undergoes study and review at all times. As the hon. member is probably aware, this matter of air pollution particularly is something which the depart ment does keep under continuous review. In that instance, if the 12 minutes should be changed to some other period or be made continuous, then we would do it. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister.

In view of the importance of the legal decision and the acquittal in the second instance, relating to continuous control as opposed to control every 12 minutes, has the minister reviewed the judge's decision? MR. RUSSELL: No I haven't as yet, Mr. Speaker. But I wonder if the hon. member would give me an example of the damage that is alleged to have been done up there due to sulphur dioxide emissions. I'm concerned that some members in the House appear to have a misunderstanding of what the true situation is. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, if the hon. minister has asked me to take a moment and explain why I asked the question, I'd be glad to do that. I have to have permission of the House to do it. MR. SPEAKER: We would have to devise some new rules for the question period unless the hon. minister is willing to take his colleague from Spirit River- Fairview into the cabinet. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I think that may be putting him a bit on the spot. Perhaps I can rephrase the question in hopes of getting it by the Speaker, and at the same time making the point so the hon. minister can answer.

In view of the judge's decision, which simply says that you cannot be convicted unless there is con tinuous monitoring for a period of half an hour, so that an averaging can take place over that half hour, unless the government changes the monitoring sys tem it will be impossible to get any sort of conviction, however much emission is taking place. My question to the minister is: in view of those whereases, what action is the government taking?

1494 ALBERTA HANSARD October 17, 1977 MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, in responding to that question I tried to make two points. The first is that the kind of thing the hon. member is referring to is something that undergoes continuing review and consideration by the department. We can name for example the meat rendering industry, where guide lines are changed as a result of developing condi tions. We would give that commitment insofar as sulphur dioxide emissions are concerned.

The second point I was trying to make in respond ing to the question was the inference that this was a very serious case and that some kind of major damage was being done, and I'm asking the hon. member to elaborate on that. Because our investiga tions show that that is a very clean industry. AOC Loans MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Business Development and Tourism and ask if he's had an opportunity to review the Westglen file with the Alberta Opportunity Company, especially that portion of the file that led to the loan being granted on the basis that Westglen would produce electronic equipment in Alberta. MR. DOWLING. Mr. Speaker, there is no Westglen file in the Opportunity Company. MR. CLARK: Did I say Westglen? My apologies; Willowglen. MR. DOWLING: No, I have not. But I have received somewhat of an update from the managing director of the Opportunity Company.

On reviewing Hansard, I find that a great number of the statements made by the hon. Leader of the Opposition are in fact incor rect. One is that he suggests . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I don't understand the question as leading in that direction. Perhaps the hon. minister could find some other occasion for his rebuttal. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could just ask the minister one further question.

Has it been brought to the minister's attention that rather than Willowglen electronics doing the production work here in Alberta, between 75 and 90 per cent of the electronics components they've been selling have been manufac tured in Houston, Texas? MR. DOWLING: Mr. Speaker, I do know that most of the electronics business of which the hon. leader is obviously speaking is an agent for companies outside Alberta. I also know that Willowglen, in true Alberta spirit, does farm out some of their work to some of these other companies, which sort of makes them all grow together. MR. CLARK: Ninety per cent in Houston?

St. Albert Civic Administration DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask a question of the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs that has to do with our mutual colleague the MLA for St. Albert. I'd like to know, Mr. Minister, if the Department of Municipal Affairs has received any formal complaint about the MLA for St. Albert interfering in the legis lative responsibilities of the city of St. Albert. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, order. DR. BUCK: I have asked if there have been any formal complaints from the city of St. Albert. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

Although this certainly could be an interesting topic, as the hon. member probably knows, the limits set down for our question period in Beauschene limit questions to matters which come under a minister's responsibility. That does not necessarily include every random item of information that happens to come into a minister's office which might result in a question as to whether he received it. Consultant's Contract MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might take this opportunity to answer a question asked of me toward the close of our spring sitting.

I was asked to check with the Provincial Auditor as to whether payments made under a contract with Rune Associates com plied with the provisions of The Financial Administra tion Act, in that the contract called for the payments to be made prior to the rendering of the service. I was able to check that matter with the Provincial Auditor, who has expressed the opinion that The Financial Administration Act appears to be silent in connection with payments under contracts where the moneys payable are not tied to the prior rendering of a service or the furnishing of goods. I would simply add, Mr.

Speaker, that there are and have been for years a great many occasions on which payment is made in advance of receipt of the service or goods. For example, advance payments are made in the rental of premises; also [in] arrangements for the use of accommodation and things of that nature. So there are a number of circumstances where pay ments are in fact made, pursuant to the terms of the contract, prior to the rendering of the good or the service. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Provincial Treasurer.

Can the Provincial Treas urer give us an example of where payments have been made for personal services in advance of the services being rendered? I appreciate the point the Treasurer makes as far as facilities and accommoda tions. But is the government in the practice of paying in advance for personal services? DR. BUCK: Ask Miniely. MR. LEITCH: Mr.

Speaker, if the question includes the type of situation where the payment is made on a contract of services before the actual service is rendered, I understand there have been instances of that occurring, although I don't have the details of any of those instances at hand. MR. CLARK: A supplementary to the Provincial Treasurer. Did the Provincial Treasurer say there are examples where money is paid to consulting firms or

October 17, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1495 individuals prior to their giving any service to the province? MR. LEITCH: I understand that has occurred in the past, Mr. Speaker, although I don't have with me any specific examples of it. MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, through his line of ques tioning, the hon. Leader of the Opposition is implying that payments were made in advance of rendering of service.

I want to make it clear to this House that there was never any payment made in advance of rendering any service under the contract in question, that in many cases the services were provided in advance or I asked for something in advance. The hon. leader is implying — and I say simply an implica tion — that there was at any time any payment made in advance of rendering a service. The answer to that question is that there was never any payment made in advance of rendering service. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. I can appreciate the minister's tou chiness about Mr.

Jackson Willis. The question to the minister then: in light of what the minister has said today, why was the contract changed? When the contract the minister entered into initially was signed, it did not make it possible to make any advance payment. Why did the minister change the contract if he didn't plan to pay ahead of time? MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, at that time it was because of the fact that actual payments were com ing in about 90 to 120 days after rendering of service. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, to the minister. Didn't the minister know that's the way the government oper ates?

After all, he was the Provincial Treasurer when he signed the contract. He should have known that's how it operates. MR. SPEAKER: Quite clearly we're getting into the area of debate, which would be better accommodated by a notice of motion on the Order Paper. Uranium Oxide Plant MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, some days ago the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview asked me a question during the question period. I undertook to look into the matter and report back. It deals with the uranium oxide processing proposal for the city of Calgary.

Of course the weekend news shows that the Develop ment Appeal Board in Calgary has turned the applica tion down in any event. But I want to report to the House that the pro ponents had been in contact with the Alberta De partment of the Environment during several meetings over the course of the past year. The department had asked for an environmental impact assessment study from the proponents and had received it.

They were satisfied that it was a good and safe project for the city of Calgary, and were prepared not to voice any objections and to deal with the matter of air and water pollutants and emissions at the time those licences would have been issued under the appropri ate acts. ORDERS OF THE DAY head: GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Second Reading) Bill 58 The Alberta Income Tax Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 2) MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill No. 58, The Alberta Income Tax Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 2).

There is a group of proposed amendments in the bill which are largely technical in nature and are designed to bring certain

definitions and procedures in the Alberta income tax legislation into line with similar ones in the federal income tax legislation. I wouldn't expect those sections would attract very much debate on this motion for second reading. There is also a change in the percentages applica ble to individuals claiming a royalty tax rebate. That change is brought about as a result of the change in the provincial income tax, made last spring, from 26 per cent to 38.5 per cent of federal basic tax.

There are also some amendments dealing with time limits and matters of that nature, particularly the time limit for claiming rebates under various pro grams. Again, Mr. Speaker, those are to enable the administration of legislation to proceed more smooth ly and, I wouldn't think, would attract appreciable debate on second reading. The principal amendment to the income tax, Mr. Speaker, provides for the extension of the Alberta royalty rebate program to the coal industry.

Members of the Assembly will recall that that is one part of ALPEP, and involves rebating to Alberta taxpayers that portion of the Alberta income tax which becomes payable as a result of the federal government's deci sions with respect to the non-deductibility of pay ments made to a provincial government in respect of non-renewable resources. In extending that program to the coal industry, Mr. Speaker, it means that in that respect the coal industry is being treated in the same way as the oil and natural gas industry.

