Alberta Hansard — 13 May 1985, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 20, Session 3)

19850513

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

May 13, 1985 ALBERTA HANSARD 947 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Monday, May 13, 1985 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 224

An Act to Amend the Landlord and Tenant Act (No. 3) MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill 224,

An Act to Amend the Landlord and Tenant Act (No. 3). It has two principal features. Number one, it would place

definitions of both landlord and tenant in the Act, thus clearly specifying, among other things, that the duties and responsibilities of a landlord would devolve wholly unto the successors of a landlord. Two, it would create a require ment that tenants' security deposits be held in separate trust accounts by landlords, separate and apart from moneys belonging to the landlord and not forming a part of his assets. [Leave granted; Bill 224 read a first time] Bill 57 Professional and Occupational Associations Registration Act DR. REID: Mr.

Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill 57, the Professional and Occupational Associations Regis tration Act. The purpose of this Bill is to provide a mechanism whereby professions and occupations that don't require indi vidual, freestanding legislation can come under this umbrella, which will allow them to designate and protect the name of the profession or occupation. They will also be able to develop disciplinary and other requirements to protect that name. [Leave granted; Bill 57 read a first time] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. BOGLE: Mr.

Speaker, I wish to table with the Legislative Assembly the annual report for Alberta Government Telephones for the 1984 calendar year. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MRS. EMBURY: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure today to introduce to you and to all members of the Assembly 154 grade 8 students from F. E. Osborne junior high school. They are accompanied by their teachers Mrs. Bishop, Mr. Hanson, and Miss Tamagi; also by parents Mrs. Johnson, Mrs. Hugi, Mrs. Maloney, Mrs. Ruthen, and Mrs. Newman.

I'd like to say that the students I know appreciate very much the sincere dedication of the teachers who have arranged this trip for them and provided me with the opportunity to speak with the students at F. E. Osborne. Allison Pope, one of the students with the group today, was telling me when I stood beside her to have the picture taken that her great-great-grandfather was the hon. Alex Rutherford, first premier of the province from 1905 to 1910.

They are seated in the members' and public galleries, and I'd like them all to rise to receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. head: MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Department of Tourism and Small Business MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start my ministerial statement by asking permission to introduce three gentlemen in the Speaker's gallery: the Hon. Tom McMillan, Minister of State for Tourism and Member of Parliament for Hillsborough, Prince Edward Island; Dr.

Brent Ritchie, president of the tourism industry of Alberta; and Ted Sample, director of market development, Alberta Department of Tourism and Small Business. Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to announce the signing just a few minutes ago of a Canada- Alberta subsidiary agreement on tourism development for the province of Alberta. What a great and historic day for tourism, for it's our first ever tourism subagreement in this province. The agreement is for a total of $56.3 million over a period of five years, cost-shared on a fifty-fifty basis.

There are six major program components identified for development under the agreement: facility and product development, alpine ski facility development, market development, training and professional development, industry and community support, and opportunity analysis and evaluation. Mr. Speaker, the process that has led to today's signing began some years ago. The first sign of progress was June 8, 1984, when we signed a memorandum of understanding under the economic and regional development agreement. Since that date my federal colleague the Hon.

Tom McMillan and I, together with our officials, have worked hard to develop the final package represented in this tourism sub- agreement today. I should also point out that officials in the Department of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs, headed by my colleague the hon. Member for Medicine Hat, were very, very instrumental in helping us at that point as well. It's certainly encouraging to note the co-operative climate that has developed between our two governments. Indicative of that is the fact that since Mr.

McMillan was named the first ever minister solely responsible for tourism in Canada, and particularly considering his short tenure in office, he has signed more tourism subagreements than the previous government did in the last six years: a total of nine subagreements. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister has been an extremely busy man, for this morning he signed a tourism subagreement with the province of Manitoba. The Tourism Industry Association of Alberta and our other private-sector partners have long awaited this agree ment, which clearly reflects their concerns, objectives, and

948 ALBERTA HANSARD May 13, 1985 desires for support of the industry in our ongoing discussions over the years. I know that all members will wish to join me and our industry in expressing our appreciation to the minister and to say we all look forward to our future relationship to the benefit of both Canada and Alberta, particularly in the area of tourism. Yes, Mr. Speaker, today is a great day for tourism, and in closing I want to express my thanks to the Hon. Tom McMillan and all the federal and provincial officials who were involved in this process. I might make one comment. Mr.

McMillan stated that in discussions with the Prime Minister, they were prepared to provide $1 million for each year of my age, inasmuch as it's my 56th birthday today. I thought maybe we had been somewhat remiss: we could have gone for weight, and we might have done much better. Thank you very much. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, when you were talking, I thought maybe you were going to hold out for $70 million. On the face of it, it looks like a good agreement. Whenever we get money out of the federal government, I'm totally for it. I hope we pass it on to the minister of medicare.

But obviously, from the ministerial announcement, I would certainly support it. We would want to look at the six major program components in a little more detail to see what it is all about. But I for one think that tourism could be much more of a major industry in this province. It certainly could be part of any diversification strategy.

In the ministerial announcement I noticed there was a thinly veiled political statement about how well the minister is getting along with the new Conservative government, but then I noticed he countered that with the fact that the federal minister had signed a tourism subagreement with the province of Manitoba. So I won't say it's political at this point. All in all, Mr. Speaker, I think it's a good step in the right direction. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, in commenting on the statement by the minister, I too would look at the announce ment as welcome in Alberta.

The whole tourism industry is an area of potential that we really haven't developed. Alberta has the mountains, the prairies, the climate, many lakes of opportunity, and for some reason or other, I feel we haven't done the best job we could in that area. I'm not saying only this government but past governments, because there is great potential for tourist development, economic development, and job opportunity. I would say to the minister that, in terms of detail, the area which would interest me very much is training and professional development.

Having our people prepared to meet the tourists that come from other nations or from the United States I think is very important. It is one of the areas we haven't given excellent emphasis, and in this program I certainly hope that that kind of high priority is designated to that function. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Construction Manpower MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, if I may change the tone somewhat, my question is to the hon. Minister of Manpower. It is a follow-up to the questions asked by my colleague on Friday with regard to unemployment.

With reference to the construction sector, the minister said that rather than sponsoring more construction It seems to me it makes more sense to assist that sector to make the necessary adjustments so that we eliminate the structural problem in the labour force. My question to the minister is: could the minister indicate what this structural problem is, as he sees it? MR. ISLEY: Mr. Speaker, the structural problem is very simple. During the good years we built up a construction segment of our labour force that was pushing 12 percent of the total labour force.

That means that 12 of every 100 people in the work force were employed in construction. That's approximately twice the national average and more than twice the average of the work force of established countries in the western world. Keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, that during the past two fiscal years approximately 20 cents of every dollar spent on construction in this country was spent in Alberta, and even with one-fifth of the construction activity going here, we are still witnessing those high levels of unemployment. So that, very simply, is a structural problem.

We have a sector of our work force that grew to the point where it's not sustainable under normal conditions. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question. I love these terms. He's explained the structural problem. I would point out that this government was in power during that time. You used the term "eliminate" the structural problem. Could the minister tell us what he means by "eliminate" and how we go about eliminating this structural problem? MR.

ISLEY: I would say that you go about adjusting or removing a structural problem by encouraging a better balance in your labour force, a balance that can be sustainable for the long term. I think we have to recognize that to develop structural problems of the type I've described is not unusual in a growing economy and a new province, but it's a hard reality of life we have to face. MR. MARTIN: Yes, it's a hard reality that some of the unemployed are facing. There's no doubt about that.

To follow up, my question is: is the minister saying to the Assembly that well-trained, unemployed tradespeople should now and forever leave their field and look for something else? Is that what we mean? MR. ISLEY: It's not quite that simple, Mr. Speaker. People who are in a position of surplus have a number of options they should consider. One is to remain in the area they were trained for and accept the fact that it's going to be a highly competitive marketplace.

Another is to look to other areas of the province where the construction activity may be moving and seriously look at temporary relocation or travelling to and from those construction sites. Another thing may be to say that in the short term maybe I should be looking at changing my vocation, and if things pick up in the construction sector, then I always have the option of moving back. Mr.

Speaker and members of the Legislature, I think it drives home another point, that with a changing economy and a more industrialized society, the need is there more and more for us to convince people that you need more than one skill during your lifetime. The days are probably gone when someone can decide at the age of 18 what they're going to do and hope to be that for the duration

May 13, 1985 ALBERTA HANSARD 949 of their working life. I think the more we can get the point out to our existing labour force, but more particularly to our young people, that life is going to be an experience of training and retraining, the more we're going to have people who are prepared to adjust to the real circumstances of the economy. MR. MARTIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it's good that we all have more than one skill. I hope the minister does also.

In view of the fact that when I look at unemployment by industry in Alberta, from StatsCan it seems that most all the industries have unemployment, most of it high, my question to the minister then is: what jobs or retraining would the minister suggest that unemployed construction workers take up, in view of that high unemployment in other sectors? MR. ISLEY: Mr. Speaker, if you're assessing the industrial sectors, you'll see that the unemployment rate ranges from a high of 28.9 percent in construction, which, by the way, is a drop from the previous month with the labour force remaining constant.

So there's some positive movement there. It declines from there to 2.3 percent in the agricultural community. I don't think anyone should say to someone else, "Hey, you'd better retrain for this or that." I still believe in freedom of choice when it comes to training for an occu pation.

I think it's the responsibility of the individual to get the best counselling available, to get the best information in front of them as far as what the marketplace is like in a particular sector, to assess very carefully their own skills and the transferability of those skills, their own likes and dislikes as far as the workplace, and with that best infor mation in front of them, the individual then makes the decision. MR. MARTIN: Freedom of choice is very nice. We all believe in that. I'm formerly a counsellor.

I agree with everything the minister says, but you still have to have something to go to, and that's my question. He went down to the low in agriculture. In view of what's happening in the agricultural sector, is the minister suggesting that some of the construction trades should be looking into agriculture, farming, as a place they might get employment? MR. ISLEY: Mr. Speaker, I was simply responding to the hon. Leader of the Opposition trying to mislead the House by suggesting every sector had unusually high unemployment rates. MR. SPEAKER: I have difficulty with expressions like that.

I don't think they're necessary in the question period or in a debating period. I really don't see a great distinction in principle between saying that a member has misled the House and saying that he's trying to mislead it, except that there may be more sting in the second alternative because it indicates he didn't succeed. Perhaps the hon. minister might deal a little further with that expression. MR. ISLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was simply using the example to demonstrate that all sectors do not have unusually high levels of unemployment.

