Alberta Hansard — 26 May 1975, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 18, Session 1)

19750526

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

May 26, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 157 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Monday, May 26, 1975 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 207 The Auditor General Act MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill 207, being The Auditor General Act. This legislation, Mr. Speaker, would establish the position of a provincial Auditor General.

In addition to having the powers for scrutinizing public expenditures which the Provincial Auditor has, it would introduce the new concept to determine if reasonable value for money has been obtained in the expenditures of public funds. [Leave being granted, Bill 207 was introduced and read a first time. ] Bill 201 The Companies Amendment Act MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill, being The Companies Amendment Act.

The purpose of this bill would be to compel all public companies registered under The Companies Act to include in their annual report to shareholders, and in their annual report to the director of the Companies Branch, any payments made to any director of the company. [Leave being granted, Bill 201 was introduced and read a first time.] Bill 6 The Department of Advanced Education Amendment Act, 1975 DR. HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill, being The Department of Advanced Education Amendment Act, 1975.

The purpose of this bill is to implement changes in the name and function of the Department of Advanced Education resulting from the recent reorganization of the government. [Leave being granted, Bill 6 was introduced and read a first time. ] Bill 17 The Department of Consumer Affairs Amendment Act, 1975 MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill, being Bill No. 17, The Department of Consumer Affairs Amendment Act, 1975. [Leave being granted, Bill 17 was introduced and read a first time.]

158 ALBERTA HANSARD May 26, 1975 head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS MR . ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure this afternoon to introduce to you, and through you to the members of this Assembly, a distinguished group who yesterday witnessed an historical event at Renfrew Park in the City of Edmonton on the official opening of the little league baseball season. I would like to introduce to you, and if I may, Mr. Speaker, take a moment to elaborate a little bit about the event that took place yesterday.

The fact that a ball game was played — it was a challenge game between the members of this Legislature and the city aldermen. The members of the Legislature — and if I may refer to their names, a very gallant crew indeed sir: the Hon. Al Warrack, Bob Dowling, Julian Koziak, Bill Diachuk, Les Young, Tommy Lysons, Winston Backus, Gordon Taylor, and yours truly — came out on the winning end of a 7-6 score, after going into the last inning trailing 6-0. [laughter] AN HON. MEMBER: How much did it cost you? MR.

ADAIR: [Inaudible] one of the things that has resulted in these fine gentlemen being here this afternoon is the fact that a phone call from the Mayor of the City of Edmonton to the Premier this morning was a challenge issued for another game. But in that particular game the Premier must play, and also His Worship the Mayor must play. Mr. Premier, I’ll leave you to respond to that.

But I would like now to introduce to you, His worship the Mayor of the City of Edmonton, William Hawrelak; Tom Forgrave, the intergovernmental officer for the City of Edmonton; Peter Kmech, the public relations officer for the City; and the gentleman in the members gallery by the name of Bill Wilson, a freelance photographer. Bill, would you just wave at us? Mr. Speaker, we retain the trophy for another year. [applause] MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, if I may just add, we accept the challenge, with the condition that’s placed. [laughter] MR. TAYLOR: Mr.

Speaker, I beg leave to introduce to you, and to the hon. members of the Legislature, the students from Grades 7 and 8 of the Rumsey School, together with their principal, Mr. Doug Maishment; the bus driver, Mr. Bud Upton; and Mrs. Upton. I would ask the students from Rumsey to stand and be recognized by the Legislature. MR. COOKSON: Mr. Speaker, it's a real pleasure this afternoon to introduce to you, and to the members of the Assembly, a group of young people from the Canadian Union College, a private college in the constituency of Lacombe. They're accompanied by their teacher, Gary Brendal.

I would ask that they rise and be recognized by the Assembly. They're in the members gallery. MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of introducing today to you, and to the members of the Assembly, 21 young men from the 123rd Boy Scout Troup, from the districts of Lake Bonavista and Willow Park in the Calgary Egmont constituency. They are accompanied by their leader, Mr. Bodon; Mr. Davidson, Mr. Cameron, and Mr. Lloyd. They are in the members gallery, and I would ask that they stand and be recognized. MR. BOGLE: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to introduce to you, and to the members of the Assembly, three representatives from the Barons Eureka Health unit. They are Helen Wentz, councillor from the Town of Taber; Steve Slemko, councillor from the County of Lethbridge; and Earl Foxall, Secretary-Treasurer from the health unit and from the Town of Coaldale. DR. HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, I'm particularly pleased to introduce, for the third year in a row, students from my constituency from the Father Leo Green school — 75 Grade 4 students with their teacher, Mrs. Ritter. If I may, Mr.

Speaker, through you, and to the Assembly, say that I had a most interesting 60-minute question and answer and discussion period with them during the last session. I'd like to ask the teacher and the students to stand and be recognized by this Assembly.

ALBERTA HANSARD 159 head: MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Office of the Premier MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members are aware, on May 2, 1973, in a statement to the Alberta Legislature I outlined requirements for public disclosure by ministers of their land holdings and other business interests.

These requirements included the filing by each minister, for public inspection, on or before July 1, 1973, with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, a statement showing: (1) a legal description of all land in Alberta, including mineral rights, [in] which they or their families have any direct or indirect interest, whether as owner, lessee, mortgagee, unpaid vendor, shareholder of a private company, or otherwise; (2) the names of all private companies doing business in Alberta in which they or their families have a financial interest; (3) a description of all proprietorships and partnerships doing business in Alberta in which they or their families have an interest.

It was further required that the statement should be kept up to date by filing amendments at the time of any additions or deletions. Families were defined to include the minister's spouse and minor children. All ministers, in fact, filed such statements for public inspection in late June of 1973. I have again requested that all ministers sworn in as members of the Executive Council of Alberta on April 3, 1975, file for public inspection a new or initial statement, as the case may be, prior to June 30, 1975, with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly. The requirements for ministers, Mr.

Speaker, further provided that ministers shall not own, directly or indirectly, shares in any public company whose business might be materially affected by the decisions of the Government of Alberta. Ministers have, however, the option of establishing a trust upon the condition the minister exercise no influence whatsoever over the investment or management decisions of the trust, with all such decisions to be in the discretion of the trustee. If that is done, there should be no restriction on the trustee's right to purchase shares.

In addition to such a public disclosure statement and prohibition on owning shares in any public company whose business might be materially affected by the decisions of the government, the ministers, as members of the Legislative Assembly, are subject to other prohibitions and restraints contained within The Legislative Assembly Act. These include the prohibition of a member of the Legislative Assembly undertaking, directly or indirectly, any contract with the government under which any public money has been paid to the member for any service, matter, or thing.

This prohibition, or requirement for continued eligibility, is subject to only specified exceptions contained within The Legislative Assembly Act. Taken together, Mr.

Speaker, that is, the statement for public inspection by ministers of their land holdings and business interests; the prohibition against a minister owning shares in a public company whose business might be materially affected by decisions of the Government of Alberta, unless established through a trust; and the prohibitions and restraints set forth in The Legislative Assembly Act; are such that I am satisfied the public interest is served insofar as members of the Executive Council are concerned. In my earlier statement to the Legislature, Mr.

Speaker, I said that the arrangement regarding the senior public service was only an interim position, and that I was not fully satisfied with the situation. However, I did not wish to delay the matter regarding public disclosure of interest for elected ministers. It has been my intention, Mr. Speaker, for many months to alter and tighten up the situation respecting senior public officials after the election, and as the deputy ministers and others were entering into new employment relationships as part of a larger reorganization of government. I've come to the conclusion, Mr.

Speaker, that all deputy ministers and other senior public officials of comparable management responsibilties, such as chairmen of certain Crown agencies, boards, and commissions, should make full public disclosure of their land holdings and business interests, in an identical nature to those being made by elected ministers. These new arrangements will also include the prohibition of owning, directly or indirectly, shares in any public company whose business might be materially affected by decisions of the Alberta government, unless placed in a trust in the same manner as that provided for by ministers.

These statements for public inspection will be filed by the deputy ministers, and other specified senior public officials, with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly on or before August 30, 1975. A list of the positions in addition to deputy ministers, will in due course be tabled in the Legislature. In addition, Mr.

Speaker, it is our intention that senior public management officials should also be bound by similar prohibitions and restrictions in dealing with the provincial government, as is the case with elected ministers as members of the Legislative Assembly -- in short, that senior public management officials should be precluded from having any business dealings with the government unless specifically exempted by the May 26, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 159

160 ALBERTA HANSARD May 26, 1975 regulations. The government intends, in due course, to bring forth appropriate regulations or legislation to meet this objective. Mr. Speaker, it is recognized that such provisions as outlined today may restrict or hamper the government’s ability to attract to senior management positions. However, on balance, it is my view that such public disclosure, and prohibitions against certain business activity, will substantially reduce the possibility for conflict of interest by senior government officials in the carrying out of their duties. MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, in responding to the announcement by the Premier with regard to public disclosure, as far as cabinet ministers are concerned, this is a continuation of the government’s policy for the last four years, and I commend them for this. I would say that as far as senior public management officials are concerned, in light of recent developments in Alberta, and especially the circumstances surrounding the former Deputy Minister of Agriculture, it's indeed appropriate that these kinds of guidelines come forward at this particular time. I think it's important, Mr.

Speaker, that we recognize nevertheless that the announcement by the Premier today does not lessen the need for the report from the Provincial Auditor regarding the activities of the former Deputy Minister of Agriculture to be made public, and at the earliest possible date. I would also hope, Mr. Speaker, that in the course of this Legislative Assembly, we would find it appropriate to look at the whole Legislative Assembly Act from the standpoint of relationships between members of the Legislature and their particular responsibilties there. The last comment I'd like to make, Mr.

Speaker, dealing with this question of senior public officials: it's one thing to have guidelines such as this, but I would hope in this province that those people who take on responsibilities of deputy minister status and chairmen of a variety of government boards would have the good common sense themselves, in fact, to stay well clear of areas affected by these guidelines and certainly not be involved in the kinds of dealings centring around members of their immediate family or close family, and involvement in the public service. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD PWA -- Trucking MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to direct the first question to the Minister of Transportation and ask what progress is being made with regard to negotiations between PWA and its employees or others on the question of sale of PWA trucking? DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, the situation at the present time is, having regard to the nature of Pacific Western Airlines and its relationship to the Canadian Transport Commission, that any sale of its trucking arm has to have the approval of the Canadian Transport Commission. That approval is being sought at the present time. MR.

CLARK: When did the government change its position all of a sudden and need the approval of the Transport Commission? DR. HORNER: That isn't the question at issue, Mr. Speaker. MR. CLARK: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the minister. Are the government and PWA considering selling the trucks themselves and the trucking rights, or just the equipment? DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, that's a matter which is being handled by the board of directors in normal business transaction. I'm sure that information can be made available once the sale is consummated. MR.