The other part of that program, the credit portion, has not been extended to the coal industry. I can perhaps sum up the reasons for not doing that by simply saying that the formula which determines the royalty payments that are to be made by the coal industry to the provincial government is significantly different from the royalty provisions for the oil and natural gas industry, and in that difference lie the reasons for not extending the credit program to the coal industry. Mr. Speaker, I doubt that I can at this moment add anything helpful to the members of the Assembly on the proposed bill. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I just want to make a few comments on Bill No. 58. First of all, as far as the minor amendments are concerned I don't have any particular objection to those at all. The Provincial Treasurer, of course, is correct that the important amendment contained in Bill 58 is the decision to extend to the coal industry the refund of tax on royalty. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make two or three observa

1496 ALBERTA HANSARD October 17, 1977 tions with respect to this particular proposal. Number one, it seems to me that it just isn't good enough to say we are doing it for one industry, therefore we should be doing it for another industry. All sorts of taxation measures that affect industries are passed by the federal level of government from time to time. We have to make a judgment, industry by industry, as to whether it's necessary to take action by the prov ince.

Simply to say that because we have a move by the federal government, which this province dis agreed with, and although I've opposed the energy policies of this government over the last four or five years, I happen to think that the decision by the federal government in 1974 to tax provincial royal ties, or to refuse the deduction — I should say, to put it correctly — of provincial royalties in computing tax was unfair. In that particular respect I supported the government's decision to oppose Ottawa, both in the spring of 1974, and in the fall when Mr. Turner's budget finally was introduced. Mr.

Speaker, I would like to make it clear that I have never supported the total ALPEP package. But regardless of how one looks at ALPEP, its cost to the people of Alberta, and the benefits it has created — because obviously any plan of this nature is going to stimulate the industry to some extent; whether it's to the tune of $512 million, the most recent estimate I've been able to obtain of the total cost of ALPEP, is a different matter — the point that has to be made is that in my judgment it isn't good enough to say all right, we've done it for one industry, therefore we're going to do it for another.

If we followed that sort of logic every time a tax bill was passed by the federal government which at one time or another ran counter to a particular industry in this province, we would be picking up the pieces from the provincial treasury. I submit, Mr.

Speaker, that I would have been much more willing to support Bill 58 had the minister in introducing the bill come to the Assembly and said one of the arguments is that the royalty changes were made by the federal government in 1974 and subsequently in 1975, but in the particular instance of the coal industry it is necessary to apply this action because of the circumstances of that industry. I read over, for example, the coal development poli cy for Alberta. In many respects I thought it was an improvement. The royalty rates were certainly an improvement over 10 cents a ton, no question about that.

But there is no talk in this document about a refund on the royalties from provincial coffers. It seems to me that it is incumbent upon the Provincial Treasurer to demonstrate that the coal industry in Alberta needs that additional incentive. That, Mr. Speaker, has not been done in his introductory remarks presenting the bill to the Assembly. I would just conclude my views on this legislation by saying that while I have no objection to the vast majority of the amendments, we are talking here about money which would otherwise be flowing into the provincial coffers. We don't even know how much it is. Mr.

Speaker, when the Provincial Treas urer comes to the Legislature and says, hey, let's pass this amendment, we need it to make it fair; surely at the very least we could have had an estim ate of what that will come to. Will it be $10 million, $5 million, $2 million, $20 million? You know, we're asked to pass a pig in a poke here, on the basis of some sort of reasoning that, if it were to be applied across the board, would indeed see a totally different set of priorities in our provincial budget than I note in the one before us this year. So, Mr.

Speaker, when one asks the Legislature to approve changes which in fact will mean a loss in revenue, in my judgment the responsibility goes with it to demonstrate why those changes are necessary, what the impact is on the economy, what the impact on jobs will be, and what the cost will be to the people of this province. With great respect to the hon. Provincial Treasurer, I submit he has not done so in his introductory remarks. I would ask him to do so in his concluding remarks. MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to participate briefly in the debate, inasmuch as the hon.

Member for Spirit River-Fairview has brought up the relationship of this bill to the Alberta coal policy, just to provide him with a little background. When the coal policy was being discussed with industry, one of the out standing matters which was to be worked on with industry was the matter of whether or not the non- deductibility of royalties under the federal govern ment legislation would be considered as a matter for determining the amount of royalty or tax paid to the Alberta government. We left it as an outstanding matter. The coal development policy for Alberta was introduced on June 15, 1976.

We'd been working with industry to determine the implications of the non-deductibility of royalties on the coal industry, and it became increasingly clear to us that if we are against the principle of non-deductibility of royalties, it's pretty inconsistent, I submit, to be against some thing in principle and then grab all the money that the wrong principle will provide for you. If I understand the hon. Member for Spirit River- Fairview, he says: I'm against the federal govern ment's legislation on non-deductibility of royalties, but my principle is for sale; I'll grab the money in any event.

It seems to me that's a pretty inconsistent and, as a matter of fact, irresponsible position to take in this regard. The Alberta government had to decide whether we would live up to what we believe to be the correct principle, and we have. And my colleague the Provincial Treasurer is introducing legislation to back up that kind of thinking. I guess we could have done two other things. One, we could have ignored it and, as the Member for Spirit River-Fairview would do, take the money.

The other alternative, perhaps, would have been to flow back to industry all the money, both federal and provincial, which they are forced to pay as a result of non-deductibility. Obviously the last alternative would be subsidizing the federal government and removing as well a point that I think is important: that the industry should continue to discuss with the fed eral government, argue with them, and make the point that non-deductibility is a bad principle.

If we merely refunded to them all the money they would lose as a result of non-deductibility, obviously they'd no longer have any need to continue to argue with the federal government about that principle. So, Mr. Speaker, the Alberta government, upon dis cussion with the coal industry in our province, and being ready to stand behind those things we believe in as a matter of principle, has decided that the amount of money we would get as a result of non

October 17, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1497 deductibility of royalty should be given back to the coal industry . . . MR. NOTLEY: How much? MR. GETTY: . . . and the hon. Provincial Treasurer has brought the bill to the House today.

If, in fact, the hon. member has some questions specifically as to the estimate of dollars and cents — and I think it would only be an estimate, because it depends on production, it depends on price, it depends on how the coal royalty formula operates on any given project, and it depends on the resource allowance the federal government allows and wheth er or not the royalty exceeds the resource allowance: all of these would be an estimate and may perhaps make meaningless the amount the Provincial Treas urer could give as an estimate, based on so many assumptions. Nevertheless, Mr.

Speaker, we are debating a prin ciple. I think the principle here is clear and that the House should, if they believe in the principle, have the courage, if you like, to stand up for their principles and not, as the Member for Spirit River-Fairview suggests, have them for sale to get a few extra dollars. MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few brief remarks with regard to this bill. I certainly support the principle of extending the royalty rebate program to the coal industry. I'm sure it will be welcomed by the coal industry in my constituency.

I happen to be a person who firmly believes it was not fair for the federal government to disallow the deductibility of royalties back in 1974. I think the province's rebate program should be extended to all mineral extraction industries paying royalties. I just have one question for the hon. Provincial Treasurer, if he could answer it in closing: are these provisions retroactive to 1974? I'd like to say in closing that this bill has my support and, I believe, the support of other members in this Assembly. [Motion carried; Bill 58 read a second time] Bill 59 The Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 1977 MR. LEITCH: Mr.

Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 59, The Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 1977. The purpose of this bill, as I indicated on introduction, is to amend the legislation to make the tax payable in metric terms. That has resulted in a rounding down ward, so there will be slightly less tax payable upon adoption of the bill than there is now. When I say slightly less, it's a matter of hundreds of dollars per year. So it's very minimal. [Motion carried; Bill 59 read a second time] Bill 60 The Fuel Oil Tax Amendment Act, 1977 MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 60, The Fuel Oil Tax Amendment Act, 1977.

The principle involved in this bill is identical to that under debate on Bill 59, except in this case there is a rounding up of the tax payable. The amount involved would be roughly $200,000 per year, and the current revenue from this tax is approximately $90 million per year. So the tax change is again very, very minor. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to make one or two brief comments. I would like to say I will support the amendment, because it is to change it to metric. But I would like to say, Mr.

Speaker, that many times on this side of the Legislature we have tried to encourage the provincial government to remove this unnecessary tax entirely. I hope that by trying to motivate the Provincial Treasurer, possibly we will see it happen before the next general election. [Motion carried; Bill 60 read a second time] Bill 65 The Utility Companies Income Tax Rebates Act, 1977 MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 65, The Utility Companies Income Tax Rebates Act, 1977. Mr.

Speaker, there is no fundamental change pro posed in this legislation with what is now happening with respect to utility companies' income tax rebates. The situation is that the federal government and the Alberta government rebate to the privately owned utility companies 95 per cent in the case of the federal government and 100 per cent in the case of the Alberta government of the income tax payable by those companies, which in turn is rebated by the companies to the consumers. Mr.

Speaker, this places the customers of the privately operated utility companies on the same basis as the customers of publicly operated utility companies, at least insofar as income tax is concerned. Up until now the funds have been flowing from the federal government to the provincial government, going into the general revenue fund, and then the rebates have been paid to the utilities companies from the general revenue fund. In my submission, Mr.