If you're going to analyze the stats, I think you will note that agriculture did show an increase of 5,000 positions from March to April. This does not necessarily mean we had 5,000 new farmers out there; it means that 5,000 additional people went to work in the agricultural sector, which is primary production and some secondary. MR. SPEAKER: With respect, I'd appreciate it very much and consider it a favour if the hon. minister might deal just a little further with the charge that he made about the hon. leader trying to mislead. MR. ISLEY: Mr. Speaker, if you so wish, I will withdraw those remarks. MR.

MARTIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the minister, and I will not mislead the House with this question, I assure you. Does the minister have any projections to indicate what would happen if some major private-sector projects came on stream in the near future? Specifically what I mean by that is: because of the structural problem, as the minister terms it, will there be enough skilled construction workers left if unemployment remains high in this area? People will be leaving the field, leaving the province; young people will not go into it. It's a very highly skilled area. MR. ISLEY: Mr.

Speaker, when we study trends of that sector, we will note that for the past four months the level of that work force has more or less levelled off. We currently have a capacity of 24,000 unemployed people in the construction sector. I think we have a fairly accurate reading of the construction projects that are coming on stream and the number of jobs they are creating.

The number is becoming rather significant, with the hiring up on Syncrude starting this spring, with Esso phases 5 and 6 moving shortly in the Cold Lake area, with the Husky oil upgrader, and a number of other projects located in places such as Peace River, Swan Hills, and Judy Creek, and the new activity in the Red Earth area. I think we have the capacity in the construction sector to respond to those needs. I would also point out that we have in place in this province a very well developed apprenticeship pro gram delivered through some very well equipped institutions.

We can respond in periods of shortages if the need arises. MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the final supplementary on this topic. MR. MARTIN: Then I'll go on to some other area. Just one other quote from the minister that I found fascinating; I always find the minister's quotes fascinating. With regard to unemployment projections, on Friday the minister said, "I'm not going to stand up here and project a figure we have no control over." My question is: was the minister saying that the government has no control over whether or not the unemployment rate goes up or down, that there is nothing they can do about it? MR.

ISLEY: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. leader had read the full response, he would have realized that I was making a significant difference between employment levels, the fact that they are to a certain degree predictable, and the unemployment rate, which a number of factors creep into. I will re-emphasize that if you want to make comparisons of how well one economy in this nation is doing compared to another, then you'd better go back and look at the employment to population ratio, because there you've got two fixed figures. You start running your comparison with the unemployment rate and a number of things can impact

950 ALBERTA HANSARD May 13, 1985 it. The participation rate, the number of people over age 15 that say, "Hey, I want to be in the work force" — I believe I stressed that Alberta's participation rate, at over 70 percent, still leads the nation by far. If the participation rate goes up, employment levels can go up, and the unem ployment rate will not necessarily drop. The other thing that is not controllable and that I don't think we have a desire to control is the interprovincial mobility of the work force. Alberta's borders are open.

As times start moving, you can suddenly have a reversal of the out-migration we experienced for a number of quarters, which now appears to be levelling off. That may reverse into a strong in-migration, and suddenly your labour force is growing at an unpredictable rate. All I'm suggesting is that you can predict employment levels, but you're getting pretty reckless when you start trying to predict unemployment rates. MR. MARTIN: I wouldn't want the Minister of Manpower to get reckless. Teaching Standards Council MR. MARTIN: My second question is to the Minister of Education.

It's one of his favourite topics, the Council on Alberta Teaching Standards. I'd like to file three copies of a letter written by the Member for Edmonton Glengarry to teachers in his constituency, in which the following is stated: The ATA has three times rejected professional legis lation that would split the union function from the professional function. The Minister decided to set up his own advisory committee to advise him on discipline and certification. This has to be viewed as a fallback position.

My question is: would the minister indicate if those state ments are an accurate reflection of government policy on the matter of the Teaching Standards Council? MR. SPEAKER: I think the question itself is in order, but relating questions to letters written by Members of the Legislative Assembly may not be an entirely desirable precedent. I could see, for example, that we could go around the House and collect copies of the mail of various members and, in each case, ask a minister whether those represent government policy.

We might even have some letters written by members of the opposition given that sort of treatment. Under the circumstances, I suggest that that sort of inquiry should be made directly and without relating it to corre spondence between a member and his constituents. MR. MARTIN: Fair enough, Mr. Speaker. I accept the ruling. I guess my question is still the same. Is it government policy, the reason we have COATS set up, to split the union function from the professional function? MR.

KING: I think the hon. member would have to restate his question, because the second time, just at this moment, he has stated it in different terms than I understood the first time. MR. MARTIN: No, it wasn't, Mr. Speaker. I was quoting exactly the same both times. My question is simply this: is part of the purpose of COATS to split the union function from the professional function? Is this government policy at this time? MR. KING: Quite clearly, Mr. Speaker, we want to keep professional functions separate from "union functions". I'm using the words of the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

I want to reassure the House, because I suspect I know where his question is leading, that to make a clear distinction between the two functions is not necessarily accomplished by having two different organizations perform the functions, a point that I've made in this House on more than one occasion. MR. MARTIN: Just to follow up on that, Mr. Speaker, to clarify once and for all, I ask whether his unilateral establishment of the council on teachers' standards is part of an effort to split the union and professional functions of the ATA. Yes or no? MR. KING: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. MR.

MARTIN: A supplementary question. You'd better talk to the Member for Edmonton Glengarry then, Mr. Minister. With respect to professional organizations' dual professional and welfare interests, the minister stated to this Assembly on May 8: The teachers are the only group that has chosen a single organization, and we need to do some work in developing the model by which that choice could be implemented. Will the minister advise the Assembly if that statement is still a government goal? If it is, how will the minister's unilateral establishment of the new council work to accom plish this goal? MR. KING: Mr.

Speaker, the position of the government, as expressed in the government's policy on professions and occupations, is that the organization representing the mem bers of a profession may choose, or perhaps we should say that the members of the profession themselves may choose, whether they want to have one organization represent their economic interests and another represent their professional interests or do they want a single organization to represent both interests? That position of the government is very clearly stated in the government's policy on professions and occupations.

We don't deviate from that as a statement of principle. If the teachers wish to have a single organization rep resenting both their economic and professional interests, then that is their choice to make. But as I said a moment ago, notwithstanding that that is the choice of the Alberta teachers to make, if they choose that both these activities will be embodied in a single organization, then on behalf of the public interest, we will ensure that the union interest does not overshadow the professional interest or vice versa.

We will ensure in new legislation that those two functions operate independently of each other, even though they operate within a single organization. MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps we could deal with a short further supplementary and a short answer. We've passed the halfway mark in the question period, and no other member has yet had an opportunity to put any questions. MR. MARTIN: I'll move over about four, Mr. Speaker, and ask this question.

I believe the minister said last week that if a new teaching profession Act is agreed to, the council would cease functioning and . . . the respon sibilities of the council would be rolled up into whatever

May 13, 1985 ALBERTA HANSARD 951 new organization had charge of the operations of the profession. Would the minister indicate to the Assembly what he meant by this? In other words, is there a new organization that he is planning in this regard, or is that a hidden agenda item that we don't know about? MR. KING: There are no hidden agenda items, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member makes clear why there is an admonition against responding to hypothetical questions. I cannot say what the outcome of negotiating a new teaching profession Act will be.

I can speculate about it, and I can speculate about it very hopefully, as I'm inclined to do. But I cannot give the House any assurance about what the outcome will be of such negotiations or what will be represented in a new teaching profession Act. MR. GURNETT: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister indicated earlier that he has a right to bring in the council without its being debated here. My question to the minister is whether he would be prepared to conduct open public hearings on the council to see what the rest of the people in Alberta think about the council? MR.

KING: If we were going to conduct open public hearings on the matter, it might be better that we conduct those in a broader context. Perhaps we should have open public hearings about the future of the Teaching Profession Act itself, within which context we might consider the Council on Alberta Teaching Standards. The suggestion from the hon. member is an excellent one, and I'll take it under consideration. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my questions are also to the Minister of Education on this very same subject.

As I understand it, the minister and the Alberta Teachers' Association agree that a new teaching profession Act should be put into place. The minister stated on May 7, in answer to a question from the hon. Member from Vegreville, that putting a new teaching profession Act in place would mean that at that time the council would no longer exist.

My question to the minister is: on that basis, why does the minister not continue with the present circumstances where the minister is responsible for certification, rather than bring in this council at this time and then possibly in a year or two take away the objectives, goals, and duties of that particular council that they most likely will be achieving at that point in time? MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, regulations under

section 6(1) of the Department of Education Act make it very clear that the minister can revoke a teaching certificate for cause. The fact of the matter is that the minister has not had the means at hand of showing cause for the revocation of a teaching certificate. In other words, parents, members of the com munity, grandparents, foster parents, and interested Albertans have occasionally written to the Minister of Education and argued that some teacher has been practising incompetently in the classroom.

We have not had the means of dealing with those letters of complaint when they come to the minister, who is the licensing authority for teachers in the province. For as long as I have been Minister of Education, this has been something which I knowingly set to one side in the hope and expectation that we would be successful in bringing into this Assembly a new teaching profession Act acceptable to the teachers and the public which would come to grips with this question. In six years we have not been successful in negotiating that kind of teaching profession Act.

The new teaching profession Act has not come into this Assembly. I see no prospect that it will come into this Assembly in the near future. I am absolutely not willing to let the situation continue any longer where people express concern about a very few teachers who should not be in the classroom and the minister is without the means of coming to grips with those concerns. Clearly, it is the case that the minister cannot personally go into those classrooms. Even if I were able to, I am not trained or experienced to do the job that needs to be done.

In other words, the job must be taken on, and it must be taken on by people who are prepared to do what needs to be done. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister.

I appreciate the predicament the minister may be in, but in terms of the teachers' professional Act that has been under negotiation, as I understand it, is it the government's position that that group of persons within the Act must consist of citizens at large, such as are on the Council on Alberta Teaching Standards, or is it the government's position under the Teaching Profession Act that that group who could work in terms of advising the minister could be of teachers only? MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I think it's fair to say that this government holds teaching to be a very, very important profession.

In that sense, unlike other professions in the province, we believe that there is a role for the community to play in assuring the standards of the profession, because it is our children who are in classrooms. So I think it's fair to say that the position of the government is that we believe the general public should have a role to play in dealing with the kinds of questions alluded to by the hon. Member for Little Bow. At the same time, it continues to be our hope that that will be done in the context of a new teaching profession Act.