CLARK: A further supplementary to the minister, or perhaps to the Premier. Has the government had discussions with the chairman of PWA regarding the sale of PWA trucking? DR. HORNER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I've been apprized of the decision of the board of directors of Pacific Western Airlines through the chairman of the board, having regard to their decision on a business basis that they should sell the trucking arm, and that they would like to sell it to their employees. MR. CLARK: A further supplementary to the minister, Mr. Speaker.

When the minister said "would like to sell" PWA trucking, was he, in fact, also alluding to the running rights, which I understand deal with running rights not only in Alberta but in British Columbia and the Territories? DR. HORNER: Well, that would be part of the business transaction, Mr. Speaker.

May 26, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 161 Industrial Land Banks MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a second question to the Minister of Business Development. Does the province plan to make loans available so that towns can set up industrial land banks? MR. DOWLING: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition is undoubtedly referring to an

article that appeared in the Edmonton Journal some time ago as a result of discussions, both of a private and a governmental nature, that took place with various planning officials in the Province of Alberta. Those discussions and meetings are held quite often by members of the Department of Business Development and Tourism in a rather thought- provoking, stimulating atmosphere in order that possible effective methods of developing rural Alberta might be hit upon. The meeting the hon. member is undoubtedly referring to was held in Jasper, and several proposals were put forward.

These proposals don't necessarily represent government policy, nor have they been discussed at either a caucus or cabinet level, but are matters that the department discusses at various times on a continuing basis. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister.

In light of his answer and of one of the recommendations contained in the industrial corridor concept, the information tabled in the House last fall concerning industrial land banks, are we going to have a statement from the government during the spring session concerning the question of industrial land banks as discussed in the industrial, energy corridor concept? MR. DOWLING: Mr. Speaker, I would hate to put that kind of time constraint on a statement regarding any land banking proposal that might possibly come in the future.

I think the time constraints on all of us are such that it will be some time down the road before anything comes forward. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question to the hon. minister. Does the government favor the concept of a land bank for industry as proposed in the energy corridor proposal? MR. DOWLING: Well, Mr. Speaker, without knowing at all the implications of that sort of philosophy, I would have to say we're not in a position to make a comment. PWA MR. TAYLOR: My question is to the hon. Deputy Premier.

Have any interveners filed objections with CTC regarding the purchase of PWA, which closed on May 24? DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, the time for interveners ended on May 24. It's my information that the only intervention was by the Province of British Columbia. I've had an opportunity to peruse their intervention. My preliminary examination would reveal they are matters that could probably more properly be dealt with between British Columbia and ourselves in direct negotiations. MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary.

Would the intervention of the Province of British Columbia lead us to believe that B.C. was very anxious to acquire PWA? AN HON. MEMBER: Not on your life. DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, in fairness, the nature of their intervention is to assure service and employment in the Province of British Columbia. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question to the hon. minister. Is it the government's intention to immediately contact the B.C. government to see if this matter can be settled by negotiation? Or will there, in fact, be hearings by the CTC as a result of the intervention by the Province of British Columbia? DR. HORNER: Mr.

Speaker, it would be my opinion that we should enter into discussions with the Province of British Columbia in conjunction with my colleague, the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs, and notify the CTC to that effect. MR. TAYLOR: One further supplementary. Due to the fact that there is only one intervener, and that one is questionable, would it now be realistic to say that CTC could properly drop this nonsense? DR. HORNER: I would certainly agree with the hon. member.

162 ALBERTA HANSARD May 26, 1975 Rapid Transportation DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Deputy Premier and Minister of Transportation. What is the present situation regarding Alberta and Ontario co-operation re transportation research? Has our government, in co-operation with the Ontario government, invested funds in this area? DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, I can't give a full response to that question at the present time.

There are ongoing negotiations, and I would hope that later in this session either my colleague, the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs, or myself might make a much fuller statement on the matter. DREE Grants MR. SHABEN: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs. In cases where Department of Regional Economic Expansion grants are provided to industries, is consideration given to the effect such grants may have on competitive industries? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Speaker, under the General Development Agreement which, I believe, was concluded in March 1974, the subagreements which may be entered into do require that cognizance be taken of other industries already operating in Alberta. However, the fact that an industry may be operating in Alberta in a competitive situation would not preclude assistance through the DREE program provided that in all cases the Alberta priorities are carried forward first. Manpower Training Grants MR. SHABEN: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Advanced Education and Manpower.

Is similar consideration given in cases where manpower training grants are provided to industry? DR. HOHOL: Generally yes, Mr. Speaker. I should like to point out that our concern in government is that the circumstances in a particular geographic area rather than the boundaries which surround it, as the DREE agreements provide, make the conclusions between us and Ottawa.

Accordingly, the agreement which expired at the end of March 1975 with respect to training programs in the North, specifically Slave Lake and the community vocational centres -- typically one-room schools for adults, without a specified curriculum — is being replaced by what we are calling an Alberta North Agreement. This is an unspecified area which would go well beyond the Slave Lake area into the northeastern and northwestern parts of Alberta. I would like to suggest that from our dealings with the federal government to this point, it appears we will have a successful agreement in a few weeks.

Drivers' Licences MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Deputy Premier in charge of transportation, or the hon. Solicitor General. The question is: with the increased load limits on our highways announced just recently, how are they going to classify the Class 5 driver's licence which now limits drivers to 24,000 pounds? There are increases to 27,000, and the limit now is that a Class 5 driver's licence can only operate a 24,000- pound unit. DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could respond in this way.

As we change our weight limits, pretty obviously we're going to have to review the question of driver qualification as well. I would expect that over the coming months that's exactly what we will be doing. Industrial Relations — Complaints MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Labour, and it is this.

What is the current status of a complaint filed before the Board of Industrial Relations on February 6, 1975, by the Christian Labour Association Local 63 and Ralph Eerkes Painting and Decorating against the International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades Union 1016, alleging unfair labor practices?

May 26, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 163 MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for indicating to me in advance that he was going to ask a question on this subject. There are two situations at issue. The board has no up-to-date information on why there is some job activity in process there as of today. But as to the complaints which were filed, the matters brought to the board in February, those will be made the subject of a ruling which the board will publish to the parties probably during this week. MR. YOUNG: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker.

Can the minister advise then whether, in view of the response, the Board of Industrial Relations has commenced investigation of the harassing situation which is alleged to have occurred on Thursday and Friday of last week? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, those are the recent developments that I understood were taking place as of today. The hon. member says, as of last Thursday and Friday, and I'm sure that's the case. The board did not have information on those more recent developments, but I would be glad to look into them and report to the hon. member. Oil Pricing MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to direct this question to the hon. Premier. It concerns reports of a speech last week by the Minister of Energy concerning the price for oil of $9.50 to $10 a barrel. My question to either the hon. Premier or the Minister of Energy is: does this figure represent the official position of the Government of Alberta as to the price requested for Alberta petroleum? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, the way I presented the case for the $9.50 to $10 price was that it was a guideline suggested by the Premier of the Province of Quebec.

The Government of Alberta considered it to be a good guideline in that it was the average price for oil in the largest market in which Alberta competes and serves. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question to the hon. minister. What kind of discussion took place on this particular price at the recent energy conference? Was there any official discussion as to price, not during the open session, but the closed session? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, it was the official position of the Province of Quebec, which they later discussed publicly themselves.

Other than that, I think it was probably discussed generally amongst the various participants in the conference. But no particular decision was reached, as was acknowledged by the Prime Minister. MR. NOTLEY: A further supplementary question to the hon. minister. Has the Government of Alberta given any consideration to the concept of a differential price between old oil and new oil, as was discussed during the open sessions of the federal energy conference? MR. GETTY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

That was one of the options considered by the government over some period of time in trying to develop sufficient incentives for future exploration and development in our province. However, the conclusion we reached, as has been expressed in the House, was that a new oil and old oil royalty system was probably a better method with which to handle it. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question to the hon. minister. Has the government made any final determination yet with respect to supplementary royalties, assuming a price increase in oil? Has that been finalized as yet? MR. GETTY: Mr.

Speaker, this matter of pricing of oil and natural gas is presently subject to negotiation between ourselves and the federal government. The hon. member recalls, the Premier, in his ALPEP statement in December of 1974, mentioned it was the government's intention that should there be a price increase above $6.50, the 65 per cent supplementary price would not necessarily be continued. Since, obviously, a price arrangement has not been decided upon yet, there is no decision as to what the supplementary royalty percentage will be. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question.

What is the government's unconditional target date for an increase in the price of oil in Canada? MR. GETTY: The government has not arrived at one, Mr. Speaker. Greenbelt DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Environment if he can indicate to the Legislature approximately how many areas were affected by the increase in the Edmonton greenbelt area?

164 ALBERTA HANSARD May 26, 1975 MR. RUSSELL: The most recent extension to that, Mr. Speaker, was a strip about seven miles long and a half-mile wide, plus some additional odd pieces down at the south end — so about four square miles. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, could the hon. minister indicate to the House how many public meetings were held before this land was taken into the greenbelt area? MR. RUSSELL: There were no public meetings with respect to this particular extension, Mr. Speaker. But I think, looking back over the history of this particular project, that it has been well publicized.

It's a well-known fact that it's the objective of the government to extend the greenbelt around Calgary and around Edmonton. Insofar as follow-up with the affected landlowners is concerned, of course I propose to follow the very excellent procedure adopted by my predecessor, the hon. Mr. Yurko, and discuss any land or ownership or use problems that any of the affected landowners may have. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, could the hon. minister indicate to us that fine procedure the former minister, or the department, used? Was that just the mailing of a caveat saying it had been frozen, and that was it?

Was that the consultation? MR. CLARK: That was the first part of it. MR. RUSSELL: No, Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that any landowner who has a proposed change of use for his affected land discusses it with the department. If there appears to be some problem, or disagreement, with allowing the development to go ahead, the landowner has the option of offering his land for sale, and an agreement is entered into along those lines. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary.

Can the hon. minister indicate to the Assembly what prior consultation there was with the people in the area before the original greenbelt was established? MR. RUSSELL: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think maybe the hon. member is overlooking something, and that's the very important aspect of confidentiality the government must maintain in a project like this with respect to major land zoning and preservation. Naturally it's very difficult, as the hon. member can probably appreciate, to keep the location of the restricted zone away from the knowledge of certain speculators and developers.

This would effectively hamper the success of the greenbelt. But certainly, once the zone is declared, there's full and ample consultation. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, just one final supplementary question. Can the hon. minister indicate how many public meetings were held in the affected areas, before the greenbelt was put into effect? MR. RUSSELL: [Not recorded] I've outlined the chronology of discussions that are held with affected landowners, and the timing with which the particular location is made known.

