Alberta Hansard — 27 April 1978, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 18, Session 4)

19780427

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

April 27, 1978 ALBERTA HANSARD 857 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Thursday, April 27, 1978 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. LITTLE: Mr. Speaker, it's with a great deal of pride that I introduce to you today, and through you to the members of this Assembly, 37 grades 8 and 9 students from the Bob Edwards junior high school, situated in the Calgary McCall constituency. They are accompanied by their teachers Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Lidgren. It is interesting, Mr.

Speaker, that this school pur chased its own bus by the collection of funds through various projects, and the bus is driven by the teach ers. I have a particular pride in introducing this group today, because the teacher Rob Lidgren happens to be my son-in-law. Mr. Speaker, this group is seated in the public gallery, and I would ask at this time that they stand and be recognized by the Assembly. MR. McCRAE: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure today in introducing to you, and through you to members of the Assembly, a group of grades 4, 5, and 6 students from University elementary school.

They are accom panied by one of their teachers, Sonia Yudcovitch, several other teachers and parents, and their bus driver. They are 90 in number and are seated in both galleries. I'd ask them to stand and be recognized by the Assembly. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Commonwealth Games MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Premier. It comes out of the tour we had the other day with regard to the Commonwealth Games. The indication was that there would be cer tain extraordinary and extreme demands on the city of Edmonton.

In the planning of the province and its responsibilities, I wonder if any special types of serv ices or programs will be activated during the time of the Games. I relate to such things as social services, policing, transportation, labor, or medical services. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I would have to refer that matter to one of the three ministers involved in the Commonwealth Games Foundation society. I'd refer it specifically — in this case for general response, although there may be more specific ones — to the Minister of Recreation, Parks, and Wildlife. MR. ADAIR: Thanks very much, Mr. Premier. Mr.

Speaker, as I understand it, the question is: will addi tional funds or projects be provided for policing and the like? I would say at this particular point, no. They are more the responsibilities of the city of Edmonton. But as I mentioned to the press yesterday, there is certainly a review of a request being made to us by the Commonwealth Games Foundation for additional dollars relative to escalation of costs that have occurred since their 1973 estimates. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister.

Has any request been made by the city of Edmonton for additional finances for the items I raised, such as policing, transportation, labor, and so on? MR. ADAIR: To my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, not to the province of Alberta. I believe they have held discussions with the foundation. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Solicitor General. Has any representation been made to your department for additional funding, or for addi tional provincial police officers being made available? MR. FARRAN: Mr.

Speaker, in support of the Edmon ton City Police we're already deploying a very large contingent of Mounted Police drawn from the provin cial contingent. No formal request for fiscal support for the Edmonton City Police has been made, although the subject has been raised informally. But I hadn't regarded it as an application. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care. Have any steps been taken or been requested to increase the medical services such as outpatient care or special care within the hospital services? MR. MINIELY: Mr.

Speaker, two requests have been referred by my colleague the Minister of Recreation, Parks and Wildlife. One was that the Commonwealth Games wanted some convenient administrative pack age for the athletes through Alberta Health Care. We agreed to keep track administratively of all the medi cal expenses for the athletes while they're here dur ing the course of the Games, and to bill the Commonwealth Games for that. So that's just an administrative matter.

The second matter happened to fit the priorities of the University of Alberta Hospital, which had within its top three priorities a request to us for drug-testing equipment for the athletes prior to engaging in events. If we had not agreed to that, all the drug testing would have had to go to Montreal. Therefore, in co-operation with the University of Alberta Hospital and the Commonwealth Games, we agreed to fund drug-testing equipment for the Commonwealth Games. Those are the two matters we have agreed to. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, upon reflection, per haps I should supplement the question first raised with me by the hon. Member for Little Bow, having regard to the answers just given by the Solicitor General and the Minister of Recreation, Parks and Wildlife. I considered it an informal representation made to me, but in the sense that it might have been con-

858 ALBERTA HANSARD April 27, 1978 strued as other than that, I did have discussions during the course of our tour of Commonwealth Games facilities on Tuesday with the mayor of the city of Edmonton. He raised with me, as I anticipated he might, the fact that when they had done their accounting, so to speak, we would be getting a submission from them with regard to various sup plementary services. Of course we have not had that submission to any of the ministers who are affected.

I advised the mayor that when we receive the sub mission it would naturally be taken into considera tion, but in advance I could give no undertaking. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that answer very much. I'd like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Business Development and Tourism. I wonder what assistance is being made available by his department in providing sufficient accommodation and so on. What types of agreements have been made with, say, the Tourist Association or the motel and hotel owners at the present time? MR. DOWLING: Mr.

Speaker, there has been no formal agreement with the motel and hotel owners. That's a private-sector matter. But the Travel Alberta organization has developed a reservation system which involves all 14 information centres throughout the province. They feed it into a central location in the city of Edmonton to assist in locating people who come to the city to take

part in the Commonwealth Games as spectators. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my final supplemen tary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Af fairs is with regard to the charging of rents or the pricing of accommodation. Has the minister had any concerns with regard to this, and will any controls or actions be taken by his department? MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, we've not been involved in that matter. MR. DOWLING: If I might supplement that answer, Mr. Speaker, we have the accommodation guide which is designed by Travel Alberta.

In that accom modation guide, in the main for hotels in Alberta, the prices indicated are quoted for that yearly period. There is some aberration in that, with regard to some motels. But if the price is not going to be fixed, that is stated emphatically in the document. Another possi ble thing is put in the document: that the price will be maintained at this level or up to a 10 per cent increase over the period of a year. MISS HUNLEY: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could add some supplementary information as it relates to my department in the preventive area.

Additional funds have been provided in the budget this year to supp lement the funds for the city board of health, to enable them to step up their inspection procedures and anything related to the communicable disease and public health inspection areas. As well, we have arranged — and I'm not sure as to the present status, but we are sure that a plastic "isolette", which is used for isolation in the case of exotic diseases . . . We saw it on a recent visit to Ottawa and felt that perhaps it might be a useful thing for us to have in Alberta because of the Commonwealth Games.

We've been told this will be available to us, and I expect it will be here. I sincerely hope and pray it will not be needed. Capital Punishment MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my second question was to be to the Minister of Federal and Intergovern mental Affairs, but I'd like to direct it to the Premier at this time. The concern is one that has been constant not only in Alberta but in Canada. It's with regard to capital punishment.

I was going to ask if, in any of the federal/provincial conferences or the discussions of the premiers, Alberta has had a policy position with regard to this matter, and if one has been articulated. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, we have been pretty vigilant and determined in trying to assure that the House of Commons and the federal government re spect the jurisdiction of the government of the prov ince of Alberta and its Legislature. I think we should reciprocate. Crime Prevention MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Solicitor General.

The Solicitor Gen eral has had an advertising campaign on television and in magazines across the province. Could the Solicitor General indicate what effect that campaign has had at the present time? MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, as I said in response to a similar question in the House two weeks ago, the federal government has sponsored at the University of Alberta a study of the effectiveness of our cam paign, which is the first crime prevention campaign of this type in Canada. Since the campaign is ongoing, it's far too early for them to be coming in with any assessment or report. MR. R.

SPEAKER: A supplementary question to the minister. In the city of Calgary there is financial support for the provincial Rape Crisis Centre, and it is my understanding there isn't support in the city of Edmonton. In his program, has the minister consid ered additional financial support to the program in Edmonton? MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, so far as I know the Rape Crisis Centre is not being supported by a grant from my department under crime prevention.

But we do have pilot projects in crime prevention which might operate in one part of the province and not in anoth er, such as the anti-vandalism experiments with silent alarm systems in Edmonton and Calgary. Every policy we embark on in crime prevention is not uni versal from one end of the province to the other. They're mostly experimental, leading the way for other police forces. Public Service Ethics Code MR. NOTLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to address this question to the hon. Provincial Treasur er. On October 19, 1977, the Provincial Treasurer released the draft code of conduct and ethics for

April 27, 1978 ALBERTA HANSARD 859 Alberta government employees and indicated that the government hoped to have the new code in effect on January 1. What specific obstacles have stood in the way of the government's enacting the code as origi nally planned? MR. LEITCH: A short answer, Mr. Speaker, is none. Members of the Assembly will recall when that I filed the proposed code in the House I said it was just that: a proposed code. There were a number of issues on which different views could, with considerable merit, be expressed, and I asked for responses to the pro posed code.