If I could put it this way — and I know I am phrasing it rhetorically — does the hon. member believe that we should leave ourselves for another year or two or three, for as long as the negotiation of a new teaching profession Act may require, without the means of dealing with those letters that come to my office from parents who are concerned about what is happening to their children in the classroom? MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. It's in terms of the negotiations.

Is the minister convinced at this time that negotiations cannot occur between the Alberta Teachers' Association and the minister to reach some kind of amendments or a new teaching profession Act? Are the negotiations stalemated, and as far as 1985 is concerned, no agreement can be reached? MR. KING: As I have said on more than one occasion, Mr. Speaker, I am always prepared to meet with the Alberta Teachers' Association to discuss a new teaching profession Act or, in the early stages of such meetings, to have people meet on my behalf, on the understanding that I would be involved at an appropriate point.

We're always prepared to meet with the Alberta Teachers' Association. Having said that, it is important to state that professional legislation is not a gift that the community gives to any group of professionals. Professional legislation exists first

952 ALBERTA HANSARD May 13, 1985 and foremost to protect the public interest. In the case of the Teaching Profession Act, a new teaching profession Act must first and foremost protect the interest of the child in the classroom, and standing behind the child, such legislation must protect the interest of the parents of those children.

Negotiating a new teaching profession Act is not simply a question of knowing what the Alberta Teachers' Association wants and saying, "We'll go back to the Legislative Assem bly and get it for you as quickly as we can." Any professional legislation exists first and foremost to protect the public interest. MR. R. SPEAKER: A supplementary question to the min ister. As I gather from the comments, the minister intends to proceed with the Council on Alberta Teaching Standards.

Could the minister indicate whether any reconsideration has been given with regard to any more appointments by the Alberta Teachers' Association, with regard to the six teach ers? That's the first part of the question. The second part, Mr. Speaker, is with regard to the minister's composition of those six teachers that are to be, under the present circumstances, appointed. Will those be all members of the ATA? Will a number of them not be members of the ATA? Has the minister considered what that composition would be at this point in time? MR.

KING: Of the 11 members of the council, it is almost a certainty that nine will be certificated teachers. Nominations are being invited from the Alberta Teachers' Association. Those nominees will almost certainly be certificated teachers. The same is true of the nominations we expect to receive from the Department of Education, the council of Alberta school superintendents, and the Universities Co-ordinating Council, on behalf of the faculties of education.

The only two members of the council who may not be certificated teachers would be the nominee of the Alberta School Trust ees' Association and the representative of the public at large. So it is almost a certainty that nine of 11 members of the council will be certificated teachers who, if not currently in the classroom, will have been in the classroom at some point in their careers. Of those, we expect that six will likely be currently teaching in the classroom. I would expect that five of those six, perhaps all six, would be members of the Alberta Teachers' Association.

It is possible that one of the appointees could be from those teachers who are employed in class 1 private schools; that is, the private schools which employ certificated teachers and follow the curriculum of Alberta Education. But as a matter of balance, if one came from such an environment, I'd expect the other five to be in either the public or the separate school system; that is to say, members of the Alberta Teachers' Association. MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the final supplementary on this. MR. R.

SPEAKER: With regard to the sequence of events that will occur from this point on, the minister has indicated that the Teaching Profession Act will be set aside now for a period of time, maybe 1985, 1986, 1987. Could the minister indicate what that sequence may be? When will the Act come before the Legislature? This fall? Next spring? The following fall? Has the minister a timetable for the negotiations, following this point in time? MR. KING: No particular timetable, Mr. Speaker.

I have speculated on other occasions outside of this House, but I'll repeat the speculation here, that if legislation were not introduced this spring — which is now impossible, of course — it would not likely be done until 1987 or 1988. I say that because I speculate that in 1986 there will be a provincial general election, although who knows? After an election, given that there will likely be a new Minister of Education, that lady or gentleman would probably want some time to familiarize themselves with the issue before they would want to introduce such legislation into the Assembly.

On an earlier occasion it was understood that if such a Bill were introduced into the House, either spring or fall, it would be allowed to sit over for six months and be reintroduced so as to give everyone interested in the Bill ample opportunity to consider its features very, very care fully. That's the only point on which my speculation about timing was based. If we are able to make good progress during the summer, if we are able to bring it to a conclusion — if, if, and if — then it could be introduced in the fall. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question. MR.

SPEAKER: We've spent most of the question period thus far on one topic. I don't really think we should deprive other members any longer of their opportunity to ask their first questions. Surface Water Drainage MR. STROMBERG: Mr. Speaker, to the chairman of the Alberta Water Resources Commission. Does the commission have the prerogative to include drainage of surplus ground water in east-central Alberta, especially in the county of Flagstaff? If it does, what is the commission doing to help a lot of drowned-out farmers in my constituency, especially where easements are not available for drainage ditches? MR.

SPEAKER: I'm not sure about the first part of the question not being a matter of public knowledge, but the second part would seem to be fully in order. MR. KROEGER: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the member means by do we have the prerogative as a com mission. Our terms of reference are pretty clear. We are involved in practically all areas of water management. For the information of the member, I'd like to point out that the first budgetary matter we dealt with had to do with drainage, which includes the member's area. We are facil itators, and we're aware of what is happening there.

How ever, on the specifics of anything on the agenda that the member is referring to, the water resources commission and the Department of the Environment would be looking at that. I'd be quite prepared to sit down with the member or with the department, but if there's a specific on how the process works, it probably relates to the way the legislation is now set up. I think the question really is: how do you get through the system? I'm offering to discuss that, if that's of any value. MR. STROMBERG: The supplementary, Mr. Speaker, is how you get it through the system.

If I may, an explanation: the system is very lucrative, 75 percent funded by the Department of the Environment and 25 percent by the municipality; however, the legislation is such that the people downstream, that don't benefit from the drainage, that have the ditches on their land, are the ones that get hurt. I suspect the legislation will gather dust for 50 years. [inter

May 13, 1985 ALBERTA HANSARD 953 jection] My question is to you and to the members behind me: would the minister be willing to take a good hard look at getting involved in purchasing rights-of-way downstream from drainage ditches? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, I guess the question is to me. In terms of the program, I think it is very clear as to who has the responsibilities for acquiring right-of-way. At this time it lies with the municipality or the drainage district. MR. STROMBERG: Mr. Speaker, my last supplementary. That answer was unclear to me — very unclear to the people that are involved.

If you cannot get easement for the ditch, if some farmer along the line says no, then what? Drown for the next 50 years? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, the requirements of the legislation are very clear. Constitutional Law Institute MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address my question to the hon. Minister of Advanced Education. In light of the importance of constitutional law in the country, particularly since the Constitution Act, 1982, is the minister giving serious consideration to establishing an institute of constitutional law at the University of Calgary? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Speaker, there have been some recommendations made to us over the past year or so about the importance of establishing within Alberta some form of constitutional expert system at one of our law schools or, perhaps, even one of our political science schools or in conjunction with both. That comes about because of the strong leadership which this province has taken in consti tutional matters, including the efforts of the Premier and, for that matter, the Member for Calgary Currie, wherein some fairly significant recommendations have been made by this government to the people of Canada.

I'm not too sure whether I have all the perfect solutions. However, I can indicate to the member that one of the thoughts the department has, which is now being discussed with members of our caucus and members of the education committee, would be modifications to the '80s Endowment Fund, a program which has been very significant in engen dering contributions by the private sector to our institutions, to give some priority to the establishment of endowed chairs or some additional way to allow the universities to establish endowed chairs through an escalation or a better matching of money by the private sector.

Certainly, in terms of the direction that I see us taking in the near term, the use of the Endowment Fund could in fact establish an endowed chair and, therefore, may in part satisfy the concern raised by the member; that is, a special constitutional chair within one of the faculties at Calgary, and that could be accom modated by the combination of government funding and private-sector contributions. MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's commitment to consider a chair.

Will the minister go further by considering an institute or a school and, in the interim, establish the chair he has so generously offered to fund? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Speaker, I hesitate to say that I will commit any university to a particular program because it is well founded and well understood that this government recognizes the autonomy of the universities in this province, and clearly any recommendation for the internal use of resources or a request to the province for additional resources would certainly require the consent, the development, and the discussion within the university itself before we could make a unilateral decision.

If the member wants to plead his case, I suggest that, as well as arguing it with our colleagues in government, he in fact engender this notion, this genesis, this idea, with the University of Calgary and see if they wouldn't make a recommendation to government to proceed with funding. MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, for clarification. I appre ciate the minister's position regarding the autonomy of institutions and support it. Is the minister saying that if the University of Calgary forwards such a recommendation, such an institute will be established? MR. JOHNSTON: We're playing a bit of a debating game here, Mr.

Speaker. I'm trying, wherever possible, to open the door for that recommendation to come forward, and I would not want to block it by foreclosing or making some commitment, which may not coincide with the priorities of any university. So we watch very carefully to ensure that the priorities for new programs are ranked by the universities or colleges. I would not want to pre-empt that discussion at the university level.

All I can say is that if there is a list of priorities by the University of Calgary and a con stitutional law faculty or institute is one of those priorities, we would attempt to find money to assist the University of Calgary, but that would have to be their own determi nation. MR. PAPROSKI: A supplementary to the minister. Due to the vast number of constitutional experts at the University of Alberta, I wonder if the minister could comment as to whether there have been any discussions with the Department of Political Science or other departments of the University of Alberta with respect to this chair? MR.

JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I'll speak on behalf of the University of Lethbridge as well. We'll have all three of them on the table. As I indicated, of course, there is a considerable number of experts in constitutional law in this province, including at the University of Alberta the previous deputy minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs, for example. Dr. Meekison is considered to be a Canadian leader in constitutional history and law, and there are a variety of others who would be included. But it could well be, Mr.

Speaker — I'm not trying to impose any structure — that some combination of the strengths within Alberta at the various universities could be brought together under the umbrella of an institution, and it may not nec essarily be an institution identified with any particular univer sity. Summer Camp Standards MR. GURNETT: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Social Services and Community Health. I know that there are many summer camps of excellent quality in this province.

My question is whether the minister can confirm that there are, in fact, no provincial regulatory standards of any sort which deal with either programming

954 ALBERTA HANSARD May 13, 1985 or staff suitability and training for various types of summer camps. MR. SPEAKER: We're really dealing with a matter of legal research as to whether or not regulations cover a certain point. I would suggest that be pursued elsewhere. MR. GURNETT: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister indicate whether he has done any review about standards of programming or staff for the summer camps, where a great many children are, to determine whether or not the guidelines such as those of the Canadian Camping Association would be useful to have in place? DR. WEBBER: Mr.

