Alberta Hansard — 25 November 1980, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 19, Session 2)

19801125

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

November 25, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 1705 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Tuesday, November 25, 1980 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS MR. McCRAE: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure today to introduce a very special guest to you and, through you, to members of the Assembly. Our guest is from Manitoba, our sister province, and is a second-time mayor there, having just won a very handy second victory. He's in Edmonton today visiting the mayor and councillors, and will go to Calgary tomorrow to visit the mayor' and councillors there.

Our guest is Mr. Bill Norrie, Mayor of Winnipeg, and he's accompanied by his wife. They're in the members gallery, and I'd ask that they stand and be recognized in the traditional fashion. head: PRESENTING PETITIONS MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present to the members of the Legislature a petition signed by over 18,000 residents of Lethbridge and southern Alberta. The petition is to urge the Assembly to urge the government to permit and support the continued operation of St.

Michael's hospital in Lethbridge as a fully active treat ment facility with no reduction in present bed capacity, services, or medical specialists on staff. head: READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS MR. WOO: Mr. Speaker, I move that the petition I presented on November 21, 1980, from 11,285 residents of the county of Strathcona and Sherwood Park now be read. CLERK ASSISTANT: Mr.

Speaker, I certify that this petition is in order to be read and received: To the Honourable, the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, in Legislature assembled: The petition of the undersigned residents of the county of Strathcona, No. 20, humbly shows: That they are greatly concerned that the approval of the present application by the city of Edmonton to annex the entire county or any portion thereof and bring it within the jurisdiction of the city of Edmon ton will result in a much increased financial burden in relation to the cost of property taxes, utility serv ices, and all other expenditures [resulting from such annexation].

Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that Your Honourable Assembly may be pleased to give con sideration to any action possible on your part to prevent such annexation. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 242

An Act to Amend The Surface Rights Act MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to intro duce a Bill, being

An Act to Amend The Surface Rights Act. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that landowners are dealt with fairly by companies seeking to enter and use their land. [Leave granted; Bill 242 read a first time] Bill 243 The Travel Agents Licensing Act MR. COOK: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill 243, The Travel Agents Licensing Act.

Briefly, this Act provides for a licensing procedure for travel agents, a bond to be posted by travel agents, a complaints procedure to be provided through the Con sumer and Corporate Affairs Department to receive complaints about travel agents who are bad actors, and revocation of business licences for travel agents who conduct their business in an unsatisfactory or unscrupu lous manner. Finally, it opens up the opportunity for reciprocal enforcement in other provinces of similar types of legislation. Mr.

Speaker, this Bill was prompted by complaints I've received in my constituency, and there are others in the province. Similar legislation is provided in other provinces. [Leave granted; Bill 243 read a first time] Bill 245 The Energy Conservation Building Standards Act MR. COOK: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a second Bill, being Bill 245, The Energy Conservation Building Standards Act. Briefly, this Bill provides for energy consumption standards to be established in BTU terms for commercial, industrial, and residential buildings. Mr.

Speaker, Alber ta is moving to high energy costs, and it's important that we not construct buildings that are energy inefficient and will be with us for the next 50 years. This Bill provides that the standards should reflect the state of the art of standards now, and that they be cost effective. Public hearings may be provided by the Minister of Labour, if he so chooses, and buildings may not be occupied if they are not able to meet these standards.

Finally, there is one further stipulation that buildings that are energy inefficient and are built not meeting these standards would not qualify for pricing support through the natural gas rebate. [Leave granted; Bill 245 read a first time]

1706 ALBERTA HANSARD November 25, 1980 head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. COOKSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to file with the Assembly the customary copies, from Environmental Protection Services, of a tabulation of certificates of variance issued under sections 4.7 and 4.8 of The Clean Air Act subsequent to April 1, 1980. MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table with the Assembly copies of the annual report of the Alberta Department of Municipal Affairs, as required by statute. MR. KING: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to table a state ment indicating that there is no return of materials to the Assembly pursuant to Motion for a Return No. 135, moved by the hon. Member for Clover Bar. At the same time I would like to file with the library information indicating the communities on whose behalf interest was expressed for the relocation of the Alberta Correspondence School, and indicating as well additional communities considered by the government. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. MACK: Mr.

Speaker, it is with great pleasure this afternoon that I introduce to you and to the members of the Legislative Assembly some 33 senior citizens. They represent the McClure Around 60 Group and the Northgate Lions Senior Citizens Recreation Centre, both located in the Edmonton Belmont constituency. The tour of this group was arranged by Mrs. A. Holmes. With the McClure Around 60 Group today is Mr. John Good. His father, Mr. George [Good], was one of the old-country Scottish stonemasons who immigrated to Alberta in 1910 to work on this Legislature Building. He was later joined by his family. Mr.

Speaker, also with the group are some of the pioneers of Alberta, whom we honored in many different ways this year. The group is seated in the public gallery, and I would ask that they rise and receive the very warm, deserved welcome of this Assembly. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague the hon. Minister of Culture, I would like to introduce to you, and through you to the members of the Assembly, 18 students from the Alberta Vocational Centre in the constituency of Edmonton Centre. They are accompanied by their instructor Ada Nanning.

I might indicate to members of the Assembly that they once again include a number of new Canadians, from whose talents we as a province are going to benefit. I would ask that the students and their instructor rise to receive the welcome of the Assembly. head: MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Department of Advanced Education and Manpower MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that the government of Alberta will again pro vide work opportunities during the winter months for unemployed Albertans under the priority employment program.

As you are aware, the program has run each winter since 1971-72, and has grown steadily in both the number of projects and the number of participants. To date more than 26,000 Albertans have been provided with short- term work experiences, many of which have led to permanent employment. For instance, the Department of Social Services and Community Health has taken a very significant number of its full-time employees from this source. Individual projects are organized under provincial gov ernment departments, boards, and commissions.

Most are scheduled from January through April, when em ployment levels are traditionally lower. Last year, 22 government departments sponsored projects throughout the province that employed 1,080 Albertans in a variety of jobs which emphasized gaining work experience and building careers. Funding will be based on the employment situation in coming months. However, last year $3.5 million was allo cated to fund priority employment program projects. Mr.

Speaker, the designation of 1981 as the Interna tional Year of the Disabled Person gives the government the chance to highlight the ongoing work in the field of training and employment of people with handicapping conditions. I am proud of the work already accomplished in this area, and pleased to announce the expansion of this program area in particular.

One of the expanded program elements is the employ ment skills demonstration project, operated by Social Services and Community Health, which will provide work experience projects for employable social service clients with various departments participating in the priority employment program. Among these clients will be handicapped Albertans. The other is the special placement work experience project, operated by the personnel administration office.

Albertans, including disabled persons, who are registered and active clients of their special placement program are eligible to participate in projects within provincial gov ernment departments. Already under way, various projects will run through out 1981. Employment with the two special program elements that relate to the International Year of the Disabled Person will be for a period up to six months. This will enable reasonable work experience and skills in preparation for more permanent employment. In conclusion, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to reiterate that the priority employment program does more than provide short-term relief for people. It gives them the opportunity to learn new skills and gain the experience needed to move into the labor force, and in this way share fully in the benefits of Alberta's economy. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Department of Government Services MR. McCRAE: Mr. Speaker, of prime importance to the Alberta government are its communications with the citi zens of Alberta. In 1973 the government's regional infor mation telephone enquiry system, otherwise known as the RITE system, became operative.

It has become just one aspect of inexpensive and improved access to the government. The RITE system now has 34 centres across Alberta, from Fort McMurray down to Cardston. It is estimated that the RITE system is currently handling in excess of 8 million calls a year. Many of these calls are transferred to a larger centre to obtain information that the citizens require. This service is provided toll free to most citizens of Alberta.

November 25, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 1707 But nearly 14 per cent of Albertans have been unable to enjoy toll-free access to their provincial government because they live outside the toll-free areas of the 34 existing centres. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to advise hon. members that soon these Albertans will be able to utilize the network toll free by way of a zenith number. By calling the operator and requesting 22333, local Alber tans previously without toll-free service will reach the RITE centre nearest their home.

Furthermore, the use of RITE will now be made available to volunteer, non-profit organizations throughout the province. In the past, be cause of technical limitations, we have not been able to make the services available to these non-profit groups. Mr. Speaker, I am also able to announce today another improvement to the system of interest to members. The regional information telephone enquiry system, in addi tion to the estimated 8 million calls handled by RITE operators annually, carries a heavy load of internal public service calls.

As a result of the tremendous volume of calls, there has been congestion on the Edmonton-to- Calgary lines. This problem will be resolved early in the new year with the installation of additional lines to Calgary and to all areas south of Calgary. The additional lines will assure better access to the south of the province, and will continue to make the RITE system the most extensive government communication network in North America. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Lord's Day Act MR. R. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to direct the first question to the Attorney General and the Minister of Tourism and Small Business. It deals with the question of initiatives the government may or may not take on this question of observance of the Lord's Day Act as it applies to business on Sunday, and the effects it's having on small businesses in the province. I would just say that last spring I asked the Attorney General what action the government planned to take in this area. He indicated that if there were sufficient re quests, the government was prepared to move in this area.

My question to the minister is: does the government have any plans for immediate action in this area of concern? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, it is an important area, and it's not free from controversy. I think the remarks I may have made some time ago would be that the feeling I believe Albertans generally have is twofold: one, the idea of a completely wide-open, commercialized Sunday is something that wouldn't be favorably greeted by the majority, as I understand the representations I've received.

At the same time, the existing system had worked well over the years because the level of enforce ment of what is in fact out-dated federal legislation had caused no difficulty, so long as the areas in which there was a certain amount of Sunday activity tended to be the gray areas. Mr. Speaker, during the summer and until the present time, what I have been able to do is receive a very large and useful number of presentations on the subject, dem onstrating once again that there are strongly held views on both sides.

The only commitment I've given to anyone making a presentation is that the matter would not be acted on at once, because it did not seem to be a situation where a sudden decision would necessarily be the best, in light of the fact that the situation was still developing. The other commitment I gave was that a review in regard to the policy areas involved would be made in the upcoming months by our caucus. Mr.

Speaker, in regard to the timing of a decision in the area, I might say that a lot of people I spoke to seemed to feel that if the situation had been able to continue much as it had over the years, with minimal operations and what I've referred to as the gray areas, probably no action would have been necessary. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to that rather ambiguous answer, if I might be permitted that latitude in question period. "Not acted on at once" was the note I jotted down.

Has the minister given a commitment to the groups that made representation to both the Attorney General and the Minister of Tourism and Small Business, that a definite time frame has been decided in which the gov ernment will either take some action or in fact indicate it is going to leave the status quo? I ask the question because of representation I'm sure both ministers received and representation my office has received, especially from small-business people who are finding themselves in an increasingly difficult position. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr.