If the hon. member wants more detail on that, if he'd put it on the Order Paper, I could check the dates of meetings with any particular group or groups of persons. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, he could save the taxpayers some money and just tell us there weren't any. MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. member knows the answer, perhaps he doesn't need to ask the question. MR. CLARK: It's more important the public knows. Irrigation Funding MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture.

Over the weekend, the federal government announced an increase of $9.8 million towards headwork projects on the Bow River between Calgary and Brooks. My question is: has the minister made representation to the federal government for increased funding to individual irrigation districts for rehabilitation? MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, no. Since I've been in office, I have not made representations to the federal government for increased funding in that regard. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to the minister. Would that be one of the items on his agenda for the summer, or at an early date? MR.

MOORE: I haven't completed my summer agenda yet, Mr. Speaker. It may be.

May 26, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 165 MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister. To retain the principle of equity among the irrigation districts, what steps has the minister taken to have the federal government pick up any escalating costs of projects on other main waterways, such as the Oldman River? MR. MOORE: I really think, Mr. Speaker, that those are questions which should be directed toward the federal government.

Certainly, our position of having made an announcement to spend some additional $200 million over the next 10 years on irrigation districts throughout southern Alberta is a commitment that will be carried out in such a way as to be as equitable as possible, from our point of view. MR. R. SPEAKER: Supplementary to the minister. My understanding is that these projects are under a Canada-Alberta irrigation agreement. What part will the minister play in initiating the expenditure for capital works or negotiating with the federal government for priority of various projects, under that particular agreement? MR.

MOORE: Mr. speaker, I would think we will be able to play whatever

part is necessary to ensure there is some equity with respect to the various irrigation districts involved. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to the minister. Is the minister then prepared to meet at an early date with the federal government to ensure that, if there is an escalation, any funds available for escalating costs are secured by the Province of Alberta under this agreement? MR. MOORE: No, Mr. Speaker. I’m not yet aware that there is, in fact, an escalation as the hon. member describes.

I will make a commitment to pursue the questions he has raised with respect to escalation in costs and, as well, with respect to any representations we may or may not make to the federal government with regard to its input. Firearms Ban MR. TAYLOR: My question is to the hon. Solicitor General. Was there some hint of a Mafia fight-out that led the hon. minister to declare that machine guns and fully automatic rifles would no longer be sold to the public? MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, there was no hint of a Mafia shoot-out. MR. TAYLOR: Supplementary.

Was there some particular reason that this order was given all of a sudden? MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, there was an attempt, a successful attempt, to import six machine guns into Lethbridge. It was not considered to be in the public interest to have them either possessed or transported within Alberta. Alberta Hospital Escapees MR. BATIUK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my question to the Attorney General, in regard to the incident at Alberta Hospital in which five youths escaped in a stolen car.

Could the minister advise why these youths were kept in the Alberta Hospital, waiting for court action after law-breaking in the County of Parkland? MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, I'm not personally aware of all details of persons who have been brought into custody by the RCMP. However, I'd be very happy to inquire into the matter and discuss it with the member. Environment — Public Hearings MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this question to the hon. Minister of Environment. It concerns the ammonia plant at Raymond.

In view of the previous minister's commitment to hold formal public hearings on environmental matters, has the minister requested the Environment Conservation Authority to hold such hearings? MR. RUSSELL: Mr. speaker, the former minister in responding to such requests suggested to persons who had written to him that a public information hearing, which may be conducted by the Department of Environment rather than the Authority, might be useful to those interested parties, and it would be held only in the event the application might be approved.

So until the application is considered and perhaps approved by Executive Council, the question of public hearings in any form remains an academic one.

166 ALBERTA HANSARD May 26, 1975 MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question. Does the government not consider, especially in light of the motion passed by the Lethbridge city council requesting formal hearings by the ECA, that the cabinet's deliberation would be assisted as a result of public hearings which would look into not only the environmental questions, but the social impact as well? MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, it's true that public concerns naturally would be a matter of interest to Executive Council. I'm sure that will be taken into consideration at the time the application is discussed. MR.

NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question. In light of the minister's answer, is the cabinet giving any consideration then to holding the hearings before the decision is made? Hearings after the decision is made are rather academic. MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has perhaps missed the point I'm making, and that is: the possibility that the application may be rejected at this time would solve the problem of public hearings. It would only be in the event the Executive Council saw its way to perhaps approving the application that they would discuss the matter of the public hearings.

MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question for clarification. What impact or influence could public hearings have after the application is accepted by Executive Council? Would Executive Council be prepared to reconsider the matter in light of public hearings once the application is accepted? MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I'm not explaining it very carefully. I am saying that if the decision not to proceed is reached, the matter of public hearings would be academic.

If the application was judged to be worthy of consideration or a further review by Executive Council, at that point we would ask that these public information hearings be held. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, one further supplementary question for clarification. Surely the minister would agree that to have input from the public, it makes sense to have the input . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The hon. member's clarification is going from him to the minister rather than vice versa. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, would the minister not agree that the public . . . SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order. Order. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

The hon. member is going to generate a debate in which he himself will be handicapped for lack of a reply. MR. NOTLEY: Let me rephrase the question and ask the hon. minister whether, in light of the motion passed by Lethbridge city council, the cabinet would not reconsider its position and agree to have public hearings by the ECA or some other appropriate body before a decision is made? MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I've tried to point out as clearly as I can that the commitment earlier made with respect to public information hearings would be made at the time the decision is made on the application.

Perhaps it's important to point out at this time that public hearings have already been held — substantive public hearings — by the ERCB. We've responded to the City of Lethbridge council and other interested parties. The commitment of the previous minister still stands. But up to a certain point it remains academic, because one has to assume the project will be proceeding, and it would only be if that direction were taken that we would proceed with the hearings. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, one final supplementary question to the hon. minister.

Is it the government's view that the hearings held by the ERCB, which did not deal with environmental or social concerns, constitute a substitute for full-scale hearings by the ECA? MR. RUSSELL: [Not recorded] they constitute a substitution, but certainly they are open to any interested interveners or parties who wish to speak on a variety of subjects. The ERCB report does, in fact, deal with those matters. It's not necessary in all these cases that the ECA hold a fullfledged public hearing, which we traditionally associate with major projects and which the ECA holds under those conditions.

May 26, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 167 Edmonton City Boundaries MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and ask the status of negotiations or discussions with the City of Edmonton regarding the boundaries of the City of Edmonton? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, the question of the boundaries of the City of Edmonton is being reviewed right now by the Edmonton Regional Planning Commission. We expect to have a reply by 1976, I believe. Edmonton Municipal Government MR. CLARK: Further question to the minister, Mr. Speaker.

Has the minister responded to the suggestion from the City of Edmonton concerning a unitary form of municipal government here in Edmonton? MR. JOHNSTON: It's under consideration, Mr. Speaker. Boundaries Commission MR. CLARK: I didn't even get time to sit down. Supplementary question, to the minister, Mr. Speaker. With regard to the boundaries commission presently looking at boundaries in rural Alberta, when does the minister expect the report to be in his hands? Or when does the minister expect to be able to table the report in the Legislature? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Speaker, as you know the order in council required that the boundaries commission file a final report by the end of 1975. It's my information they are proceeding toward that deadline. MR. CLARK: Further supplementary to the minister. Has the minister asked or specifically discussed with the boundaries commission whether they will be on target for the end of 1975? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I've had a meeting with Mr. Leslie, who chairs the boundaries commission. He has assured me he is working toward that end. Local Authorities Board MR. CLARK: One further question, Mr. Speaker.

Can the minister give us some indication whether the government plans for the Local Authorities Board to continue to function? MR. JOHNSTON: The Local Authorities Board will continue to function within the parameters it now operates. Trucking Permits MR. PLANCHE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. Is some consideration being given to a residency requirement before issuing trucking permits or running rights to out-of-province trucking companies operating in Alberta? DR. HORNER: The short answer, Mr. Speaker, is yes. We are considering a residence clause for truckers.

That will be reviewed with both the Alberta Motor Transport Association and the Independent Truckers' Association.

168 ALBERTA HANSARD May 26, 1975 ORDERS OF THE DAY head: CONSIDERATION OF HIS HONOR THE LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR'S SPEECH Mr. King proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an humble address be presented to His Honor the Honorable the Lieutenant-Governor of Alberta as follows: To His Honor the Honorable Ralph G.

Steinhauer, Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Alberta: We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly now assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honor for the gracious speech Your Honor has been pleased to address to us at the opening of the present session. [Adjourned debate: Mr. Mandeville] MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak on this debate. I was going to use the term "pleasure", but I don't think I will. I think it's more or less an obligation. First I do want to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on being re-elected as the Speaker of this House.

I think you have shown that you have earned the confidence of all the members in this House as you sit in this Chair. I'd also like to congratulate the Deputy Speaker. I'm sure he will be able to keep the House in hand. If he can't, he'll just have to raise that voice of his, and I'm sure we will all come to tune. As for my condolences, I think I'm going to have to reserve them for this little corner over here. I realize that we're a minority group and we're going to have a position that's going to be hard to fill. Sometimes I think you're going to wonder what role we really play. MR.

NOTLEY: We're like the whooping cranes. MR. MANDEVILLE: Yes, we're something like the whooping cranes. But maybe we could take note from that. The whooping cranes are starting to come back, and if they don't land on muddy waters they just might survive. But as an opposition minority group as small as we are, it is going to be hard to function, and to function properly. Many times we're going to have problems brought to us from the people of this province — and we do represent quite a few people — in the vote there was 37 per cent, but they're not the only people whom we've got to represent.

We have to represent everyone who comes to us and wants to get through to the government. I think everybody should have a pipe into the government or into the Legislature. So sometimes you'll see us on this side of the House supporting some Albertan who has gotten in touch with us, and we might not necessarily agree 100 per cent with the views of the person who comes to us to seek them out. As one of the members of this minority group, I can assure everyone that I'm going to be as objective and as constructive as I can possibly be. I'm looking forward to working with the government.

I'm looking forward to working with my colleagues here on the opposition, with the people of this province, and last but not least, with the constituents who put me into this Legislature and who are responsible for my being here. I realize that as it is, it's going to be hard for me to give them the attention I did in the past. I'm going to have to change my role. In the past I spent most of my time in my constituency, working with cabinet ministers and civil servants to get my work accomplished. But, as I say, it is going to be a different role at this point.

I recall in 1967, when I was first elected to this Legislature, hearing the term, "coming in on coattails", or there's a possibility you "come in on a coattail". I really couldn't deny that at that point, but on this last election in 1975 I don't think I could accept the term. I think if we had a term, we would have to say that we came in on a wand. Mr. Speaker, in all fairness, as I said, my concern is good government for the people. I'm not so concerned about who gives the good government, and I would have to say, in the past four years the people of this province have been blessed with pretty good government.