Speaker, I can understand where the question is coming from. I can't understand why they would be asking for such regulations. To my mind, to have government involved in deciding who counsellors are going to be in these camps, what kinds of qualifications they should have — they're surely beyond the role of government. This past weekend I was approached by a reporter in Calgary whom, I assume, the hon. member was in touch with as well. My response to him was the same as my response right now. I don't see a role for government in those areas.

I hope we are not going to be developing any regulations in areas where the parents and the management of those camps have responsibility. MR. GURNETT: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Out of a concern for the fact that many thousands of children attend these camps, does the minister at least have, as a minimum, a central listing of all the summer camps which operate in Alberta that could be reviewed from time to time to determine what groups or organizations actually operate the camps? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware that we have a listing of all the camps in Alberta.

The only reason that I think the hon. member might even want to ask me this question is that it relates to the responsibilities we have for the Public Health Act. But I haven't heard anything related to that in his questions. MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the final supplementary. We have just come to the end of the time for the Question Period. MR. GURNETT: There are a number of reasons why I address the questions to him, but just one final supple mentary.

Does the minister at least monitor the summer camps which receive government moneys, for example, through the attendance of children whose families are receiv ing social assistance or children who might be wards of the government in some capacity? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, in those cases where children are wards of the government, our responsibility would be the same as the responsibility of a parent: number one, to check out what kind of camp their kids will be going to.

Secondly, I think it's the responsibility of the camp man agement or organizers, the people responsible for holding the particular camp, to hire personnel with the proper qualifications and individuals they can trust to work with children and provide good programming to them. Once again, we do not have any involvement in setting regulations. You asked the question related to funding of agencies. Yes, we do have a system in place to audit these agencies that receive funding from the government but nothing spe cifically designed for agencies that are operating camps.

In other words, our audit system would relate to them in the same way as it does to other agencies in the province. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: I'm not aware of any request to revert to Introduction of Special Guests, but having regard to the galleries, perhaps there might be some. Do the members agree that we should revert? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS (reversion) MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, it's my privilege today to introduce a group of 25 students from the Stettler constit uency. They're in grades 5 to 9. They attend the Lakeview Christian school.

They're accompanied by their teacher and three parents. They're seated in the public gallery. I ask them to stand and receive the welcome of the Assembly. MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure today to introduce to you and to members of the Assembly 62 students in grades 5 and 6 from Oakley Centre for Gifted [Students] in my riding. I'm pleased to have them in the Assembly today and look forward to meeting with them immediately following this statement. They're accompanied today by teachers Shelagh Innes, Judy Persson-Thomas, David Hampson, Kathryn MacDonell, and Brett Bowen.

They're in the members' gallery, and I ask that they rise and receive the welcome of the Assembly. MR. STROMBERG: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the oppor tunity to introduce to you and to members of this Assembly 28 grade 6 students from the Chester Ronning school in the city of Camrose. Along with them this afternoon are their teachers Janette Rotto and Allan Throndson. I might add that the school they attend is named after a diplomat, a great Canadian, and also a former member of this Assem bly, Dr. Chester Ronning.

They are seated in the public gallery, and I ask them to rise and be recognized by the Assembly. head: COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY [Mr. Appleby in the Chair] MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Committee of Supply please come to order. Department of Manpower MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. minister wish to make some remarks? MR. ISLEY: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to take this opportunity to make a few comments concerning the 1985-86 estimates

May 13, 1985 ALBERTA HANSARD 955 for Alberta Manpower. The department's responsibilities are grouped under three votes. Vote 1 is for support services, which include general administration, planning, and research. Vote 2 covers manpower development, training assistance, and manpower training. Vote 3 is devoted to special employ ment programs. Mr. Chairman, we are all aware that even with the signs of economic recovery Alberta still has a serious unemploy ment problem. In this context I think it is important to note what the Manpower department is doing to provide job opportunities for Albertans.

For the 1985-86 fiscal year we have budgeted more than $143 million for special employment and training programs, most of them covered in vote 3. This means we are devoting more than 70 percent of the total Manpower budget to helping Albertans find employment and train for work. I would like to mention some of these programs just briefly, Mr. Chairman, to give the committee a better appreciation of what is being done to assist both the jobless and employers in our province.

Under the youth employment and training program I announced last fall, we're helping young Albertans gain access to that all-important first job. The department pays a wage subsidy to employers who provide jobs and training to graduates of high schools and postsecondary institutions as well as to unemployed young Albertans who have been out of high school for at least 12 months. Another recent initiative is the Alberta environment employment program, which not only creates job oppor tunities but improves the environment at the same time.

Under this program the department provides wage support to municipalities, nonprofit associations, and other provincial departments undertaking environment improvement projects. At this very moment crews are cleaning up the river valley in Edmonton in a project carried out by the Chamber of Commerce with our financial assistance. We also have the wage subsidy program, which has proven to be extremely popular with private-sector employ ers. Here the department shares costs with business owners and farmers who create jobs or retain workers facing the threat of layoffs.

Similarly the Alberta training program provides financial assistance to employers who train employ ees and upgrade their skill levels. This program is designed to upgrade the province's labour force. The list of special programs is a long one. It includes STEP, the summer temporary employment program, and its winter equivalent PEP, the priority employment program. There are also special needs employment programs, including the Opportunity Corps, employment skills, and hire-a-stu- dent.

In all, we anticipate that these programs will create approximately 44,000 direct jobs for Albertans throughout the province and perhaps an additional 1,000 indirect jobs. It should be clear, Mr. Chairman, that the creation of employment opportunities, whether directly or through train ing, is a top priority of the Manpower department. Let me now turn to the department's other responsibilities as shown in vote 2. Under the manpower development subprogram we have earmarked $11.2 million to help Alber tans make rewarding career transitions between school, training, work, and retirement.

To ensure that this province maintains a well-trained work force, $7.7 million is budgeted for the apprenticeship and trade certification division, which is responsible for administering the training and certification of trades. It is important that we not overlook the special needs of disadvantaged Albertans. In the training assistance subprogram we have budgeted almost $12 million to provide financial assistance for vocational and rehabilitation training. Under manpower training some $11.7 million will finance short-term, vocationally oriented programs, including English as a Second Language. With that, Mr.

Chairman, I conclude my opening remarks. As we go through the estimates, I will be pleased to respond to any questions. Thank you. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to participate in the minister's estimates. There are some questions. If we sound repetitive on this side, it's because we feel strongly about certain issues. I recognize that the Minister of Man power has certain limitations in terms of his clout with what happens within the government. Government decisions are not made by the Minister of Manpower. He's there, perhaps, to pick up the pieces after. It's all well and dandy.

Nobody is suggesting that certain people haven't benefitted from some of the programs under the three votes. But the simple fact is that the proof is in the pudding. Mr. Chairman, we are the richest province in Canada, and we are at the national average. Specifically, it is outrageous that in this day and age in a province this rich, over 13 percent of the people in the city of Edmonton are unemployed.

We can talk about the programs and all the rest of it that we're doing — some of them are beneficial; no doubt about that — but the fact remains that there is something seriously wrong with a government that allows this type of unemployment to go on. It doesn't have to. I point out that there are provinces with a lot fewer resources than this province that have much lower unem ployment. If we want to compare what's happening in other industrial parts of the world, they would not tolerate this type of unemployment.

They would not stand up and talk about participation rates and all the other rhetoric and things that don't mean anything to anybody. The fact is that there was overbuilding. We all understand that. But the government of the day took credit for the boom. They said, "It's because of this great Conservative government that every thing's going along so well." Surely they now have to accept the responsibility and do something about unem ployment. The reason we feel so strongly on this side of the House, Mr. Chairman, is simple. In question period today the minister and I indulged back and forth in statistics.

I guess that sometimes you have to do that to deal with the problem. I've said this many, many times and I'm going to keep repeating it: the problem is that these are not statistics; we're talking about real, flesh-and-blood people. There is nothing more decimating to anybody who is used to working than to say "We no longer require your services" and to put them out on the scrap heap. Mr. Chairman, I've never understood the economics of this — and I'll come to it — but in terms of what we do to people, it makes no sense at all. Let me use a couple of specific examples in different age groups.

One of my neighbours, who is a tradesperson, has worked proudly all his life. He's 50 years old. He's been unemployed for a year now. Sure, he's had UIC; that's coming to an end. I see a difference in the way that person is acting as we go on month after month after month. That shouldn't surprise us. To the minister, this person is not lazy. He's doing odd jobs here and there to try to maintain his dignity and pride. But it's starting to go down. It's all well and dandy for the minister to say that construction people should just all of a sudden find other jobs. That's not the reality for most people. When you've

956 ALBERTA HANSARD May 13, 1985 been trained, when you work with your hands and are good at it and have pride in it, it's just not that simple. I also say to the minister and the construction trades: if we say that people can shift out quickly and come back, as he talked about in question period, that's not the reality, because they lose those skills overall. These are fast-evolving things, whether they be in the electrical field or some of the others. It's not that easy to stay out of a job for six or eight months, or two or five years, and come back with the same skill.

You won't even have the same attitude; I can guarantee that. I don't care who it is, Mr. Chairman, whether it's you or me or anybody; if you say to us that we're on the scrap heap for two or three years, it's going to affect us all. It's going to strip away our dignity and whatever pride we had, and it's very difficult to come back from that. No amount of preaching from us under the dome here is going to change that. That's the reality people are facing. The other is young people. You can say they should have got more education or should have done this and that. We can live in a dream world here at this level.

I know young people who want to work, who obviously don't have the skill or experience, who have been out of work all their adult lives, and some of them are 22. I've said this before and will keep saying it, Mr. Chairman: if we don't think we're creating problems by having a whole group of people that have no chance of getting employment, no way of doing it, and saying to them with cliches that all they have to do is get retrained or this or that — retrained for what? Not everybody has certain skills in different areas. Any of us who have been involved in vocational counselling know that.

It's not a simple matter for most people. To say that somehow they can just magically move out of this occupation into another occupation — it is just not that easy. To any of us who sit here and believe that, I just say in all sincerity that the reality of life is not striking home. The point is that the economics of it — and I'll come to that — make no sense to me. Most industrial countries would not put up with it even for a second, or those governments very quickly would not be there. I'll give you one example.

The Minister of International Trade invited me to a meeting at Government House with the minister of energy from Sweden, and I thank him for it. We were chatting, and she said to me, "We are in real difficulty with our government; we are falling behind because we're not doing enough for the unemployed." She said, "Ray, we have unemployment now at 2.7 percent." Two point seven percent and they're worried. They're going to have to change and do things to bring that down. When I told her that unemployment in this city was 14 percent at the time, I thought she was going to swallow the spoon as she ate her soup.