Speaker, this provides somewhat of a budgetary expenditure distortion, because these are really not expenditures; they are simply a flow-through of funds that have been collected as taxes by both levels of government when the decision has been made that those taxes should be returned to the utility compa nies and, in turn, by those companies to the consum ers. It's for that reason, Mr.

Speaker, that we propose the establishment of a fund into which the federal rebates of income tax would be paid and into which would be paid from the general revenue of the prov ince of Alberta the income tax collected by the prov ince from those companies. In turn the fund would make the payments to the utility companies and, thence, to their customers. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would simply draw to the attention of the Legislative Assembly that Alberta is the only province that does in fact return the income tax rebates to the utility consumers.

In other prov inces where there is an income tax rebate of this nature, it is retained by the province.

1498 ALBERTA HANSARD October 17, 1977 [Motion carried; Bill 65 read a second time] Bill 56 The Forest Development Research Trust Fund Amendment Act, 1977 MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 56, The Forest Development Research Trust Fund Amendment Act, 1977. There are basically three amendments to this act. The first one designates the advisory council as being the forestry research advisory council, which reports to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources.

The second amendment gives greater flexibility in the appointment of chairmen of the forestry research advisory council, from being an employee of the Al berta forest service to being an employee of the Department of Energy and Natural Resources. Other amendments to the act provide clarification of intent and are consequential amendments arising from the departmental reorganization. At this time I'd like to make a few comments about the responsibilities of the forest development research trust. There are three responsibilities.

One is to establish forest research priorities in the prov ince, the second is to co-ordinate forest research in Alberta, and the third is to make recommendations to the minister concerning the allocation of funds for various research projects. I think it would be timely for me to advise members about some of the different types of research which the forest development research trust is carrying out in the province for the coming fiscal year. They are carrying [out] research into initial attack simulation.

This will study cost effectiveness of forest fire initial attack programs, using various combinations of fire- fighting methods. Another research project they're undertaking is an ecological study of natural revege- tation on coal mine lands in the Alberta foothills, which is important to a constituency such as mine. They're doing an ecological assessment of erosion control and revegetation operations by the Alberta forest service at coal exploration and seismic sites in the Alberta foothills and the Rocky Mountains.

An other project will look into the improvement of forest wetlands for regeneration and productivity. Another project is to study the effect of harvesting patterns on wild ungulate use. Finally, there's a research project into the genetic improvement of native grasses for reclamation, range, and wildlife. [Motion carried; Bill 56 read a second time] Bill 57 The Forest and Prairie Protection Amendment Act, 1977 MR. SHABEN: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 57, The Forest and Prairie Protection Amendment Act, 1977. The primary purpose of the amendments, Mr.

Speaker, is to define more clearly the maximum size of a campfire. There have been instances where people have claimed that a large stubble fire was a campfire, so it has made it difficult to control and suppress this type of fire. This is one of the provi sions of the bill. There are also provisions in the bill to amend sec tions 2 and 26 of the act so that the provisions of the act will apply within a hamlet. At the present time they apply to towns and villages. However, they do not apply for a hamlet, and it has led to some confusion in suppression of and protection from forest fires. Also the wording of

Section 26 is clarified so that towns and villages are responsible to suppress fires only within their boundaries and not adjacent to them. This has also caused some confusion in the past.

Section 29 has been amended to provide additional authority for the fire guardian, appointed under Sec tion 4 of the act, to enter upon private lands in order to investigate fires and fire hazards. This is made necessary because the act is not clear on this item. [Motion carried; Bill 57 read a second time] Bill 64 The Department of Business Development and Tourism Amendment Act, 1977 MR. DOWLING: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 64, The Department of Business Development and Tourism Amendment Act, 1977. Mr.

Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is to provide additional authority for members of the de partment to act on behalf of the minister. As you know, the minister of the Crown is entitled, by royal prerogative, to execute documents on behalf of the government, and that authority flows to his deputy minister. But in order to expedite matters in the department, it is felt that this amendment is required, and it is in keeping with government policy. To delegate below the deputy minister level this must be in the act.

Such delegation to a lower level enables the department to work in a more efficient manner, as I've said, and enables legal delegation in problem areas that may occur from time to time. [Motion carried; Bill 64 read a second time] Bill 67 The Department of Recreation, Parks and Wildlife Amendment Act, 1977 MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, I move second read ing of Bill 67, The Department of Recreation, Parks and Wildlife Amendment Act, 1977. This is a very straightforward and concise amendment. In fact, if it was any more concise I think it would be non existent. I'll try to be concise too.

The amendment allows the minister to delegate to people in his department the power for such routine tasks as hiring halls, engaging lecturers, and conduct ing workshops. It would smooth out the operation of his department if this amendment was made. [Motion carried; Bill 67 read a second time] head: GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 3. Moved by Mr. Lougheed:

Be it resolved that this Assembly approve in general the

October 17, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1499 operations of the government since the adjournment of the spring sittings. [Adjourned debate October 14; Dr. Backus] DR. BACKUS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak for a few moments with regard to the excellent address given by the Premier and the effects some of the points he brought out will have on my constituency. One of the things that has been proposed is the early building of a terminal for our airport in Grande Prairie.

I'd like to dwell on this for a moment, because some months ago the chamber of commerce felt that there was a very serious need for looking into the air service in that area. At that time they wrote to the minister of transport and said they would like to do an air survey and study of the area and would appreciate any help the government might give them financially in conducting such a study.

The minister of transport's reaction was so prompt that it in fact almost left the chamber of commerce speechless, in that funds were provided from the department to enable them to make this study and they were given every encouragement to do so. One of the principal concerns in their study was a need for a better terminal building at the airport. [Dr. McCrimmon in the Chair] The Department of Transportation of Alberta made application to the federal government to see if they could do something about improving the terminal fa cilities there.

The federal government reacted by say ing that they had it on their list but it was a long way down in the priorities. The immediate response of the Alberta government was to propose to the federal government that they would in fact build the terminal and lease it back to Transport Canada. I've gone into detail on this because of the remarks made by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, who was criticizing the government for its failure to respond to public opinion and its failure to seek out expression of need by the public in Alberta, and claiming that it was insensitive to public opinion.

I don't know whether the hon. Leader of the Opposition was coming down with a cold when he mentioned that his voice might pack up before he finished his speech. If he was I hope he'll soon get over it because then at least his head will be clear, even if his thinking isn't. Some of the initiatives that have been taken by this government to stabilize and improve trade relations on behalf of agriculture are especially welcome in my area, as any improvement in trade relations with the United States to the south will also affect trade rela tions with Alaska.

This could be a very vital outlet for the Peace River country. Although Grande Prairie is primarily thought of as an agricultural and forest industries area, a great deal of gas exploration has been going on in the area over the last year or two, which has brought a great deal of economic stability into the area when sometimes the agricultural activi ties have not been as stable. This I'm sure is due to the government incentive programs and has really been extremely valuable.

Also, during the summer the Department of Energy and Natural Resources reached an agreement with North Canadian Forest Industries which will help that particular forest industry in Grande Prairie to stabilize and expand its facilities, giving a further boost to the economy in the area. We're also looking forward to the effect the Hall commission report will have on the federal govern ment, particularly with a view to recommendations made by the provincial government to that commis sion, recommending a northwest transportation organization uniting the various railways under one control.

I think this is of vital importance to the whole Peace River country, the Peace River block both in Alberta and British Columbia. I hope the federal government can be persuaded to respond satisfactori ly to that. The pipeline proposal is of course causing a great deal of excitement in my constituency and in the area generally. I hope the government is fully aware — and I'm sure they are aware; they have already shown some evidence of taking steps in this direction — that this proposal of a pipeline will create some priorities in the area.

For one thing, there will be a considerable increase in the trucking up the cutoff. We anticipate that a certain amount of service will come from Edmonton, and we look forward to the whole of Alberta becoming involved in it. But what ever materials will be produced or developed here in Alberta will have to be conveyed up this one route, and at present it is certainly in need of some im provement to cope with a heavy increase in traffic.

There's also a possible increase in the use of the ARR, and I do know that the provincial government is looking at ways in which the ARR might be further used to facilitate the moving and stockpiling of pipes and material at the north end of the ARR. This development, with the influx of workers, will certainly stress the importance of the need for a better hospital facility in the area. The government is working for this. I think they're aware of the fact that something that was already a priority will become even more urgent with the development of the pipeline.

The other thing that is causing some concern in the area is the temporary influx of labor. We had some experience with the building of Procter & Gamble, the very large influx of labor force during the construction period, and its associated social problems. With that experience, I hope our municipal governments and the provincial government will be more prepared this time for the influx of labor in that area generally.

I would also like to mention some of the other highway needs in the area because, besides the pipe line, coal development in the Monkman Pass area is going to create major demands on the existing and proposed highway systems in the area. I certainly hope we can develop these ahead of time so they don't become a major problem, with the increased use of the roads before they have been completely developed. Finally, Mr.