However, I'm going to have to . . . DR. BUCK: Compared to what? AN HON. MEMBER: Thirty-six. MR. MANDEVILLE: . . . put out a caution to the government. We have to be really cautious. There is lots of money in the treasury. There's lots of money coming in now, and we've got to be really careful where we're spending this non-renewable resource, the money that we're getting from it. I'm referring to investing in, say, Pacific Western Airlines or

May 26, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 169 the Syncrude development in the tar sands. These areas take big portions of money to finance. I really support going ahead with developing the tar sands, but I do caution the government against getting involved too deeply in these areas. I think what will happen somewhere down the road, we're investing in Syncrude now, they're going to come back wanting more funds, or they're going to want to supplement their operation up there. There are also going to be other companies which want to come in. They're going to want us to invest.

So I want to caution the government against getting involved in too many of these types of investments. I think we should leave it to private industry to finance projects such as this wherever possible. I also think it's incumbent on the federal government to participate. The reason I say that, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that they are taking money out of this province which they're getting out of oil on the export tax. I do think it's up to the federal government to invest and help us to develop our synthetic crudes.

I certainly think this is an area where we need development so we can leave some of our conventional crude in the ground for future generations. Another natural resource that gives me concern, and I am pleased with the promotion we have, is the petrochemical field. I think this is an area we have to support and keep going in the right direction. As far as our natural gas is concerned, in the past we have been exporting it out of the province. As well as exporting our gas, we have been exporting our labor. We send our gas to some other country, and they develop and manufacture it down there.

I say, let's keep our labor, and manufacture our gas right here in the province. I applaud the movement this province has made towards promoting our petrochemical plants. We have an application from the Brooks area for one plant that is going to employ 950 people in the construction stages. This is a great boon to an area such as Brooks, to get this many people in the employment field. When they are finished, there will be 106 people on permanent staff, which I say is a great asset to a little area such as Brooks. However, I think there are some issues we do have to be concerned about and have to watch.

The complaint I get is that we are using too much of our gas. I understand that with the three permits that have been approved by the Energy Conservation Board, approximately 85 billion cubic feet of gas per year is going to be used. I think we could take a look at using coal. They tell me, and I read in the reports, that a third of the gasoline is used for processing, and two-thirds is used for feedstock. I think at this time we could take a look at using coal for the processing, and at a later date we could look at using coal for the feedstock.

Here again, especially in the plant going up in the Brooks area — they're setting up this plant adjacent to a large reserve of coal. It's adjacent to this coal, and I'm certain it could be used, and used economically, to process ammonia at this plant. Another area we have to look at is the marketing. Going through the report, I see in the application that PanCanadian has contracted 250,000 tons to the United States. The price of the ammonia to the United States, as I read it in the report, is $70 a ton with a 3 per cent escalating factor.

The ammonia sold to the local EID land association is $125 a ton with a 4 per cent escalating factor. I really can't see the reasoning, unless it's volume, for selling large amounts of ammonia to the United States $55 cheaper than it is selling to our local people. Another area I think needs some concern is the Alberta Ammonia plant in Raymond. They are exporting 95 per cent of the product they are manufacturing at the Taber plant. I think this is why we have so many complaints from the plant in Taber.

It's the amount of gas they are using, of course, and again it's the amount of the product exported to the United States. I certainly hope the minister in charge of this will be taking action in the very near future to get these projects approved. I, especially, will say the projects at Brooks and Medicine Hat, because I think there is very little controversy. I think the people of this province are ready to go ahead with those two plants. Mr. Speaker, there is another resource I feel we don't put enough emphasis on, and that is water.

Water is not a non-renewable resource, but it's a resource we are not harnessing. We are not taking advantage of it. Our water leaves our headwaters here, either going into Hudson Bay or the Gulf of Mexico. In the northern part of the province there is 80 per cent of our water, and 20 per cent of our people. It's just vice versa in the south. I don't think at this point, Mr. Speaker, we can divert our streams, our waters, from the north to the south where the people are, but I certainly think we can go ahead and start conserving our water in the basins we have in the southern part of the province.

One example is on the Bow River project. At the present time, the federal government has agreed to go ahead and rehabilitate the Bassano Dam. It's going to cost between $10 and $12 million to rehabilitate it. When they get the dam rehabilitated, it's only going to serve the purpose of diverting water. They can store approximately 5,000 to 8,000 acre feet of water, which is a minimal amount of water. However, I would like the hon.

Minister of Environment, who is going to have some voice in this, to recommend to the federal government that we go ahead and put a dam below the Bassano Dam, which they call the Eyremore Dam, that would be a multipurpose dam. They could put in a dam there which would store 300,000 acre feet of water. It would generate power. I'm sure Calgary Power would go along with the construction, or help in the construction of the dam. We would use a dam for an east-west highway. We could also use the dam for recreation. It would be a large area of water under storage. It would back water up over the top of the Bassano Dam.

170 ALBERTA HANSARD May 26, 1975 On top of that, as a result of putting in this multipurpose dam, we'd be able to put many more acres of good arable land in the eastern irrigation district under water. I realize this is going to cost considerably more money. When they had an estimate on this several years ago, they determined that it was going to cost around $43 million. I would not dare to say that it would cost approximately $100 million at this point to go ahead with a project such as this. There are other developments which are feasible on the Bow Fiver project. We could store water on the Crowfoot Creek.

We could put a dam in at Cheadle which would store water in the Highwood basin and also in the Bow River basin. So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to see us put more emphasis on the development of our water. Here is an area in which you can't get private industry involved. There is no one concerned or interested in private industry who will develop this, so I think it's up to the government to work on our water resources and come up with a program to store our water on the headwaters. I noticed the Speech from the Throne didn't have very much on agriculture.

However, I do think that as in the past few years there has been an emphasis on agriculture, I would just like to say to the hon. Minister of Agriculture, who is not in his seat, that he is going to have a pretty big pair of shoes to fill. Because our past Minister of Agriculture was aggressive and certainly started many programs in the agricultural field. However, I think they might possibly be kind of hard to keep functioning. AN HON. MEMBER: Broke a lot of people, that's all. MR. MANDEVILLE: I'd also like to take this opportunity, Mr.

Speaker, since our past Minister of Agriculture is now the Minister of Transportation, to say, on behalf of the potato growers in this province, that they appreciated very much the help he gave them when they were in trouble two years ago. They came out of their situation and the dilemma they were facing, and now they're back into a good, viable position. Hon. Deputy Premier, this is very much appreciated by the potato growers of this province. However, I would like to say, as far as agriculture is concerned, it's an area in which we've had a few good years. When we have a few good years, production goes up.

I'm speaking of our cereal grains at this time. We're going to get an overproduction of cereal grains in the world. The price of our produce is going down. However, the input into agriculture is going to continue to go up. I was just reading a report where machinery, in the last 9 months, has gone up 25 per cent. If this continues, with the high input into agriculture and prices coming down, we're going to be facing a dilemma. I don't think we're going to face this dilemma this year. But in 1976 I’m sure agriculture, especially in cereal crops, is going to be on the downward swing.

When we increase the price of our crude oil -- as has been mentioned, it could be increased to $9 or $9.50 a barrel — this is going to revert to the consumer. The farmer is definitely going to have to pay another 12 or 15 cents a gallon for gas if we increase the price of crude oil, and it has to be absorbed by the consumer. Another area that has hindered agriculture — hindered it for a long while, and I imagine it's going to continue -- is the grain handlers' strike we had in Vancouver. We have it every year. With all due respect to the unions, I think it's deplorable.

No one can tell me that we don't have a lot of influence from the American unions. As far as the grain handlers' strike is concerned, I can recall that several years ago when we had a surplus in wheat and cereal grains, we had chartered ships coming in to load at Vancouver, but they couldn't. What did they do? They went down and loaded in the United States, and Canada lost a lot of markets as a result of this strike. I think it is incumbent on management and labor to get together to avoid these strikes. I'm not saying that the laborers are altogether wrong in this, but I do feel it's an area we've got to rectify.

It's been going on for too many years. Another part of agriculture that has been in a dilemma is the cattle industry. I can recall in 1951 we had the foot-and-mouth disease. I thought it was terrible. I didn't think it could get any worse. But I've certainly found out in the last 18 months that it can; it can get severe. The cattle feeders themselves for the last 18 months have been losing money: three turns of cattle that they've lost money. And it wasn't a little money, it was large amounts of money. It almost crippled the feedlot operators.

I can recall not too many years ago I heard the federal government saying, cow-calf operator, we want you to seed more grass. We'll give you $10 an acre to seed more grass. We want you to get into cattle production. It's going to be 1980 before we're going to have enough beef to supply the markets of the world. Well, here it is only 1975, and we've already got a surplus of cattle. I was hoping that the Minister of Agriculture would be in his place. There's an area I think we have got to put emphasis on. That is, having free trade in livestock between the United States and Canada.

The United States has from 85 to 90 per cent of our cattle, from 85 to 90 per cent of our beef. Therefore, we do have to have free trade, as far as Canada is concerned, between the United States and Canada. I would like to see all our Stockgrowers associations and this government put what pressure they can on the federal government to see that we have free trade between the United States and Canada, so we can have stable beef markets as far as the North American market is concerned. When we put the embargo on, it was at an opportune time for us.

When our Canadian markets were good, the American markets weren't good. But it's reversing now. What is going to happen, Mr. Speaker, when it reverses in the United States is: Mr. Canadian, Mr. Canada, you keep your beef; we're not going to accept your beef.

May 26, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 171 I would say that we did. We had an embargo on beef as far as DES is concerned. We didn't need to put an embargo on beef coming here when we had the DES embargo on. We couldn't use DES-fed beef in Canada. Therefore, beef being fed in the United States couldn't come into Canada. So I think we had enough restrictions there without getting involved in putting on further restrictions to tantalize the American cattle industry. As far as the calf loans which were implemented by our past Minister of Agriculture, they're beginning to look a little better now.

But at the time, three weeks ago, they didn't look well at all. What they did was change the flow in our cattle situation. Our Ontario buyers were up in the western part of Canada last year, not only in Alberta. They weren't able to fill their orders. So they brought feeder cattle in from the United States and filled their feedlots with United States cattle. Thus we retained a lot of our yearlings in the western part of Canada, which I think is going to create a surplus this fall. The feeders have been long feeding these cattle as a result of high-priced feed. Fight now we have a shortage of beef.

But I think, when fall comes and our yearlings start hitting the market, we're going to see another depression in the cattle market. And it's going to be the cow-calf operator who's going to get hurt at the same time. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a few remarks and a request of the hon. Deputy Premier, since he's in charge of transportation now. If he's going to be making any changes in the grant formula for municipalities, I would ask the minister to take a really good look at irrigation districts.

It has been an age-old problem to construct roads within irrigation districts; it does take more money. We have a water problem. It's harder to acquire land from farmers to get more right of way to put roads in, and the high water table makes it much more expensive to put roads in our irrigated areas than it does in areas where they don't have irrigation. With those few remarks . . . [applause] MRS. CHICHAK: Mr. Speaker, it gives me particular pleasure to have the opportunity to participate in the throne speech debate in this 18th Alberta Legislature.