My point in bringing this up is that we have to make commitments to full employment. Admittedly, it's not easy. But that should be our first priority. It should never be the tail wagging the dog, that somehow we'll just drift along and wait for some magical solution somewhere down the line and use terms like "restructuring" and redoing this and redoing that. In unemployment the prime thing for governments is to work towards full employment. Admit tedly, it can't all be done overnight.

But if national, pro vincial, and municipal governments said that they would work together and set targets — by industries, if you like — say, a target of 2 percent less a year, I believe they could do it. Mr. Chairman, it's an issue I feel strongly about. If this society is going to continue, I don't think you can inevitably have the unemployment rates we have now. I don't think 8 percent is good enough, but some provinces are at least down to that level.

If you continue with this, and it's accentuated to young people — in Great Britain right now, we are seeing the problems of high unemployment and young people who have never worked. I say to the minister that I know it's not all the minister's problem. It's a government problem, but he's the one who has to handle the unemployment statistics. It's all well and dandy to memorize and quote all the programs and tell us how well they are doing, but the reality is that we still have huge unemployment in this province and we should be doing more.

The reality is that other people have advanced ideas that I think would work. We have. But the government rejects them and says we can't afford them. Well, you can't afford to pay out UIC across this country. You can't afford to pick up the social costs. You can't afford to pay welfare. I'd much rather pay people to work than pay them in other ways. I say to the government, through the Minister of Manpower, that we should look at doing that instead of making excuses. Mr.

Chairman, when we say we can't afford this and can't afford that — I've said it before, but I want to do it one more time to put it on the record: we are paying a tremendous cost economically. I've talked about the social cost, but we're paying a tremendous cost economically. As I have said before, various people have estimated it. An economist estimated what it cost in 1982 to have huge unemployment. He ran that figure up to $78.8 billion that we lost out of the economy because we had to pay it out in lost production, lost earnings, UI benefits, and welfare. This was to all governments.

It seems to me if we had that $78 billion in the economy, it would stimulate the economy. People would have pur chasing power. The Treasurer talks about confidence. My God, if people have jobs and have a few dollars, they'll have confidence and the economy will hum. When they don't have a job and they're not sure if they're going to have one a month from now, that's when it breaks down.

I don't know what happens behind the closed doors of cabinet, but I hope that the minister is an advocate for the unemployed, because he's the one taking the flak for it, and that he is an advocate for setting goals and targets to come down. The minister says he has no way of knowing this. Well, you have a planning secretariat that I'm sure is giving the minister information — at least I hope they are — about things that could be done to bring down unem ployment. Surely that should be the role of that particular department.

I recognize that the minister, through the subsidy programs and the things he has under him, could not immediately bring unemployment down himself. It has to be a government prerogative. Mr. Chairman, I will continue to say this as long as we have what I consider immoral levels of unem ployment. When we sit and talk about a heritage trust fund with $14 billion and in my city of Edmonton we have over 13 percent unemployment, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that something's wrong.

That's a frustration many people are feeling out there — certainly, many people in my constituency and I expect many people in the minister's constituency. I predict there's many in the constituencies of all the members, if they're listening. If they're not, they should be. I come to a few questions for the minister. He said he couldn't necessarily project what the unemployment rate

May 13, 1985 ALBERTA HANSARD 957 could come down to, but he came up with some pretty specific figures about the programs and how many jobs they have created — I believe he said 44,000 and perhaps 1,000 indirect. If he can't project general figures, how does he get so specific that he knows his programs are bringing in that much? Is the planning secretariat able there and not able in the other areas? So I'd ask the minister that. It seems to me that if 44,000 were off the unemployment rolls — is that 44,000 over the length of the program, so it's 2,000 this month, 10,000, or 12,000? How does it specifically work?

The other area has to do with the programs specifically, Mr. Chairman. The subsidy program has created some employment; no doubt about it. But I want to know how they go about doing it. I'm thinking specifically of the wage subsidy program. How is it that they would know whether an employer wasn't going to hire somebody anyhow? Along came the government — I wouldn't blame an employer for doing this, and I've been told by some that this is precisely what they did. They took the government handout, but they were actually going to create those jobs themselves.

The minister is aware that the small business groups said they didn't like this approach, that if their business was going along well enough and the economy was humming, they wouldn't need a government subsidy. They wouldn't go out and hire a person just because they had this subsidy program. That came from at least one of the major business groups. How do we know? What's the check on that? Are we including in the 44,000 somebody that perhaps was already going to be hired anyhow? How do we distinguish that?

My other question dealing with that follows in a more specific way: what specific qualifications must an employer meet in order to benefit from these programs? I know there are forms, but surely there must be some checking on it. I take it that the minister would want to make sure these programs are being used for the purpose they were intended. Mr. Chairman, there are some specific questions I want to ask, but I'll allow the minister and other hon. members to come back. I wanted to make those initial remarks, and I made them because I think they have to be made. Somebody has to talk for a number of Albertans.

It's not just good enough for us to cliche things and say that everything is the greatest in Alberta. We've said many times that the reality of many Albertans is not what the government is giving us. I want to make the point to the Minister of Manpower, as I said, and I conclude with this.

If the unemployed don't have an ombudsperson within government in the minister, other than having to come out and talk about how high unemployment is and trying to be optimistic each time, I hope — and I hope he will allude to this — that as the minister he's talking to the government and has projections about things they could do to significantly bring down unemployment. Maybe he can't say this publicly, but at least he could tell me if he acts, in his role as Minister of Manpower, as a conscience for the government in dealing with unemployment.

I am telling the minister that there are people out there who are hurting and hurting badly. Some body in this government should be standing up for them, or they're not doing their job. It's that simple. MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, just a few words. I would like to compliment both the minister and his department on the way they have assisted Albertans in a time of need. It's a new department of government, and I must say the minister has done very well in responding to the needs of the people in Alberta.

I listened with great interest to the Leader of the Opposition, and not once did I hear him say anything of a practical nature on what he could do to lower unem ployment. All he said is that we need to do more, but he never gave one statement of how he thought it should be done. You know, if you're going to criticize somebody, it's really better to have a few practical ideas of your own. I'd also like to say that it's really the taxpayers who are picking up the bill for helping with unemployment, Mr. Chairman, and they are doing it willingly. I think this has got to be taken into consideration too.

There is a tax bill, and if you're going to throw money at unemployment that is going to be just a temporary fix-it, then I think you're fooling yourself. I agree with the minister that there is only one area that is eventually going to cure the unemployment in this province and this country, and that's the private sector. That's where the jobs will be made, and I agree with him wholeheartedly in that. [Mr. Martin left the House] I'm sorry the hon. member is leaving, because I wanted him to hear this too. I would be remiss, Mr.

Chairman, if I didn't repeat to the minister a compliment that was paid to him in my constituency this weekend. A young farmer came to me and asked me to thank you, Mr. Minister, for the wage subsidy program, which allowed him to afford to hire an extra man this summer to do jobs around the farm that he has been unable to do because of the financial condition the farmers are in at the present time.

He was so pleased with the program that he said, "If you want to compare it with the rebate program for fertilizer, the benefits means four times as much." I would just like to say that he would like me to thank you publicly and personally for the program. I would also like to take this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of all my constituents who appreciate the programs that are out there. Regardless of the fact that sometimes we hear in this Assembly that we are not doing enough and that the people out there don't realize the benefits and the effort we're making, I would like to say that this is wrong.

In my constituency at least, they do realize some of the programs we have, they're appreciative of them, and they would just like to say thank you. Thank you, Mr. Minister. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further questions or comments? MR. GURNETT: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask some questions about a number of areas the minister could respond to. Some of them relate to vote 2, which we'll be looking at later. I'm interested in both the area called career development and vocational training, as it's detailed in here.

In both those areas I see that there are fairly big increases: 38 percent in the area of career development under manpower development and 29 percent in vocational training. I wonder why those areas have those increases. I assume it's related to the fact, as we've had some discussion of, that people are being helped to find other careers, second and third careers, because what they started in wasn't something they could continue in.

When he's responding, I wonder if the minister could indicate a little bit about what happens when people are involved in this kind of retraining or looking at a new career as far as the counselling or the recommendations

958 ALBERTA HANSARD May 13, 1985 they receive. Does the minister's department do any long- range studies of what areas people should be encouraged to move into? Do they then provide some or a fair amount of direction as far as what assistance they'd give to training in particular areas? I wonder if the minister could indicate what his department finds, as they research directions for careers and job pos sibilities in this province in the future, as far as areas in which there is probably going to be a good future. For example, we've heard that there is probably not a strong future in the construction trades.

I wonder where the good areas of expansion are, where the new jobs will be found, and as I said, what assistance is provided in developing a career or in undertaking vocational training. As well, I wonder whether there's particular attention to certain seg ments of the working population more than other groups. I'd be interested in the minister developing a little bit as far as what happens with regard to those areas, since they will both see quite a bit more money being spent in them.

It may have been asked by another member while I was out, but I also wonder if the minister could give some kind of update or report on the cost-shared programs referred to under the manpower training budget. There is a big increase of 225 percent. I wonder if we know how those programs are working throughout the province, as opposed to just an isolated report on them. There are some other areas, Mr. Chairman, that I have a particular interest in. One of those is the sort of community initiative that creates new jobs, particularly with regard to the idea of co-operatives.

I wonder what support or what particular assistance and encouragement the minister's depart ment is giving in this area. It seems to me that there are some very good possibilities for new job creation in the whole area of co-operatives. There are a lot of examples of things that are starting to happen across this country. There are examples where the workers actually buy and operate a business; that's happened in many parts of the country.

There are also examples of community initiatives where the community gets involved in a co-operative kind of process, where municipal governments get involved, or where community development corporations are set up and get involved in setting up and operating co-operatives.

It seems to me that at a time when we have to cope with businesses deciding it's not reasonable for them to continue to operate or when we see communities that have possibilities and no private enterprise is willing to move in, this kind of community initiative doesn't require a lot of government money to be invested and would provide jobs and economic stability to communities.

I wonder if the minister could indicate what his feelings are about worker co-operatives of various sorts, whether operated by the workers themselves or the communities, and whether any consideration is being given by his department to develop some support and programs that would provide particular help in those areas, whether through funding, the provision of expertise, encouraging other ministers to look at tax breaks for co-operatives, or that type of program.

I also wonder if the minister could give some indication of the contact and the relationship between his department and the whole area of small business in the province. The statistics I've seen indicate that the great majority — I think 80 percent or more — of the new jobs in this country as a whole are created by businesses with about 20 or fewer employees. Meanwhile, we've seen jobs in the corporate sector actually decline.