The responses were numerous and leng thy, somewhat greater than I had anticipated. It has taken us a little more time to evaluate them. We're nearing completion of that. In the near future I would expect to be able to have the proposed code of conduct and ethics in final form. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Provincial Treasurer.

Section 2.2 of the proposed code suggests that deputy ministers may vary or add to matters in the code, providing they don't make it more permissive. In the government's review, will the government be removing this particu lar feature? It does provide for a rather unusual situa tion of inconsistent rules that may be applied to public servants in the province. MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, my memory is that we would not anticipate any change in that provision. If the hon. member wishes to debate its merits, I'd be delighted to do that with him at some appropriate time. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Provincial Treasurer. Have there been any meetings with the AUPE on this question? Specifical ly, has the Provincial Treasurer himself met with AUPE on the question of the code, in view of their concern that some of the aspects of the code really relate to areas that should be subject to collective bargaining? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I've not personally met with members of AUPE. I did receive a submission from them, and during our review very careful thought was given to all the points they raised.

I would have to check, although I think members of the Public Service Commissioner's office have met and discussed the provisions of the proposed code with officials of AUPE. But to be certain of that, I'd want to check with the Public Service Commissioner's office. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Provincial Treasurer.

In view of the Treasurer's invitation to debate the merits of the so-called King John provision in the proposed code of ethics, will it be the intention of the government to table the document during the spring session and hold a debate in the House on the code before it is implemented? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I would hope to have the code completed before we adjourn the spring session. I wouldn't propose a debate on the matter; however, if the hon. member wishes, he can of course precipit ate a debate by putting the appropriate motion on the Order Paper. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Provincial Treasurer. In view of some of the concerns in Ottawa with respect to senior man agement personnel — we have Mr. McKenzie saying they should be fired, Mr. Baker saying they should be kept, and Mr. Clark saying they should be shifted — has the government of Alberta asked the Human Rights Commission to review that

section of the proposed code relating to the restriction on political activity of senior management personnel? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I recall receiving some comments from the commission, which again were very carefully considered by us as we were reviewing the code. At the moment, I can't recall whether the specific item the hon. member refers to was com mented on in that submission. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question to the hon. Provincial Treasurer.

Where does the AUPE proposal now stand, that the final appeal procedure should not in fact be the Treasury Board but the Public Service Employee Relations Board? I believe that was a specific proposal. MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, again that's a matter we gave very careful thought to. It was our conclusion that in view of the nature of the code, an appropriate appeal or review body would be the Treasury Board, as was outlined in the proposed code I filed in the House. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, one last supplementary question to the hon. Provincial Treasurer. Has there been any decision to change the

section with respect to conflict of interest, tighten it up — the

section that presently applies says "may" — and change that to "shall" where conflict of interest does exist? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, changes were made in that section, but I can't recall whether we changed the words from "may" to "shall". I would have to refer to the actual document. The hon. member will have an opportunity to do that sometime in the immediate future. Natural Gas Rates MR. MANDEVILLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question to the hon. Minister of Utilities and Tele phones is with regard to the suggestion by Canadian Western Natural Gas which would result in postage- stamp rates for natural gas.

Could the minister indi cate whether his department has conducted an as sessment of what the results would be on the opera tion of rural gas co-ops of allowing utility companies to charge rates lower than those charged by rural gas co-ops? DR. WARRACK: Mr. Speaker, we have not conducted an assessment of that matter, which is before the Public Utilities Board at this time. However, I can say that basically what's involved is rate averaging over a wider geography than is now the case. The result of that would be a somewhat lower cost of natural gas

860 ALBERTA HANSARD April 27, 1978 in the rural areas. That is the proposal before the Public Utilities Board and being evaluated at the present time. I think it's an important decision. In terms of the possibility that these rates might end up below the rates that rural gas co-ops pay, I doubt that that would be the case because, after all, the rural gas co-ops are purchasing ownership in their system when they pay their gas bills. But even if that were the case, it would amount to a lower bill for the people in rural areas affected. MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister.

Could the minister indicate whether the government has made any submissions or presented a brief to the PUB with regard to postage-stamp rates? DR. WARRACK: Mr. Speaker, it has certainly not been a practice for a department to make submissions to the Public Utilities Board. MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Could the minister indicate when the gas utility rate design inquiry will be completed? When it is completed, will it be made public? DR. WARRACK: Offhand, Mr. Speaker, I don't have a way to know that. If my colleague the hon.

Attorney General, who has administrative responsibilities with respect to the Public Utilities Board, happens to know that answer, he might add. But without inquiring, I don't know the answer. World Oil Pricing MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, may I first acknowledge the privilege of asking a question from approximately the same spot as I asked my first one nine years ago. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister with the strong arm and the long reach, the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources.

Can the minister advise the Assembly whether or not he has received an invitation from any OPEC country with respect to attending a meeting on world oil pricing? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I have received an invita tion to visit Venezuela and meet with the energy minister of Venezuela. While undoubtedly we would have discussed oil and gas pricing, I don't think it would have been on the narrow matter of OPEC pricing. However, he is the chairman of OPEC this year, so I would have to say that the subject would probably have come up.

I was going to make that trip to Venezuela sometime in April, but there were con flicting calls on his time and my time, and it wasn't able to go through. MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the minister a supplementary; that is, whether or not his depart ment or some of his officials are having ongoing correspondence, particularly with respect to dropping world oil prices and the effect this would have on the Alberta industry and in fact the Canadian pricing of oil? MR. GETTY: Yes, Mr. Speaker. MR. GHITTER: A supplementary to the hon. minister.

Should the opportunity arise to visit the OPEC coun tries, particularly Saudi Arabia, I'm wondering if he would consider taking the Member for Calgary Buffa lo to the meeting in order to keep matters in perspective. MR. SPEAKER: The question, by its form and also as to substance, is obviously hypothetical. [laughter] Tourism Promotion MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the hon. Minister of Business Development and Tourism. Has the minister or his department received any reaction from the tourist zones regarding the see Alberta campaign? MR. DOWLING: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

As hon. members will recall, I mentioned that prior to the campaign being undertaken we met with the principals of each zone organization, explaining the proposed program in detail, and at those meetings received general acceptance of the program. Since its introduction, hon. members should be aware that we have received in the order of 30,000 inquiries in writing to Travel Alberta, which put con siderable strain on that little organization. However, they are managing to cope. We have had some indi cation of substantial activity from some of the zones, with people coming in and wanting their passports stamped.

So we think it's off and running and doing very well. The other part of that is that I have had submis sions made to me just today, private-sector compa nies wanting to become involved to a greater extent than they've ever been involved with tourism before. MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary to the hon. minister. I've received only one complaint; that is, that only one passport went to each family. Where a family requires more than one, how do they get another passport? MR. DOWLING: Mr. Speaker, the single passport is for a family.

Should there be eight members in that family and they take the trip around Alberta and visit 14 zones, all eight people will receive the medallions that are associated with a tour of the zones. So a second passport is not necessary. MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary to the hon. minister. In some families there are boarders and people who are not relatives, who would not be travelling with the family. That's the one I was referring to. MR. DOWLING: Mr. Speaker, if that's the situation, they can drop a line to Travel Alberta and a passport will be in the return mail. DR. WALKER: A supplementary to the minister.

Does the minister have the collusion of the federal gov ernment in the issuing of passports? MR. DOWLING: Mr. Speaker, we checked that matter out very thoroughly with our Department of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs, and received advice

April 27, 1978 ALBERTA HANSARD 861 that what we were doing was totally legal and a great idea. Vinyl Chloride Emissions MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. In some recent studies there's been a link between mammary cancer and the level of vinyl chloride emissions. I wonder if the minister has reviewed the level of emissions in the province; and is the department taking any action with regard to this? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, that's a matter to which the department has certainly given very close attention.

Inspectors in the department are very close too, in the sense of their being familiar with and up to date on the most recent findings in that respect. In order to try to summarize those findings or the extent of the risk that may be involved, I would have to review the material for the hon. member. But I can certainly assure him that it's a matter that has received close attention, not only in recent months but recent years. School Taxation MR. NOTLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to direct this question to the hon.

Associate Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and ask whether he's had an opportunity to review the submission of the Peace River Stockgrowers Association expressing some concern at the levying of a 30 mill supplemen tary requisition by the Northland School Division on grazing leases in unorganized school districts? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr Speaker, we did have the opportu nity to receive this submission and reviewed it. Because it does not fall within the purview of our department, I would pass the question to the Minister of Education. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, may I then ask the hon.