I say "particular pleasure", because it was just a little more than three months ago when it was trumpeted by the leader of the provincial socialist party that Edmonton Norwood would be one of those constituencies that would readily be captured by them in the now past March 26 election. It may well be the conclusion was hastily drawn on the basis that the sitting member was rather quiet in nature. Well, Mr. Speaker, there is a saying we are all familiar with, and that is: still waters run deep. Mr.

Speaker, it is not my intention to display any smugness or arrogance about my victory, except to say that there can be no substitute for hard work on behalf of those one represents, and for being communicative. I believe my constituents have found both factors in their representative. But this alone is not enough, Mr. Speaker. There is no doubt that Albertans must feel secure in the overall leadership and government they have received. Their security and confidence was well demonstrated in the mandate given us on March 26. Mr.

Speaker, I have a number of concerns on behalf of my constituents: concerns about their social needs with regard to all age levels; housing, because of the structure of the constituency; the need for greater understanding and development in the area of delivered education. But, Mr. Speaker, I would choose in this debate to deal with only one topic other than those I have raised. I hope to have an opportunity, through the course of the budget debate, to cover these other very important areas with regard to my constituents. But today I would like to deal solely with the subject of the women of Alberta.

Before I go on to that subject, I would like to join my colleagues in congratulating you on your ascension to the Throne again. Ascension by royalty is inherited; yours is by your display of wisdom, application of fair-mindedness, and the stature with which you hold the office of Speaker in this Legislature. For this, I congratulate you. With regard to the women of Alberta, and perhaps women everywhere, the United Nations has recognized this as International Women's Year.

This is to serve as a focal point for getting things done, for changing legislation and attitudes; a year for governments to set, as a priority concern, the status of their women. For centuries, the traditional concept of a woman's role has been to bear children and remain in the kitchen. Times have changed, Mr. Speaker. It was said that early cars would run on whiskey. If your engine was warm, and you ran out of gas, you could always get home on kerosene or alcohol, or even on bad whiskey. In the 1900s, an early automotive manual suggested this remedy.

But I doubt today such alternatives would transport us very far. And so times have changed. With the current and future manpower needs of Alberta, there is a need for more women to participate in the professions traditionally held by men. Such participation is essential for Alberta's future, and should be of vital concern to us all. There is no doubt these changes will cause a tremendous upheaval in traditional women's roles. This is a year for recognition of the changing status of women, and the need for equality of opportunity for both sexes.

Whether we realize it or not, we are in the midst of a sweep of technological and social change that is rearranging the world around us. The enormous upheaval in societal roles of both men and women is going to place increasing strains on the social structure as we have known it. Sexual divisions within society once served important functions. They provided the economic benefits of an efficient division of labor, and they clearly defined the place and expected performance of individuals within that system. But society is continually evolving, and the changes the industrial age spurred have thrown the traditional

172 ALBERTA HANSARD May 26, 1975 equilibrium out of balance. An increasingly complex world demands talented individuals to fulfil vital functions. Society's need for more intelligent, imaginative, and able people has gone beyond the traditional reliance only on the male population. That factor alone, coupled with a growing awareness among women of their changing status, is contributing greatly to the evolution of the female role. Women are now participating in far greater numbers in the work force.

It is unfortunate that I could not get more current statistics, so we will rely on those of 1972, inasmuch as I feel that no very significant changes have been experienced since that time. In 1972, there were 2.95 million women working in Canada. Ontario and Alberta had the highest percentage of working women in Canada, with approximately 40 per cent of the eligible women in the province either employed or seeking work in 1972.

Effective use of this female labor force will undoubtedly alleviate the labor shortages industrial societies are experiencing in the demand for skilled tradespeople in Alberta, where the skilled-labor shortage is acute, and will, in future, increase. Clearly, women want to participate in the working world to a greater degree than ever before. But up to this point such ambitions have demanded a considerable pioneering spirit. Women must often contend with the multiple roles of wife, mother, and employee.

As our society becomes more fragmented and impersonal, I can envision the woman's role in the family becoming even more important in the future. But if a woman desires to pursue a career, a new concept of professional career seems necessary. Almost a century of experimentation has been spent attempting to fit women's career patterns into those followed by most men. The results have not been very successful. Women are now seeking to form for themselves a new and more varied conception of career, one which has not existed before and for which there are few patterns available.

They have a full-time commitment but don't always plan to work on a full-time basis. They seek a career model which is not success-orientated, but which recognizes their commitment to family responsibilities as an important part of their choice. With the smaller size of families and shorter span of child-bearing, many expect to return to their professional careers at some point in their lives. To enable women to have this flexibility of career and family options, society and governments must plan superior day care facilities which provide a creative and imaginative environment for the child to develop.

Flexible schedules and part-time work must also be a necessary part of the solution. Maternity leave, split jobs and job sharing, educational refresher courses must also form part of this new concept. Such new career patterns might result in more productive and creative work. By developing careers to meet the needs of women today, we may well be pointing the way toward meeting the diverse needs of both the men and women of tomorrow. The most important function of education is to develop the personality of the individual and the significance of one's life to oneself and to others.

I'm sure we will witness a greater emphasis on partnership and family life: equality between husband and wife; joint activities and collaboration in decision-making; and a greater sharing in leisure, political, educational, as well as occupational activities. What is particularly important, however, is that women should be able to make their choice on the basis of a new personal freedom. They should not be discouraged from realizing their ambitions because of blocked mobility. Success in the professional world should not demand an extraordinary tenacity on the part of women.

After all, women make up more than half of the world's population. To ignore their potential for national development as well as their personal aspirations for self-fulfillment will ultimately impede economic and social development. Let me quote the views of Leonard Read, president of the Foundation for Economic Education, who calls for a new kind of freedom and states that freedom is everyone's business. Why is it everyone's business? Because, he says — and I would reiterate for myself — my freedom depends on yours, and yours depends on mine. "We, in our age, are at once social and individualistic beings.

And if we fail or refuse to recognize this fact, all will fail together." That was the quote and the view expressed by the president of the Foundation for Economic Education. Equality of opportunity is far from a reality in women's involvement in the labor movement. Although nearing 40 per cent of the work force, the large majority of women fill the low-status, low-wage labor market. Only a few highly successful women are in the upper end of the occupational spectrum. In Canada, average industrial wage rates for men exceed those of women in nearly every occupation.

The federal Department of Labour has also found that men earn an average annual income that is 107.4 per cent higher than that for women doing identical managerial work. The record is just as dismal when it comes to the question of access to higher- level occupations offering greater challenges and monetary rewards. While women constitute more than 33 per cent of the labor force, only 4.2 per cent of them hold managerial jobs. The Alberta government, accepting in principle the equality between the sexes, has enacted some progressive legislation.

Through our human rights legislation, and through the appointment of the Human Rights Commission, we have taken the necessary first steps toward halting discriminatory practices. The commission has collected compelling statistical evidence that discrimination against women in the province is deeply embedded in society. The Alberta Women's Institutes has received funds to innovate newer and better ways to organize and involve rural families in planning for their future. The Alberta Women's

May 26, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 173 Bureau is also continuing to conduct educational and research efforts throughout the province. We are, of course, concerned with the expansion of day care facilities and changes in property laws, as is indicated by the address of His Honor the Honorable the Lieutenant-Governor of Alberta. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that laws can forbid certain kinds of discriminatory behavior on pain of penalty, but we cannot legislate attitudes. Legislation alone will not make the difference. Both sexes need to tailor their attitudes toward a new concept of people’s liberation.

Altered perspectives now demand that individuals be accepted first of all as people of certain talents and competence, rather than as male or female. Many of the innovations developed to suit women's needs are needed for men as well. They, too, are feeling the impact of new knowledge, new options, and greater personal freedom. I would suggest, however, that we begin by reassessing our attitudes toward equality of opportunity for women. There are a number of pervasive myths that must be eliminated if women are to assume their rightful share of professional positions.

One: turnover among women at management levels is about equal to turnover of male managers. Some women leave to raise families, but most of them will eventually return to the labor force. The majority of male managers change positions at least once every five years. Job mobility is the rule now rather than the exception and applies to both male and female personnel. Women are not too emotional for management work. We have mistaken the cultural development of women to mean emotional weakness. From our early days, we are taught that boys don't cry, but it is expected of girls.

One need only observe the nurses working in a hospital emergency ward to realize that this is a fallacy. Women can cope with roles of wife, mother, and career person. If behind every successful man there is a woman, then behind every successful woman there is a man. The successful woman's family understands and learns to live with added demands on her time. Social changes in the future will be both perplexing and alarming in their impact and enormity. Joint planning by both sexes is required if we are to effectively cope with these challenges.

What will ensue will not be a male-female confrontation, but a co- operative restructuring of role and responsibilities to benefit both sexes. Mr. Speaker, I feel government must again take the lead, not only in changing legislation, but in changing attitudes. We must provide the necessary mechanism to examine attitudes and procedures followed within the entire structure of government. It is important that the policies of the elected arm are fully understood and implemented by the administration. I have some concern over this latter point. Mr. Speaker, I believe our work has only begun. Thank you. MR. YOUNG: Mr.

Speaker, it's with a great deal of pleasure that I open my comments this afternoon by congratulating you on your re-election, and your selection, if I might use that expression, as Speaker of this House. It demonstrates the faith and confidence the 17th Legislature enjoyed in your good office. I wish you well with the 18th Legislature. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say a word of commendation and congratulation to all members of the Assembly, and to express my best wishes to the Executive Council in the disposition of their responsibilities. We'll do our best, if I may make a personal observation, to assist them. Mr.

Speaker, there are only a couple of points I want to touch on this afternoon, the main one which caused me to rise to speak today, having occurred rather recently. Before doing that, for the information of new members, since new members regaled the House in many instances with descriptions of their constituencies, I thought it would be useful just to let everyone know that Edmonton Jasper Place takes in the northwest corner of the City of Edmonton to the boundaries, wherever they may be, on the west side.

It takes in a rather large industrial sector and the not so well-to-do portion of what was the old Town of Jasper Place. With that come a number of challenges, I guess we could say, to the provincial government and to all governments. It is a consequence of that situation that the first neighborhood improvement program to be nearing completion in Edmonton, is located in Edmonton Jasper Place. It's also in keeping with the nature of my area that we supply a good number of workers to northern oil fields and other areas around the province, involving particularly the construction trades. Mr.

Speaker, one of my observations during the election campaign was the relative improvement in the position of senior citizens. I say that, Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that inflation has ravaged their incomes, as we're well aware. But relative improvement to the point that my priority, at this point in time, is the group of persons which we refer to generally as handicapped persons, either physically or mentally. Handicapped in the sense that they have less opportunity for job seeking and have higher expenses because of their condition. Mr.