Speaker, I have not given a specific commitment — I wouldn't be in a position to do so — in regard to any legislative time frame. That can only be done as a result of the matter being discussed by the government caucus, and that hasn't been possible this fall because of other issues. I think I should note that the status quo wouldn't necessarily remain the same if the federal government, for example, decided to make a move in this respect.

Prose cutions that are taking place at the present time are under the federal legislation, and it is that legislation that has been frequently referred to as being rather outmoded. The only opportunity the provinces have is to occupy the same legislative field from a different constitutional as pect than Sunday observance. That has been done in some provinces, and is well known to the people who brought briefs to me in regard to it. Some have recommended certain systems in use in other provinces relative to hours of operation of busi nesses, as distinct from the narrower issue of Sunday closing.

We have assured them that we're familiar with, and are continuing to examine, the type of system used in other provinces which have dealt with the matter legislatively. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. Has the minister or the department made representation to the federal government for any change in substance or in enforcement of the federal legislation? Secondly, has the Attorney General given any directives to the Crown prosecutors in the province with regard to a possibility of enforcing more rigorously the legislation which is presently on the books? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr.

Speaker, with respect to the first item, we have not made representations to the feder al government in respect of what they might do with their legislation. It may be that some communications have been passed on to federal Members of Parliament where it would appear that was appropriate.

1708 ALBERTA HANSARD November 25, 1980 With respect to the prosecution policy, of course we have the duty to either agree or not to the prosecution in each case. It's a rather different system than many prose cutions, in that there's the opportunity for the Attorney General's Department to grant or refuse fiats when pre sented by one of the police forces. Our policy has always been that if it's the opinion of a police force that enough evidence exists to prepare a complaint in regard to the matter and commence proceedings, the fiats are routinely granted.

In other words, we wouldn't be interfering with the normal prosecutorial policies of the police forces by means of withholding, in a discretionary way, any fiat. I should say that the enforcement policy we've declared is that the law should be enforced in the form that it is. The police forces, particularly in Calgary and Edmonton, have recently changed the way they approach that philos ophy in the area of Sunday observances. The reason is that the extent of Sunday openings has vastly increased in certain types of business in both cities.

So since the police act on the basis that when a legitimate complaint comes to their attention, it is their duty to investigate it and see whether it's appropriate in those circumstances to pursue the matter further, they are doing so because there are more complaints coming to their attention. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I pose a supplementary question to the Minister of Tourism and Small Business as a result of the concern expressed to many members, I am sure, about the increased Sunday opening and the impact it's having on independent retail grocers, especial ly small corner-grocery operations.

Has the minister received representation on this mat ter? Has the minister in fact sought the advice of such organizations that represent small business in the prov ince before making recommendations to the government on what action can be taken in this area as a result of representation received by the minister? MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, we've had representations on both sides of the fence. In other words, we've had repre sentations from some small-business men to allow them to open on Sundays, and from others to enforce the closing on Sundays.

Generally, to this particular point in time, we have referred them to the Attorney General, and indicated to them that we would pursue with them any changes that may be made, on the basis of what may be the best for small business. The Attorney General has basically covered the position we're at right now. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, one further supplementa ry question to the Minister of Tourism and Small Busi ness. Has the minister received representation concerning this question of Sunday closure and, more specifically, the impact of Safeway?

It does 13.6 per cent of its business in Canada and receives 27 per cent of its profits from its Canadian business. Has the minister received representation about what certainly appears to be an unjust portion of Safeway's profit coming from its Cana dian business? Has the minister initiated any investigation into that whole area? MR. ADAIR: No, Mr. Speaker, in relation to the per centages. Most of the representations made to us were relative to whether they should be open or closed on Sunday, with a concern relative to Safeway expressed in one. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, to the minister.

In light of the very large portion of the market place Safeway dominates, especially in Alberta and the cities of Edmon ton and Calgary, has the minister's department commis sioned or caused to be done within the department any work that would look at alternatives to enable the small- business man to better compete with Safeway, under the concern expressed by many people that Safeway may very well be getting involved in a far wider open Sunday? MR. ADAIR: We have not at this time, Mr. Speaker. Federal Budget — Tax Incentives MR. R. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to direct the second question to the Minister of Economic Develop ment. The question is as a result of perhaps one of the more encouraging aspects of the federal budget, that part that gives tax credits to manufacturing businesses which settle in census area 15, basically the northwest area of the province excluding the city of Grande Prairie. Is the minister now in a position to indicate what effect the increased investment tax credit has had on investment intentions in northwestern Alberta? MR. PLANCHE: Mr. Speaker, that question also came up in Grande Prairie on Saturday.

There's only a passing mention of that particular issue in the federal budget. I've asked my officials to develop what further detail may be available. If there is an incentive tax credit, of course that would be beneficial to those who were going to settle in the north and in the DREE-oriented areas. To this stage, we don't have anything definitive at all. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, then to the Provincial Treasurer.

Is he in a position to indicate if the Treasury Department can confirm that as a result of this initiative in the federal budget, small manufacturing businesses that would settle in census area 15 would get close to perhaps a five- to six-year federal income tax holiday as a result of these incentives? MR. SPEAKER: It would appear that the hon. Leader of the Opposition is asking the minister to give an opinion with regard to taxation as to the legal effect of the federal budget: is it going to provide a tax holiday for five or six years for certain kinds of businesses. MR. R.

CLARK: If I gave that impression, I'm sorry; that wasn't the impression I intended. My intention was to ascertain from the Provincial Treasurer if the Treasury Department has looked at that portion of the federal budget dealing with a tax concession to census area 15. What are the results of those assessments the department hopefully has carried on? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, we are looking at that issue together with the Department of Economic Devel opment, as mentioned by my colleague.

We want to be very sure that what appears in the budget is in fact the case, insofar as one peels layers off this budget there are a number of surprises. So it may be a little while longer before we actually are able to ascertain exactly what the apparent effect of that provision is, and what it might or might not do for Alberta businesses. MR. PLANCHE: Mr. Speaker, to supplement my pre vious answer. We also had a conversation in Edmonton

November 25, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 1709 last week with the federal minister responsible for the DREE program, Mr. De Bane, and asked him to develop some further in-depth information on it so we can make our own assessment of it. Edmonton Annexation Application MRS. FYFE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to ask a question of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Further to my question a few weeks ago, can the minister advise the Assembly if the Local Authorities Board will be submit ting the Edmonton annexation report by the end of the current year? MR. MOORE: Mr.

Speaker, I can only repeat what I said earlier; that is, I expect to be able to make the report public before the end of the calendar year. MRS. FYFE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister could advise the Assembly that before making a boundary decision, consideration will be given to the wishes expressed by the residents through the petition presented in the Assembly today, together with the petition submitted to this Assembly last year, also the expression of the results of municipal plebiscites. MR. MOORE: Once again, Mr.

Speaker, the government is conscious of the concerns of the residents in the area under question, and will take under consideration all the views that have been expressed, including those by the two members who are involved and have submitted peti tions to the Assembly. Public Service Negotiations — Division 8 MR. HIEBERT: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minis ter responsible for Personnel Administration arises from the recent arbitration award for Division 8 employees. Could the minister advise if the recent arbitration award has been forwarded and presented to the NAIT and SAIT instructors' associations? MR.

STEVENS: Mr. Speaker, the arbitration board held an inquiry on Saturday. I understand representatives of the NAIT instructors' associations were present as obser vers. The board then concluded its hearing yesterday, and I understand a written copy of that award has been delivered to chief negotiators of both parties. As soon as I have a copy, I will make sure it is made available to the ministers so they can forward it to the management of the institutions. MR. HIEBERT: A supplementary question, Mr. Speak er.

Is the minister in a position to clarify to the Assembly how the arbitration award compares to the memorandum of agreement previously rejected? MR. STEVENS: Mr. Speaker, the memorandum of agreement for the instructors in this division provided for a settlement of 8.25 per cent April 1, 1980, a further 2.5 per cent as of October 1, 1980, then a further 9.25 per cent in the second year commencing April 1, '81.

The arbitration award has moved that 2.5 per cent settlement back six months to April 1, so in fact the award now binding upon the employer and upon the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and the instructors will result in a 10.75 per cent settlement on April 1, 1980, and a 9.25 per cent settlement in the second year. Abandoned Rail Beds MR. MANDEVILLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the hon. Minister of Transportation, re garding abandoned rail beds. Does the Department of Transportation have a policy with regard to the disposal or use of rail beds where rail lines have been abandoned? MR.

KROEGER: Mr. Speaker, we've been working on a policy on this in conjunction with Economic Develop ment. At the moment we're still not able to comment, because the federal policy has not been spelled out. MR. MANDEVILLE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister recently met with federal offi cials with regard to the use, sale, or disposal of aban doned rail beds? MR. KROEGER: No, Mr. Speaker, but the Minister of Economic Development might like to comment. MR. PLANCHE: Mr. Speaker, we've been working on this for some time.

It's our understanding that the verbal agreement we have is that on abandonment they will be ceded to the province to do with as is suitable, depending on where the abandoned right of way is — between two farmers' land, or a variety of other possible uses. Once that contract is signed and concluded, I'll be working with my colleague the Associate Minister of Public Lands and Wildlife to conclude the provincial participation in the disposal of the lands. MR.

MANDEVILLE: A final supplementary question to the Minister of Economic Development with regard to many of these rail lines that have been abandoned for a long while. Some of our farmers are waiting patiently to see what to do with them. Could the minister indicate when this agreement will be signed or when the policy will be coming out, so our farmers will know what to do with the rail beds? MR. PLANCHE: We're anxious to have it cleaned up too, Mr. Speaker. I hope it's imminent. We also have a backlog of requests waiting to be handled. We would expect it momentarily. St. Michael's Hospital MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, my question to the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care is with regard to the status of St. Michael's hospital in Lethbridge. I wonder if the minister could bring us up to date as to the recent decisions made with regard to its status. MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I think hon. members are aware that the matter of hospital facilities upgrading in Lethbridge is an issue of some long standing. There's been difficulty finding a solution that pleases all the demands of all the parties involved. Currently the ball is in the court of the St. Michael's hospital board.

As of last July they were to respond with respect to the programs they would like to see, the bed allocation, and the build ing program that had been approved by the government. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion to the minister. Could the minister indicate the reasons the board hasn't responded? I am asking a ques tion that may be out of his jurisdiction, but is the minister

1710 ALBERTA HANSARD November 25, 1980 looking at some specific date by which the group can respond and a final decision made with regard to the hospital? MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, the only communication I've had with the board of St. Michael's since that meeting last July is a letter from their board chairman saying they'd referred the matter to the Catholic Hospital [Conference] of Alberta, seeking their advice on the mat ter. I'm just waiting to see what the next step will be. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary. I understand one of my colleagues submitted a petition of 18,000 names today.