Minister of Education, in as gracious a way as I can, if he would bring us up to date on whether the govern ment is going to take a reasonable attitude and not tax grazing leases? MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, until an amendment was passed, I believe unanimously, by this Legislature a couple of years ago, all property owners — whether by way of fee simple or by way of lease — in that huge part of the province served by the Northland School Division paid absolutely no school tax by way of supplementary requisition.

As a result of the amendment to the act, properly speaking they are now paying that supplementary requisition to that school division. I don't have the information relative to the effects it has on grazing leases or the amounts, because I haven't received a submission in this respect. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister. Has the government given any consideration, then, to extending that principle to other leaseholders in the area, such as timber opera tors or oil companies that have leases in the said areas? MR. KOZIAK: Mr.

Speaker, the property that's proper ly subject to assessment, and subsequently a sup plementary requisition, is dealt with in The Municipal Taxation Act. If the hon. member feels that amend ments to that act should be introduced, I'm sure he'll add a bill to the numerous he already has on the Order Paper. Landlord and Tenant Legislation DR. PAPROSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I wonder if the minister would now confirm that he will be introducing landlord and tenant legislation this spring session. MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, yes.

As I indicated in the debates on the estimates of the Department of Con sumer and Corporate Affairs, the drafting is proceed ing, and I would hope to be able to introduce it. DR. PAPROSKI: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister would also confirm whether that legislation would give consideration to quasi- judicial power for landlord and tenant advisory boards? MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, I think the contents of the bill should be left until it is introduced. Farm Fuel Tax MR. MANDEVILLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the hon. Minister of Agriculture.

The minister indicated in the Assembly on March 16 that he had approached Ottawa with regard to the 10 cent excise tax being deducted at the source. Could the minister indicate if he has made further representa tion, and what the response has been? MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I had a response last week from the office of the responsible minister in Ottawa, I believe from the executive assistant, indicating that the matter was under consideration. I would expect a further reply in due course, which I haven't yet received. MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

Has the minister contacted other agricul ture ministers of the western provinces in regard to getting a consensus on the issue and presenting that to Ottawa? MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, the matter was discussed about a year ago by western ministers of agriculture, indeed I believe all ministers of agriculture, at meet ings which I attended.

Provincially, I think it's fair to say that most, if not all, ministers agree that there should be a method of refund on that federal excise tax, which is really a tax being charged to western Canadians to subsidize eastern crude oil imported from offshore; that we should have a method of obtaining that refund for agriculture purposes without the very lengthy and complicated application form that is required.

862 ALBERTA HANSARD April 27, 1978 ORDERS OF THE DAY head: MOTIONS FOR RETURNS MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon. Member for Drumheller will be withdrawing motions 130 and 134 at the appropriate time. I therefore move that Motion for a Return 135 stand and retain its place on the Order Paper. [Motion carried] 128. Mr.

Notley moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing a copy of any correspond ence or reports arising from An Evaluation of the Impact on Electric Power Rates on Industrial and Regional Development in Alberta, prepared by Acres Consulting Services Ltd., as listed in Motion for a Return 116/78. MR. DOWLING: Mr. Speaker, with regard to 128, we as a government have established a policy of not tabling correspondence relating to any documents that are produced by various departments.

The rea son for this, of course, is that correspondence relating to significant factors going into the report is normally given in confidence by entrepreneurial interests, and this kind of thing. We believe that if we ever were to get into the position of tabling this correspondence as a regular routine, not only would we destroy our source of information but we would destroy the ability of the department to act responsibly, representing the peo ple of Alberta. The correspondence relating to this study is con sidered commercially confidential, Mr.

Speaker, as it evaluates the capability of several leading consulting firms. Therefore I would suggest that members defeat the motion. MR. SPEAKER: May the hon. member conclude the debate? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would just say to members of the House that the proposal here is: . . . a copy of any correspondence or reports aris ing from an evaluation of The Impact on Electric Power Rates on Industrial and Regional Devel opment in Alberta . . . . Mr. Speaker, one of the key elements of any sort of industrial strategy in this province has to be the impact of electrical power rates.

I would say quite frankly that that is the kind of information the gov ernment clearly felt strongly enough about to seek, at the expense of the taxpayers, a study and evaluation. That being the case, Mr. Speaker, in my view we should have as much of this information as possible. If contained in that there is clearly the odd bit of information that is of a confidential commercial basis, then some kind of appropriate amendment could have been advanced by the minister. I would doubt that in the evaluation the basic thrust of it would in fact necessitate the release of confidential information. But, Mr.

Speaker, that's not the sort of thing I can guess at from this side of the House. It's the sort of thing where an appropriate amendment could be worded by the government side, so the basic informa tion could be made available. But specific matters of a commercial nature that relate to the specific com mercial situation of one company or another needn't be released. The general thrust is information that, in my judgment, should be made available to the public. Quite frankly, Mr.

Speaker, a lot of people in this province are concerned about whether we're going to see an industrial development strategy developed as a consequence of having some idea of where this government's going — some idea of what the compo nents are, how they link together — or whether we're going to simply allow the boys in the back room to wheel and deal behind closed doors. In my view, Mr. Speaker, that isn't good enough. [Motion lost] 129. Mr.

Notley moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing a copy of any correspond ence relating to or reports arising from the Study to Evaluate Opportunities for Development to 1985, pre pared by Associated Economic Analysts Ltd., as listed in Motion for a Return 116/78. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, buoyed as I am by a few voices of support, with great expectation I move Motion for a Return No. 129, standing in my name on the Order Paper, and in doing so look hopefully to this new sign of independence in the Tory caucus. MR. DOWLING: Mr.

Speaker, with regard to motion 129, the same arguments apply as applied to the former motion. You should know that the entire documents on the western position on industrial de velopment, as on agriculture, were in fact tabled. Included in that document was a transmittal letter to the Prime Minister of Canada from the province of Alberta. Everything significant with regard to our position is in fact now public knowledge. It involves the Western Economic Opportunities Conference in Calgary in 1973, when we decided to make that joint presentation. So, Mr.

Speaker, I would recommend to members that they defeat the motion. [Motion lost] MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make some changes to motion 130. I therefore beg leave to withdraw motions 130 and 134. MR. SPEAKER: So ordered. head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, I beg your pardon. I was about to leave the Assembly when I realized my duty had not been done. The hon. member Mr. Young is not in the Assembly this afternoon, and I suggest that we move therefore to Motion No. 204. MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry. I didn't catch the operative words of the motion.

April 27, 1978 ALBERTA HANSARD 863 MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, I was saying that Mr. Young is not in the Assembly this afternoon to . . . MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. minister please refer to the member by his constituency, as is usual. MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, the mover of Motion 210 is not in the Assembly this afternoon. I therefore move the House proceed with Motion 204. MR. SPEAKER: That's automatic under the standing orders. MR. FOSTER: Yes. 204. Moved by Mr. Taylor:

Be it resolved that the government of Alberta give consideration to the adoption of the automatic assumption principle in Workers' Compensation, under which a miner who has been exposed to coal dust or rock dust for a period of 20 years or more and who is suffering from loss of lung function, be given the benefit of any doubt which may exist as to the cause of the lung condition and compensated accord ingly for either pneumoconiosis or silicosis. [Adjourned debate March 21: Mr. Purdy] MR. PURDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's my pleas ure to participate in this debate today on Motion 204, put on the Order Paper by the Member for Drum- heller. The resolution was first debated in this As sembly on March 21. Reading through Hansard. I think there has been some valuable contribution to the motion from the Member for Drumheller and members on this side of the Assembly. I've been reviewing the remarks made in Hansard, and most of them were regarding underground mining. While I concur in the motion of the hon.

Member for Drum heller, I also have concern regarding some of the people who live in my constituency, because we have two very active coal mines both of the strip-mining nature. We have approximately 300 miners employ ed either at Wabamun or the Highvale mine, both digging coal for the Calgary Power electrical genera tion stations on either side of the lake. I think there is some concern in that area too. I've been reviewing the legislation, The Workers' Compensation Act, and there's not that much in the act to follow up the member's resolution.

Also there's very little under the general regulations under The Workers' Compensation Act, and that's including amendments up to January 1, 1978. So I took a step further, Mr. Speaker, and looked at some things that have happened in the United States and Great Britain. I think that a book prepared by Leo Kramer sets forth some of the problems the United States government came across, and what they have done about it. So this afternoon I'm going to try to share with members of this Assembly what has been done in the United States, and maybe we can adopt some of this into the Canadian picture here.

One object of the study done by Mr. Kramer was to describe the procedures by which a miner learns about his health condition and the possible actions open to him under the federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969. The act was amended in 1972 to include black lung benefits.