Speaker, I am well aware that over the past three years the government has been involved in some evaluation of what may be possible to assist these people. I personally would like to, be advised in due course about the possibility that we may be able to assist in the cost of their equipment, especially wheelchairs and matters of that nature. I know there are some very grave problems in trying to identify and describe in regulations a handicapped person and the requirements of such a person.

But I do think if we have difficulty approaching that from the one route, maybe from an administrative point of view we could select the areas of greatest cost, since we're dealing with not that many people, and see if we can remove some of the burden from them. Right now in my constituency, that group of people is probably the most difficult done by in terms of our society.

174 ALBERTA HANSARD May 26, 1975 The next point I wanted to mention relates to housing. Some mention has been made of it, some more will be made of it, and I will take the opportunity later today or whenever it arises to speak to it again. I am prompted to mention it now only because a certain alderman in this city, for the umpteenth time in the last three months, has called for rent controls. Mr. Speaker, I cannot, for the life of me, believe that that is a well- considered suggestion. I phoned today to the City of Edmonton to get an indication of the building permits which have been issued.

I’ll confine my comments and statistics to apartment accommodation. In the period January 1 to April 30 of 1973 there were 22 apartment permits issued in the City of Edmonton, for 702 units. In the same period in '74 there were 15, for 280 units. In the same period in '75 there were 9, for a total of 160 apartment units. Now, Mr. Speaker, businessmen generally do not turn a blind eye if there is any opportunity for a return on money. Obviously there is no opportunity, and that is a problem. As one of the people I spoke to at City Hall said, we just cannot find accommodation for people now.

I have had contacts from people in my constituency who made the point that we could pay if we could find. Mr. Speaker, if we establish rent control we will have effectively continued the problem that we now have. The basic problem is shortage of accommodation. There is no question that some people have difficulty affording the rents, but there is also no question that, by and large, the earnings of our population are much higher now than they were three and four years ago. Over that period and until very recently, rental rates did not move.

In fact, in many instances the return, in terms of liquid rent cash flow, was not even adequate to maintain the buildings to reasonable standards. The value to the businessmen who owned those properties must surely be in the increased capital value which they could realize if sold. I want to go on record as being very much opposed to any suggestion of rent control. We may have situations where some people need assistance, need subsidy in terms of their income. But to accept rent control at this stage of the game would simply lock us into a situation in finding accommodation which is even worse than we now have.

Mr. Speaker, the last point I wish to deal with concerns the question which I raised in the Assembly earlier today, the matter of unfair labor practices. Mr. Speaker, I raised the question of a matter of an allegation of unfair labor practice which was brought before the Board of Industrial Relations on February 6 last.

The [Alberta] Labour Act says that no trade union and no person "acting on behalf of a trade union . . . shall [and among other things] use coercion or intimidation of any kind [with respect to any employee] with a view to encouraging or discouraging membership in or activity in or for a trade union." It also states that no employee shall refuse to perform work for his employer for the reason that other work was or will be performed, or was not or will not be performed, by any person or class of persons who were or are not members of a trade union or a particular trade union. Mr.

Speaker, we have a situation, as nearly as I can learn, which is a microcosm of what the Cliche Commission found in certain respects in the Province of Quebec. I raise it here because, in my opinion, if it is allowed to continue, it will thwart many of the good efforts of the Department of Business Development; it will deprive certain workers of their choice of freedom in terms of where they work. Mr. Speaker, I have to give some details about this particular situation. There are basically three main parties involved.

The first is The Edmonton Construction Workers Association, Local 63, which was certified on the third day of April, 1969 by the Board of Industrial Relations as a bona fide union. It is affiliated with the Christian Labour Association of Canada. The second concerns a painting contracting firm, Ralph Eerkes Painting and Decorating Ltd.; and the union was certified as a bargaining agent for that employer, meaning that union has the recognition to negotiate the wages, rates of pay, et cetera with that employer.

The third participant in the particular affair, which seems to be ongoing, is the Painters and Allied Trades, Local 1016, and their business agent is one Mr. Lecuyer. Mr. Speaker, because of certain statements and activity on the part of that particular union, an application was made on February 6 before the Board of Industrial Relations. Now, I can understand the caution of the Board of Industrial Relations. This is a very difficult area for that board to render a decision. It's a kind of unique area in Alberta. We haven't had much of this.

It may be an indication that we are reaching the big time in industrial development. I'm not sure. I hope it isn't necessary for us to have this kind of development as we industrialize. But, in any event, this was unfair -- an allegation was lodged for an investigation and the board has powers to hear it. My understanding is that the board has reviewed the case and they will hopefully render a decision in the near future. included in the board's powers, I may add, would be, as I read the act, the authority to cause the offending union to cease and desist whatever it's doing, if it's considered desirable.

However, during last week we had a situation, and I guess the best way I can describe it is to tell you where it was and give you some indication of the notes made in the diary of the contractor involved as he recorded the contacts made with him by various people, and the kind of pressure and effort to intimidate, the harassment, the confusion, the coercion, if you will, that was brought to bear on him and on his union. This all takes place, by the way, at Leon's Warehouse Furniture, a large new furniture store which will open shortly, or has opened, I'm not sure which, on the north rim of the City of Edmonton.

I won't do any more commercials for them, just so you know where it's located.

May 26, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 175 On Wednesday, May 21, Mr. Eerkes received a call from a representative of one of the contractor parties, informing him that while he couldn't say where he got the news, he had been advised that there would be a picket line the next morning and that workers would not cross it.

At 8:00 p.m. that evening, he received another call to the effect that there would be a picket line and that, because of the difficulties, he may well be subject to suit by other businessmen involved in the construction of that building, because they had deadlines to meet and, obviously, the difficulty that was occurring was construed to be his responsibility, since he had a union which was not acceptable to some people. It should be noted, in passing, that this particular contract did not require that the workers be unionized, so it wasn't what is called "a union contract job".

On Thursday, May 22, at 7:50 a.m., the contractor was on the job site. There were no pickets, but one of the other trades didn't show. At 8:30 a.m. the grapevine advised the contractor that the reason the pickets weren't there was that their signs weren't ready yet — they were coming. At 10:00 a.m., the electrician's foreman advised our contractor that the electrical union had told their men there would be a picket line, and they were advised to stay home; so no electrician showed up. There was no picket line, but I want to outline the kind of harassment and the difficulty of nailing it down.

At 11:30 a.m., another call was made to the contractor, advising him from another source about the picket line. At 1:10 p.m., the plumbers' union, or somebody alleged to be party to the plumbers' union, effectively communicated that there wasn't going to be a picket line, but there would be the next day and that the plumbers would honor it. So the next day, this past Friday, at 9:30 a.m., only the painters and the floor layers were on the job.

In fact, there had been — and you know what the weather was like here on Friday — what were reported to be painters carrying picket signs saying that the painters were non-union. Perhaps I should finish here the recitation of developments. At 10 a.m. our contractor phoned Mr. Lecuyer, the representative, the business agent of the painters' union involved, who was trying to gain recognition to be the representative. There was no conversation because the individual said that he might be charged with illegal labor practice, and so he wouldn't talk. Mr.

Speaker, this is what has happened in the City of Edmonton in the last week. I am advised that it began to occur in 1969 when this union was recognized and treated by the Board of Industrial Relations as a legitimate, fully functioning union competent to represent its employees. Maybe on that point, Mr. Speaker, I should indicate exactly what is the status of that union versus the International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades. The International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades union rate is $6.20 an hour for painters, and has been under negotiation for some time. The painters' contract with Mr.

Eerkes was $6.35 an hour while the others were paying $6.20 an hour, a negotiated $6.20. It is now $6.50, and all of the journeymen as such are now making $6.85 an hour and are negotiating a new contract. Now I ask you, Mr. Speaker and members of the Assembly, who best represents the interests of its members — the union with the lower rate, the union which is engaging itself in practices which I would regard as shameful and which ought to bring embarrassment on all unionized labor — who represents the best interests of Albertans? After all, Mr.

Eerkes can pay a higher rate and in a tendering situation gain that contract. Should he not be allowed to continue? Should he and his workers, who are paid more than the other group, not have the opportunity of continuing and of functioning in our society? Mr. Speaker, I leave these little questions with the Assembly. I will watch with interest the decision of the Board of Industrial Relations. However, before I close, I want to say that during my campaigning I spoke with a number of union people, some very happy, some very unhappy. Some were happy with the government, some unhappy with the government.

Some of them said, you knew we have reached a situation where many people now are riding on the coattails of some good workers. As one veteran said to me, I didn't go with my buddies and get shot at during the Second World War to protect the kind of thing that's happening on my loading dock. He's a truck driver. He said two out of five do the work, and the other three do the organizing and the complaining. He said we're all in it together, and if we could only work together and everyone accept the responsibilities, we'd have a much better world.

He said it in stronger language than I've expressed it, but I'll leave out some of the more colorful expressions. DR. BUCK: Expletives deleted. MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I submit that we have seen some law and order problems in this province, in fact, all over Canada. We have vandalism in our schools, vandalism in the City of Edmonton, to cause us all to be concerned.

Is that vandalism any worse than what, I believe, we are encountering here by grown-ups, of mature age, who are conducting themselves in a manner which is intended to intimidate, to embarrass, to harass, and from a statement which I have seen, either to put our independent businessman out of business or else force him to accept a different union? MR. McCRAE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to offer a few comments on the throne speech debate. It's a real pleasure, Mr. Speaker, for me to have the opportunity today of participating in this debate.

As the Member for Drumheller suggested, it offers a wide, wide range of opportunity for discussion.

176 ALBERTA HANSARD May 26, 1975 Before getting into the wide range of topics I may wish to cover, might I offer you, Mr. Speaker, my congratulations on your re-election as the Speaker of this House. I think it serves just as a tribute to the expertise with which you have managed this House over the past four years. Mr. Speaker, I'd also offer my congratulations to all the new members of the House. I'm sure, from the speeches we've heard in the past several days, that each will make an outstanding contribution to the Assembly, during the four or more years they're here.

Also, to the six opposition members opposite, might I extend my congratulations to you on being back here . . . MR. NOTLEY: . . . the survivors. MR. McCRAE: That's right, you are the survivors. As survivors you're going to have a very difficult task indeed. I wish you some degree of success, limited success, in your endeavors. Mr. Speaker, on coming to this Assembly in June 1973 by way of a by-election, I outlined the geographic area of my constituency and some of the problems that concerned them at that time.

I won't go into the geography again, except to say that there are now in excess of 27,000 voters up there — very wise voters, indeed, I would suggest — about 8,000 more than we had in June of '73. Mr. Speaker, when I made my first speech in this House, I believe in October of '73, I listed a number of concerns of my constituency. I'll just go back to four of them at this time. One of them was a freeze on new school construction for elementary students. Another was the concern that the University of Calgary had not, at that time, had a law school announced for the university there.