I was wondering if the minister will take the opportunity of looking at that, and what impact that would have on his decision-making. That's a lot of votes. MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, the petitions were ga thered by a group of citizens called the Committee for Two Viable [Active Treatment] Hospitals. I met with their representatives in the city of Lethbridge last month and went over their concerns again. I knew they were going to deliver their petition in the manner it was, so I've been expecting to receive it. Certainly their concerns and viewpoints are being considered.

I think the record shows that a real honest attempt has been made to bring the wide-ranging objectives of the two hospital boards to gether in a reasonable building program. In the eyes of the Committee for Two Hospitals, we have not achieved that. RITE System DR. C. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Government Services deals with the minis terial statement concerning the RITE system. The RITE system has had a fair amount of congestion. I wonder if the minister could assure the Assembly that this an nouncement will ease some of this present congestion. MR. McCRAE: Mr.

Speaker, that's a very good ques tion. I guess any program as ambitious as the RITE system project, which is handling such a tremendously large number of calls — something like 8 million or more — is bound to have some frustrations and problems. I think the difficulty the hon. Member for St. Paul is referring to is with a piece of equipment — I think it's called SGI — that works something like this. It's made available to us by Alberta Government Telephones, and apparently will receive only a limited number of calls. Beyond that, it doesn't signal busy; nothing happens.

It doesn't go through to the operator, so even though the RITE operators are industriously taking calls in their usual polite and expeditious fashion, when you reach an excess number nothing is happening. So there is frustra tion in some of the centres. I've had a similar concern expressed by the Member for Red Deer. We are working to correct that, Mr. Speaker, and through either the in stallation of new equipment or the addition of new opera tors, if that is necessary, hope to resolve the difficulty that I think the member is adverting to.

The other problem of congestion between Edmonton and Calgary and the southern Alberta centres should be resolved by the extension of new lines into the Calgary/ Edmonton system. MRS. CRIPPS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I noted that the minister set a time frame of "soon". Could the minister be more explicit? MR. McCRAE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We're looking to January 1. If we can do it before that, we shall. MR. L. CLARK: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister inform the Assembly if irrigation districts will now be included under the RITE system? MR. McCRAE: Mr.

Speaker, that's a question I wish I had the answer to. The extension of the system will apply to volunteer community organizations. I'm not entirely sure that an irrigation district would fall within that definition, but we'll look into that and get a better defini tion of the different types of organization, by name and characteristics, that will be able to use the expanded toll- free system. We'll have that statement out very shortly. Federal Budget — Development Fund MR. COOK: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could pose a question to the Minister of Economic Development.

Has the minister had any consultation with the federal gov ernment with regard to the proposed western develop ment fund, the $4 billion proposal in the federal budget? MR. PLANCHE: No I haven't, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to comment on that. On July 25, along with our energy package, the federal government was offered $2 billion in unconditional grants of provincial funds to help finance the rail infrastructure for our products to salt water. At that time part of the offer was that the federal government would have some input in that.

I see the federal government has now doubled the ante, again with this province's money. So I hope they would give us the courtesy of some input in that. I don't know about the western development corporation, Mr. Speaker. It prob ably should be more fondly referred to as a refund on a confiscation. [interjections] MR. COOK: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could outline the consultation that took place in the develop ment of that $2 billion that was in the Alberta govern ment oil-pricing package. What consultation on that package was there with other provincial governments? Could you contrast that? MR.

PLANCHE: In that the Premier was the one who presented that, I'd refer that to him. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I had conversations with the premiers of British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba prior to making that presentation to the Prime Minister on July 25. MR. COOK: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary. Could the minister characterize this as another example of Lib eral arrogance, simply invading the field of western re sponsibility with no consultation? MR. SPEAKER: I am sure the minister would not wish to improve on the comments of the hon. member. Shape-Up Alberta Program MR. R. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, we spent much of the

November 25, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 1711 House yesterday shaping up Ottawa, if I might use the term rather literally. Hopefully today we might shape up Alberta. My question would be to the Minister of Recreation and Parks with regard to the Shape-Up Alberta program. Is the minister in a position to indicate whether the funding for that very worth-while program — I think some $80,000, which was handled primarily through the YMCAs across the province with a large number of volunteers — has been wiped out? MR. TRYNCHY: Mr. Speaker, the program is under review at the present time.

I am hoping to come back with an assessment of it. In the meantime I'm trying to put together a better package to shape up Alberta better. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. Will the minister assure the Assembly that in the course of doing the assessment of that program, the minister will have officials of his depart ment check with each of the communities — I believe close to 12 — this program operated very, very successful ly in across the province? Will those communities be guaranteed some input to the minister prior to a decision being made? MR. TRYNCHY: Mr.

Speaker, I am very interested in the 12 communities that had the service in the past. But I'd like to point out to the hon. member that the communities in the province number considerably more than 12, and those are the ones I'm looking at too. So when we review the program, it's my hope we would cover more than 12 communities, and try to cover the whole province. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, to the minister.

In the course of doing this assessment, and hopefully involving those 12 communities, is it the minister's intention to continue to have a very large volunteer component in the expansion of this program, now that we've learned that the program is not to be wiped out? MR. TRYNCHY: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is presuming something that might not be correct, in that the program might or might not be wiped out. I can't vouch for that today. But certainly our programs across the province entail very, very many volunteers, and I hope they'll continue in the future. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, to the minister.

I take it from that comment that in fact the minister has virtually made the decision to wind down this program. Why has the minister made that decision — indicated to some groups that the $80,000 will not be included in the B budget for this year, will not be available this year, given the tremendous support that program has had in the communities where it was started on a trial basis? MR. TRYNCHY: Again, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is saying something that isn't factual. The program is not winding down, not shelved, so to speak. I am still review ing it, and I hope to get back to him with an answer.

But certainly the program we've had in the past that covered just a small portion of Alberta, is not the kind of program we will want to carry on in the future. So as we go forward we'll look at all aspects of recreation and Shape-Up, and try to cover as many communities as we can. I'd like to see us cover the whole province. head: ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I think the questions and motions for returns could be dealt with first, and then we would call government designated business.

Be fore asking that be done, I did want to see if there was an indication of unanimous consent to deal with government designated business for the balance of the day, beyond the first hour, and would so ask. MR. SPEAKER: Does the Assembly agree with the proposal by the hon. Government House Leader? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the mover of Question 137 and motions for returns 134 and 138, I move that those particular matters stand and retain their place. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, if I might speak to that motion, sir.

I find myself in a somewhat unusual situation here, speaking for the Member for Spirit River-Fairview, but clearly as a matter of courtesy to a fellow member of the House — and no member should read any other motive into the situation. My office was approached by the Member for Spirit River-Fairview. If the question and the motions for returns in the member's name are basically agreeable to the government, I'm prepared to move them on the member's behalf. MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, I don't know how much this is in order.

In view of those circumstances perhaps I could withdraw my motion if that were acceptable, and replace it with another motion. MR. SPEAKER: There's no procedural problem. The motion hasn't been debated. head: MOTIONS FOR RETURNS MR. HORSMAN: Very well, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw that motion and move instead that Motion for a Return No. 138 stand and retain its place on the Order Paper. [Motion carried] head: WRITTEN QUESTIONS 137. On behalf of Mr. Notley, Mr. R. Clark asked the government the following question.

What is the government's best estimate of the cost to the Alberta taxpayer, in terms of foregone revenue and direct payments to the oil industry, of the Alberta petroleum exploration plan of December 1974 as follows (

a) from January 1, 1975, to March 31, 1975, (

b) for the 1975-76 fiscal year, (

c) for the 1976-77 fiscal year, (

d) for the 1977-78 fiscal year, (

e) for the 1978-79 fiscal year, (

f) for the 1979-80 fiscal year, (

g) for the 1980-81 fiscal year, such estimate to be itemized as per the response of Alberta Treasury to Question No. 101 in Sessional Paper No. 101/75, dated 11 December 1975.

1712 ALBERTA HANSARD November 25, 1980 HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: MOTIONS FOR RETURNS (continued) 130. Mr. R.

Speaker moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: (1) the results of all surveys and studies conducted by the ERCB, Department of Environment, Depart ment of Agriculture into the presence or effects of sulphur emissions from the Esso Resources gas con servation plant at Joffre for the past five years; (2) copies of all correspondence between the ERCB, departments of Environment and Agriculture and Joffre area farmers regarding the impact of that plant's emissions for the same period; (3) all correspondence between the ERCB and Esso Resources regarding the plant's emission levels for the same period; (4) the dates and times when the government monitors indicate that emission standards were exceeded by the plant.

MR. LEITCH: Motion 130 is acceptable to us, Mr. Speaker, providing it is on the usual condition that the correspondence referred to in (2) and (3) of that motion be produced only with the concurrence of those who received or sent the correspondence, outside the govern ment departments or agencies referred to in the motion. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, that's agreeable. [Motion as amended carried] 134. On behalf of Mr. Notley, Mr. R.

Clark moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing any and all reports and statistical abstracts dealing with the location and distribution of students of the Alberta Cor respondence School received by the Minister of Educa tion or his department since January 1, 1978, and specifi cally including any such material originally prepared by or for staff or officers of the school. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move an amendment to Motion for a Return No. 134, which I discussed with the hon. member in whose name the motion stands on the Order Paper.

It is to add the word "primarily" to the first line, and to delete the last clause and replace it with "except such reports and abstracts as express the opinion, advice, or recommendations of the public service". I have copies of the amendment for you, Mr. Speaker, and the Leader of the Opposition. [Motion as amended carried] head: GOVERNMENT DESIGNATED BUSINESS [On motion, the Assembly resolved itself into Committee of the Whole] GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Committee of the Whole) [Mr. Appleby in the Chair] MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the committee come to order.

Bill 77 The Appropriation (Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund, Capital Projects Division) Act, 1980 MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions or com ments regarding the sections of this Bill? [Title and

preamble agreed to] MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 77 be reported. [Motion carried] Bill 78 The Appropriation (Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund, Capital Projects Division) Supplementary Act, 1980 MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions or com ments regarding the sections of this Bill? [Title and

preamble agreed to] MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Chairman, I move Bill No. 78 be reported. [Motion carried] MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Chairman, 1 had indicated to the Clerk an order that the Bills might be called in, but I think my colleague the Leader of the Opposition wanted a little more time on Bill 84, so I would ask that the order revert to Bills 33 and 74. Bill 33 The Medical Services Research Foundation Amendment Act, 1980 MR. CHAIRMAN: An amendment to this Act has been circulated to all members. Are there any questions or comments regarding the amendment? Are there any questions or comments regarding Bill No. 33 as amended? [Title and

preamble agreed to] MR. ISLEY: Mr. Chairman, I would move that Bill 33 [as amended] be reported. [Motion carried] Bill 74 The Planning Amendment Act, 1980 MR. CHAIRMAN: We have an amendment for this Act, which has been circulated. Are there any questions or comments regarding the amendment?