The second object was to analyse the results of the legislation in terms of, one, the numbers of health- impaired working miners who elected to request transfer to jobs in the mine that conformed to the standards for clean air, and two, the number of both miners and ex-miners who applied for and received black lung benefits under the program administered by the Social Security Administration.

The overall objective was to investigate the operation of the pro gram, with a view to developing a design for the service which could be performed by the employment service of the manpower administration in co ordination with other states and federal agencies par ticipating in the program. Because of the study and the persistent decline of jobs in the mining industry over the years, the bitu minous mine working force increased in age. As of January 1, 1971, a sample of miners from the wel fare fund — and that was over 100,000 — disclosed that nearly one-fifth of the active miners were over 55 years of age.

Apart from the railroad industry, bituminous mining is one of the oldest work forces in the U.S. economy. The hazardous nature of coal mining has always been well known, but legislation in the United States requiring stringent safety regulations for coal mines and hygienic standards for exposure to coal dust has lagged behind that of other countries. Repeatedly, mine tragedies costing the lives of many miners have been a catalyst for the passage of federal laws to improve the safety standards of the coal mining industry.

The development of mechanical mining equipment which generates a substantial amount of coal dust contributed to a high rate of pulmonary and respira tory ailments, including silicosis. This is caused by fine particles of silica mingled with carbon dust, and has now been recognized as an occupational disease of miners. Mine workers were also known to be especially susceptible to other lung diseases, such as tuberculosis, bronchitis, and emphysema. It was not until 1942 that coal workers' black lung was recognized in Great Britain as a specific disease entity associated with coal dust.

Since that time, the attention focussed by European countries on the study and prevention of this impairment has stimu lated the allocation of funds for continuing research on dust disease, with emphasis on black lung, and has resulted in compensation payments for workers disabled by this condition. Lacking a sufficient body of knowledge on black lung which was based on research, American scien tists relied primarily on the findings of European investigators.

Early research in this country, howev er, has identified and acknowledged that black lung is a modified form of silicosis affecting anthracite coal miners. A study that began in 1928 revealed that this condition, brought about by the breathing of inter mingled silica dust and anthracite coal dust, was present to some degree in approximately 23 per cent of the total number of workers examined. In early 1950, black lung was recognized in the United States as an occupational disease that caused disability and death among deep-mine workers.

Con sequently, investigation continued to substantiate the evidence that a severe chest disease problem existed in the mining population. Finally, in an attempt to assess the extent of the health impairment condition,

864 ALBERTA HANSARD April 27, 1978 study samples were undertaken by the Pennsylvania Department of Health from '59 to '61, then by the United States Public Health Service from '63 to '65. The findings of this latter comprehensive study of working and non-working bituminous coal miners demonstrated that black lung is a serious health prob lem related to coal mining, affecting in various degrees about 10 per cent of the active miners and about 20 per cent of the retired miners in that particu lar sample.

The recent public awareness of the existence and effects of black lung as a distinct mine-connected disease, coupled with the Farmington, West Virginia, mine disaster of 1968, laid the groundwork for the enactment of the federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969. The intent of this act is to increase the protection of the health and safety of miners in general. Therefore the law declares that the coal mining industry must assume responsibility for reduc ing dust concentration to a safer level. That was to be done by December 31, 1972.

Additionally, X-ray programs to detect evidence of black lung are now made available to all working miners, and benefit payments are authorized for total disability by the disease. An unusual feature of this act provides that the active workers whose X rays show development of black lung be offered the opportunity to move to a less dusty job in the mines with no reduction in their regular rate of pay. It was thought that a substantial number of miners eligible for this type of transfer under the act would exercise their right, and they did.

With passage of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1972, the United States Congress ap plied its general commitment in the federal coal mine safety act to provide healthy and safe working condi tions to all of the American industry. The Occupa tional Safety and Health Act does not specifically provide occupationally disabled workers with the option of changing jobs, as does the other program.

However, the Department of Labor, charged with the responsibility of the administration of this 1970 act, has realized the need for exploring the transfer options available to eligible miners, with interest in its possible broader application to occupations and industries covered by the broader act. It is anticipated that some miners, faced with the decision of whether or not to request a transfer, would benefit from professional guidance. Also, younger workers in the early stage of the disease might consider leaving the coal mining industry en tirely to work in a less hazardous environment.

One theoretical alternative for the miners was to go to the employment service, the agency best set up to give them counselling, advice, and possible training under the Manpower Development and Training Act. With a view toward aiding health-impaired workers on an all-industry base, the office of research and development within the manpower administration of the United States Department of Labor financed a study of the occupational experience of the 1969 program. The program had five particular steps which I would like to see this government look at.

One, description of the basic operation procedures of the X-ray program for active miners plus the experience with the transfer option. Two, field survey of a representative sample of coal miners to deter mine their views and actions in regard to any impend ing legislation and its administration; interviews with teams selected from various people who administered a questionnaire to 204 miners. Three, field inter views of community, state, and federal agencies which would provide services that may be required by a miner afflicted with black lung.

Four, in cases that determine a further amount of study, a limited num ber of coal workers showing the action taken by miners with severe cases of the disease. Five, design for support services to assist health-impaired miners in exercising all viable alternatives, whether they decide to remain in the industry or leave the mining industry entirely for another occupation. It is clear that a significant number of miners who are working in a high dust level position [distrust] the transfer option and resist exercising it to indicate any ailment to the operator which might threaten the miner's job security.

A review of the attractive bene fits offered by the welfare and retirement plan fully discloses the reason for a miner [masking] his disabi lity in order to safeguard the future welfare of himself and his family. The fund offers a cash payment of $1 50 a month to miners 55 years of age who have accumulated 20 years of service in the mines, five of which must have been with union mines, with one of those five years falling immediately prior to retirement. This pension is drawn for life, regardless of additional income work from any industry not related to mining.

Moreover, benefit payments to a retired miner, or from any state or federal source, do not affect their pension. As an added incentive to miners, the fund expects to implement in the near future a bonus program increasing the pension by an additional $7.50 a month for each year worked after eligibility for retirement at age 55 to age 65. Thus, a miner working a maximum of 10 years beyond his retire ment age could raise his pension from $150 a month to $225 a month.

Comprehensive medical and hospital coverage for the miner and his eligible dependants commences upon employment and continues so long as a pen sioner earns more than $100 a month in jobs not related to mines. Once the individual is entitled to Medicare at age 65, the fund continues to supple ment these benefits as well as cover costs for medi cation required for long-term illnesses. Each fund beneficiary is issued a medical card, which identifies him as being authorized to obtain services offered by qualified physicians and accredited hospitals approved by the fund.

Area medical officers of the fund, through ar rangements made with these doctors and hospitals, relieve all bills and medical reports on beneficiaries. If a report indicates that additional care may be needed, including rehabilitation, arrangements can be made and process reports would be kept on file. Training may be offered for miners unable to return to the coal industry yet capable of less strenuous work. Area medical officers also provide aid to miners filing claims for workers' compensation, social security dis ability, or black lung benefits.

Upon the death of a pensioner, a widow would receive a $2,000 allotment paid over two years, while the widow of an active worker is granted $5,000 over a five-year period. In either case, she or her depend ant continues to have health coverage until the allot ment is paid in full.

April 27, 1978 ALBERTA HANSARD 865 As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the economic advan tage to a union miner of remaining in the industry until retirement may outweigh his concerns over his health. Few middle-aged miners who show develop ment of black lung would risk their security for a job in clean air. The purpose of the 1969 legislation was to reduce the cause of black lung and provide a means for those already afflicted to move to mine jobs in a less dusty area.

However, it appears that the economic advan tage of remaining in the coal industry until retire ment, rather than risking one's job, seeking a transfer in the mines or deciding to leave the industry entirely, outweighs the miner's concern for his health. This is very unfortunate. The Department of Health, Education and Welfare was assigned the responsibility of overseeing the administration of the black lung benefit program. This duty was delegated to the Social Security Admin istration because of its experience and capability in administering a nation-wide program.

Following enactment of the act of 1969, the district social security officers received materials for clarification of the provisions of the new legislation and for publicity of the program amongst potentially eligible appli cants. Regardless of age or date of onset of disability, a miner may be eligible for benefits if he is totally disabled by black lung from working in a coal mine. The amount of basic black lung benefit is equal to one-half the current minimum wage paid to a totally disabled federal employee in a certain class.