Also many of my constituents, and indeed all Calgarians, were concerned with the health and viability of the oil industry. I think we all remember the extreme concerns abundant in Calgary at that time, recognizing that at least one out of three jobs in Calgary was dependent on a healthy oil and gas industry. Another question I raised at that time, sir, was the shortage of pheasant for hunting friends in Calgary. I raised this in conjunction with some of my southern Alberta friends. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to note that each of these four problems has been in large measure resolved.

We have elementary school construction in the new communities of Silver Springs and Dalhousie in the Foothills constituency, and indeed, new school construction in several other areas of the city. Also, a new and innovative law school has been announced for the University of Calgary. In the oil and gas sector the situation is much healthier, much, much more buoyant, and there's a good deal more confidence down there in the oil patch now than there was some months back.

I think we can attribute very much of that, sir, to the efforts made by this government to see that we get a proper return on our depleting resources, a proper and responsible price for the product when it's sold. The ALPEP program which was announced in December of '73 channels a good deal of money back to exploration companies active in the oil and gas sector. These measures did much to restore the confidence and viability of the industry at this time. I'm happy to note also that there's a new pheasant hatchery under way, or to be under way very shortly in the Brooks area. Mr.

Speaker, I don't know whether it was necessarily the quality of the representation made by myself, or/and others, on these many, many questions, or the acumen of the ministers in responding to what they knew were problem areas. But in any event, these areas have been resolved. Mr. Speaker, some of the problems that concern my constituents right now, and I'm sure many others, are as follows. One is a problem of law enforcement. In some of our communities in the northwest quadrant of Calgary, we've had a rash of break-ins. We've also had a series of rather serious traffic accidents.

The tragedy in these areas is that in many, many cases, it is juveniles who are involved. I'm sure there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the juveniles who get mixed up in these things. It is just something that seems to happen. Whether it's the direction their lives are taking or whether they're not kept busy enough, I don't know, but these are problem areas. Now the concern of the people is, of course, first, the security of their person and property. This can be resolved by such things as neighborhood watch, zone policing, and youth programs as announced by Chief Sawyer in Calgary.

The other concern is the direction of our lives. There seems to be a very clear lack of discipline, lack of responsibility, lack of respect for authority. I don't know how we'll resolve that, but with the young I think part of it is to keep them occupied. I think our Project Co- operation, an announcement by this government of a $200 million fund to be spent over 10 years in conjunction with municipalities, is a good start. It's a very sensible and wise dynamic program. It will put a good deal more recreational and cultural facilities before our young, to keep them occupied. But it isn't the whole answer, sir.

It's the right answer in that area, but I'm afraid there are other problems. Driver problems -- in my opinion there isn't a conscious enough dedication on the part of new drivers as to their responsibilities on the road. I think it's accepted these days as a privilege and a right,

whereas maybe we have to get down to the point of emphasizing that it isn't a privilege, and it has some very all-embracing responsibilities. Perhaps we have to go further in restricting the licensing. Maybe we have to have driver training in the schools. I wouldn't have supported that a few years back, but I think I'm reaching the point of believing our young drivers have to have more driver training before they are entrusted on our very, very busy highways with the high-speed vehicles we have today.

May 26, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 177 Commenting again, sir, on Project Co-operation, the very imaginative program to put cultural and recreational facilities before our people: as significant and worthy as that is, there are still some problems in some of the newer communities where, with inflation and increasing building costs, the newer communities are having difficulty finding the funding to put together their share of a matching dollar contribution to a community building.

I’m hoping that at the municipal level some means will be found of getting money to them so they are not faced with raising, say, 50 per cent of the cost of a $100,000 or $200,000 community building. A community building is generally identified as the basis for community activities. Without the community building, it's tough to get going the programs which would assist in raising funds. It’s sort of the chicken or the egg routine, which do you have first? So I'm hopeful that there will be opportunities of further funding for newer communities to assist them in getting their community halls together.

Another concern in my

section of the city and in many areas of Calgary, but particularly in the northwest which is one of the faster growing areas, is the boundary question, or the problem of annexation or growth. Much of the proposed growth in the next several years is anticipated in the northwest quadrant of the city. The people there are concerned with expanding growth, further housing out to the northwest, at the additional stress and strain it will put on the existing transportation corridors and the other facilities there.

If we look to the western boundary in my riding, we have the old Highway 1A coming right to the boundaries of the city. The old Highway 1A is a pretty fine highway right now. It's been newly surfaced and widened so that it properly serves the community, and the area to the northwest that it should service. Within the city boundaries, old Highway 1A is almost a trail. There are countless accidents at the intersections. It is a complete and unnecessary hazard to the citizenry up there.

I'm looking forward to efforts by the city, hopefully in conjunction with the province, to upgrade that highway within the city boundaries. Annexation, sir, as I have said, is one of the several problems facing my constituents. It is hoped, when growth programs, annexation programs, and policies are developed, that they will show due regard and concern for existing communities to see there are not too many additional strains and stresses put on them, and that the transportation and other services up there are properly related to the areas they are going to serve.

Last week, sir, was the occasion on which the municipal council in Calgary brought down their new budget. I suppose what has happened there is not much different from what happens in other communities. The home-owners there are faced with an average 25 per cent increase in taxes, some more and some less. But it's a blow to all of them.

I think it simply emphasizes that the municipalities, as well treated as they have been, and they have been well treated by the provincial government — we have taken over a good many of the social programs and assisted them very healthily with extra moneys each year to assist them in their budgets — they are, in fact, restricted almost totally to property taxation to fund the programs which it is their responsibility to service.

It is to be hoped that the provincial government, upon receiving the recommendations of the Provincial-Municipal Finance Advisory Council, will respond in considering making other sources of revenue available to them, or taking over some of the services that are presently handled by the municipalities. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the government on the throne speech. There is a good deal of meat there. It isn't necessarily lengthy in words, but in quality of what is there, I think it's a very meaningful document indeed.

It will no doubt be rounded out and fleshed out by the budget speech, which we will see late Friday night. I would like to compliment them particularly on the 28 per cent reduction in income tax, something all citizens will welcome, and something that will assist them in paying their heavier personal property tax bills. I would also like to compliment our government on the increased worker benefits, announced through amendments to The Workers' Compensation Act; on the assured income plan for senior citizens, which is so important to those on fixed incomes.

I would also like to compliment the government on the new departmental organizations, which I think will do a good deal to make our government run even more smoothly and responsibly than it has in the past. Mr. Speaker, while I'm on my feet, I'd just like to offer a few words on my responsibilities as Minister Without Portfolio with special responsibilities in the Calgary area. I think all members would accept that a ministership without portfolio does require some definition, although the definition is difficult to come by.

In my estimation, and in the government's estimation, it is a challenging opportunity to study and participate in the special problems urban areas have these days. Remember, sir, that Edmonton is the seat of government. Calgary is some 200 miles from here. All urban centres have very special and very complex problems at this date in history. It is with this recognition that I expect to embark on my responsibilities as Minister Without Portfolio working with the other ministers on the complex and difficult problems that face Calgarians.

It isn't necessarily only at the elected municipal level that we will be working. Certainly we'll be working with the appropriate ministries on this side, and the mayor, city council and the other elected officials down there. Also, sir, I plan on being operative with the business organizations, industry organizations, community institutions and groups, and individuals. Any area where there are unresolved problems or overlapping

178 ALBERTA HANSARD May 26, 1975 responsibilities between one ministry and another is where I hope and expect to be involved. Annexation, growth, municipal finance, transportation, freeway corridors, housing, the concern of many Calgarians about the heavy reliance of the city on the health of the oil and gas industry, and the amount of exploration that goes on in the oil industry for its viability: those are areas I'll be concerned in. Mr. Speaker, I’ve outlined some of the problems facing the City of Calgary and, I'm sure, many other urban areas in Canada.

I would like to say that all the things going on in Calgary are not problem areas. This year we are celebrating our 100th anniversary as a city, our centennial year. It's a big thing for Calgary, and there are many, many things going on: the restoration of Fort Macleod, tree planting on the downtown streets, history books being written, renovations to McMahon Stadium — just a host of activities of which your senior government here has assisted in the financing. So I invite all hon. members from outside the Calgary area to come down and join with us, on occasion, in some of the celebrations.

Coming back briefly to my responsibilities as a minister, I think we'll agree that I cannot, at this point in time, define the particular problem areas we'll be working on. Today's problems are not tomorrow's problems, and tomorrow's problems are not today's problems. The problems will come and go as we work on them. I can simply assure the House that I expect it to be a very, very active portfolio. I expect to be busy at it. We expect to do some good at it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [The motion was carried.] head: GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Second Reading) Bill 21 The Unfair Trade Practices Act MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Speaker, on a point of order, I believe the hon. Member for Drumheller, Mr. Taylor, adjourned debate on that bill. The Order Paper suggests that was Bill No. 22, but I believe the Member for Drumheller adjourned debate on unfair trade practices and therefore should be called upon at this time to commence his remarks. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on Bill 21. First of all, I'd like to emphasize the fact that, in my view, the Department of Consumer Affairs came into being to protect the consumer against unfair prices and against price gouging.

If that wasn't the purpose of creating the Department of Consumer Affairs, I really don't know what the purpose was. I think that is a logical and proper purpose. While free enterprise is a system where we expect various prices for various goods, when competition is not there and when some take advantage of the situation and charge exorbitant prices, it certainly isn't fair to the consumer. The very fact that there was unfair pricing going on in the country, I believe, must have been one of the major factors in bringing the Department of Consumer Affairs into being, both in Ottawa and the Province of Alberta.

Consequently I find it difficult, when I read the

section dealing with the purposes of the act — under

Section 4, I notice that one of these unfair practices is where a person is charging too little and then getting people, I suppose, into the store and charging too much on other items. Charging too little is listed as an offence. But I can't see anything in

Section which I believe is the primary principle of the bill, which lists as an unfair practice charging too much or gouging. Consequently, I find it difficult to follow, because if that isn't there, what is the purpose of the entire department? The department must be spending considerable money now in monitoring prices. I find the price lists which come around to our office regularly from that department quite valuable. I find the information contained on the various goods which are checked quite valuable, and it is interesting to see what the trend is in regard to prices.

Probably the prime purpose of monitoring is to act as a deterrent to those who would charge too much, and consequently take unfair advantage of consumers. The other day the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview referred to this matter of antifreeze. Some retailers in this province were known to have charged the price three and four times. Well, I don't think there is any doubt of the price that could be secured where there is proper competition. I don’t think there is any doubt at all that that was gouging. I understand the difficulties referred to by the hon.