November 25, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 1713 MR. GOGO: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask the Minis ter of Municipal Affairs if, since the Bill was introduced — I know that he has had a great many discussions not only with the planning board but planning commissions — if he has had any specific requests from planning commissions in the province on the Bill in general and any suggestions for amendments.

I guess my concern is that the planning commissions and those elected people in Alberta who compose the boards of the planning commissions have had an opportunity to respond to the minister with regard to any of the detail in the Bill. MR. MOORE: Mr. Chairman, there were a few requests from planning commissions and planning departments of various municipalities. To a large extent they were ques tions of concern with respect to provisions of the Bill that may have been misunderstood by them.

But there were indeed some comments with respect to the policy that is contained, which I spoke about on second reading, with respect to municipal councillors being able to vote on a by-law which was a subject of a public hearing, even though they may not have attended the entire public hearing. In addition, some concerns were with respect to the matter which is the subject of an amendment which will be resolved by the amendment to some extent. MR.

PURDY: I may have to apologize to the member for bringing this up, because he may have covered it in second reading and I wasn't present in the House that night and haven't had an opportunity to look at Hansard. It's regarding the change in the Act where a developer, or a municipality if a development went into that municipal ity, had to notify all landowners in writing. I understand some concern is being voiced by individuals in my con stituency and others that this is now being changed to where it only has to be advertised in the local papers.

I would just ask the minister if he could comment on that for me, so that I would have a clearer understanding of what's actually taking place. MR. MOORE: Mr. Chairman, I've had a number of comments directed to me in that regard as well. For the most

part I have been responding by sending individuals a copy of my remarks on second reading of this Bill, which fully explain my views with respect to the matter under consideration. But I can add for the information of the House that up until a year ago, when I introduced amendments to The Planning Act, there were no provisions whatever for an adjacent landowner to be heard or to be able to appeal a subdivision approval.

I introduced those provisions in a way I thought would be extremely fair to adjacent landowners in terms of their being able to receive notice, but ran into the problem of very extensive delays because of the method of receiving notice, which I explained on second reading. What we have here is an amendment to the manner in which notices are received, but the right of appeal is still there.

So for those individuals who are concerned about individual rights in terms of adjoining landowners, we're still a great deal better off than we were on any occasion that I can recall under earlier planning legislation that the province of Alberta has. MR. GOGO: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to prolong it, but I'd ask the minister on 12(b)(4), with regard to the subdivision approving authority, once it's approved and then publishing it within 14 days. I think it follows on the question of the Member for Stony Plain. I'm thinking now in terms of legal holidays and so on.

Just for clarifi cation, would that affect the time period of 14 days at all? For example, if the decision were made on a Friday and couldn't be published, say, until the following Tuesday, would the 14 days be inclusive or exclusive? It sounds like a fine point, but I think it is important to those people affected. MR. MOORE: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. I'm not follow ing which

section of the Act the member is referring to. I wonder if he could again refer to the page and the section. MR. GOGO: Yes, Mr. Chairman. It's on page 4;

Section 90 is amended, and under (b)(4). That refers to the publication within 14 days. My question really was: if it were a holiday, would that be inclusive of the holiday, or would it be a clear 14-day period? It sounds somewhat technical, but I would think that those affected may be interested in whether it's 14 days from the date of official approval, or 14 working days. MR. MOORE: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is refer ring to the requirement that a subdivision approving authority must, after having made a decision, publish the results of that decision in a newspaper within 14 days.

It's 14 clear days; nothing to do with working days whatever. One could quite easily suggest that that should even be a shorter time frame. It is not in any way related to the rights of anybody to appeal, but rather a requirement that the authority which has approved the subdivision publish their notice within 14 days. If that weren't in the Act, they might well be able to wait several weeks. [Title and

preamble agreed to] MR. MOORE: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 74, The Planning Amendment Act, 1980, as amended, be reported. [Motion carried] head: PRIVATE BILLS (Committee of the Whole) Bill Pr. 3 The Alberta Wheat Pool Amendment Act, 1980 MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions or com ments regarding Bill Pr. 3? [Title and

preamble agreed to] MR. LYSONS: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill Pr. 3, The Alberta Wheat Pool Amendment Act, 1980, be reported. [Motion carried]

1714 ALBERTA HANSARD November 25, 1980 head: GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Committee of the Whole) (continued) Bill 84 The Health Occupations Act MR. CHAIRMAN: A number of amendments have been circulated. Are there any questions or comments regard ing the amendments? MR. R. SPEAKER: I'm sorry. Mine was on the Bill generally, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Probably we could deal with the amendments and then go to the Bill as amended. MR. R. SPEAKER: I think it would most likely fit under the amendment, too, Mr. Chairman.

With regard to Bill 84, I've had a number of represen tations from southern Alberta with regard to the practis ing of therapists and masseurs. The general concern of the letters as I read them is that, number one, therapists and masseurs will not be able to continue their operations in the province because of Bill 84. I was wondering if the minister could clarify that and confirm that the Bill really will not limit their services at the present time. MR. BOGLE: Mr. Chairman, there is provision in the Act whereby a health occupation must meet certain crite ria in order to qualify for designation under the Bill.

One of the things we've tried very hard to spell out is that, in addition to an education that may be acquired through an educational institution, in those unique situations where a health proficiency has been self-taught or ac quired through experience or practice, those factors would also be taken into consideration in the designation. Therefore, it's not possible for me to give a blanket reassurance to masseurs and all types of physiotherapists that they would not be affected by the legislation.

On the other hand, very clearly, an individual practitioner who is now operating a business and has been self-taught could certainly come under this Bill in an acceptable way and would not be forced to close his or her doors. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, to the minister. The one I was referring to was Mr. Cowie who has a therapy centre at Barons in my constituency and has been in practice for quite a number of years. I have many con stituents who are taking treatments and feel they have had some excellent success.

I was wondering if that would be kind of service that would come under the grounds of being acceptable. MR. BOGLE: Mr. Chairman, I went through a number of steps that would be followed by the health occupations board in designating a health occupation. In the course of their examination as to the level or degree of service provided by a health occupation practitioner, a number of criteria come into play. I cannot give Mr. Cowie an assurance today, any more than I can any other individual who is practicing a health occupation, that he or they will or will not be affected by this legislation.

I can certainly give the assurance, through you as the MLA, that we have attempted to define the terms of reference in such a way that those individuals — and I'm aware of some members of Hutterite brethren societies who provide a service and do not have a skill that is a result of educational courses they have taken at an accredited university, college, technical school, or so on, but have a skill in the health-related area acquired either through their own talents or with the assistance of some other person in an unregulated, unprofessional way.

There is provision for them to continue to operate and to conduct their business under the umbrella of this legislation. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, to the hon. minister. This relates to the amendment. The amendment we're bringing into the Legislature at this point in time — groups such as that could make submissions to the Legis lature for approval of their work, profession, or practice as such. Is that correct? MR. BOGLE: One of the amendments I'm proposing today is a result of the discussions we had in committee stage last Friday.

Basically the proposal is that we move the final step, the designation step, from regulation to legislation, so that any health occupation the government proposes to regulate under the health occupations Bill would be brought forward in the form of a legislative amendment to this Act. In so doing, that particular health occupation group or individual might then make whatever concerns he or she has, if they haven't already done so, through either their respective MLAs, the de partment, or the minister. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question on the amendments? MR. R. CLARK: Mr.

Chairman, I have to ask if we are dealing first with the minister's amendments or with mine. Perhaps if the House thought it were dealing with the minister's amendments instead of mine I might have more success. MR. CHAIRMAN: I only have the government amend ments before me. MR. R. CLARK: I'd be pleased to help you out, sir. Or if you want to deal with the minister's amendments first, that's quite . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's deal with the government amendment. Then if some more are floating around, maybe I can get hold of one. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Chairman, on the government amendment.

I'm in the unusual position of finding I fully support the amendment. There are still going to be some concerns, but I think this will go some distance to assure some of the groups that have talked to me on the process here. If they have some real difficulties with whether they should come under Bill 84, they'll have the opportunity to contact all the members of the Legislature, and there'll be an open debate in the House. Frankly, I think that's a step in the right direction. MR. R. CLARK: Mr.

Chairman, I find myself on more than one occasion having been somewhat critical of this particular minister in the past, but I'd be less than fair in this case if I didn't say that I appreciate very much that the minister has been prepared to reconsider this particu lar section. The amendment the minister's brought in takes the designation out of regulation and puts it here in the Legislative Assembly. Especially in the early stages of

November 25, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 1715 the operation of this particular Act, I think that's a very healthy situation. I frankly commend the minister for showing the kind of flexibility he did. MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll deal with the government amendment to start with, because that was the first one presented. Then we'll consider the other one. All those in favor of the amendments to Bill 84 as presented please say "aye". HON. MEMBERS: Aye. MR. CHAIRMAN: Those opposed please say, "no". The amendments are carried. Now we have the amendment presented by the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

At this time are there any questions or comments regarding this amendment? MR. BOGLE: Mr. Chairman, I have some concerns with the amendment put forward by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. First of all, I have a concern with the basic principle as listed under A, 22.1(a), whereby one member designated by the College of Physicians and Surgeons would be a member of a professional appeal committee.

In terms of the make-up of the health occupations board, the principle we're following in Bill 84 is that of the nine-member board at least one but not more than three be members of the College of Physicians and Surgeons. But I want to make it very clear, Mr. Chair man, that the college will not name the members of the College of Physicians and Surgeons who will be on the board. We would invite the college to nominate members.

I tried to make it clear in the Assembly last Friday that we would welcome nominations from other health occu pation groups as to which members of the College of Physicians and Surgeons they feel should be on that board. There should be no misunderstanding by members of the Assembly as the legislation is currently worded. In terms of the selection of the members, that responsibility will rest with Executive Council. I have concerns as well, Mr. Chairman, with the thrust proposed in the concept of the professional appeal com mittees. I would suggest we might wish to give further consideration to this matter.

Due to the amendments which were just accepted by this Assembly, before any health occupations are designated, a further amendment will have to come back. I assume that would be either next spring or fall. This matter could be given further consideration between now and that time. MR. R. CLARK: This amendment was prepared before the minister brought forward the previous amendment. In light of those comments, I'd be prepared to withdraw the amendment after making two comments. Mr.

Chairman, in the amendment when we talk about "designated by the College of Physicians and Surgeons," the practice I would suggest there is that government would perhaps ask the college to recommend a number of members of the college who the college would feel could meet the responsibilities of the board, and the minister would then select one person out of that group. That's really the idea involved there.