Speaker, with the advent of so many large and exciting programs like the pipeline and the Kananaskis country, coming from a centre which has grown to become a very vital part of this wonderful province but was once called the 'itty-bitty' city, I would like to say that small is beautiful, and I hope to have the opportunity to expand on this later in the session. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity of taking

part in debate on Motion No. 3. Might I

1500 ALBERTA HANSARD October 17, 1977 begin my remarks by saying that during the summer I had the pleasure of sitting on a committee with a number of government members and the hon. Mem ber for Clover Bar, who had as our assignment the selection of a new chief electoral officer. After a fair amount of work and, I might say, a very professional attitude on the part of my committee colleagues, we chose Mr. Ken Wark. I would just like to say, as a member of the Legislative Assembly and on behalf of New Democratic Party supporters in the province of Alberta, we wish Mr. Wark all the best of luck.

We recognize he's got a tough job to be Chief Electoral Officer, but we know he will undertake those respon sibilities with fairness. We wish him all the best in the years ahead. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move from there to take a very brief look at a number of issues before concen trating on the question of citizen involvement, pipe line planning, and saying a few words about the future of the country itself. Mr. Speaker, in taking a quick survey of the prov ince, members will recall that one of the most conten tious issues during the spring sitting of the Legisla ture was Bill 29.

Members of the opposition felt that the retroactive feature was particularly unfavorable and wrong in principle. I notice today, Mr. Speaker, as a result of this matter being referred to the Alberta Human Rights Commission, that Mr. Wyman, the chairman, has issued a statement. I'd like to quote the last para graph, because I think, Mr. Speaker, it is worth noting. To people governed by the law, legal principles sometimes seem quite unrelated to fundamental principles of justice.

In our opinion, every society should assert as a fundamental principle of jus tice that no right, no matter how important or trivial that right might be, should ever be cur tailed by legislation on a retroactive basis. With out such a principle to guide the passing of legis lation, the administration of the rule of law becomes chaotic, and the rule itself will have lit tle meaning. It is most unfortunate in our opin ion that there is a retroactive feature to Bill 29.

A better course of action might well have been to proclaim Bill 29 on a "from this day forward basis", and to have allowed cases already under legal dispute to flow to their natural conclusion. Mr. Speaker, I raise that because in my view the whole question of retroactivity was debated in the Legislature last spring. I say that the government did not make the case then and, as a result of the statement by the Alberta Human Rights Commission and the very eloquent comments of Mr. Wyman, I believe the case against retroactive legislation in Bill 29 is very great indeed.

I think the government might well heed the suggestion of Mr. Daniels, the presi dent of the Metis Association, who has suggested that the retroactive feature of Bill 29 be withdrawn so that the normal course of that particular case could go through the courts. Mr. Speaker, moving from Bill 29, the most disturb ing aspect of the economy in Alberta at the moment is clearly the agricultural outlook. Prices of a number of products are low. The yield is going to be lower as a result of many acres that weren't seeded this spring, and grades will, of course, be affected by the wet harvesting conditions this fall. Mr.

Speaker, while the sun is shining and it appears that much of the crop will be taken off, the experience of the year, coupled with problems that have occurred in different regions of the province over the last four or five years, leads me to the view that this province has to take a second look at the operation of crop insurance. Members, particularly rural members, are well aware of the fact that the crop insurance program is already heavily subsidized. Half the premiums are assumed by the federal gov ernment, and the administrative costs are picked up by the provincial government. But, Mr.

Speaker, the fact remains that only about 30 per cent of the producers are taking out crop insurance. The fact of the matter is that in all too many cases the farmers who count their pennies pretty carefully look at the dollars and cents angle, review crop insurance, and conclude that it is just not an attractive proposition for them. As MLAs in the Peace River country, we had this situation brought to our minds this spring. I'm sure other Peace River members had this same represen tation. Crop insurance has a provision that it's not possible to pay out on stubble. Payout is based on summer fallow.

The net result is that people who took out crop insurance in preceding years and this year felt a sense of, I shouldn't say betrayal, but at least felt that the crop insurance scheme was totally inadequate. Mr. Speaker, surely [it] should be our objective to make crop insurance the kind of package that will appeal to 75 or 80 per cent of the farmers. I don't think anyone in this House feels that the proper approach is to come up with stopgap plans like the snowed-under crop program of 1974, even though those of us in the House asked for it. It was neces sary and a needed program.

But the longer term solution clearly is to have a crop insurance scheme which is sufficiently attractive to farmers that we don't have to come up with temporary programs as a result of snow, rain, drought, or what have you. And I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the time is at hand for this Legislature to completely review crop insurance, particularly in light of this year. I would hope the government moves in that direction. The other important aspect of agriculture that I'd like to take just a moment to comment on is the hog war. I think it should be recognized, Mr.

Speaker, that much of the publicity surrounding the hog war has been directed at the $62.50 a hundredweight price set by the hog marketing board, that that was somehow a withholding action. In actual fact the major packing houses in this province went on a buyers' strike, if you like. They said they were not going to pay that kind of price. Some of the smaller packers were prepared to pay the price, but the major packing companies said no. The minister decided to have a study. I would just like to say that while I differ with his decision to follow the course he did, I nevertheless think that in Dr.

Harries we have a pretty competent person to undertake the study. However, I would just simply say to you, Mr. Speaker, that if one thinks that even a person as able as Dr. Harries can study a subject as complicated as the price operation of the Alberta hog market in the context of the North American hog industry, then I think we have to be pretty optimistic. He would need the wisdom of Solomon, and perhaps

October 17, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1501 even more, to achieve that sort of objective in a period of two months. What happened is that the minister said to the hog marketing board, you will sell the hogs. Then he said to the packing plants, we want you to pay a fair price. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that a better, more even- handed course of action for the government to have adopted in this hog controversy would have been to have followed the example of British Columbia.

There the government has in place a program where they are able to subsidize the movement of pork into other markets so that if at any given time packers are in fact going on strike, then you have the competition of other markets. Hog producers in my constituency and throughout the province find it very difficult to understand the machinations of hog pricing in this province. In the Alberta/B.C. market we have a 38 per cent deficit. We're told that the old law of supply and demand works this way: if you've got a shortage of supply, demand should put up the price.

When one looks at the market place across the country, a slight surplus in Ontario, there's a slight surplus in Manitoba, a slight surplus in Saskatchewan. But over the bulk of the summer period the lowest prices have been in Alberta, where we have a 38 per cent deficit. Now this is obviously going to be one of the things that Dr. Harries has to grapple with. But for an average producer who sees these statistics, it's pretty hard not to convince him that there isn't some hanky- panky taking place in the market place. I would just say, Mr.

Speaker, particularly when it comes to getting the information from large packing chains that operate here, in the United States, and around the world, that I really doubt Mr. Harries is going to have the opportunity to come in with the kind of in-depth study necessary for us to get to the bottom of transfer pricing.

I would have preferred the B.C. approach, to have strengthened the hog market ing board in their moves and to have made it clear to the major packing plants that during the time the study is taking place we are going to get the best possible price for our producers, even if it means subsidizing the movement into other markets. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move from there to take just a moment to deal with the Hall commission report. [There's] no doubt in my mind that the Hall commis sion report is one of the major documents in the history of western Canada.

While most of the things I'm going to say about this government over the course of the next 25 minutes or so are not very complimentary, I do support Alberta's position in urg ing Mr. Lang to stop stalling on implementing the recommendations of the report. There should be no doubt that as far as western Canada is concerned, regardless of political stripe, we favor the implemen tation of the Hall report. In my judgment the effort of the federal minister to set up a prairie rail authority advisory committee will simply delay action on this important report. Mr.

Speaker, while the whole question of freight rates has been talked about in this Legislature for 50 or 60 years or perhaps even longer, and while the disparity in rail transportation rates has rightly become the focus of much of the national debate, it is, I think, worth stopping for just a moment and looking at some of the disparities on transportation questions that exist within this province. It seems to me that's one area that has not been given the atten tion it should. I submit, Mr.

Speaker, that because of a lack of competition, in particular because of the problems of northern regions being remote from the central population of Edmonton and Calgary, norther ners more often are paying a good deal more than they should. This summer some information was brought to my attention that I found interesting, confirming com plaints I have received from small concerns through out the Peace River block. I raise it now because before we get into a discussion of the pipeline I think we're going to have to have a pretty close look at the transportation costs within this province.

The reason I raise this is because this particular concern was so incensed about transportation costs that they wanted me to table this information in the Legislature, and I am going to do this. This is a concern that is setting up in the town of Peace River to construct camp kitchens, which is a pretty practical business to get into in view of the fact that we're going to build an $8 billion pipeline in northwestern Alberta, the province of British Colum bia, and the Yukon.