Benefits range from $169 for a totally disabled miner, widow, or other eligible recipient, to $339 for a miner or widow with three or more dependants. A miner or widow getting black lung benefits and also benefit received from workers' compensation, unemployment compensation, and disability benefits from his state because of the miner's disability, will have his black lung payment reduced by an amount equivalent to the state benefit. Federal benefits will not be reduced if a miner under 72 years of age earns up to $2,100.

Above that, he loses $1 of benefit for every $2 earned, with no ceiling on the amount he earns. Frequently the evidence needed to document a claim may be found in records maintained by social security or the workers' compensation board. The availability of information speeds the process and allows the claimant to receive notice of acceptance or denial more quickly. The state of Pennsylvania, for example, has had coverage since 1965 for miners disabled by black lung. As a result of this active, long-going program, more complete medical files are available.

Thus social security has been able to make decisions in less time on many claimants from the Pennsylvania area. If the necessary evidence on the claimant is not available, the appropriate state agency is responsible for developing the claim medically. Arrangements are then made for the purchase and reading of an X ray by a qualified physician located in a medical facili ty as close to the miner as possible.

However, owing to a large number of claimants at the beginning of the program and to the confined geographical area of the mining community, it has been difficult to obtain enough qualified persons and medical facilities. Should a miner wish to have his private doctor perform the examination, he can be reimbursed for any fees paid and for travelling expenses incurred. It must be borne in mind, however, that social security may refuse some X-ray

interpretations by private physicians, pending the determination by the exper tise of the physician taking and reading the files. Any miner with complicated black lung is presumed to be totally disabled, and social security begins pay ing benefits at once. Benefits may also be granted to miners with negative X rays or with simple black lung if they furnish other relative medical evidence of a total disability, respiratory or pulmonary impairment, that developed from employment in a coal mine. Fac tors such as age, education, and length of service in mining are considered before a final determination is made.

Until a miner is diagnosed as totally disabled, he is considered employable. Under the legislation of 1969 about one-half of the claimants were denied black lung benefits. Those who failed to qualify for pay ments had insufficient medical evidence to determine total disability or had a disabling lung condition other than black lung. Disability from these types of impairments was not recognized by the association.

However, with passage of the Black Lung Benefits Act in 1972, the criteria for total disability have now been liberalized and miners suffering from other incapacitating lung conditions arising from employ ment in the mine may be eligible for benefits. Benefit claims no longer can be denied solely because of negative X ray findings. Supplementary tests may be obtained before a decision is reached. As a result of this new law, the administration is now reviewing the many thousands of claims pre viously disallowed. Quite probably a number of claims are being awarded without further medical evidence.

However, it is clear that those miners with negative X rays will have to furnish pertinent infor mation to document a claim for a disability, respira tory or pulmonary impairment. These claimants are notified by the department to gather the additional evidence, and ample time is allowed to submit the requested information before a decision is made based on the new law. By the summer of 1972, a total of 96,000 miners had been awarded benefits under the black lung program. This figure has now been reduced to 88,000, the decline owing generally to the deaths of the beneficiaries.

In addition, benefits were paid last year to 78,300 widows and 9,600 dependants. On re-examination of X rays under the Black Lung Bene fits Act, a total of 23,800 miners have been awarded benefits, and the process is still continuing. Mr. Speaker, I brought this forward because I think it's something we could look at in Alberta to try to determine what problem we have here. The route we could go is documentation by the miner of his history in the mines, and secondly, by an updated X-ray program, much as we do under some of our other programs in industrial health and safety.

Some com panies, or most of them, are now bringing employees in and testing them for hearing. This is an upgrading program every year to see if there is any hearing impairment because of job conditions. I think this is something we could look at for the coal mining industry. I support the member's resolution. I think it's a good one and something the Assembly should adopt. The government should go ahead and look at it, and

866 ALBERTA HANSARD April 27, 1978 put in place what is asked for. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [Motion carried] 205. Moved by Dr. Walker:

Be it resolved that the government of Alberta consider the introduction of legislation to standardize the requirements for incorporation of a village to the minimum regulations as now required for incorpora tion of a summer village, thus enabling many hamlets to become eligible for greater autonomy and greater representation on rural municipal councils. [Adjourned debate March 21: Mr. Trynchy] MR. TRYNCHY: Mr. Speaker, it's a privilege to get involved in Motion No. 205. There are certainly many ways we could favor the resolution. There's also the other side to this.

As I proceed today, I'd like to point out some of the difficulties we may encounter in trying to make hamlets into villages or vice versa. I understand incorporation for a summer village takes a population of 100 people. If all hamlets with 100 people in the province of Alberta were to become incorporated as villages, I think the tax burden that would accrue to these villages would be something they could not cope with. For information, I have considered a couple of hamlets in my constituency. Before I go on to that, Mr.

Speaker, I think the resolution saying we'll have greater autonomy is something we can all live with. As a matter of fact I don't think anyone in the House wouldn't suggest that greater autonomy is necessary, whether it be a hamlet, village, or town. Greater representation on a rural municipal coun cil: Mr. Speaker, I just don't follow that, because it's my understanding that once a village is incorporated, then of course it has no representation on rural municipal councils. The only way they can have representation on a rural municipal council is if they remain a hamlet.

Village or town status does not provide that flexibility. Mr. Speaker, just to put the other side of the story for a moment if I may, I'd like to speak of one hamlet in particular that has, say, a population of 150. Their assessed tax base is about $100,000. The mill rate at present is anywhere from 22 to 32 mills, split mill rate, which would bring revenue of $22,000 or $30,000 a year. If they were to govern themselves as all other vil lages and towns do, there's just no way they could cope with it. They couldn't even hire a secretary plus a town or village maintenance man for the revenue.

Of course, they could increase their mill rate to 80 or 100 mills and bring in $100,000. What can you do with $100,000? They could go and get per capita grants on a different basis from the provincial gov ernment. But those grants would have to be so high in proportion to their population that the towns and villages next to them would be asking for the same grants, and justly so. Mr. Speaker, as we look at this, what does a hamlet want if it were to change to village status? What are they looking for? They're looking for local autonomy, which we all support. They'd like to govern their own affairs.

But they'd also be looking for a real tax credit or tax supplement from other sources. They couldn't operate on their own. Look at some of the projects hamlets are facing today, such as streets, sidewalks, street lighting, fire protection, and a development officer in most of them, because they're expanding. Then we go to the main topic of water and sewer. Every hamlet, village, and town should have water and sewer, and we have programs for that. But unless they have a tax base around them, such as industry . . . Take, for instance, the hamlet of Blue Ridge.

Its population is around 250; its tax base is about $121,000; its mill rate is 32 mills. By that, you can see the type of revenue they would accrue yearly. But what they could do is annex, say, the Simpson Timber plant next to them. Of course that would bring in quite a bit of assess ment. But then the rural people in ID 15, who are now receiving that revenue, would object; it's not within the borders of the hamlet or so-called village. It would cause them difficulties in getting that approved. Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to read the budget of one of the ID hamlets in my area.

They have a budget of about $2.9 million. The transportation portion of that is $1.2 million; environment health, $5,000; preven tive health and welfare, $2,000; environmental de velopment, $67,000; recreation and culture, $49,000. So even if they were to have just recreation and culture development in the hamlet, at $49,000, there's just no way a hamlet could operate. There are so many things we'd have to look at if we were going to incorporate into villages all hamlets over 100 people and give them the local autonomy they respect and want. We also have to provide the necessary funding to make sure they work.

I'd be willing to guess, Mr. Speaker, as we look around our hamlets throughout the province — and we can look at one hamlet in particular: Sherwood Park. Why do they remain a hamlet? There are good reasons. It's beneficial for them to have the tax base of the county. They get done the kinds of things they want, they have representation on the county council, and every thing is working out fine. To become a village would be a real burden for a hamlet of 250 people in rural Alberta. As a matter of fact, Mr.

Speaker, as I talk to some of our people in hamlets in the rural parts of the province, there is more concern — not so much with local autonomy; they'd like to have that — that they need more funding. They'd like to become involved in a bigger area. As I mentioned, ID 15 has approximately a $3 million total budget. They'd like to see that greater, because they can't get done the kinds of things they want. When you look at street construction, lighting, sidewalks, and curbs, it seems impossible that it could ever be accomplished by changing a hamlet to village status.