But in light of the amendment the minister brought forward, and as the minister says, the fact that now we will have to come back and look at this Act the first time there is a need to designate professions under the Act; that being the situation, I'm quite prepared to withdraw the amendment. Perhaps it may resurface at that time. [Title and

preamble agreed to] MR. BOGLE: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 84, The Health Occupations Act, [as amended] be reported. [Motion carried] MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Chairman, I move the commit tee rise and report. [Motion carried] [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] MR. APPLEBY: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has had under consideration and reports the fol lowing: Bills 77, 78, and Pr. 3. The committee also reports the following with some amendments: Bills 33, 74, and 84. MR. SPEAKER: Having heard the report, do you all agree? HON.

MEMBERS: Agreed. head: GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Second Reading) Bill 88 The Election Act [Adjourned debate November 20: Mr. Crawford] MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, just very briefly, when the Bill was last before the Assembly I made a few remarks relative to concerns expressed by some hon. members that the Bill was perhaps being advanced too rapidly. On that occasion, I adjourned debate only in order that it might stand over until this week and other members who required or wished to have further oppor tunity to consider remarks with respect to the principle of the Bill would then be able to do so. Mr.

Speaker, just a final thought perhaps on the ques tion of the rapidity with which the Bill is being advanced. In reference to arguments made in that regard by some hon. members, I simply want to say that I really think the judgment I would like to see the hon. members come to perhaps relates more to my work as House Leader than anything else; that is, there are a number of Bills standing over for various reasons. Some have stood over from spring, and several will be left on the Order Paper.

It's just not too helpful, perhaps, to the process to have a large number in that position, particularly a large number of relatively important ones. So it has been the wish of the government to see The Election Act passed in this winter sitting rather than next spring. There is no particularly inscrutable reason for that. I don't think I would use that reference in respect to it because of some of the wonderings aloud that hon. members engaged in last time it was there.

I would say that if further consideration and discus sions with constituents and so on, even after the Bill had been finally passed by the Legislature, say during next year, brought to the attention of hon. members specific concerns they wished to bring forward, then I think the government's view would be that it would be perfectly fair and reasonable to have a further discussion of those

1716 ALBERTA HANSARD November 25, 1980 and consider incorporating them at that time. But the wish was not to delay the matter at present simply on that basis. [Motion carried; Bill 88 read a second time] Bill 90 The Architects Act, 1980 MR. CHAMBERS: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleas ure to speak briefly to Bill 90, The Architects Act, 1980. I think it's a Bill that will be looked to not only by Albertans but by other Canadians. Along with Bill 84, The Health Occupations Act, this Bill is the first step in the implementation of the government policy on profes sions and occupations.

As such, it's the forerunner for future legislation for self-governing associations. In its framework and a number of its provisions, the Act will be the standard to which I think other professions will look. This Bill is also the first piece of legislation in Canada to embody a joint memorandum of agreement which has been signed by both the architectural and engineering associations. Thus other provinces might be expected to look to this Alberta legislation as a model upon which to fashion their own. There is already indication that that's the case.

After being introduced in the spring of 1979, The Architects Act, then called Bill 31, was allowed to die on the Order Paper. During the months since, The Archi tects Act has been revised and redrafted. This Bill serves as an illustration of government working with an associa tion to establish legislation to protect the public interest. We have received much valuable input from the archi tects' association with regard to the draft legislation.

Explanations of the day-to-day of the association and the particular needs for processes unique to the association has led to the Act which, while complying with the policy on professions and occupations, also fulfils the need of the association. Both through its critical questioning and positive attitude, the association has been able to make a significant contribution to its legislation. I think the association is to be applauded for its innovative approach in dealing with policy and its own internal matters. For example, in dealing with com plaints, this Act provides for an informal mediator.

This mediator would attempt to resolve a dispute before a full hearing would occur. Further, at the association's sugges tion provisions dealing with professional corporations were amended to provide for diversity in firms. I cannot neglect to mention the work of other associa tions. After the release of Bill 31, The Architects Act, 1979, many groups made deputations and submissions. These groups must also be commended for interest and public spirit in seeing that we accomplished the goal of protecting the public of Alberta from unskilled and incompetent practitioners.

In particular, I must single out the engineers for the efforts their association has put forward to reach the joint memorandum of agreement. This memorandum of agreement is the result of meet ings, deliberations, and hard work. This Act, which embodies that memorandum, will go a long way in resolv ing the disputes that have had a divisive effect on the two professions in the past, not so much in Alberta perhaps but certainly in other jurisdictions. This new spirit of co-operation will help to protect the public of Alberta and to ensure the continued growth of Alberta.

In those sections dealing with the joint memorandum, Bill 90 sets out those criteria that a proposed engineers' and architects' firm must meet before a certificate of authorization is granted. A joint board will examine the candidates and issue certificates upon the recommenda tion of either the architects' or the engineers' council. In resolving the contentious matters that occur where the two disciplines interface or overlap, the associations demonstrate that, in spite of what at times may appear to be insurmountable difficulties, hurdles can be overcome if dealt with in the spirit co-operation.

I'd now like to outline just a few of the alterations that have been made. First, an important feature of this legis lation is public representation on the practice review committee in council. The benefits of having such repre sentations on association bodies are twofold: first, the public member can give the association a point of view that may vary from that of the practitioner; second and most important, through its representative, the general public can view the operation of the association. Second, a practice review board is established to ensure continuing competence on the part of practitioners.

This board has general advisory powers relating to educational and experiential admission and continuing membership standards. Third, initial decisions relating to registration are subject to an internal review at a second level. This serves the cause of natural justice. Fourth, the appeal procedures in the registration, complaints, and practice review areas have been altered to ensure that all the available routes of justice have been provided to a practi tioner who may be deprived of a source of income.

Fifth, a complainant may appeal to council when a complaint has been dismissed after a preliminary investigation. Sixth, the building

definitions have been changed from a unit to an area description in order to provide a more specific definition. Being mindful of the time, Mr. Speaker, let me con clude by stating that our foremost priority in drafting this piece of legislation has of course been the safety of the citizens of Alberta and the need to inform the public of the mechanisms provided for their protection. With its incorporation of the joint agreement, this Act recognizes the complexities of modern construction and the inter relationships of the architects with various other profes sions.

I might add that the principles of the policy have not varied, but flexibility has been built into certain aspects of this Act. MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in second reading of Bill 90, The Architects Act, 1980, I thought it would be useful to make some remarks since this particular piece of legislation forms part of the government policy with regard to professions and occu pations. As part of my responsibilities, I have the duty to co-ordinate that policy with respect to the implementa tion of the various Bills that will flow from that policy.

As hon. members of the Assembly are well aware, this matter has been a priority over the past few years. We have gone through a number of steps. I think it's fair to say that it had been the intention of the previous govern ment to commence a study of this matter through a select committee process, and that indeed was followed up by the present government. A select committee was estab lished under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood, and then the matter was studied for a considerable time.

A white paper was put forward in 1978 by my predecessor, followed by the predecessor to this Bill, which was given first reading on June 28, 1979. Since that date the government has devoted a great deal of time in committee, in caucus, and at the cabinet level.

November 25, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 1717 to the specifics involved in implementation of the policy and to incorporate representations made to the govern ment by professional organizations in the province. I could touch on a number of aspects, but I want to keep my remarks relatively brief today. As I would remind members, we have concern for the public risk involved with the provision of professional and occupa tional services to the public in this province.

Through this policy and some revisions of it, which are shown in the legislation itself, we are trying to meet the concerns expressed to us by the professional bodies, as well as by members of the public. First, we believe this policy represents a balance. On one side of the scale of course, we have the interest of the government in ensuring the public interest is protected, while on the other is the recognition by the government of the benefits of having self-governing associations.

In these highly complex disciplines practised by the exclu sive area of practise professions, the various associations subject to certain procedures and requirements are really best equipped to govern themselves. Therefore this legis lation does a number of things: it provides for public protection and information and for a limited and careful ly defined involvement by government to ensure the pub lic interest is protected. We have made every effort to circulate information pertaining to this policy. As I indicated, the policy document itself was extensively circulated in 1978.

Fol lowing the introduction last year of Bill 31, the predeces sor of this Act, I made it my personal priority to circulate copies to dozens of professional associations, various in terest groups, and concerned individuals. While we have not varied from the principles contained in the policy, we have had very valuable input, and we indeed appreciate that. Therefore we modified some of the provisions of the original Bill and considered how some of the model approaches to the Act might be varied slightly to suit individual association needs.

I certainly hope this high level of discussion and interest will continue. I won't deal with aspects of the legislation unique to The Architects Act, but I want to indicate that some aspects of the internal review are important. In addition to the internal review, it is a matter of interest that this legislation will contain, for the first time for this profes sion, public representation on the governing board or council. This window into the profession is not unique in professional legislation; it is found in The Medical Pro fession Act.

As a government, we recognized that as a formal mechanism that was worth while adopting and following in other professional legislation. Therefore, it has been adopted in this Act, and it is now the policy of the government to permit the window into the profession to be done in one of two ways. One is to permit the public to be represented on the governing body: one member of the public for each group of 10 professional members. So if a body has 30 professional members, at least three members of the public would be appointed.

On the other hand, if the profession itself opted for the manner of review outlined in the 1978 white paper, it would be up to them to decide whether they wished to permit the complainants from the public to become par ties to a legal form of action. Members will recognize that there were strong objections to that particular aspect of the previous legislation, and it is now the policy of the government to permit an option to the professional body. I think that is important.

In terms of the legislation with regard to discipline of practitioners, a concern which I wish to deal with has been raised by at least one other professional body. We had to consider the rights, not only of the public but indeed the members of the profession, to make sure that they had a fair, just, and equitable method of dealing with complaints brought against them either by members of the public or by the profession itself.

Therefore, it has been determined that members of a profession who are disciplined and brought to task by their professional association and if, after the hearing and disciplinary processes a profession may conduct, they are not satisfied that they have received a satisfactory hear ing, it will be of course possible for that practitioner, under this legislation and others which we intend to follow, to bring the matter before the courts, in terms of fact or law. Of course that has given rise to a concern by the engineers, which many members have received today or in recent days.

I want to deal with that now, if I may. The government decided to include the legislation in its pre sent form so there would be the option on the part of a disciplined practitioner to have a trial de novo, a new hearing of the entire complaint procedure, which would entail an appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench; or, if it were a matter solely of law or procedure on behalf of the disciplinary body of the profession, to permit an appeal to the Court of Appeal on that basis, commonly referred to as an appeal on law alone.

However, I want to point out quite clearly that the Act provides — and this is the policy — that while a disci plined person is under any form of suspension by the professional body, it will not be possible for that person to continue carrying on the practice of the profession until either the court permits the practice to continue or otherwise determines the appeal procedure in favor of the practitioner.