In any event, to bring supplies from Montreal to Edmonton, and then from Edmonton to Peace River, we had this interesting comparison of tariffs. I think it should be noted that these supplies were small; they were trucked. It wasn't possible to bring them up on the NAR. Nevertheless, from Mon treal to Edmonton, in this first example, $58.56; from Edmonton to Peace River, one-eighth of the distance, the price was $42.38, in other words about three- fourths as much to take it 300 miles as it was to truck it 2,400 miles across the country. Here's another example, again the same firm: $103.25 to bring an

article from Montreal to Edmonton; but to take that

article from Edmonton to Peace River, $76.07; again, three-fourths as much. The reason this individual brought this to my atten tion was to make a valid point. He wasn't quarrelling with Alberta fighting the case of inequitable freight rates in Canada. He fully supported that. But he argued that if we're going to encourage diversified development in this province, we're going to have to look at some of the inequities in freight rates in the province. Mr. Speaker, I intend to table this at the end of my remarks so that members will have an opportunity to look at these particular invoices.

Another example that was brought to my attention concerns the whole question of lumber prices in northern Alberta. We have a lumber industry that has had its tough years, no question about that. And the whole situation in Slave Lake is eloquent testi mony to four or five years of lean times for the lumber business. But what concerns a number of northerners is the rather interesting pricing approach of the large lumb er companies — again this concern that is in the camp kitchen business.

The only way they can get their lumber is to bring it in from Mackenzie, B.C., because the concerns in Alberta have a pricing for mula which is based on market price plus the freight to their major area of sales. If that happens to be Vancouver or Chicago, that's the price you pay. Mr. Speaker, the point is that it's pretty hard to be competitive in the midst of a province where we have vast acreage of timber, if business establishing in that region of the province is not able to obtain lumber,

1502 ALBERTA HANSARD October 17, 1977 not only at the normal market price, but to take advantage of the fact that it's right there. These were some of the concerns that have been brought to me. The whole question of wage and price controls continues to be an issue in the province, I would say particularly for the next two and a half months, because members should recognize we are now into year three of the wage control program. That means that the basic protection feature isn't 6 per cent; it is 4 per cent.

This government has indicated that we're going to be pulling out of the anti-inflation program as of December 31, unless a resolution to the con trary is passed during the fall session. What happens then to people who are caught in this two and a half month period? Are they going to be stuck with a 4 per cent increase, while on January 5 a contract can be opened up and it may be 8 or 10 or 12 per cent, whatever collective bargaining can achieve? It seems to me this is one of the problems that a number of working people especially are concerned about.

I look through the Premier's speech on October 12, and I don't see any answers. Two other brief areas before I move into the ques tion of citizen involvement. The Premier indicated in his speech that somehow the concept of conditional grants is much better than unconditional grants because it will take into account regional differences. Well, Mr. Speaker, that may be an interesting argu ment. I suppose the same argument would apply for the federal government too, although this govern ment never seems to take federal logic and apply it to the local level of government.

They want all the power they can get provincially, but when it comes to the municipalities it's a different story entirely. But you know, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association has never asked for flat, across-the-board revenue shar ing. It has always recognized — and Mr. Leger acknowledged the fact in his submission — that there has to be some built-in provision in revenue sharing to take account of the geographic differences in the province of Alberta.

So to suggest that some how conditional grants will deal with regional dispari ties and that revenue sharing won't is to misstate the position of the municipalities of this province on revenue sharing, because they have been cognizant of the financial differences and difficulties throughout Alberta. But it's also to misstate the basic thrust of our conditional grants. Because one of the problems with most of the conditional grants in this province today is that there is no flexibility.

Just ask any school board how much flexibility there is in the grants from the Department of Education, what account is given to the differing costs of operating a school division in northern Alberta, compared to Edmonton or Calgary. So, Mr. Speaker, in my view the action of the Lougheed government makes untrue the Premier's assertion that conditional grants deal with regional disparities. [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] Another point I want to deal with is just to touch upon the Premier's comments this summer, and again during the speech on the October 12, concern ing The Canadian Wheat Board.

I'm certainly no fan of Mr. Lang. But I think we have to be fair and recognize that the Wheat Board has done a good job, a very good job, even though some people may find that a little difficult to accept. One looks at the facts. For example, in the 1975- 76 crop year, we had 118 million bushels sold to the Soviet Union, compared with only 44 million bushels to China. The Premier's talk the other day underlined his concern that we were overrelying on China.

The fact of the matter is, as the Premier should know and other members of the Assembly should be aware, there has been a long-standing agreement for many years — not a written agreement, an unwritten agreement — that Canadian sales come first to the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union, from my information and talking to Wheat Board authorities, has honored that agreement. When one looks at 118 million bushels to the Soviet Union in the last crop year we have figures for, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that just proves what I have said. We have the comments of the U.S.

Secretary of Agriculture, looking at the Canadian system of mar keting, comparing it to the chaos in the United States, and making the observation that the United States could learn a great deal from the Canadian system of orderly marketing. I'm not suggesting there aren't improvements we can make in the operation of the Wheat Board, or any agency. But when one looks at the track record of the Wheat Board and compares it by contrast with the track record of the Alberta Export Agency, I think even the least objective would say the Wheat Board has been doing an excellent job. I note, Mr.

Speaker, that is a position taken by most farm organizations in this province. I want to move from there and deal for a moment or two with the question of citizen involvement in the whole process of government. Obviously the most blatant example of trampling on citizen involvement is the decision to emasculate the Environment Conser vation Authority. I find that rather unfortunate . . . DR. BUCK: Annihilate. MR. NOTLEY: Annihilate, the hon. Member for Clover Bar says. I find the Premier's comments on page 1437 of Hansard particularly disturbing.

He is saying: The Environment Conservation Authority is of course an advisory body; I think it has been ill- named to be called an authority. Now if one looks back to those heady days in 1970, before the Tories became the government, when we had all sorts of environmental issues and they at that time were the champions of environmental control, we find they made a number of very interesting comments. In 1970, the Environment Conservation Authority was introduced. When one looks at the act there is no question, Mr. Speaker, it's far more than an advisory body. It is an ombudsman, an envi ronmental ombudsman.

That's the legislation that was introduced in 1970. DR. BUCK: By a concerned government. MR. NOTLEY: Members of the government may not like it, but it was brought in by the former administra tion. However, the valiant little band of Tories — I don't know whether there were seven or eight then or 10; there were more than six by that time because

October 17, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1503 they had had a couple of crossovers — was taking the line that this ECA legislation wasn't tough enough. As a matter of fact the hon. Mr. Yurko, at that time just the hon. member, got up and and said, the government lacks the political courage to introduce a control authority with the teeth to set regulations and penalties and punish offenders in the manner required.

Then, on final reading, the opposition at that time moved a bill which would have taken the Environ ment Conservation Authority and made it a far tough er agency than even what was designed by its authors at the time. Now, Mr. Speaker, the champion of tough-minded environmental matters, making sure that you've got an ombudsman agency that has the teeth to do the job, is in a cold-blooded way destroy ing the Environment Conservation Authority.

I think that's extremely unfortunate, and I would say to the members of the Legislature that before you do away with the effectiveness of this agency, it might be well to read back over the speeches made by Tory mem bers when they were the opposition in the House. Mr. Speaker, what the hon. Minister of the Envi ronment is doing now is proposing a system of what one might call guided democracy, very similar to the late President Sukarno's guided democracy. Howev er, we do know what happened to President Sukarno.

While I'm not suggesting that the same thing will happen to the Minister of the Environment, I do suggest that a guided environment conservation authority is inconsistent with the original intention and is inconsistent with everything the Tories said when they were seeking the trust and confidence of the people of Alberta leading up to the 1971 election. Mr. Speaker, the question of the ECA report on the Red Deer dam. It's important. I know it's going to come up later this week.

But it's important because we had a report by the ECA after conducting hearings along the Red Deer and having a large number of people present briefs and submissions. It seems to me that the very least that could have been done would have been to hold a legislative debate before any decision was made on the Red Deer dam. We have the release of the ECA report saying, no dam at Site 6, then the very same day we have the an nouncement by the minister saying we're going to go ahead and build a dam at Site 6 without a debate in the Legislature. Joe Clark from time to time makes the occasional good point.

I thought that one of the better points he made this summer dealing with the Alcan pipeline was that before any decision was made on either the Lysyk report or the Berger report, or a final decision on the pipeline, there should be a debate in the House of Commons. And even though the House had recessed for the summer, it was called back so there could be a debate. Now, Mr. Speaker, if the House of Commons can be called back into session so there can be a special debate on the northern pipeline, surely it's not unreasonable that this Legislature of 79 members . . . DR. BUCK: With the Bighorn Dam we had one. MR.

NOTLEY: That's right. There were special hear ings of the Legislative Assembly on the Bighorn Dam. It's not impossible that we could not have called the Legislature back to hold a special session, if need be. Or the government could have delayed a decision until there had been an opportunity to review the Environment Conservation Authority report in this House. What is at stake there, Mr. Speaker, is not just a challenge to the participation and involvement of the people of Alberta, but in my view it is an insult to the Legislative Assembly itself.