I'd just like to take water and sewer for the hamlet of Blue Ridge and the burden it would have upon its 250 people if this was a village. The tender were for $1,243,000. Of that, there is a certain amount of grants: a $233,000 grant from Central Mortgage and Housing; the Department of the Environment will have an annual grant of $44,000; the ID grant will be around $15,000. But the interesting point I want to make is the frontage tax. That tax which the people of that hamlet have to pay just to enjoy the benefits the rest of us enjoy throughout the province is in the range of $6.50 to $10 per frontage foot.

That comes

April 27. 1978 ALBERTA HANSARD 867 pretty high for a tax base of 32 mills. They're looking at more frontage for water and sewer — maybe three times as much — than the annual taxes for the property. Of course when you look at hamlets, there is no industry inside the hamlet; there is no expensive development; there is no expensive housing. So they don't have a good tax base. Mr. Speaker, I think it's time we reviewed funding to hamlets.

I think it's time we had a real good look at whether some of our villages would like to revert to the MD, the ID, or the county, still having some local autonomy by having their councillors or members of that village elected to the council and be represented in the manner they are in Sherwood Park. Mr. Speaker, an interesting thing we should also consider — and I look at the bill the Member for Stony Plain presented a while ago — is fire protection in rural Alberta.

When you reach into the IDs in north ern Alberta — not just mine, but in the Peace River country, throughout all of northern Alberta — they all want fire protection. Of course the cost of a fire truck is anywhere from $60,000 to $100,000; the fire hall, the heat, the utilities to keep that equipment ready for winter service. Unless we as a government provide additional funding in a major way for some of these things we talk about and I have mentioned today, a hamlet can't make it, a village couldn't make it, and even a town of 600 or 700 people is finding it difficult to get along. Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to speak for a moment on representation on rural municipal councils. I think I could support that aspect of the resolution, even for villages. It seems that even under the county system the villages are a separate body, don't have any juris diction in county affairs, and vice versa. It might not be a bad idea to incorporate some liaison in a meaningful way, have a representative or member of the village council sit on the MD, county, or ID coun cil. I think the intricate part of both governments is similar. The funding is of course somewhat different.

When we look at such programs as street improve ment, recreation funding . . . In an ID, they sort of incorporate all the recreation funds toward one loca tion and try to set up an arena, swimming pool, a larger school, or some facilities at a school, and this of course is funded from the ID at large. Without that type of organization and funding, and if they were to become a village, there is just no way, as I mentioned before, that they could even pay the light bill to keep the facility open, let alone try to operate it. They couldn't pay the debenture on it.

So the program in this resolution is somewhat a mixed bag, I would say. We could support one or two parts, with some additions, and one or two parts of the resolution would be unacceptable even to greater populated areas such as villages. Mr. Speaker, I think the time has come in all hamlets, especially in the ID areas, that we look at our tax base. It just doesn't seem fair. When people ask for more services, rightly so they should receive them. I'd like to give you an example of 22 mills taxation in an ID. In a county 2 miles across the boundary the mill rate is 100 mills.

Yet the services seem to be equal in both the county and the ID. I think we have to reach a better compromise of mill rates. I do not suggest for a moment that we should increase the mill rates in the IDs to 100 mills. I can't see how we could reduce the mill rates in the coun ties and villages to, say, 20 mills. But we should arrive at a happy medium. The revenues of an ID are going more and more to services in the hamlets — such as lighting, streets, sidewalks, curbs, water and sewer — and less and less is being spent for the purpose it should; that is, roads in the ID. In the three IDs I represent, Mr.

Speaker, just to give you an example of road construction that's necessary — and it's necessary because the rural areas of Alberta, especially in my area, are booming, expanding; more and more people are moving in. Every year when we go to our meetings we have a roads budget of $1.2 million, and we have a request for $40 million from each ID. So right now in the IDs in the province of Alberta we're running about 12 to 15 years behind in road construction. That just gives you an example of what's going on out there. I see some members shaking their heads, of course.

I guess they'll have to come out to rural Alberta and look around. It's a serious thing. Last fall I went to road meetings. As we sat through our meetings we discussed all our hamlets. They want a light bulb or two. It's just about impossi ble to justify giving them a street light, because when you take the budget of the whole ID, and it's a vast area, you don't have the funds. You say to the people, okay, let's raise the taxes. So two or three people who complain to you say, look, we have no quarrel with that; increase the taxation. But we've seen it happen in an ID. The assessment went up, and what did we get?

A flood of letters saying there was just no way they could accept assessment which was tripling or maybe a little more than that. When we have farmland that's assessed at $250 a quarter, it's just unreasonable. Yet the people are not willing to accept just a little more. We have farmland, one quarter

section in my ID, assessed at $250. That's pretty low. Yet when that gentleman or that lady wants a road and it's 4 miles away from another road, and you have to build this road at $60,000 to $70,000 to $80,000 a mile, and they write you a letter and say, we paid taxes on that land for 40 years — and rightfully so; they should have a road, because we're living in Alberta, a pretty good province. But when you look at the taxation they've paid, and it amounts to $12.50 to $20 a year; I've had lots of cases of that. I'm just giving you an example.

I'm not trying to say these people aren't justified in asking, because they are. We should reciprocate if we can, but under this structure there's just no way we can. So when we say we should move hamlets into villages, it wouldn't last for two council meetings. They'd say, let us back into the ID; at least we had some help there from the government or the minister. Because once you're tied into a village and you're strictly working on your own assessment, your own tax base, I think we'd have just about every hamlet in Alberta revert. If we took a plebiscite today, I'm sure we'd have a number of villages . . .

I know of two or three villages which are having annexation; they're bringing in a quarter

section and want to develop 100 to 150 lots. It's just about impossible. They can't do it on their own funding, on their own tax base. No way. They have to ask for government funding. So if the government's going to get involved, let's get involved in a major way. Let's sit with them and bring some real good policy that would incorporate more working relationships with villages and the IDs,

868 ALBERTA HANSARD April 27, 1978 the villages and the Department of Municipal Affairs, because that's where it starts. In that way we could really move in a major way. Sure, 10 years ago, or even seven years ago when I was first elected, our IDs were pretty dormant. We didn't need too many roads. We were ahead. As a matter of fact, at one time our foreman told me he had all the roads built and money left over. Seven short years ago that was happening in rural Alberta.

Today, as I mentioned, I could take the whole high way budget the hon. minister has, $200 million of capital works, and spend that in my constituency very easily and not have everything done. AN HON. MEMBER: Don't get any ideas. MR. TRYNCHY: That's just some facts, Mr. Speaker, that I'd like to relate to some members who aren't aware of what's going on out there. MR. DIACHUK: But then you couldn't get across Edmonton. MR. GHITTER: It would be cheaper to buy them all airplanes. MR. TRYNCHY: Yes, and probably hire the Member for Calgary Buffalo to fly them. AN HON. MEMBER: He couldn't pass the exam. MR.

TRYNCHY: It's a good resolution. I think there's just so much in there that we'd have to look at. The Minister of Municipal Affairs is groping with the prob lem. I know he's heard from me on a number of occasions. I say we need more funds. The ID trust is gone in a matter of a few hours. We need more oiling money, more gravel funds, more construction funds. There just seems to be nowhere to get it. I would suggest that all of northern Alberta, every ID, should be brought into the department, and we should sit down with them and incorporate a tax that is fair.

There's just no way we can live with a 22 mill tax in the IDs when they should be somewhat more. Sure, it's nice not to pay any taxes or very little, but you can't expect roads, power, school buses, and all those things when your taxation is that low. I guess the message I want to leave is: the sooner we as Albertans and as rural Albertans realize that what we receive we must pay for, I think we'll go a long way. Mr. Speaker, in closing I just want to compliment the Member for Macleod for putting this resolution on the Order Paper.

I think there's so much more that can be said, and I look forward to the members from the other IDs or rural Alberta, or the member from Sherwood Park telling us how great it is to have a hamlet. I don't think we should be too concerned about how quickly we could move the hamlets to village status. We should be concerned about how to make the hamlets number one and other government bodies such as village and town councils work just a little better. Thank you. MR. ZANDER: Mr.

Speaker, if the rural members could only understand the part of the problem that lies in the IDs and what lies in some of the counties, I think they'd be very much surprised . . . AN HON. MEMBER: Rural members? MR. ZANDER: Urban members, I'm sorry. It's easy for an urban member to explain to his constituent that he should go to the town council. When you're in an ID, they send you to the MLA. And that's the other part of it. The resolution itself: you could argue the points both ways, Mr. Speaker. I think there are probably a half dozen reasons for and against that resolution. But I think the hon.