I would point out that under the legislation governing the legal profession in the province, an appeal from the disciplinary procedures now exists so that the practitioner may appeal the decision of his peers to the Court of Appeal. As well, it is quite clear that while a suspension, or a disbarment by the Law Society, is in effect, the practitioner cannot continue to practise unless the Court of Appeal permits that to take place pending termination of the legal proceedings. That same principle is embodied in The Architects Act now before the Assembly.

There fore, I think the concerns which had been expressed that it would be detrimental to the health and safety of the public are unwarranted, because the individual would not be able to carry on such practice while under suspension or disbarment, as in the case of the legal profession. The other concern relates to the lengthy time it may take to determine the matter by a complete rehearing of the entire facts of the case, as well as arguments with respect to the legality of the action by the disciplinary bodies.

While it's true that it may add considerable expense not only to the association but to the practi tioners, we feel it is important that the individual be given every opportunity to make sure that an independent as sessment of the operation of the profession is available to the individual practitioner. Therefore, it is the policy to permit the practitioner to have two routes of appeal: one on the matter of fact and law; the other on the matter of law alone. That is embodied in this legislation.

We recognize that this may not find universal favor with every profession, yet it is important that justice not only be done but be seen to be done. While it is impor tant and true that they do carry a high prestige in society,

1718 ALBERTA HANSARD November 25, 1980 professional associations must also be prepared to dem onstrate to society at large that they are responsible and their procedures for discipline within their professional bodies are in fact fair and open to review by the courts of the land. So, Mr.

Speaker, with those comments, I would like to conclude my participation in the debate and indicate that we hope this legislation will serve as a model for others that follow, indeed that the policy paper we put forward in 1978 with suitable options now available to the profes sions from which to choose when they look at The Architects Act, will provide the flexibility and balance required to make sure that the public interest is being protected, that the professions themselves are carrying out their important self-governing responsibilities, and that the public can be assured there is a public window into the professions either through public representation on the governing boards or councils, or if the profession itself so chooses, by permitting the public complainants to be part of the disciplinary proceedings as parties, which was part of the previous legislation.

That's their option now, and other options are open to the profession. So we believe that in reasonable balance this legislation represents a very important step forward after — as the hon. Leader of the Opposition and others have pointed out — several years of review, public debate, and having a policy before the public for their consideration and comment.

We feel that this legislation reflects a reasonable balance which will serve the people of Alberta, the professional bodies, and the individual practitioners: a very satisfac tory way of finding a place in today's society for profes sional individuals and organizations. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, to take

part in second reading of Bill No. 90, The Architects Act, 1980, I want to make basically three points in the course of my rather brief remarks. The first comment is that the hon. Minister of Ad vanced Education and Manpower, who I gather is re sponsible for the co-ordination of all professional legisla tion, is accurate when he indicates that it's been some seven or eight years since this matter was first raised under this government, and I know the previous adminis tration spent some time on the idea of a select legislative committee to look at the matter. I'm not critical of the time it's taken.

Where I would be very critical, though, is that this piece of legislation, The Architects Act, 1980, which is supposedly model legisla tion other provinces are looking at, if my memory is correct, a week today. We are giving it second reading today, in the rather waning hours of this session. I know the point can be made that the matter has been before the public for some years, but this morning my office phoned seven individuals who are involved in professions affected by this legislation, and only one of those groups had copies of the legislation.

Now if this legislation is as important as the Minister of Housing and Public Works indicates and it's model legislation not only for Alberta but for other provinces looking at it, I would suggest to the ladies and gentlemen on the government side of the House that we're becoming somewhat slack in the way we are getting major pieces of legislation in, even though this piece was in before. Members will recall last spring that considerable concern was expressed by a number of groups, and that was the reason the government took the action it did. Frankly, Mr.

Speaker, I have no difficulty with the basic concepts in the legislation, but I'd be less than honest to the minister and to the minister responsible for the overall area of professional legislation, that in the future let's get the legislation in — it would seem to me two weeks is not an unreasonable period of time. I'd be very interested in hearing from the Minister of Housing and Public Works why the legislation couldn't have been brought in earlier this fall session, now that we learn it was the top priority of the Minister of Advanced Educa tion and Manpower during the past summer.

That's the first point I want to make. Clearly under stand, Mr. Speaker, that it's not a question of the prin ciple of the Bill. Rather, with this being the first legisla tion, the model legislation we're going to use, it's no model to bring it in late and put it through in the course of a week's time, like we're doing. The second comment I'd like to make, Mr. Speaker, deals with the idea the minister used of a public window, of the public's being represented with professional groups. That's commendable. I note that representatives of the architectural profession are here in the gallery today.

I hope they and other professions take seriously that my office and I'm sure other MLAs in the Assembly are increasingly getting questions from our constituents about the ways professional organizations handle their responsibilities. Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that at this time I have no particular complaints on my agenda as far as the architectural profession is concerned.

But I want to make very clear that the way the architectural profession and others handle this question of disciplining their own members when it is warranted and doing that with some dispatch will have considerable impact on the way in which the public views professions' handling their profes sional responsibility as far as disciplining their own members. I think the principle outlined here in this legislation, leaving that to the profession with public representation on the board, is the direction to go.

But members of the architectural profession and the next groups who come along with this kind of legislation should clearly recog nize that they are going to be the people to determine whether dealing with complaints can be best handled this way. I trust it can be; I believe it can be, because frankly, I for one would not want us to see it move in some other direction.

But to the members of the House and the members of the profession, we would be foolish not to keep in mind that the public is becoming increasingly skeptical of — while I wouldn't say other professions as much as it is of us involved in public life, but perhaps they are catching up in that area, and we would be foolish not to recognize that point. The third comment that I want to make, Mr.

Speaker, is to ask the minister if he would outline, either at the conclusion of second reading or in committee, what basic portions of the Bill the government expects to have be the basic framework for other pieces of legislation dealing with professions. Secondly, do the amendments which have been passed out this afternoon deal with the con cerns raised by the interior design people? My informa tion was that amendments would be forthcoming which would go some distance to allay the concerns they had expressed to members of the Assembly. I conclude my remarks, Mr.

Speaker, by saying that I take from the remarks of the Minister of Advanced Education and Manpower that the concerns expressed to members by the engineers and their group, that those

November 25, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 1719 fears have been somewhat removed by the comments made by the Minister of Advanced Education and Manpower. I took from the minister's comments that once the profession dealt with a member of that profes sion on a disciplinary matter and found that that person, in the judgment of the profession, should not have the right to continue to practise, during the time of appeal, if an appeal is lodged, that individual would not be able to practise unless so ordered by a court. If that's the inter pretation, that satisfies me that the major concern has been dealt with. MR.

NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I want to address two matters concerning Bill 90. The first is to echo some of the concerns the Leader of the Opposition has already expressed about the timing of the legislation. I think it has been pointed out that the legislation has been before the House at an earlier time and was held over, dropped, and then held over again. So, one might argue that this Bill has gone through a considerable gestation period. But the point has been made, and I think properly, Mr.

Speaker, that with respect to Bill 90 it's just a matter of a few days ago — I am advised that the interior designers didn't receive a copy of it until five or six days ago. It seems to me that the government has to advise the House why it is prepared to introduce a major piece of legisla tion in the last stages of the Assembly. I gather we're not going ahead with Bill 60, but holy cow, Mr. Speaker, we had Bill 60 introduced with great fanfare the very first day of the Assembly.

Frankly, that's the way we should be dealing with major pieces of legisla tion, so that they are properly introduced, so that members on both sides of the House have an opportunity to consult and get some feedback from constituents and to contact or at least hear representation from the various groups involved. In view of the importance this matter was given by the Minister of Housing and Public Works when he introduced it, as well as by the Minister of Advanced Education, it seems to me important that the Assembly know why the Act was not introduced until the latter part of last week.

We've gone through this before. Last week we got into a bit of a flurry of activity in this Legislature over The Election Act. One day

an Act of more than a hundred pages was dropped on our desks, and two days later we got into second reading. At the risk of repeating argu ments made when The Election Act debate took place, I believe on Thursday night of last week, Mr. Speaker, it is not reasonable that we have this sort of procedure in dealing with major pieces of legislation, especially when we have ministers standing in their places and telling us this is going to be hallmark legislation the rest of the country will look to.

Well, that may be, and I hope it is, but if it's going to be hallmark legislation, it would be much stronger if there were an opportunity for better public input with respect to the details of the legislation itself. Second, I want to underline some of the concerns recently brought to my attention by the interior design people. Simply put, their concern — I think hon. mem bers on both sides of the House have probably received the letter from the counsel for the Registered Interior Designers Institute of Alberta.

Without going into the three specific concerns expressed, I would just underline that those concerns are there. Since all hon. members have received the letter, perhaps the minister would re spond specifically to those concerns. As one interior de signer put it, summarizing it more simply, her concern was that if passed without substantial amendments — and we've just had these amendments distributed today — "The Architects Act will allow architects to 'pass regulations' regarding interior designers." Her concern was: They can define our scope of practice without any consultation with us whatsoever.

It allows one pro fession to have full control over the activities of another profession. Mr. Speaker, I think that may be overstating the case somewhat, nevertheless it's the concern that this individu al writes. I would simply say to the members that if we're going to alleviate some of these concerns, the best way to do that is to have legislation presented so we have an opportunity to consider the implications of the legisla tion, and if the government is proposing amendments, as they are today, that the amendments are proposed well enough ahead of time so we're in a position to assess their impact.

So while the principle of the Bill itself has a good deal of merit, Mr. Speaker — I don't think there's any quarrel about that — I have to stand in my place and say that we've now gone through another in a series of Bills presented to us in a way that in my view just isn't good enough.

I would hope that, if we're going to be dealing with legislative changes in the spring session, at the very least we're given the kind of opportunity to undertake consultation with groups and constituents and not find that one week a major Bill is introduced and the next week we're asked to give it second reading, committee stage, and third reading. MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a few comments in response to the point about timing raised by some members of the House, because I think it leaves a wrong impression.

I'm a member of the profession this Bill will govern, and I'm aware of how long it's been in the works. The hon. Leader of the Opposition said sever al years. I believe there's a reasonable limit to how long a legislative body can keep a profession hanging with an outmoded piece of legislation at a time when it requires upgrading, the economy is booming, and that profession has a direct and very active role in society. I said earlier that it's an old Act. I think the original Act was passed in 1907 or 1908. It was one of the first pieces of legislation passed by the Alberta Legislature.

They've had difficulty for some years in having it up graded and having the professional Act opened. I won't go over the history again of our bringing in the Bill, after considerable public hearings and committee work on the professions and occupations. I really think the time has come for us to make a decision. It's not engraved in stone. What I think supports the Bill in its present form is an agreement between the professional engineers and the architects insofar as rules of practice and joint practice are concerned.

That has been under way for many, many years, and has been very difficult to determine not only in Alberta but in provinces across Canada. So as an architect, I'm rather relieved to see the Legis lature finally dealing with what I believe is "the Bill".