A whole series of questions has to be asked about the Environment Conservation Authority. But you know, it's only one example where the government has ignored public opinion. We have the Thorhild county dispute, where all of a sudden the county finds out from a news reporter that they have lost two-thirds of their assessment. There was no discus sion with the minister, no opportunity for the people to talk to the minister formally before the decision was made. The fact of the matter is that this is just another example of the high-handed, arrogant atti tude of the government.

The Premier says we're not talking about an insula tion program because that is a violation of provincial rights. Well, Mr. Speaker, we're certainly not talking about an insulation program for homes. But there's no doubt that we have an insulation program as far as this government is concerned; they're insulating themselves from listening to the people. They have a pretty good insulation program in that respect. There is a whole series of additional points I'd like to make. But just very briefly before concluding, the question of the pipeline and its impact on northern Alberta is something of immense importance.

The question of roads — we've got to upgrade roads such as Highway 64 and Highway 49. We've got the whole question of northern transportation, the rail transportation system, which is crucial. We've got to find out what the relationship will be of the educa tional institutions in the area. Are they going to have a role to play or not? And what kind of role? We have the question of right-of-way compensation for the farmers or the landowners whose land the pipeline will cross. Mr. Speaker, we have a whole series of rather strange admissions by the government.

For example, the other day in the question period, I asked the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs whether or not his department had researched the pipeline treaty, because there are implications in that pipeline treaty. I think we do have the right to tax — that's my personal assessment of it — but there are some ambiguities, and local municipalities want to know. We had this sort of answer from the hon. minister: "Mr. Speaker, I think this is somewhat of an unfair question, because I haven't seen the treaty." What do you mean, you haven't seen the treaty? You know, the treaty is in the Legislature Library.

A whole host of people have copies of the treaty. Most of the opposition members have had an opportunity to read the treaty. And the minister says, "I haven't seen the treaty." DR. BUCK: He's been sick. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, here's a government that claims it's on top of the issue, they know what they're doing. Today we have this business of the question I put to the hon. Minister of Energy and Natural Resources concerning the . . .

1504 ALBERTA HANSARD October 17, 1977 DR. BUCK: It's a federal matter now. MR. NOTLEY: . . . export or the taking of supplies of Alberta natural gas to make up that natural gas used by the communities along the route. That's part of the agreement. But apparently the hon. Minister of Energy wasn't aware of it. Where was this bunch, Mr. Speaker, when it came to negotiating the agreement on the Alcan pipeline? DR. BUCK: Talking at patio parties. MR. NOTLEY: On the patio? Asleep at the switch? One really wonders. But it seems to me, Mr.

Speak er, that what has happened is that clearly instead of having a good idea of what is going on, instead of being on top of the issue, we see that the government is playing the entire issue by ear. Small wonder then that the Premier suggests that this is an example of a federal government that is favorable. They know so little about the treaty at this stage and the agreement that they're hardly in a position to know whether it's good or bad, from what I've been able to gather in watching and listening to the government so far this session.

So on one of the really crucial issues facing Alberta the Premier said almost nothing in his remarks of October 12 about how we are going to deal with the challenge of the pipeline. I see that my time has elapsed. Mr. Speaker, may I end where I began by saying that we have an excel lent choice in Chief Electoral Officer. He's going to have his hands full, because for the next period of a year or a year and a half I suspect the political dialogue in this province is going to heat up. I might say it's about time. Thank you. MR. GOGO: Mr.

Speaker, I too welcome the opportu nity to participate in Government Motion No. 3, that we the Assembly approve in general the operations of the government since the spring sittings. They say that it's a long look ahead and a short look back. It's interesting to reflect when we talk about things like the high cost of energy that almost a hundred years ago in southern Alberta, in 1886, Kootenai Brown discovered the first oil in Alberta at Waterton and sold it at $1 a gallon.

Now certainly that wouldn't make any Minister of Energy very happy when you consider that a few short years ago we were selling 45 gallons for a couple of dollars. So one would question indeed whether the price of oil is high today at all. Another observation, Mr. Speaker. It is just ten short years ago, the centennial year in Canada, when the total provincial budget for Alberta was $682 mil lion. Here we are today in 1977, ten short years later, where our hospital and medical budget alone exceeds the total provincial budget. Indeed it must be time for reflection.

I'd like to make some comments regarding the Premier's address to the Assembly the other day, and incorporate it with what I believe are pertinent points concerned with the area of southern Alberta that I represent, namely Lethbridge. I couldn't help but be amused when I saw the Member for Spirit River-Fairview get excited about the point that democracy perhaps isn't working. I'd simply like to quote a well-known man named Ale xander Woollcott who said: I'm tired of hearing it said that democracy doesn't work. Of course it doesn't work. It isn't supposed to work. We are supposed to work it. Surely, Mr.

Speaker, the constituents of Spirit River- Fairview have spoken in putting him here, and I would hope they'll speak again in '79 and put him somewhere else. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, the highlight of southern Alberta over the summer months was the visit of the Alberta cabinet to southwestern Alberta. Surely it's an indication of responsible government that not only are they prepared to listen to Albertans, but they are prepared to travel around the province seeking infor mation from Albertans in general as to the policies the government's been following.

It was a very excit ing time for many members in the south, Mr. Speak er, and I think much information in the form of briefs was given to the government. If it's the same situa tion that prevailed in past years, we'll see that enun ciated in government policy in the not too distant future. Of particular concern to southern Alberta, Mr. Speaker, is of course irrigation — water.

I was pleased to see and hear the Premier, while in Leth bridge, make a statement, and I quote him from Han sard: "the unequivocal position" of the Alberta gov ernment is "that there would be no export of water from Alberta south of the border." I think that is particularly significant, Mr. Speaker, when we dis cuss irrigation. The Member for Macleod has said on many occasions that 4 per cent of Alberta's land produces 20 per cent of the agricultural receipts of Alberta, and surely it doesn't need particular empha sis to say, if we could only increase that to 6 per cent of Alberta's land.

One of the difficulties we have now is markets. But surely that's only in the short run. When we consider the world scene, where the population of the world is increasing at 200,000 people a day — that means every 10 days we create a new Alberta, and every three months a country the size of Canada in terms of population in the world — surely the onus is on those areas of the world which are capable of producing foodstuffs to produce them.

How anyone could equ ate that with the federal policy only a year or two ago of destroying millions of dozens of eggs and millions of laying hens — I can't quite perceive the rationale behind it except to answer the Member for Spirit River-Fairview that I suppose that's how they prove the law of supply and demand. That's how they keep the price up. Mr.

Speaker, the announcement in southern Alber ta, in the fall of 1975, of the $200 million earmarked for irrigation out of the heritage savings trust fund has sparked a tremendous amount of enthusiasm for the program, which unfortunately has only been forthcoming this year. The Mayor of Lethbridge as recently as last month hosted in Lethbridge a confer ence on water use and water resources, specifically geared to irrigation, and it was attended by elected members from all over southern Alberta.

A resolu tion to be forwarded to both the federal and provincial governments encouraging getting on with the studies was unanimously passed. Mr. Speaker, there are people in the south who undoubtedly would be affected by a dam in the Oldman River basin. I suggest that perhaps some of their claims are justified, in that it's just not satisfac

October 17, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1505 tory to go ahead and spend perhaps $110 million of that money on water storage and the other $90 mil lion on the distribution system. But indeed if their claims that up to 25 to 40 per cent of the water used in southern Alberta through irrigation systems is wasted because of the type of sprinkler equipment, surely the Minister of the Environment and the gov ernment are correct in saying, look, we are studying the situation, we've had studies on the problem, and we will make a decision by Christmas 1978.

They've said that specifically to give people who have strong cases, in their opinion, to be heard against a dam the opportunity to air those thoughts. I certainly com mend the minister and the government for having the strength to resist those who say, set aside the studies and build the dam. I couldn't help but reflect, Mr.

Speaker, when the Member for Spirit River-Fairview was referring to the Red Deer dam, because on the other side of the House — that's the other side from me, but not opposite — we have had members this past summer saying the government was totally wrong to ignore the ECA and make a decision on the Red Deer River. History may prove that correct. But surely, Mr. Speaker, this government had the fortitude to make the decision. The party that member represents had been in office for 35 years prior to this government, and never did make that decision.

At least this government has made that decision, and I am very confident with regard to the Oldman River storage system that it will be given adequate hearings and opportunity before that decision is made. Mr. Speaker, this summer we had in the city of Lethbridge the opening of the largest building ever to be opened outside of Calgary and Edmonton. I think it proves that although Alberta may have 55 per cent of the population in those two cities, it does have something to offer outside of those cities.