Member for Whitecourt has pointed out some of the facts that lie within that motion that should be brought forward. Of course one is that in most hamlets, and I'll also include the village, the tax base is not sufficient. Most hamlets comprise somewhere between 50 and 300 people. The assessment on the tax base is somewhere be tween $50,000 and $150,000. Let's look at the assessment. Suppose there was a hamlet within a county, and I have a number of them. Based on a mill rate of 96, there is no way a hamlet could possibly exist with a tax base on a municipal mill rate of 54 mills.

It would have about $5,400 to spend. Let's look at the budget expenditure for such a hamlet if it did go on its own. For a part-time secretary we would be looking at at least $6,000; an office or some arrangement of an office with utilities connected to it would be about $7,000; street light ing; snowplowing: the total operating costs would be $14,000 in municipal expenditures. Then the obliga tion they must face as far as the school foundation and the supplementary mill rate are concerned also amounts to 54 mills. We find that in order to exist a hamlet would have to have a rate of about 130 mills.

So it can't operate within the budget its tax base allows. As the hon. Member for Whitecourt has mentioned, not all people in hamlets are as fortunate as the Sherwood Park area, which I understand has a population of over 30,000 but enjoys the tax base of the county it is situated in. It would not want to leave under any conditions, because it enjoys the industrial tax base. One could argue that we should go on a province- wide sharing of the industrial taxes within the prov ince. This has been suggested by the former gov ernment.

But let us not forget that what we classify as industrial assessment must be equally applied to the rural people and to the cities. Mr. Speaker, if Sherwood Park found that it lost its autonomy by not having . . . They have only two I understand, but if they had three on council, if they suggested only that, if a vote were taken in that hamlet, I believe it would ask that it remain where it is. I'm saying that under the present conditions it is a disaster to allow a hamlet to gain the status of a village. In 1969, Mr.

Speaker, a village reverted to the status of a hamlet because it could not pay the debenture borrowings on its sewer. There was a $300,000 installation of sewers, and they found themselves unable to cope with the payments. It then reverted to a hamlet, and the hamlet enjoyed the industrial assessment surrounding it. Government assistance, grants for streets, sidewalks, sewer, huge grants over and above what anybody else receives per capita in the province might make it feasible. But at

April 27, 1978 ALBERTA HANSARD 869 this time I don't think we should ask that they be put in a position just because they want autonomy. Au tonomy is something everybody wants, but with au tonomy goes responsibility, financial responsibility. I'm sure that within my constituency not one hamlet would want to go to village status, because most of them can understand that their house is very cozy and warm, therefore let's not shake the balance just because they want representation on school commit tees or municipal councils. Perhaps a way could be devised, Mr.

Speaker, where a village or hamlet by virtue of its population could elect both an urban and a rural member. This has happened in the past. But now, under The County Act, the members of the school committee cannot exceed the number of the county council. Consequently, if you have a county council of seven people, you can't have more than seven members on the school committee. Therefore if autonomy wants to be achieved, it could not be achieved because there are more towns and more villages than there would be members that could be accommodated on the municipal council.

One must understand too that if we were to change the act and make it possible, the only funding within reason would have to be by way of huge government grants. The hon. Member for Whitecourt has also men tioned the difference in assessments between IDs and counties. It's understandable, and I don't know the reason why, because you can have one parcel of farmland on one side of the river that's in an ID of equal quality as on the other side. One quarter sec tion on the ID side is probably assessed at from $450 to $1,000 or maybe $1,500,

whereas inside the coun ty it's assessed at $4,000 or $5,000. You can't have services without taxes. It's quite understandable. You can't have the cake and still eat it. It isn't possible. I think we will have to bring the assessment up to par in some way. There should be no difference between the quality of the land on one side of the river and on the other side, which is an ID, and both parcels of land could and should be assessed on the same basis. Mr. Speaker, we can assess a house in the city of Calgary according to our assessment manual.

If the same house were located in the city of Edmonton, it would normally have the same assessment, within $1,000. And if it were in Lethbridge, it would still be the same. Why can we not equalize the assessment or bring assessments in an ID up to par with a municipality or a county? I know the hon. Member for Whitecourt has men tioned that some of those quarter sections are only paying $22, and one could not expect much service for that. But I think the benefits derived from the IDs that pass on to the general treasury of this province have to be recognized. Maybe we should go that route.

If certain people qualify for certain grants, then if you're going to take something, you must give something back. I know my time is up, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest that before we proceed with that motion — it hasn't gone all the way, as the hon. member said — there should be an amendment to take in other parts that are not now in the motion. Therefore I cannot sup port the motion the way it is. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to express a few words on behalf of the hamlets and to take

part in the debate which the hon. Member for Macleod has properly put forward. In doing so, I think he has recognized a very important problem that hamlets across the province are experiencing, specifically the difficulty the hamlets in his own jurisdiction are having, generally within the outline of the comments the other speakers have touched on.

I want to add to those points made, to perhaps give some general overview as to my feeling with respect to the question, and to touch somewhat on some of the elements which could be considered, weighing the comments of the various speakers, in terms of future policy or future direction of the gov ernment with respect to some of the amendments or assistance which could be given to a hamlet or other forms of small villages. In terms of statistics, Mr. Speaker, as hon. mem bers have indicated we do have a substantial number of hamlets throughout the province of Alberta.

The number escapes me, but I think you can understand the difficulty in determining the number. As the hon. Member for Macleod indicated, a hamlet is a very loose form, which is not very specifically defined. As I understand the legal definition of a hamlet, if you had three or four houses together in any one quarter

section I suppose you could in fact have a hamlet. I guess this is the smallest urban form we have in Alberta. Looking at the definition in the dictionary, I found that it really dates back to an old English defini tion which indicated that this was a small village which did not have a church. So in fact it was one which was not a centre of activity, as a church was a very important part of the activity in most of the ancient European countries. The villages, which is the next step the hon. member is referring to, includ ing summer villages, are perhaps just as much a diffi culty as the hamlets.

Let me move to some of the quick comments I have, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Whitecourt indi cated that in the IDs we have taken a very important posture with respect to assistance to the hamlets. We now have in front of us four different hamlets under construction. We will continue to provide a major amount of assistance to the hamlets in the ID. But as the member properly pointed out, the cost on the frontage per lot is tremendous. And if you add to that the user fee, the costs for sewer and water systems become prohibitive. Let me also add, Mr.

Speaker, that we have under way sewer and water systems for about 13 or 14 hamlets within the IDs. We hope we can complete them within the next planning period. On the point itself, I have no difficulty with the general recommen dation of the resolution, finding no difficulty at all with the criteria moving from 50 to some other small er amount. But I think it should rest with the hamlets themselves to determine whether or not they want to go to some higher urban form. In view of the time, Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to adjourn debate. MR.

PURDY: On a point of order, I think that is not a designated motion today, so we can go until 4:30. We have only one hour left in private bills.

870 ALBERTA HANSARD April 27, 1978 MR. SPEAKER: If the member would like to refer to the temporary portion of Standing Order 8(3)(e), "Debate on Motions other than Government Motions shall not continue for more than one hour." That debate has now gone on for one hour. head: PUBLIC BILLS AND ORDERS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Second Reading) Bill 214 The Small Business Act MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, in rising to move Bill 214, first of all I'd like to summarize the objectives.

The first objective would be to require the minister to establish programs to assist a small business in obtaining government contracts. The target figure suggested would be 40 per cent of government con tracts for small business in Alberta. The second major provision in the act would encourage the breaking up of large contracts where this is feasible — I say "encourage" deliberately rath er than a mandatory provision — so that the larger contracts would be of a more manageable size for smaller businesses, and thus would allow smaller concerns to bid on contracts.

The third would be to establish an obligation on the part of the minister and the government to assist small business not only with counselling, as we have at the present time through the Department of Busi ness Development and Tourism — to step that up — but to add grants where appropriate, and some changes in the loan system that I'm coming to in a few moments. The fourth provision of the act would be to estab lish a select committee of the Legislature on small business that would have the obligation of reviewing the government's approach to small business in this province. Mr.

Speaker, perhaps the place to begin any dis cussion of this kind of proposed legislation is to ask ourselves: is it necessary to single out a small busi ness for this type of legislation? I should point out that similar bills are being submitted in other Legisla tures in the country. I would say it is necessary, particularly in the province of Alberta where, in my judgment anyway, the emphasis of the last few years quite frankly has been on large business enterprises. The government members will dispute this, but so be it. That's why we're going to have a debate.