I wonder what involvement the minister has in encouraging job possibilities in the area of small business and his relationship with the minister who has that particular area of responsibility. With regard to municipal government initiatives, I also wonder if the minister could indicate a little bit about what consultation takes place between his department and munic ipal governments as far as job creation possibilities and how he works with the Minister of Municipal Affairs to look at ways in which municipal governments could provide encouragement of new job opportunities.

It seems as if the minister's department is one that is ideally suited to co operative ventures with a number of other ministers. I would also be interested in the contact in the agricultural area. What happens as far as the minister's involvement and support for initiatives that would create new jobs in the agricultural sector? We heard earlier this afternoon in question period that apparently significantly more people are working in agriculture.

I wonder if that's a result of particular actions taken by the department to create job opportunities in the agricultural sector or what other expla nation there could be for that. I'd like to know what is being done for another community within the province, the native people. Are we looking at any kinds of initiatives through the minister's department that will provide funding or assistance to native communities to get involved in creating jobs for themselves? These seem to be areas where there have been very high levels of unemployment compared to the province as a whole.

I wonder if that high level of unemployment has been rec ognized through particular attention to providing assistance to these kinds of communities in the province. I'm asking the minister to show his involvement with a lot of ministries, so perhaps I'll stop there for now and let other members ask questions. Then I'll wait for the minister's responses. MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. minister wish to respond now? MR. ISLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will attempt to respond to each of the three speakers in the order in which they spoke.

The Leader of the Opposition started out with some concern as to the amount of clout I carry within this government. I would like to assure him that on this side of the House we don't operate based upon clout; we operate based upon teamwork. I would suggest, for the edification of members, that the very significant long-term, multiyear commitment we made last November, which is the first multiyear planning and programming in this nation, was an indication of a team effort which reflected the concern that all members on this side of the floor have for the unemployed in this province.

Some comments were made about participation rates as if they were unimportant; maybe I'll come back to that later. I did find something, Mr. Chairman, that I agreed with the hon. Leader of the Opposition on, and I've waited a long time for this. That was when he emphasized that the problem is not statistics; the problem is people and the problems they face when it comes to unemployment, making relocation decisions and retraining decisions, et cetera. I have to agree that that is where the problem is, and that's where we have to direct our programs.

Unfortunately, after agreeing to that, he got off comparing statistics again. He compared us with places like Sweden and other central European countries. If he would do a little research, he would notice that their statistics are not even calculated on the same basis. I'm not sure whether he's suggesting that we use similar immigration policies.

May 13, 1985 ALBERTA HANSARD 959 I'm not sure whether he's suggesting that we go the guest worker route. I hope not. [Mr. Purdy in the Chair] I think we have to recognize that one of the realities of the construction industry is that the labour pool is based in western Canada, not simply Alberta. You can't make decisions based just upon your Alberta numbers. I think another reality of the construction industry we should all recognize is that there are two significant parts to it.

There is engineering construction, which as a simple definition is the building of industrial projects, and there's the building construction sector. In the area of engineering construction we're starting to do quite well in this province. In the building construction sector we're not doing so well. That's mainly because of the overbuilding that occurred in our major cities. When we talk about retraining of workers, it may be as simple as adding additional skills to a building construction worker so he can move into the realm of engineering construction on the industrial sites.

The question was raised: how do we project figures such as the fact that our programs will benefit 44,000 Albertans this fiscal year? I suggest there's quite a difference between projecting how many people you will benefit by a program and, on the other hand, trying to project unemployment rates. The 44,000 people are simply the number of Albertans that will be positively affected by our programs. That is not to be interpreted as 44,000 man-years of work. How does the wage subsidy program work? First of all, I would say it works very well.

In the last 12 months it has created over 20,000 positions in this province and retained a few. It's basically directed at the small business and farming communities. The employer must be hiring a person in addition to what he normally carries on his payroll, so the program is not used to replace existing workers. The qualification of the employer — basically, all he has to do is be an employer and create an additional job. It doesn't bother me, in the administration of this program, if he was almost ready to create that job anyway.

If we encouraged him to create it a little sooner by putting a wage subsidy in place, at least we put one more person to work, and that's important. If by having our program he decided to hire two people, where under normal circum stances he would have hired only one, again I suggest the program is working positively. We monitor that program on a spot-check basis. We audit it on a spot-check basis. We've hired an external consultant to evaluate it.

The evidence is verifying what I believed when we started the program, that 95 percent-plus of our businessmen are honest and are going to work sincerely with the thrust of the program. We shouldn't build up a lot of red tape to impede their progress just because there may be a few people that take advantage of the program. I would like to say thank you to the Member for Drumheller for bringing the appreciation from the farmer he talked to in his community.

In response to questions from the Member for Spirit River-Fairview, the growth in career development dollars was mainly a result of an expansion in the career counselling service, which was necessitated for two reasons. Number one, more people were taking advantage of it as a result of the higher unemployment rate. More people were looking at retraining opportunities, what areas to go into, how to go about financing, et cetera. The other reason for the expansion is the role that the career centres play in the Alberta youth employment and training program that we launched last November.

I submit that the dollar increase in manpower training is because more people are taking advantage of training during this downturn. That's the

section of the budget where we get involved in cost sharing with the federal government of programs aimed at vocational training and upgrading. Where are the bright spots in the future? Questions were asked about a number of other departments. Mention was made of the growth in job opportunities in the agricultural sector.

Probably two things spurred the growth in employ ment in the agricultural community: one, the Alberta wage subsidy program, which they are significant users of; number two, the lessening of expectations on wage levels that we had in Alberta during the good years, which made it more feasible for the agricultural community to compete in the labour market. In view of the announcement in the House this afternoon and other initiatives this government has taken, I suggest that there are future growth opportunities in the field of tourism.

I see future growth opportunities and job opportunities developing in the oil and gas sector, keeping in mind that the development of the tar sands and heavy oil is quite labour-intensive, and as in any other economy a significant growth in job opportunities in the future in the information industry, computer technology, et cetera. What is our contact with the small business community, and what's my relationship with the minister? I get along very well with Boomer Adair.

Our major involvement as Alberta Manpower with the small business community is through the wage subsidy program and the Alberta training program. In response to a comment from the Leader of the Opposition, I point out that the criticism he referred to came out of Toronto's small business community and not Alberta's. The response we've got to the wage subsidy program from the Alberta business community has been very, very positive. That response was verified by the private external consultant.

Our involvement with municipal governments in the field of job creation is mainly through the enhanced priority employment program and the enhanced summer temporary employment program. I commend all the municipal governments on the fact that they have increased their use rather significantly and co-operated with us in the creation of new jobs. Do we have any programs directed toward native people? The question was raised by the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview. We have a number.

The Opportunity Corps program, which has been successfully running for a number of years primarily in the northern half of the province, is ongoing. We recently expanded into four additional com munities and are moving it down into the central Alberta region. We've worked very closely with the Sooniyaw Corporation in developing the Metis carpentry apprenticeship program. That program is now in its third year of operation and appears to be a very successful model to continue to work on.

We have a continually growing employment counselling and relocation program, which is designed to assist people in moving from remote communities and relocating to where there are meaningful opportunities for jobs or training. The native communities — be they isolated native communities, Metis colonies, or Indian reservations — are eligible and active participants in the summer temporary employment program and the priority employment program, and are

960 ALBERTA HANSARD May 13, 1985 rather significant users of our recently announced Alberta environment employment program. Mr. Chairman, I think that touches on all the questions I identified. I'll be pleased to respond further if there are any more. DR. CARTER: Mr. Chairman, I would like the minister to comment on three brief areas, if he would, please. The first one is what some United States economists regard as being a serious restructuring of the economy with respect to the use of labour. What I'm really referring to is the rapid increase in the statistics on the number of part-time or temporary employees.

Numbers of industries, corpora tions, and job situations have really seen this as a way of acting as a buffer to the ebbs and surges that take place in the economy. It seems to be a tendency more and more, certainly in the United States — the normal working situation is that a temporary or part-time person who has come on for a short number of months is taken on full-time if production dictates. What seems to be happening south of the border is this rather serious increase in the number of corporations which are keeping part-time people on a part-time basis for far longer periods of time.

As members of the Assembly realize, in that kind of situation part-timers typically get few fringe benefits — no health care, no life insurance, no pensions — and wages are usually significantly lower. It's carried forward in statistics that 70 percent of the voluntary part-time workers in the United States are women. That has a benefit in terms of their being able to look after their children coming home from school and so forth. But we need to couple that with the other statistic that 20 percent of U.S. workers really fall into this area of part-timers.

All this has ramifications for the social care system, whether it be in the United States, Canada, or within the province of Alberta. If such a trend were to continue, then to some degree some employers — and I stress "some" employers — would take advantage of the situation and put more of the pressure back on the social care delivery system, whether it be at a federal, provincial, or municipal level. I wonder if the minister would be good enough to comment on what kind of trends he sees developing there, especially in the province of Alberta.

The second item — the minister made a comment earlier today during question period. I found it very salient and wise. It was a reminder to all people within Alberta society today that we need to break free from that stagnant idea that we're going to have only one occupation in a lifetime. Many of us have to be much more eclectic in terms of training. We need to have a broader scope of vision of the various talents we have, the various ways in which we might be able to respond to challenges as we go through the journey of life.

In that respect, one needs to have caution about people who feel that today the going thing is that they must learn computers. I agree with that. But in entering the field of computer technology, they have to also realize within them selves that given the accelerated change within our life today, they shouldn't lock their heads into the headspace: "I'm going to be in computers all the rest of my life, because I've got this advantage. I'm 25 years of age. All those old fogies older than I who haven't learned computers can't cash in on this, so I'm really locked into this frame work.

I have good security for a lifetime." I suppose one of the complications is that too many of us get hung up on what security is. I think the challenge the minister issued earlier today is indeed a good one. All of us have to realize that there are many vocations, many different types of jobs and challenges, that we can respond to, that we should really go out and seek in a lifetime, because part of the enjoyment of life is to keep on going.

I wonder if the minister and his department in their programs do sufficient underlining of the comments as made by the minister earlier today to prepare people for not only change but ongoing change all the time they are to be in the work force. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I compliment the minister and his department for the considerable efforts they have given to the whole matter of youth training and employment programs in the province. Thank you. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I'll go into some new areas, partly as a response to the Member for Calgary Egmont.