And Leth bridge being the third largest city in Alberta, I think it was so appropriate to open, in June, the largest build ing ever to be constructed by any government outside of Calgary and Edmonton. It houses 24 government departments and, I think, represents the philosophy of this government that it is designed and elected to represent the people, and to present to the citizens of Alberta all-inclusive government virtually on their doorstep. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, the municipalities in Alber ta have valid concerns, and the residents and the citizens have some justifiable concerns.

I would like to mention a few of them. Perhaps schools and education have never pro mpted so much interest in the past 25 to 30 years as they have in the past two years.

It's interesting to note that with the rate of information available to our students doubling every four years, with the tremen dous burst of technology we've seen in the world, in Canada and in Alberta, in the past ten to fifteen years, with a man on the moon, that the school year this year in Lethbridge, Alberta, is identical to 1945 — 193 days of the 365 — which says something remarkable either for the students of today to absorb that or the teachers of the day to impart that. I haven't quite resolved which one has the advantage. I do know, though, that the cost of education is at an all-time high.

At the moment 3,000 teachers in Alberta are out of work. One of the discomforting facts to me is that the Lethbridge Public School District 51 has 500 teachers on staff, who I believe are dedicated people con cerned about youngsters and not just salary negotia tions. But the disquieting factor to me, Mr. Speaker, is that for every school teacher in that school district, we have half a teacher as a support person.

I think it gives the illusion that for the number of students and the number of teachers, we work out a student- teacher ratio, where in reality many of those support people could perhaps be set loose in the classrooms to teach our children. I have had many teachers tell me that grades 1, 2, and 3 should have perhaps 10 to 15 students in a classroom, but that grades 10, 11, and 12 can get by with 40. But that's not the way we've structured our school system with the teach ers. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that bears looking at.

As recently as Saturday I attended a meeting where the Member for Medicine Hat-Redcliff was the guest speaker. I must say I was particularly impressed with his comments regarding the goals and objectives of Alberta education as produced by the Curriculum Policies Board. I would commend the document to all members of the Assembly, Mr. Speaker, because since I have been elected I have yet to see a document able to speak in such simple language on problems and solutions of education. Certainly law and order is a concern, Mr.

Speaker, and the resolution presented by the Member for Drumheller the other day generated some very inter esting debate, particularly from the Solicitor General. I would suggest that most Albertans are concerned not only with the crime rate but also with the envi ronment in which some of these youngsters grow up. It's interesting to note that very few Eskimo children, and certainly no Indian children, have become delin quents until they've hit the white man's school. I would suggest there's a uniqueness somewhere in our schools. If what we must do, Mr.

Speaker, is fund schools to a higher degree to see that there is more individual concern shown for those youngsters, instead of segregating them and putting them in a separate system like a Borstal school . . . certainly the time has arrived when we must pay more attention to the fact that we create the juveniles because we are the legis lators. Rather than resolve the problem of the juveniles, I suggest we spend a little more time in preventing juveniles happening. We've got to start that about 10 years earlier, because one must never forget that a definition of man is: that which happens to a boy.

We in our wisdom in this Assembly have the power through dollars and cents to change our educational system, a system that hasn't worked for a hundred years. Last year, 4,000 of the 6,000 people who went into our institutions were there for the fourth, fifth, sixth, or seventh time. The shocking thing is that 2,000 of those 4,000 were under 20 years of age. When some members of this Assembly were elected eight years ago, some of these inmates were 8, 9, or 10 years old. That's the time when some of these decisions should have been made. Hindsight is cheap. And it wasn't done. Okay.

Let us not stand in our places in this Assembly today and talk about locking up 16 and 18 year olds and hoping to correct the system, and at the same time generate those very people in our system. So I suggest, Mr.

1506 ALBERTA HANSARD October 17, 1977 Speaker, there are areas where, as concerned mem bers of the Assembly, we should be a little more serious. Instead of knocking the system, I suggest we get a little positive and try to correct it. Mr. Speaker, the civic elections to be held Wednes day have certainly generated a lot of interest in all parts of Alberta, not just the periphery surrounding Edmonton. I would hope that the issues — one of them is revenue sharing — are sufficiently important that we'll have high turnouts at the polls.

This is the one opportunity Alberta citizens have to make their candidates stand up and say not only what they believe, but indeed what they'll do if elected. It's encouraging to me. Among those concerns facing the municipalities we have day care. Mr. Speaker, I suggest day care is a very important issue. Those who make the statement that the state should not look after the children are, I think, totally out of touch with the system. In Alberta two out of every three women work. In Alberta we have 13,500 single parents, with an average of two children each, all on public assistance.

Perhaps there are another 40,000 single parents, but fortunately they're not on public assistance. Day care is a fact of life. Day care is a fact of life, not just for economic reasons. In Lethbridge, just seven years ago, we had four or five divorces a month. Now with the Attorney General shifting the court system so that they won't be sitting in Lethbridge, we have 20 divorces every two weeks. Forty divorces a month may be very posi tive for mental health. I haven't looked into that part because I haven't been through it. But I suggest, Mr.

Speaker, when you have this high rate of divorce, when you have the creation of single parents like we do, surely one must recognize that on the one hand we either pay more attention to the youngsters to prevent juvenile delinquents from developing, or on the other hand we encourage day care centres to look after these children. For I kid you not, Mr. Speaker and members of the Assembly, 10 years from now — and the members of the Assembly won't be able to say they didn't know, because all around us people are telling us this — it will be too late.

It's been said that Alberta is an island that has no water around it. Well we're not an island in terms of communications or social conditions; we're one of the leaders. And we in Alberta have a golden opportuni ty, Mr. Speaker, to set some examples for all Canada to see. It just takes a little bit of gumption, a little bit of perseverance, a few dollars, and an elected majori ty. God knows we've got the majority. I'd like to make a few comments, Mr. Speaker, about two other areas of concern. One is the cost of utilities.

I don't want to say very much about it, because most members in this House hear about it every day. Certainly you're going to hear it from the constituents before the next election. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, there's a matter of communication involved. Very few citizens in Alberta know that because the environmentalists have demanded certain standards — and perhaps government has supported them — a company like Calgary Power, in the past four years, has had to spend $78 million extra on environmental standards.

If I'm a shareholder of Calgary Power — I'm not, but if I were — I would certainly demand that Calgary Power give me a return on my investment. Surely, Mr. Speaker, it's not asking too much to expect a utility company like Calgary Power to make a reasonable return on their investment, if they're for ced to spend $78 million on environmental standards. I think the public should know and understand that when they put the rates up and make application to PUB to have those rates increased, that should be brought out in the open. Unfortunately it's not broad cast across Alberta.

Natural gas and the rest I would leave to more learned speakers than I, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to touch very briefly on an area I feel somewhat close to, and that is housing. In a recent study, carried out by the Minister of Housing and Public Works, we get an insight into some of the problems of housing. The study was done between five centres — Edmonton; Calgary; Lethbridge; Great Falls, Montana; and Billings — the smallest commu nity being Lethbridge.

Perhaps not many members are aware of this — I wasn't aware of it until I read this — but in a two-year period, from the fall of '74 to the spring of '77, raw land in Lethbridge went from $2,500 an acre to $26,000 an acre. When you start carving 3.5 or 3.8 lots out of that, Mr. Speaker, pretty soon, without any services at all, you've got some pretty expensive real estate. Is it any wonder that we're into the affordability problem. In the past couple of years there have been some records established. In his speech the Premier referred particularly to housing.

He talked about last year, when Alberta produced 39,000 units. This year if they're on target, and they are on target, there'll be about 31,000. I think, Mr. Speaker, it's interesting to point out that in the few years since the 1975 elec tion when this government became committed to an election platform that had housing as a number one priority, because it was a number one problem and concern for many Albertans, they created the ministry of Housing and Public Works. In the United States we've seen, since that time, eight housing units built per thousand population.

Because our migration policies into Canada were somewhat loose, we were getting many people from abroad, and the demand on housing in Canada was somewhat acute. In Canada we produced 11 housing units per thousand people. But in Alberta — and I think, Mr. Speaker, it's a record of which this gov ernment and the minister should be proud — recog nizing that housing was the number one problem and the number one priority, they've produced 20.6 units per thousand population. That's a record unsur passed anywhere in the world and certainly in North America. The problem is, how do we get people in them?

Now we're into the affordability problem. Some peo ple have said housing is expensive. Is it expensive? I bought a home in 1961, when the great white father in Ottawa said that three to five times annual income was a good price to pay for homes. I suggest today it's not much different. Three to five times annual income will buy most people a house. The significant fact we seem to forget, Mr. Speaker, is that interest rates have gone up 100 per cent. Legislators were wooed and persuaded 10 years ago to change the Bank Act.

Bank stocks were a good buy in 1965, because lots of people have them and all they could charge was 6 per cent interest. But because the Bank Act could only be changed every 10 years, strong pressures were brought then to change it. What happened? Bank rates went up 100 per

October 17, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1507 cent. If you're paying on a mortgage and you have a 100 per cent increase, it goes without saying that out of every $100 bill each year you pay on a mortgage, about 3 dollars is principal and the rest is interest. So when you get a 100 per cent increase in interest, you've got a real problem. That's the situation we're into in Alberta today. The minister has proven that we've gone through that cycle of expensive housing. The average house price last year in Lethbridge, Alberta, was $54,000.