Certainly it's going to allow the profession, which has grown incredibly in membership over the last four- or five-year period, to deal effectively with its members inso far as setting standards for admission, dealing with discip linary matters, and making a contribution to the growth that's going on in a proper and professional way with the other profession of engineering. The interior designers were concerned and caught up in

1720 ALBERTA HANSARD November 25, 1980 this. Mr. Speaker, they are in the unfortunate position of not having a Bill of their own, of practising in a field whereby they do work that at times overlaps the field of architecture. It's very hard to draw a clear-cut line. Over the weekend I spoke to many of them, who are my friends and constituents, with respect to their concerns about the Bill. I know they met with the Deputy Minister of Public Works last night. I've since had a written response from at least one of them.

She is very apprecia tive of that meeting, and they are very happy with the amendments and procedures proposed by the deputy and what has been incorporated in the Bill. So I think that professional group is happy to see some guidelines insofar as not only bringing some kind of order to their own profession but giving them a base on which to start developing their own by-laws and, hopefully, their own Act and professional association. I think it's a good piece of legislation. I don't see anything at all wrong with the amount of time that elapsed during this session before the thing was intro duced.

There have been discussions, drafting, meetings, and consultation with the professional groups involved right to the very last moment. I think that was the proper and right way to do it. I don't know what the engineering association has spent by way of legal fees, time, and meetings of their members in developing these pieces of legislation, but I know that on the part of individual architects in the province it has been very, very considerable. I say we've proceeded properly; we've taken much longer than we should have, but it's here.

I for one want to argue very strenuously against any suggestion that we're rushing this Bill through or that people haven't had a proper opportunity to discuss it. I'm satisfied that the people who had concerns — there was still some concern on behalf of the engineers. There was a flurry of, I think, real concern with respect to some interior designers, not all of them. Those concerns have been alleviated. I cer tainly give my full support to this piece of legislation. MRS. CHICHAK: Mr.

Speaker, I wanted to make just a very few brief remarks with respect to this legislation and perhaps make a correction respecting a statement of the hon. Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care with respect to whether the registered interior designers have legisla tion of their own. I believe, if my record is correct, at the time when a special committee of the Legislative Assem bly carried out its study on professions and occupations, I have listed in there The Registered Interior Designers Institute of Alberta Act.

I'm sure that was simply an error on the part of the hon. minister in being aware of that matter. Just briefly, insofar as time lines that are continually being brought forward with respect to the date of the introduction of the current Bill.

I'd just like to say very quickly that in 1973, when the numerous professional and occupational groups had made representations to the committee — I believe well over 70 groups made repre sentation — and when the study had been concluded and a report written and presented to this Assembly with recommendations, I believe that it was a bit early at that time for the professional organizations to recognize and perhaps accept some of the recommendations being put forward. I think that many of them felt somewhat threat ened with some of the recommendations.

During the course of a number of years, I think that many of the professions have come to recognize that there was a real need to update and perhaps a change of direction in the matter of legislation and processes that needed to be put in place, with respect particularly to new organizations that were being developed, were coming into being, and wished to be recognized and registered. As well, a number of groups had their own legislation which perhaps was minimal and really needed a lot of updating and changes.

Before this could take place, it was necessary for this government to come to grips with the recommendations. Mr. Speaker, although some minor changes are now being expressed in the new legislation, it really didn't move very far from the basic policy put before the public by this government in 1978. But to say that the current legislation before us really didn't give the opportunity for those concerned to digest its impact fully, I find rather difficult to accept entirely. Some clauses may have been changed, rewritten, since the introduction of Bill 31 in 1979 in this Assembly.

The current Bill before us is almost identical to the legislation introduced in 1979. In introducing Bill 31, it was initially held back intentionally to allow an opportunity for the two professions to resolve their differences and to be able to recognize the scope of their authority or jurisdiction. That has been resolved, as the hon. Minister of Housing and Public Works has advised us. Mr.

Speaker, I believe we will always have some dif ferences of view and some difficulties that we will not be able to satisfy every professional group or occupation in every aspect, but we must strive to come as close as possible to provide the ability for these various organiza tions to meet their aspirations. At the same time we must keep in mind that we must also put in place a mechanism to provide the protection for the public that is so necessary. So with respect to this legislation, Mr.

Speaker, I would just like to say that unless we move ahead at this time and give an opportunity to the professional groups for whom we are now embarking on this new legislation to commence their work, to put in place the mechanism, and to have an experience so that where there are difficul ties that need to be resolved — the only way we will reach a time when we can take those steps to resolve them is after we have had some experience.

I would like to urge hon. members to support this legislation rather than delay it, to put it into practise as early as possible, and realistically to give the opportunity for the professional organizations to experience and sin cerely to make an effort to make this thing work, to move in this forward direction, and let it be a model for groups in other parts of Canada and for other provinces.

If they are looking at what we are doing here and waiting to see what success we will have, I think it would be a real recognition of pride for the organizations, for the profes sionals in this province to be able to show the rest of Canada that we can work together, that we can take this bold step, that jointly, in the best interests of the public and for their own pride, ability, and incentive, they can move forward in giving the kind of service they want to give to the public, that they can do it here in this prov ince, and that we can lead in this whole area. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. KUSHNER: Mr.

Speaker, I wasn't going to make any comments on this Bill until Thursday, yesterday — not yesterday, but last week. I have a problem with my calendar: Ukrainian time — I can say that. I'm concerned. I just don't want this government to get too carried away with patting itself on the back with good legislation. I can admit that Bill 90 is a good Bill, but as

November 25, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 1721 long as we can hear what's happening out there — and I'm addressing myself in particular to the interior desig ners. I'm getting telegrams saying: PUTTING THE FREE PRACTICE OF IN TERIOR DESIGN UNDER DIRECT CONTROL OF ARCHITECTS WILL PUT ME AND OVER 150 INDEPENDENT INTERIOR DESIGN CON SULTANTS OUT OF BUSINESS.

This is from the legal counsel of the registered interior designers: Lastly, and most importantly, the membership of the R.I.D.I.A. wants to be assured that their association will be closely consulted with, and involved in devel oping the regulation referred to herein as this matter is of such vital concern to them. Another interior designer: I AM CONCERNED BILL 90 WILL SERIOUSLY JEOPARDIZE MY LIVELIHOOD AS AN IN TERIOR DESIGNER. Let's face it; if there weren't a problem, we wouldn't be getting these kinds of representations. I know that the hon. minister is concerned with those sorts of things.

It's just that we have to be concerned about people giving representations like that. I know that a meeting was held last evening with some 60 interior designers. Unfortunate ly I was unable to attend. Apparently the results of that meeting were favorable. But I really want to get on the record as saying that I'm sure the minister will not proceed with Bill 90 as long as he knows that concerns have not been properly addressed, and I'm sure that he will ensure that everyone does have the opportunity for input, as he did with that meeting last evening. Thank you. DR. BUCK: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to make a comment or two. I'd like to apologize to hon. members of the Assem bly for missing the first part of the debate, but I was at a funeral. Therefore, I'd just like to say that some of the points that I make may have been covered, but I would still like to make them. First of all, I would just like to bring to the attention of the government that we have two similar situations here. Last spring when we brought Bill 30 to this Assembly and were discussing the engineering and architects Acts, they were held over the summer.

In fairness, the government said, we will hold these two Bills over until the fall so we can have representation. Mr. Speaker, I sat on that side of the House, and I know the subtle mechanisms we use when we want to put something through that may not be too popular. When the pressure is there to hold the Bill and all the antis are well organized, you withdraw the Bill. Then you bring it back in very, very smoothly under a new number.

By the time the forces get all their members together to fight big government to hold the Bill until the spring so they have further representation, you bring the Bill in very quickly and slip it through. If I've learned anything in this Assembly, sitting on the government side and then on this side, it is that when a minister comes to caucus or to the Assembly and tells you it's a very subtle, small change: beware. MR. NOTLEY: Watch out. DR. BUCK: Watch out. So Mr. Speaker, I'm accusing the government of . . . [interjection] The government, Eric.

Don't you know that you're a government member? [interjections] I realize the caucus doesn't have much input, Mr. Speaker. MR. NOTLEY: Even though they're a government of 73, Walt. DR. BUCK: I realize that. The Bill has just been in for such a short time. Even the hon. Member for Calgary Mountain View says, hold the Bill, maybe there is a problem. There's nothing that pressing in this Legislature. MR. KUSHNER: Point of order. I didn't relate that I wanted to hold the Bill. I just mentioned that I knew the minister would be concerned and would be addressing the problems of the interior designers.

I didn't say I would like to have the Bill held. DR. BUCK: Well, Mr. Speaker, that's typical of Tory backbenchers; they get a little heat on and they start backing off. That's not the first instance in this Assembly where backbenchers have had representation made to them. I don't have 35 minutes, but I could go on for the whole 35 minutes saying where representations were made to both sides of the House, and the government members didn't have the jam to stand up and oppose the legislation. So let's not get into that argument. Mr.

Speaker, the representation I am making to the Assembly is that we shouldn't put this Bill through, because at this time many ramifications are not popular. The point was brought up by the interior design people, the architects themselves, and the engineers' representa tion. I would like to know, what is the big hurry? What is the difference of four months? I know this government likes to have everything nice and tidy, because there may be an opportunity for other people to make representations and say, hold the Bill. But if we can ram it through in basically three days, that's neat and tidy all right.

Then we have the gall to talk about unilateral action that goes on in Ottawa . . . That's different; that's arrogant when they do it in Ottawa. When we do it here, that's fine; we have strong government. The case I'm making to the Assembly is to hold the Bill and bring it back in the spring. If it's that good, there'll be no problem. We all know that when the weather starts getting 30 below zero and Christmas is coming, nothing is going to happen for the next three months anyway. I'm saying to the hon. Minister of Housing and Public Works, hold the Bill until spring. It's just that simple.

Then the people who have questions to ask of this Assembly and of the minister can ask them. I'm saying to the hon. members of the Assembly, hold the Bill until the spring session. MR. SPEAKER: May the hon. minister conclude the debate? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. CHAMBERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll try to respond to some of the comments made, presuming I can read my handwriting well enough. I would point out that the Member for Edmonton Norwood and the legislative committee worked on that report for some years, and it was tabled in the Legislative Assembly.

In the spring of '78, a policy document with respect to professions and occupations was tabled. Then in the spring of '79, The Architects Act, 1979, Bill 31, was

1722 ALBERTA HANSARD November 25, 1980 introduced. It was intended to be allowed to hang over the summer. Eventually it was allowed to die on the Order Paper, with the idea that we would get input and everybody would have a chance to look at it. Everybody did. We had many representations from many different organizations, and they were all considered at great length. Therefore, I think Bill 90 today really is the end point of many, many years of effort in this regard.