First of all, to the Member for Drumheller and all the other backbenchers who stand up and follow the Premier's lead — he rightfully suggested that we give suggestions. I would refer him, if he's ever listening, to page 691, April 29, 1985, to our white paper, to my budget speech, and to many other things. He may not agree with them, but the fact is that we have given alternatives. So that argument gets a little monotonous, coming from back benchers who hardly ever listen in the House. Mr.

Chairman, moving to the subsidy program, I think the minister said that if they were going to hire one, he was glad they accelerated the process, or maybe they might hire two. My question and comments to the minister were not that he hopes — it's his department that's administering these particular subsidy programs. They're set up for a specific reason. As I understand it, they're set up so businesses will hire new people. If the system is being abused, frankly if people were already going to hire people, then we're wasting taxpayers' money. That was the point.

He can talk about the one group from Toronto, but he's well aware that they have people in Alberta as part of that national organization. I was also saying I have talked to other small business groups and people, and this is precisely what has happened. So if there is any abuse at all, surely the minister should be concerned about that, because it's not performing for the purpose he wanted. I'm not saying that's the case in every one of them, but it seems to me that if you set up a program for a certain purpose, you want that purpose to be followed. That's what it's all about.

My question to the minister was: what checks and guidelines do we have on it, or is it just an open door? Is it just "Here's the money; we hope you'll do it"? If that's the case, that's a pretty sloppy way to deal with government money. I hope that's not what the minister was saying. I was asking what the guidelines are and what they are doing to cut potential abuse. I can only go by what people tell me, that there is that potential and that they used it. The other area I want to ask the minister about is the projections. In vote 1, Mr.

Chairman, I see the general administration of the department has gone up 19.9 percent to over $5 million. Planning and research is up 34.4 percent to $429,348. They must do something, because they're certainly getting an increase in budget. The minister talked about our small staff. We would like to have some of that money. We'll do all his research for him if he gives us the money, and we'll do a lot more. With this nice budget, I want know if the minister's department is looking at it sector by sector. Are they making projections about how

May 13, 1985 ALBERTA HANSARD 961 they can cut down unemployment and what they can do about it? Do they advise other departments about this? Are they setting targets so that maybe by next year we can have 2 percent less, or whatever figure they want? What is their role? Is it just for the minister's department? I take it that this group is meant to advise Executive Council.

That's what I'm driving at and what I'd like the minister to comment on: do they have those sorts of studies, are they looking at the sectors, or are they setting targets of where we could significantly lower unemployment and how we'll go about doing it? If they're doing that, I'd be interested in some ideas coming out of there. It seems to me that when we're increasing the budget, we want something from them. If they're not doing that, it seems to me that $5.5 million is a lot of jobs. We could hire a lot of people for $5.5 million. The minister didn't talk about the other area I alluded to.

The minister may not accept the figures I gave, but where is that dividing line? Does he not agree that we pay a high economic cost? We both agree — at least I hope we do — that there's a high social cost that's being paid in terms of high unemployment. Does the minister not agree that we're still paying the cost and the Minister of Social Services and Community Health will have to pick up what is not done in unemployment? There's lost production. People aren't paying income tax. There are all sorts of things that affect the economy. Does that not worry the minister?

Does the minister not feel that to bring that unemployment down and save that money would be more worth while? Does the minister not agree that with the high unemployment, paying people to work is better than the other way? That's what I'm getting at. Are we not concerned about those other economic costs? I take it that the minister is definitely concerned about the social costs. I think that goes without saying. But I gather from the government that we just have to live with this. We have suggested that we look at what we're paying out in terms of the economic costs of unemployment.

All Canadians and Albertans are paying UIC. How do we justify higher welfare? How do we justify lost production? How do we justify that people aren't paying income tax? How do we justify lack of confidence when you don't have a job or you could lose it? Is that not a more important consideration? I ask the minister that seriously. I would like to ask for the minister's comments on another area, because maybe he was misquoted. I believe the minister said in terms of one of the months that he believes Sunday shopping would actually lead to more employment. Is that in fact the case?

Is the minister aware that studies show that where it has been done in other countries, it could have a marginal increase in unemploy ment? The other question about Sunday shopping comes into something the Member for Calgary Egmont was talking about. I reiterate what he was talking about: the proliferation of part-time employees. Sunday shopping will do that. If we as a society are saying that there are so many jobs and we need a certain income and we have to work for 30 hours, it hasn't worked that way. There has been a cutback in purchasing power, benefits, and all the rest of the things people have.

I'll enlarge on what the member said and say that I believe Sunday shopping will increase the whole idea of part-time workers. Those part-time workers are much more at the whim of people, because they do not have any security. Surely the minister must be worried about that trend. I also suggest to him that it may lead to unemployment in December, when we have Christmas. But the fact remains that the only major study I've seen on it is that there's probably a slight overall increase in unemployment. The other area I would like to come to is the whole idea of what we do in the future. Admittedly, Mr.

Chairman, this is a difficult problem. I said this many times when I was a counsellor. When we used to come out we looked at one or two jobs in our lifetimes, and we were expected to stay with one company or one institution or whatever. Now the figures I've seen project that there might be eight or 10 different types of jobs, some maybe within the same company. Of course, technology is the reality. It seems to me that we have to be very careful here, and I'd like the minister's comments on this. Again, I come back to whether the planning people are looking at this. How do we deal with technology?

It seems to me that in a work-oriented society, we're taught that our self-respect and dignity come from what we do in terms of making a living. I believe technology can be used at this particular time, as it has been in Japan, to actually help lower unemployment. I'm saying that if it's not a negotiated thing between governments, labour, and management, if it's used to cut jobs, then it's going to create a lot of social problems in the future. I'd like the minister's comments on whether in planning and research they're looking at the role of technology, at ways we can develop this.

I suggest that one of the major problems governments are going to deal with in the next 20 years is the whole role of technology. If technology is not used for the enhancement of the human spirit, if it's just used to make more profits and put more people out of work, then I for one say that we have to slow down. But if it's used to work together to enhance the human spirit, as I put it, and it doesn't lead to huge unemployment, then I think technology is good. I wonder if the minister's department is looking at this whole area of how we deal with technology in the future.

Could he give us some comments in that area? MR. GOGO: Mr. Chairman, I have one particular area I want to raise with the minister. However, the Leader of the Opposition made a comment that should twig a lot of ears. He said that profits put people out of work. My understanding of the system is that profits in effect create jobs. Without profits, forget it. It's academic; there aren't going to be any jobs. I hope I'm not misquoting the hon. Leader of the Opposition, because heaven knows I would never deliberately misquote the fine gentleman. Mr.

Chairman, there has been great emphasis, great talk, and a lot of dollars put into those areas for young people who have never had their first job, and we tend to highlight that. That's important. I don't mean to say for one moment that it shouldn't get the priority it's getting. My concern, however, lies in a different area. I look at the members of the Assembly. I think the average age is 49, with exceptions who are over that midpoint in life. And we know how averages are achieved.

We always seem to find comfort and solace in averages, the most famous being that if you put your feet in an oven and your head in a freezer, on average your temperature will be all right. It's beyond me how you'd manage in the future without feet and with a dead brain, but certain statisticians find comfort in using statistics to their advantage. Mr. Chairman, my major concern lies with that group of Albertans who are over 45 and not yet 65 and therefore can't take advantage of all those great benefits that age 65 seems to bring chronologically in our society. I don't know

962 ALBERTA HANSARD May 13, 1985 how this is going to apply in the future with regard to the legislation brought in by the house leader last week under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It's an area that concerns me greatly. We look at the population of Alberta who, for the most part, have been gainfully employed for, say, 20 years. They've acquired the normal things in life, like having two children, a big mortgage, a motor home, and a couple of cars, and then for the first time in their lives they're unemployed. That's got to be a very traumatic experience. Sometimes I don't know how these people manage.

I don't know if there's any connection with alco holism or suicide. But the minister is well aware of what I'm getting at. We have a very serious problem with that age group. It was with that in mind that we created that Access 45 program. In my view, Mr. Chairman, one of the most successful programs brought into any province in Canada was started here in Alberta with Access 45. I can only talk for my own community. A problem was recognized in Lethbridge, and they formed a nonprofit society. Mrs. Marion Marchant is the president.

I went to the minister and said, "This is what we need in the community." He analyzed it in about three days and came up with funding — a very, very dramatic move within communities of Alberta to assist that magical group who are over age 45. They've placed literally hundreds of people the Canada employment centre, for whatever reason, wouldn't look at. So very clearly, Mr. Chairman, the policy of this government with Access 45 has paid tremendous dividends. The question I have for the minister is: where are we going? And this again is with reference to the hon. House leader, who brought in legislation last week.

Are we suddenly going to find ourselves, without having to invoke notwith standing clauses, where we have to terminate a program which is very successful and has meant so much to so many people in this province? I was talking to the general manager just last week, Mr. Don Pilling of Lethbridge, and he's frankly puzzled as to where we're going. So, Mr. Chairman, could the minister at some point in his

summary respond to the very specific question as to the intentions of this government in dealing with the very successful program in this province referred to as Access 45. Thank you. MR. GURNETT: I'd like to come back to the minister on two or three things he mentioned in responding to some of my earlier questions. One of the areas I talked about for a few minutes earlier related to the minister's feelings about and support for the whole area of co-operatives. In talking about that, I don't think he actually responded. This seems to me to be an important area.

I wonder what is being done by the minister and his department, and what is planned to be done in that area. Mr. Chairman, that's connected to a larger question the minister might respond to in coming back, to do with his philosophy, in a general sense, regarding the department's role as far as building on community potential. Rather than coming in externally, what approach is taken as far as providing encouragement and support to build and develop existing potential in communities?

This whole area of either municipal government or worker-based co-operatives is part of that larger area, and I wonder how important the minister sees that as a job creator in this province. How important is the development of community potential, and how active is he in working with communities and potential job creators in this province in supporting that particular approach to job creation and putting people to work in the province? Also, Mr.

Chairman, I'd be interested in the minister's expanding a little bit more on his position with regard to the whole issue of short-term or temporary or make-work approaches where money is invested in those kinds of programs as opposed to the development of new and per manent jobs. I know the minister referred in passing to his relationship with small business, but that's one of those examples of places where there are possibilities for per manent new jobs as opposed to simple programs that might put someone to work for a short period of time. I wonder where the priorities lie with this department.

Is money going into short-term job-creation projects as the basic emphasis of the department, or is there a real commitment to the creation of these new permanent jobs in the province? I would also like to pursue, and I know a couple of other members before me have, Mr. Chairman, this whole area of several careers, people retraining and beginning another career as their lives go along. I asked earlier if the minister could comment on what role the department plays in making sure people are making good decisions when this retraining and moving into second and third careers takes place.