Member for Calgary Buffalo in The Unconscionable Transactions Act which deals with rents or loans, and how difficult it may be to establish what is or what is not a fair rate of interest. It's difficult, but it's certainly not impossible. Where right-of-way buyers in the Department of Highways, or other departments, go out to buy land for the government, in many areas there is a number of prices. It's not too difficult for the right-of-way buyer to make a check of all of the prices in that area, and to establish a price that a prudent seller would sell for, and one at which a prudent buyer would buy.

That becomes the reasonable price for the land in that particular area.

May 26, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 179 I haven't seen this upset by any court rulings or any arbitration boards or any departments. It seems logical and sensible that a person who is giving up part of his land should get a fair return, but not an exhorbitant return. The Department of Highways can't become Santa Claus to one person simply because some of that land which is going to be acquired is going to be used for the public good. But neither should the owner of that land be expected to be Santa Claus in donating. He should get a fair return.

I think the same principle goes over into the matter of the selling of goods, the selling of the everyday needs of people. Generally where there is competition -- because competition is the lifeblood of free enterprise — this thing looks after itself, and properly so. That's one of the virtues of free enterprise — competition. Without competition, you've got monopoly of one kind or another. But if you have competition, effective competition, you have the factors working in a competitive society, in a free enterprise society, which makes it unnecessary for government to intervene.

The only reason government has to intervene is when some of those factors are not working for one or other reasons. If competition is working, there is certainly no reason for government to intervene at all. There are cases in this province, and in this country, where the factors of competition are not working. Consequently, some of the people are being gouged. I don't think there is a better example of that than what happened a few years ago when there was no highway to Fort McMurray. I think the hon. member for Fort McMurray will remember this well.

There was a railway and some transport, but only a very minimum amount of air transport at that time. So the people of Fort McMurray were paying right through the nose for freight, on the everyday necessities of life. The cost to the people in Fort McMurray was out of all reason when it was compared to the price people were paying for the same product in Edmonton. It was simply because there was no competition in regard to that competitive freight rate. So that big jump wasn't being made by the producers, it wasn't being made by the retail industry.

It was being made by the railway who, when we checked with them, said: well, there is no competition, so we charge what the market will bear. That was supposed to be quite fair. I didn't think it was very fair for the people of Fort McMurray, and I didn't think it was very fair in the long run for the railway to be doing that. Subsequent events have proven that the railway built up so much ill will that they took a beating after there was competition.

Many things that would probably still be going to Fort McMurray by rail are now going by truck, because once the highway was completed to a point where trucks could travel over it, there was some competition. Before that, through no fault of the people of Fort McMurray, there was no competition. So they paid right through the nose. They paid all the market would bear. There are places in Alberta with similar factors, where there's no competition, where there's no other merchant within a reasonable distance.

That has been changed to some degree by the increase of paved roads and so on, so there is some type of competition freightwise, and there's some competition if a person wants to drive 50 or 100 miles to a shopping centre. But the competion in that community may not be there at all, and there's an opportunity for gouging. Mr. Speaker, I'm trying to pinpoint the fact that, in my view, one of the major items of Consumer Affairs is to watch gouging, particularly where the factors that bring about proper competition are lacking in some form or other.

Because when that happens, somebody, and it's generally the consumer who can least afford it, pays right through the nose. I think the hon. minister should take another look at this matter. I don't want the department to become a police force continually hounding every merchant in the province, but where it is brought to the attention of Consumer Affairs that a price is completely exorbitant, where there's no doubt at all about whether it is conscionable or unconscionable, then the department should have authority to take action. This list looks to me like it's almost all-inclusive.

There's no omnibus clause at the end. The very least I would suggest to the hon. minister is that there be an omnibus clause to take in some of the things that may have been forgotten, some very unfair pricing or unfair tactics which may not be included in that particular list. That's one of the difficulties in setting out a list where you try to enumerate every item that is an unfair trade practice. Perhaps if you included every one, the list would be so long it would fill the law books unnecessarily.

I believe there's an omnibus clause to cover at least some of the things that may have been forgotten by even the best minds or the best drafters. If an omnibus clause is not in there, in my view the bill's going to be ineffective in some cases where even the minister will want to take action and will find that he hasn't got the necessary authority to do it. Last year I heard of a very unfair practice. It may have happened once or many times; only one instance of it came to my attention.

A car was wrecked and the owner was a member of the AMA, but the AMA garage in that district had its truck under repair, so the RCMP phoned another garage. This car was hauled less than half a mile. The AMA charge would have been around $12 or $13. The garage which was called charged $50 to take that car less than half a mile. They simply towed it there, did no work on it. If that's not gouging, I don't know what gouging is. But the consumer could do nothing. There are no teeth in the Department of Consumer Affairs so they could take action. He simply had to swallow it and dig up the money.

But, in my view, that person should have been nailed for gouging. And if once or twice it has happened in this way, it doesn't happen too often afterwards.

180 ALBERTA HANSARD May 26, 1975 Without laboring this any further, I'm going to ask the hon. minister if he will consider doing something about the unfair prices. Make it doubly unfair if you want to, before you call it gouging, but let's have something to cover the gouger who's out to get every pound of flesh and every jot of blood that's possible, without any concern for the damage he's doing to the people who are forced to buy. That type of person is no credit to free enterprise and no credit to the country. They are making money at the discomfort of others. In my view, they should be prosecuted.

If we can't get something that will satisfy the law people in that regard, then surely at least an omnibus clause, so that when something outstanding comes to the attention of the department they will not say, well, we would like to but we haven't got any teeth in the act. There are times when this department is going to need teeth, sharp teeth, teeth that will bite. I recognize many of the things the hon. Member for Calgary Buffalo mentioned the other night. It is possible that this act could become a detriment to the consumer if it's not administered carefully.

But by the same token, it can be useless to the consumer if there aren't reasonable teeth to bite when a bite is required, when there are definite instances of gouging, charging very, very unfair prices. The other thing that I'd like to deal with for just a moment is the matter of penalties. Maybe the minister has an explanation for this, maybe the penalties are set out in another act, but I would think that anybody who reads this act should have some idea what the penalties for these offences of unfair trade practices would be. I agree with the mediation. I think this is excellent.

The more things we can keep out of our courts, the better it will be. If we can settle this quietly, I think that's the way to do it. But sometimes it can't be settled quietly. Sometimes it has to go to court. One of the things that would help some, at least, to be more reasonable in settling quietly with the department would be to know what the penalty would be if they didn't settle quietly, if they didn't rid themselves of this unfair trade practice, whatever it was, and try to work in harmony with society and with the Department of Consumer Affairs.

I would like to see something in here about penalties because at the present time, as I read the bill, I don't see anything along that line at all. I would like to ask also, in connection with the third item in regard to exemptions, under

Section 14, where an exemption can be given — I'm hoping that isn't going to be an exemption for the purpose of permitting an unfair trade practice. I hope the department will never put itself in the position of granting an exception to someone or other, or some group or other, to commit an unfair trade practice. They must have had something in mind in putting that

section in the act. I would appreciate it greatly if he would deal with that when he's dealing with the bill in closing the consideration of the principle in second reading. I believe those are all the points I had in mind with regard to Bill 21. MR. KING: I beg leave to adjourn the debate. MR. SPEAKER: May the hon. member adjourn the debate? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. Bill 24 The Landlord and Tenant Amendment Act, 1975 MR. GHITTER: Mr.

Speaker, in rising to move second reading of The Landlord and Tenant Amendment Act, 1975, in matters relating to the principle of the bill, I think it may be advantageous for members of the House to understand some of the background behind the bill in order that they might understand the urgency for the amendment that is presently before the House in Bill 24. Although it's an amendment to The Landlord and Tenant Act, Mr. Speaker, what in fact we are dealing with in this particular amendment is the impact of condominium housing particularly upon our main cities in the Province of Alberta.

Condominiums are somewhat new to our environment here in this province. Last year in the City of Edmonton, some 322 condominiums were sold as units within the city under MLS listings. However, the advent of condominiums is rising, due to a very tight rental market, a drop-off of construction, and rising rents that are being experienced in our cities.

The confusion relating to the aspect of condominiums within Edmonton and Calgary is readily exemplified by the difficulties that the planning commissions in both Edmonton and Calgary are experiencing, as many existing buildings are coming before these planning commissions with the suggestion that they be converted into condominiums from prior rental accommodation. The planning commissions and the province are concerned that it is removing normal rental accommodation from the market, and it is causing great concern both in Edmonton and Calgary.

As a result of their concerns, the planning commissions have endeavored, in an innovative way, to place restrictions and inhibitions upon the conversion of existing apartment blocks into condominiums, all of which are probably unlawful, and all of which are probably beyond the control of the planning commissions. But it seems that they are doing it, in any event, in order to try to deal with what they regard as a very difficult problem.

May 26, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 181 Mr. Speaker, I think if one were to analyse the difficulties our cities are experiencing now with respect to housing, and if one were to examine the recent reports of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, one will see the difficulty our housing markets are facing in Edmonton and Calgary, which brings the requirement from the point of view of a bill of this nature. The housing starts — the apartment starts — have dropped off tremendously in the last year.

Rents are rising, and as a result, landlords are now looking very seriously to the conversion of their apartment blocks into condominiums. This has a very serious effect upon the tenants in the buildings. The effect is that they, of course, are receiving notice from the landlords. The notice is telling them they must be out of their suites in 30 days.

They have 30 days to find additional accommodation in a very restricted market, not because they have done anything wrong, not because they have been in breach of any of the conditions of their rental agreement with the landlord, not because they have not been paying rent or the like, but merely because they happen to be in a building which the landlord has decided shall be converted into a condominium. As a result, they are receiving notices requiring them to vacate the premises within 30 days. It is the view of the government, Mr.

Speaker, that this is an unreasonable position in which to place tenants in a very tight rental market. As a result, Bill 24 is presented to the Legislature for consideration. It requires landlords to provide 6 months notice to tenants, in the event that it is their desire to convert a building from a normal rental-type of accommodation into a condominium. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is a very reasonable approach for the interim.

I am not suggesting for a moment that restrictions should be placed on landlords from the point of view of stopping them from converting rental accommodation into condominiums, because I would personally regard that as being a very short-run approach to a much more complex problem.

For those who contemplate suggestions that we should be putting these inhibitions upon conversions and restricting them, all one need do is look to the disastrous example, again in the Province of British Columbia, where the municipalities placed controls upon conversions, and placed a moratorium upon the conversions of existing apartments into condominiums. The result was less construction and many unhappy landlords and tenants. I would submit, Mr.

Speaker, that the inevitable solution to problems of this nature is more construction of all kinds of rental accommodation, of condominium accommodation, and of housing. I know the hon. Minister of Housing is seriously involved in embarking upon new programs in that regard. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, may I suggest that the principle of Bill 24 is really what I refer to as a stop-gap measure to

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19750526
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L18 S1 19750526 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	8c29f969ad1a6de7c28e46525ff509fcfca54f4c

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