I and some of my friends in the architectural profession aren't getting any younger, and if we keep holding this Bill over, they may retire and no longer be able to practise. I think after all these years — 1909 or 1908, whenever the original Act — I think they really deserve new legislation. Frankly, I think an awful lot of effort, work, and thought has gone into this legislation. It sat for a very long time; it's had input from many sources and many people. I really think it actually is in good form today. Two or three minor amendments will be intro duced in committee.

If we find anything that needs to be amended in the future, we can always amend it. That's what this Legislature is all about. So I would really urge members to recognize that the time has finally come to give the architects their new legislation. With regard to the interior designers, the problem there was really communication. I think they really hadn't fully understood what we're trying to achieve. I'm sorry, the Member for Edmonton Norwood just stepped out, but they really don't have their own legislation as such.

They operate under a private Act, not responsible to a minister, so they don't have professional legislation as such. They perform a terrific service. They still should and, I think, want to have their own Act and their own definition of their profession in the future. You know, the term is broadly used. It can range from people with perhaps very little formal training at all who do a very good job in the area of furniture layout or something, all the way to significant interior renovations. It is a broad area.

I'm sure the educational backgrounds range from very little formal education to four-year de grees and so forth. I think they're also very deserving of their own legislation. But given that they don't have legis lation responsible to a minister in this House, it was felt the proper way to assist the interior designers and to protect the public — we have to remember the protection of the public, the integrity of structures — was therefore to define a scope of practice for the interior designers. We thought this should best be done through regula tions of the Association of Architects.

They very generously agreed to take on the effort to meet with the interior designers, work out areas of practice, and then bring forth in the regulations what these areas of practice would be. I would remind the House that these regula tions are subject to approval by the minister. Further more, there are consequential changes to regulations, if you like, from the building standards Act, that again require approval by the Minister of Labour. So there's a lot of protection built in there.

Once this was all ex plained to the interior designers last night by my deputy minister — I'm quoting from memory here, but I think of 130 registered designers in town, some 65 attended the meeting. Having had the situation explained to them, they found this very acceptable. I received a letter from their association today endorsing what we are doing, saying they were completely satisfied with it. I think members can rest assured that the interior designers are supportive of this Act and what we're doing in this area. I don't know if there are any other concerns I didn't address.

I hadn't really appreciated the — I wouldn't say devious — but the process outlined by my good friend from Clover Bar about holding something to the last minute, then letting it slip through. I learned a lot from that. I thought that was great. I'll try to use that in the future. DR. BUCK: You must have been sleeping through cabi net, Tom. MR. CHAMBERS: That must have been the way it used to be done, Walter. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate getting that advice anyway . . . I really hope I have answered all the questions of the members. Should I have missed any, I'm sure we can cover them at the committee stage.

Thank you. [Motion carried; Bill 90 read a second time] Point of Privilege MR. SPEAKER: If I might just interrupt for a moment, a point of privilege has been raised by the hon. Member for Clover Bar — I noticed he was prevented from being here earlier this afternoon — with regard to some state ments made in a leaflet dealing with the Farmers' Advo cate, indicating he had been appointed by the Legislative Assembly. I didn't look into the statements to see whether they were true nor inquire whether the point of privilege had been raised at the first opportunity, as required.

But the pamphlet has been amended, and I assume that disposes of the matter. Bill 93 The Workers' Compensation Amendment Act, 1980 MR. DIACHUK: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 93, The Workers' Compensation Amendment Act, 1980. In moving second reading, I wish to review some history of the review process and to assure all members of the Assembly that immediately on Friday, the first day my staff was able to, we mailed a copy of Bill 93 to all individuals and groups who made submissions to the select committee and subsequent to the tabling of the select committee report this spring.

Yes, during the moving of Motion 12 on May 22, some brief comments were made in answer to my position. I said I was interested in comments from many of my colleagues because I hope to be able to bring forth amendments to The Workers' Compensation Act in the fall sitting. We are still doing this. I also want to recognize some of the support given to me by two members who managed to speak on Motion No. 12. Mr.

Speaker, at this time I hope members of the Assembly appreciate that Motion No. 12 was not given an opportunity to be debated further, but I would welcome any comments at this time during debate on Bill No. 93. The hon. Member for Clover Bar said that evening, if I may reflect from Hansard: It will be the responsibility of the government to listen to the submissions this summer, and out of those submissions the government, in its wisdom, will decide which of the recommendations we have presented to the Assembly will be implemented.

It was good to receive the support from the loyal opposi tion because that was what I have been doing over the

November 25, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 1723 summer with my staff. The hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview indicated, and I repeat from Hansard: I want to say that I think the hon. minister did a really first-rate job chairing the select committee over the almost one year . . . He did add a little more in there, something about a Beverly nomination or election, but I won't worry about it at this time.

However, of interest in his closing remarks that evening was: I think one of the most important recommendations we've made — and I hope hon. members, especially from the rural areas, will make an effort to sit down with their constituents over the summer — is that we asked all farm organizations in this province to con sider this question of compensation before Septem ber 1, 1981 — not in an abstract sense, but come to grips with it — and get back to the minister with some recommendations on how they see us moving forward with a voluntary compensation plan. If that was acceptable to the hon.

Member for Spirit River-Fairview, it should be acceptable to the rest of the industry that has been meeting with me over the summer. Because of that input we are only proceeding with the monetary items this fall; I still have some appointments to meet with groups later this fall on the select committee recommendations. To date, since the tabling of the report on April 14, I've held 21 meetings and numerous correspondence.

Many of the pieces of correspondence I received did not request an opportunity to meet with me, but my staff immediately proceeded to invite the writers to come and review their concerns in a discussion. The review of the benefits has been ongoing in this Legislature previous to our government. But the review made in 1973 was carried out by this government in order to provide the recipients of income in lieu of work-related injury or disability. This has been done on a yearly basis in order to keep pace with inflation and monetary needs. The recommendations in Bill 93 are to be in effect as of January 1, 1981.

The last increase was July 1, 1979: much overdue, but I believe still in sufficient time to provide the workers of Alberta with suitable income to replace their loss of income because of injuries. I want to share something with members of the Assem bly. Reviews on compensation are ongoing in Canada. Just today I received a

summary of a report tabled in Ontario on their workers' compensation. They have rec ommended in that province to make some really drastic and major changes, major in that they are recommending the ceiling average industrial wage be increased, really moving the maximum to $40,000 a year; however, at the same time, what I would say is regressive step in the structure of the decision-making in workers' compensa tion. They have recommended a new independent and tripartite set-up which would deal with all claims, really what we saw in Britain.

I hope that, when we get copies of that report and when anybody is interested they would take an interest in that report. Some of the changes of that province are dramatic but some are questionable. The other matter I would like to just touch on here was the Speech from the Throne in the United Kingdom. A brief

summary: government will propose measures to improve pensions, war pensions, and other social security benefits will be increased on November 24 and reviewed again next year. Legislation will be brought forward to place a duty on employers to provide sick pay for their employees during the early weeks of sickness. We were advised when we were in Britain that they were looking at a program where a worker would receive either sick pay or compensation in lieu of injury or disability, for the first 26 months; in other words, a 26-month waiting period.

Our select committee report has received a lot of attention because of the recommendation of a three-day continuation of income by the employer. Mr. Speaker, in Bill 93 the first proposal, compensa tion for dependants of a deceased worker, is really part of the recommendation of the select committee.

If I may just reflect on the wording: Where the worker dies as the result of an accident leaving no dependent spouse or where the dependent spouse subsequently dies, the pension contemplated . . . shall be paid to the estate of the deceased worker, or deceased dependent spouse, until such time that the youngest child reaches the age of eigh teen years whereupon the termination lump sums outlined in (i)(

c) shall be paid. It's a new approach that would provide the dependent underage child with the same benefits from a one-parent household. Under the present legislation, we do not have any benefit for a child other than the child's allowance. This amendment would provide for the child to the estate until the child reaches the age of majority, the same as if the child's other parent would have been living. Another area I wanted to touch on in the amendment would be the supplement for pensioners with 50 per cent or greater disability.

That is out of recommendation 7 and would bring to the 1980 level many of the pensioners who are receiving 50 per cent disability or more. It was worded: That where a worker is in receipt of a permanent disability award of 50 per cent of total or greater a supplement shall be paid to age 65 years which, together with the pension award, shall provide a monthly amount equal to that which would have been payable had the scale of compensation in force in the year 1980 been in effect during the year of occurrence of the accident in regard to which the pension was awarded.

The cost of this amendment to be charged to industry and amortized over a ten year period. I'm advised that to fund that supplement to the workers would cost approximately 1 per cent of the present assessment. Mr. Speaker, I believe many of the recommendations would be debated more appropriately item by item in the committee stage. Thank you very much. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I want to make several observations with respect to Bill 93 before the House. First of all, I enjoyed the hon. minister's reference to Hansard, where he drew from both the comments of hon. Member for Clover Bar and my comments.

Might I just repeat again for the record that during the course of almost a year, I guess it was, I think the hon. minister did an excellent job in chairing the special Select Committee on Workers' Compensation. He's to be commended for that. However, the issue before us today is not the com mendable work he did as chairman of the special select committee, but rather the pace at which we're going to see some positive response on the numerous recommen dations contained in the committee report. Mr. Speaker, when I see the undue haste this government uses in dealing with certain types of legislation, changes we've

1724 ALBERTA HANSARD November 25, 1980 seen, for example, in both the Labour Act and The Employment Standards Act. I contrast that with the rather leisurely approach we're taking to the recommen dations of the special select committee. I just have to draw to the members' attention that there seems to be a definite difference in approach between some legislation which is pressed ahead with a damn the torpedoes ap proach, and other legislation where we go back and discuss and discuss and discuss.

I'm not sure whether we can take the example of the Scott poem about Mackenzie King, that he would pile a parliamentary committee on top of a royal commission to deal with this case. We already have, if not the parliamentary committee, at least the legislative committee. I hope we're not now going to appoint a royal commission to examine further the select committee report before we do anything about it. Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with four aspects. First of all, starting with the point that the minister closed with and that's the new

Section 53.1: Notwithstanding

Section 53 . . . after January 1, 1981, an injured person receiving com pensation for (

a) permanent disability, or (

b) permanent partial disability, if the degree of disability in aggregate is at least 50%, shall, until he reaches the age of 65 years be granted an additional supplement . . . I am pleased to see the government move on that recommendation. Now three other brief comments. The first is that while members may be patting themselves on the back for a 20 per cent increase in benefits, I think we have to put this in context. The last time we adjusted benefits, it was not for a period of a year but for 18 months. The increase in benefits at that time was only 10

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19801125
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L19 S2 19801125 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	8bbaebf6f7b1aa6847c6ccb63441874465a5d274

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