I don't think that was particularly addressed in the minister's response. Perhaps I could just give a bit of the background that's behind my having asked that question originally. In the last few weeks I've been trying to talk quite a bit with people in apprenticeship training programs of various sorts in some of the institutions in the province that offer them. There seems to be a very high level of cynicism among people who have committed two and three years to apprenticeship training programs.

They stay with the programs, but they're saying, "We know that when we get out there'll be no work in this particular field." As a result, as I said earlier, they're feeling a little bit cynical about the whole thing. I wonder what is being done to make sure people aren't committing two and three and four years to expensive and difficult training programs to prepare themselves for jobs that don't exist, and that they're aware don't exist even as they're in those programs.

Are they just left on their own once they undertake training for some particular career, or does the department have an ongoing role to make sure people are taking training or retraining in areas that will allow them to have some satisfaction, to go out and do something they'll be able to see some results from and feel some rewards for doing? I'd like to comment on another area and hope the minister will respond.

When he talked about the creation of new jobs in the agriculture sector he used the phrase that one of the reasons more people have gone to work there is that there's been a lessening of wage expectations — those are his words — and that that has put more people back to work. That's an area that concerns me, Mr. Chairman, because there are lots of people in the rural areas of the province that I'm familiar with who are having a great deal of trouble making ends meet. There's certainly a temptation to take work even if it requires a lessening of wage expectations.

But it doesn't mean the financial tensions and problems of the family unit are solved; it simply means that the person no longer has to put up with the frustration of sitting at home watching television and having nothing to do. Just because he's gone to work by lessening his wage expectations doesn't mean there's been any real benefit to the family. I know there are people who went to work at jobs at minimum wages who in fact could have continued to earn more on unemployment insurance. It's nice that they're back at work, but taking those kinds of wages

May 13, 1985 ALBERTA HANSARD 963 doesn't mean their families are assisted. What I'm concerned about is that the minister's comments in a forum like this are heard by people and create bad feelings between groups. Those people who are continuing to earn reasonable wages are then looked at negatively by those who have to lessen their wage expectations to take any kind of work. I have a lot of concern about our indicating that that's a reasonable direction to creating employment in the province.

Do we create employment by saying to people, "Work for a lot less money and maybe even not enough money to really make ends meet properly," and then saying that we've accomplished something because we have people back at work? We could follow that to its logical extension, Mr. Chairman, and each year find those people who have taken the biggest cut in income in this province and say that everybody else should take a comparable cut. We'd set up a situation where we'd put ourselves into a slide, and we'd soon be working for the kinds of wages people are in many other countries of the world.

I have a great deal of concern about the minister's apparently suggesting that a lessening of wage expectations is a positive direction to putting people back to work, because I don't know where it ends. I think we need to look instead at the possibility of people having more security and more chance for every family in this province to have a reasonable income than to take the direction that seems to be taken, which says: "Well, we've got more people back at work; the figures for those without jobs look better.

It's not important that that's been done at significant cost to the family by having to take jobs at lower wages." I'm interested in how the minister responds to that, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Would the minister like to respond? MR. ISLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In response to the hon. Member for Calgary Egmont, I suggest that we are seeing a trend to more and more part-time employment. That has its positives and its negatives. I suppose a positive is that more people are getting some opportunity in the labour force.

The negative comes with this whole area of job security, benefits, et cetera. Probably one of the reasons for it is the rigidity that has developed in the past with respect to our collective agreements and the difficulty they cause when a company is faced with an economic decision to downsize, and hence management attempts to stay away from it. I may not get as concerned as some members in this House about a reduction in security. I don't think too many here have job security in the future, and maybe a little bit of worry about security will increase what I think is a beginning trend toward entrepreneurship.

I don't think we should ever forget that the economy of this province was built on entrepreneurship and risk-taking. Maybe we have been too guilty, through our institutions, through the upbring ing of our children, and through our school systems, of creating the expectation in all young people that when they go out into the world, someone else has to generate a job with security for them. I may start a debate with that, but it seems to me that a shift back to entrepreneurship would go a long way to solving some of the unemployment problem we are discussing today. The hon.

Member for Calgary Egmont re-emphasized the point of training and retraining, which I appreciate. He made some comments on the popularity of computer training today, and I hasten to add that the computer training of today will probably be significantly different from the com puter training of tomorrow. People are going to have to look at retraining in that field to stay apace. In response to the question, do we sufficiently underline the need for changes in jobs as one goes through life, my response is no. The hon.

Member for Edmonton Norwood came back expressing some real concerns about the Alberta wage subsidy program. I thought I indicated in my earlier response that this program is monitored. First of all, in getting their application approved the individual must convince us that this is a job in addition to the normal number of positions carried by that firm or individual employer, with the odd exception, particularly during the winter months, where we allow some retention of positions, where we're flexible enough to allow the employer to use the program to keep from laying someone off.

In addition to that, we monitor the program on a random basis. We audit the program on a selection basis. As I indicated earlier, we've hired an outside consultant, who has done an assessment of the program, and I am not finding evidence of abuse or any evidence that makes me suspect the private sector, which I believe is the creator of the long-term, permanent jobs, is deliberately attempting to rip off the public purse. The only evidence I can find is that they are responding very positively to working hand in hand with us in getting more people back into the workplace.

If the hon. member has evidence of abuse of this program, I would be quite prepared to look at it on a case-by-case basis. The program has been in place now for over 12 months. A question was raised by the hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood on the increase in the general administration and the planning and research components of vote 1. I would point out that ours is one of the departments that has increased dramatically during the economic downturn as far as our budget and staff are concerned. You can't administer a $143 million job-creation and training program without having the staff to administer it.

I might add that if I were to administer it with the type of policing the hon. leader is suggesting, I'd need a helluva lot more money in vote 1 than you're giving me. What does the planning secretariat do? It's been involved in planning a lot of these programs. It's involved in analyzing many of the sectors of our labour force on a sector-by- sector basis. That information is used in determining where programs should be targeted and how programs should be designed. I believe the hon. leader raised the question: do I agree with the high economic cost of unemployment?

The obvious answer to that is: certainly I do not. But I don't think the answer is spending public dollars on high-cost programs which are going to maintain structural problems in our work force, which is how I analyze most of the suggestions I've heard from across the floor on how to attack the unem ployment problem. There seems to be a feeling that if you throw enough money at it, it will go away. There doesn't seem to be a realization that maybe you're going to run out of money before the problem goes away.

If the hon. leader has any positive programs directed at assisting people as opposed to maintaining structural problems, I'm certainly prepared to take a look at them. Sunday shopping: again, I think reference was made to some newspaper quote. I believe the comments I've made publicly with respect to Sunday shopping suggest that I feel

964 ALBERTA HANSARD May 13, 1985 the possibility is that there will be more part-time job opportunities. That may be viewed as a positive to certain sectors in our community, particularly students looking for part-time jobs when they're going through training. I believe I also made the comment that I don't think you can or can't justify the Sunday shopping issue based upon total employment levels. How do we deal with technology? First of all, I suggest that we not be afraid of technology. I think we too often tend to talk about it as if it's going to do something negative.

We've been going through technological changes in many of our industry and service sectors for years now, and I have yet to see much hard evidence of loss of job oppor tunities. I've seen shifting job opportunities. I've seen certain jobs become mundane and eliminated by technology, but you see other jobs developing as a result of technology. So first of all, I think we have to view technology in a positive sense, that it's good and that we must respond to it and keep pace with it.

I suggest that the best way to keep pace with it is working with the sectors where it's taking place, which to a large extent is the private sector. Again I offer the on-the-job training program that we've developed in Alberta as one positive way of keeping employ ees in pace with technology, so they can shift to the areas where the jobs shift. Retraining is another option. I submit for hon. members' assessment that the Alberta wage subsidy program also plays a role here. If I'm going to be asked to resolve the debate between the hon. Member for Lethbridge West and the hon.

Leader of the Opposition as to whether or not profits create jobs, in my humble opinion, profits are the only permanent ongoing job creator. The hon. Member for Lethbridge West expressed concern over a group that we as a government have become quite concerned with, and that is the over-45 group, probably the group that finds the greatest difficulty facing retraining or relocation.

As a result of our concern for that group and the very positive response to the needs of that group by the volunteer sector, we're currently funding nonprofit organizations in Edmonton, Calgary, and Lethbridge to assist over-45s make the adjustment, whether it be to another job or retraining. Where are we going with that? I suggest that we are going to continue our efforts to help the over-45 group, and we will expand them into communities of addi tional need on a request basis. Possibly the hon. Leader of the Opposition and I will both have to take advantage of those services some day. The hon.

Member for Spirit River-Fairview again brought up the question of co-operatives, and I apologize for not addressing it the first time. I'm supportive of any group that wishes to go the co-operative route to create employ ment. We provide counselling services to those groups. I hasten to add that we haven't had many requests, and I certainly will not impose that on a community as the route it should be going. If the community says, "Hey, this is the way we want to go," we're prepared to work with them.

We're not prepared to go in and say, "This is the philosophy you have to build your community around." This brings me to building on the community potential that was discussed by the hon. member, with which I heartily agree and with which I believe this government also agrees, as many of its programs exemplify. But we believe in building on the community potential with the community, not imposing some other structure on it.

I think we have examples of areas where we work with community groups through what you'd almost call co-operative job creation and where we work with community groups through other types of job creation. Make-work activities versus new and permanent jobs: we're into both. If you analyze the announcement of Novem ber 1 last year, you see a significant shift away from make- work job projects, which are mainly in the public sector, to the creation of new and permanent jobs, which are in the private sector.

If you analyze the shift in our job- creation and training dollars over the last two years, you see a distinctive shift from public-sector job creation, where we pay the full shot and when we quit paying the job stops, to private sector job-creation, where in most of our programs we're paying less than 50 percent of the costs and evidence is showing very often that when we pull out the job continues. Another question asked by the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview: are people making good decisions when they look at retraining? I respond by saying this: good decisions in whose opinion?

I would say that a person has made a good decision if they walk out of the career counselling centre following their session or their experience with the CHOICES program or whatever and feel com fortable with the decision they have made.

I would be very uncomfortable if I had career counsellors saying, once they laid the information in front of the person, "This is the way you have to decide." I'm a firm believer that it's not government's responsibility to decide for the individual; it's the individual's responsibility to make his or her own decisions with the best information available, then suffer the consequences or reap the profits of those decisions. I have some difficu

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19850513
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L20 S3 19850513 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	8f338818d7f68e647e71a000f9add16218cf5dff

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