They have new houses this year in the show homes — because of actions taken by this government in terms of demonstration, new homes on their own land selling at $48,000. So it works. The problem is affordability. With affordability we have two prob lems: one I've mentioned, and that's interest rates. Interest rates are at an all-time high, except for the year 1931-32. The other area, Mr. Speaker, is the cost of utilities and taxes. Taxes on real estate are at an all-time high. As some members of the Assembly know, I'm in the process of building a house. I bought a lot from the city of Lethbridge.

On it was nothing but weeds. It didn't take long — three months — and I got the tax notice: $1,320 on that raw piece of weed-infested land. When I went to complain about the taxes, they handed me a notice telling me to get rid of the weeds. It had been there 10 years under them, but as you know on some of these municipal governments they're above responsibilities. And they didn't have to do it. On the one hand, Mr. Speaker, we have a situation where, when a ratepayer or citizen buys a lot, we're quite prepared to tax it.

But when we look at people in this province who own the land surrounding our metropolitan areas, on certain parts of agricultural land — five sections — the taxes don't come that high. Neither this government nor any government has seen fit to change it. The new Planning Act hasn't changed it. The assessment regulations haven't changed it. I suggest that if we want to talk about affordability of housing, we've got to look at the total picture. We've got to look at what a person earns on the one hand and what he has to pay out, including mortgage interest and municipal taxes. And they're at an all-time high.

In The Albertan on Friday they were looking for salesmen around the Los Angeles area. Twenty- seven miles from downtown Los Angeles they want a salesman to sell 1,200 lots for $975 apiece. And they've got water on them. I think you can find where the problem is if you look. Builders in Alberta today are not making what people think they're making. How can you pay $40,000 in Edmonton for an acre of raw land; another $40,000 to service it; the overhead in terms of interest charges; and the infrastructures, the lawyers, the accountants, and the city halls — and you end up having to sell that at $40,000, as a lot.

There's no way, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Housing and Public Works has been telling us this. But we haven't really believed him. The study the minister has concluded points it out. For those who haven't read it, I would recommend it. It's extremely interesting reading. I've had many favorable comments from members of HUDAC, from house builders who it appears have had a running battle with the minister over the past year or two because he doesn't always put things the way people want to hear them.

They've read this and said: finally the minister understands we're not the culprits, because we don't own the raw land, that only suffi cient is released to keep the market up. I'd like to close, Mr. Speaker, with just two minor comments. We hear about revenue sharing. I don't really know much about it. But I know that in the city I represent along with the Member for Lethbridge East, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, in 1970-71, prior to this government, the total grants received by the city of Lethbridge were just over $700,000. Last year, in 1976, the city of Lethbridge received $5 mil lion.

I suggest that's pretty reasonable sharing. I for one, in my limited experience as a member of this Assembly, have never known a member of our Execu tive Council or the government per se to turn down any reasonable request by a municipality to solve a problem. This government has simply said, look, we're elected to raise taxes to run this province. We're prepared to participate with you, but we don't feel our mandate allows us to share with you part of those dollars we were elected to raise. Maybe it's right and maybe it's wrong.

I would simply say for my constituency, and perhaps others, that they've done reasonably well. I wanted to comment on something the Premier mentioned regarding hospitals. But in view of Bill 66, which was introduced on Friday, I'm sure that's going to be a very interesting debate. Let me conclude, Mr. Speaker, by commenting on the very interesting contribution on unity made Friday by the Member for Calgary Buffalo. It seems all you hear in Canada today is about the price tag of Confederation; what it's costing either Quebec or the other provinces.

I think the very excellent speech made by the Member for Calgary Buffalo the other day gave many Albertans, and probably all western Canadians, much to think about. I cannot visualize a Canada without Quebec. I cannot picture any country losing 26 per cent of its citizens overnight without being seriously affected. I also sincerely believe that if anybody from Price Edward Island, British Colum bia, or Quebec had the audacity or nerve to try to come into Alberta and dictate what I should or shouldn't do as part of Confederation, I know what I would tell them. I would hope, Mr.

Speaker, that some members in the province of Quebec have the very same idea when people across Canada try marching in and telling them what to do. Thank you very much. MR. MANDEVILLE: In making a few remarks to Gov ernment Motion 3, Mr. Speaker, I just want to carry on where the hon. member who just spoke left off: with water resources and water management. I want to add some more there. I must also say I'm very pleased we're getting our hospital in Brooks. Even though the hon. member for Lethbridge is getting the largest building in the prov ince, we're getting the most needed hospital in the province.

I want to congratulate the minister for starting our hospital in Brooks before putting the moratorium. It was certainly a needed facility in the town of Brooks, and it's certainly appreciated by the constituents. I do believe the Minister of Housing and Public Works on what he's trying to do as far as the cost of housing is concerned. I've been watching his reports,

1508 ALBERTA HANSARD October 17, 1977 and I certainly see that the cost of housing is getting out of hand. It's getting to where our people can't afford to buy houses any more. While I'm dealing with the Minister of Housing and Public Works, I would like to recommend that we do more decentralizing when they're adding to our senior citizen homes in the province. I appreciate the senior citizens units that are being built throughout the province. However, in some of our senior citizen accommodations, our lodges, I think that would be well worth while.

For example, in Brooks we're adding to our senior citizens' lodge from time to time. We're adding in Medicine Hat. Then we send our citizens from some of the smaller areas down to these lodges in the bigger centres. I think it would be well worth while to put up some smaller lodges. I realize they've got to be put up in units; it's got to be feasible. I'm thinking of the one at Bassano, and I'm pleased that the minister is looking at putting a lodge in Bassano.

I think it's going to be an asset for the people in Bassano and some of our smaller areas to be able to stay in the areas where they grew up and are living. I'd have to say, Mr. Speaker, that one of the high lights this past summer for me was a trip to northern Alberta. It was in regard to the pipeline in the north. It sure enlightened me as far as studies and the Berger report are concerned. We met with people in Inuvik, Tuktoyaktuk, and Yellowknife. We certainly didn't get the feeling that we got from the Berger report from the grass-roots people we visited with.

We just didn't find any opposition to this pipeline in the north. The people realized and appreciated that the time has come when they can't live off the land. I would say there was some objection as far as the Brotherhood was concerned. However, we found the Eskimo, our Metis, and the other people almost unan imously supported development of industry in the north. Touring the pipeline, I do agree they're putting the pipeline on the route it should go.

However, I do hope we're going to be looking toward getting the Macken zie delta developed and another pipeline from the Mackenzie delta down through the Yukon Territory. From the information we got up there, Arctic Gas and Dome Petroleum have spent a terrific amount of money in not really developing but searching out our resources in the Beaufort Sea. They certainly need some recognition for the amount of money they spent in this particular area as far as searching for resources up there. They've spent a terrific amount of money. I'm sure this is what's going to happen.

However, I think they spent a lot of money on all the studies they did on pipelines. I really don't know if they accomplished that much. One area gives me a lot of concern: the natives, the Brotherhood, our Indian people up there want their native claim. They're asking for exactly what Quebec is looking for: separatism. They want a small area up there which they can call their own. I certainly had to disagree with this, because I don't think we should be promoting anything like separatism in the north as Quebec is trying to promote down in Quebec.

We tried to impress upon them that if they were getting claims on land, if the government was to allocate land to them, it would be separatism from Canada. I certainly think the pipeline is going to be a great asset to Alberta, because there's certainly going to be a lot of spinoff that's going to be appreciated by the province of Alberta. So I certainly agree with the announcement that they're going to go ahead and develop our northern natural resources. Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the Premier recognizing in his speech the problems we have in agriculture.

This is one industry we always do have problems in — and I think we always will. But it's nice to see they're being recognized, because the first step toward solving our problems is recognition of them. Sometimes I think we're putting too much emphasis on oil and gas development in this prov ince, appreciating that that's a non-renewable resource. Somewhere down the line we're going to have to recognize that agriculture is going to be the prime industry in Canada. The sooner we're able to appreciate that, the better. As I say, we always have problems in the agricul tural industry.

For example, in the cattle industry in the past four years, we have seen a terrific depres sion. It's been hard for our cow/calf operators to survive the depression we've had in the cattle indus try. We do have a program that's going to be intro duced this fall. It's the federal cow/calf program. However, I don't think it's going to solve the situation as far as the cattle industry is concerned. The reason I say that, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that they're going to take the average over the last five years of the net income for the calf producer, and then they're going to pay 90 per cent.

Well for anyone who has been following the cattle industry in the last five years 90 per cent of the average is an unrealisti

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19771017
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L18 S3 19771017 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	8af247864784f2d911030526fb52b735b692bc18

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