I think it's fair to say the small businessman has had short shrift. I look, for example, at $100 million we loaned to Gulf through the heritage trust fund at 8.125 per cent; $100 million to Cities Service at 8.375 per cent. Yet, Mr. Speaker, when I look at the AOC rates I find 9.25 per cent. It's fair to say it will go down to 8.25 in the smaller centres, but in the urban centres it's 10.25. So we have the irony of a small businessman in our urban centre attempting to obtain loans from the AOC and having to pay a substantially higher interest rate than two of the largest oil companies in the world. Mr.

Speaker, I think the question of the size of contracts is quite important. Yesterday in Public Accounts we had a brief discussion on the size of contracts allocated by AGT. Various representatives from AGT were here before the Public Accounts Committee. They really didn't get a chance to answer the questions posed, because the minister got up and said that as far as he was concerned there are economies of scale. I suppose from time to time the question of the scale of the contract is relevant, and this bill doesn't say that in every specific instance we should break down the contract into smaller compo nents.

But the bill does place the emphasis on doing that where it is possible and practical. We talk about diversifying Alberta's economy. Quite frankly, one of the things we should be looking at is an electronics industry. How are you going to have an electronics industry if one of the major purchasers in the province sets out a tendering pro cedure on which only the large firms, the ITTs, are able to bid? Quite frankly, Mr.

Speaker, if we're going to develop an indigenous local business sector in this area, we have to be prepared, where it's feasible and practical, to take tendering policies on the part of the government, break them down into smaller compo nents. That isn't always going to be possible. But where it is, the emphasis should be placed on trying to achieve that goal. Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of case studies I wanted to bring to the attention of the Assembly in discussing the bill before the House this afternoon. They deal with smaller Canadian companies bidding against larger firms.

For example, we have the case of Stenocord Systems Alberta Ltd. concerning the rejection of their bid to provide a sound-recording system for the Alberta provincial court system. The contract was finally won by Gyyr Products, a larger firm. The difference between the bid of Stenocord and Gyyr Products was $600,000 and $336,000. One was a small, Alberta-based company, the other wasn't.

But without getting into the details of this particular instance, the point I want to leave is that when one looked at the specifications of the tender, it was fairly clear that the specifications were set out in such a way that the smaller firm couldn't feasibly bid on the project, to have a reasonable crack at getting it. I have another example, again of a small Alberta firm: Frederick McKay Aviation were bidding on the question of supplying the Alberta government with a Cessna 337 Skymaster aircraft. This company made a proposal but wasn't able to follow it through.

Again without going through the correspondence in some detail, their feeling was that they lost the bid because they didn't have the personnel to continue to — I shouldn't say lobby, but at least press their case with the relevant civil servants. The net result was that the bid went to an American company at approxi mately $3,000 more to supply the same aircraft to the Alberta government, and it could have been supplied by an Alberta-based company. Mr. Speaker, I don't cite those cases to make cases in themselves, but to illustrate the broader point.

It seems to me there should be a very deliberate effort on the part of the provincial government to tailor their tendering policies to make it possible for smaller Alberta concerns to compete. Sometimes that's going to require breaking up a major contract into smaller components; sometimes it's going to require taking a closer look at the type of specifications we're demanding, to ask whether we really need specifica-

April 27, 1978 ALBERTA HANSARD 871 tions, whether we're talking about — I use this term because Tories are always using it when it comes to social services — Cadillac services, or whether we can get by with Chevrolet services which are supplied by local contractors. Sometimes it may require pro viding assistance, so small businessmen can make their way through the maze of bureaucracy that tends to exist and, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the efforts of my friends across the way, exists in good old free enterprise Alberta. Mr.

Speaker, I want to say quite frankly that I think our emphasis should be placed on expanding the role of small business in the Alberta economy. There's little doubt that the small-business sector is an impor tant employer, approximately one-third of the labor force. Small business tends to be labor intensive as opposed to capital intensive. By and large the profits that are made stay within the country, rather than being sent out in one way or another.

The arguments in favor of the small-business sector, put very elo quently by people like John Bulloch and others, have been made elsewhere and have been made in this House before, but I think it's important to underscore some of them today. Mr. Speaker, I raise the issue because I think it would be a mistake for members of the Assembly to be rather carefree and say, everything is great in this province; we've got all sorts of major projects on the horizon and the opportunities for small business are going to be so great. There is no doubt we're going to see a substantial capital boom in this province.

If the Alaska Highway project goes ahead, the Cold Lake project, a third oil sands plant at Fort McMurray: all these projects will have a rather substantial impact on the economy. But as Mr. Bulloch from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business points out, that impact is not necessarily going to be good for the small-business sector. It may be all right for the businesses right in the locality that on a short-term basis can gear up and supply goods and services.

But for the small businessmen in the rest of the province, we find that with capital booms the cost of labor goes up, the price of materials goes up, the price of transportation rises, and frequently the businessman trying to operate in Fairview, Grande Prairie, Ponoka, Wetaskiwin, or wherever it may be, finds very little benefit from the boom in Cold Lake or in Fort McMurray. Indeed some of the after-effects of the boom, some of the ripples, increase the cost to that individual businessman. That's the submission of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

Quite frankly it's also the submission of this government. I'm sorry the Minis ter of Advanced Education and Manpower isn't in his place today. When he was the Minister of Labour, his department commissioned a study called The Man agement of Growth. It looked at the staging of capital expenditures by the private and public sector in the province.

One of the conclusions the management of growth document reached was that if we have mas sive capital booms, or major capital expansion, the people who are most likely to be the first casualties would be the smaller businessmen, not in the imme diate areas, but the smaller businessmen 200 or 300 miles away who have to pay the costs of the boom but don't have an opportunity to share in the immedi ate benefits. Mr. Speaker, we all know that when it comes to any boom situation there are short-term advantages. No one would deny that.

But all one has to do is look at some of the great projects that have been con structed and look at the little communities after the construction has been completed. All one has to do is look at Hudson Hope. It's looking a little better now because they're building another dam. But before the dam was built, here was a town of 1,000 people that 10 years ago was buoyant. There were all sorts of shops on the main street, but five years ago there was one store left open and an almost deserted main street, because the capital boom had come and gone. With it had come the business opportunities.

It's fine for the people who are able to sort of get in, make their money, and quickly get out. But our long-term public policy for small business in this province surely should not be the "get rich quick": to take advantage of the temporary boom and then bye-bye, it's up to the next person who comes in to have to close the doors. Mr. Speaker, the long-term objective of a clearly thought out program to assist the small-business sec tor is — and I underscore — probably even more important in a province like Alberta where we have major capital booms than would be the case in other parts of the country.

What are some of the things that can be done to assist the small-business sector? In this particular bill we have the commitment to set aside a target for government business. That's one thing we can do. Another thing we can do is look at reducing the corporate tax rate on small business. Other provinces have moved in this regard. There's been a 2 per cent reduction in the province of British Columbia, a 1 per cent reduction in the province of Saskatchewan. Mr. Speaker, I remember sitting in my place in that corner over there in 1974, and with great fanfare the hon.

Premier stood up, all the television cameras were whirling, there were banner headlines in every daily paper in the province, and the government indi cated they were going to come in with a brand spanking new business taxation and incentive pro gram. It was really impressive. Everybody was in deed impressed. After the Premier caught the head lines and the committees started working on it, we had continual promises being made on this matter. Then, by George, on January 29, 1975 — this was during the period when we had a goody a day announced in that three-week session before the Leg islature was dissolved.

We had one ministerial an nouncement after the other. On January 29, the hon. Provincial Treasurer at that time, Mr. Miniely, rose in his place and tabled the objectives and the terms of reference for the Alberta business taxation and incen tive program. Mr. Speaker, the sad commentary is that, just like most royal commission reports, this position paper is gathering dust and there hasn't been any significant follow-up.

The goodies were won, the small busi nessmen were intrigued; they all dutifully trotted off and voted Tory; and then after the election was over and the hon. members were re-elected, unfortunately the position paper was left. Now they're going to have 'Stomp Around Alberta' as the alternative. Mr. Speaker, I think quite frankly that most small businessmen would be more in favor of some of the objectives contained in this position paper that have not been acted upon as yet.

872 ALBERTA HANSARD April 27, 1978 MR. R. SPEAKER: Stomp around with the Alberta film and caps. MR. NOTLEY: That's right — brought in from what part of the United States at the Tory convention? Mr. Speaker, in any event the fact is that promises were made that have not been followed up. Other provinces are moving with much more co-ordinated programs to assist small business than we are. I mentioned the tax reduction in British Columbia and Saskatchewan; some of the other programs the prov ince of Saskatchewan has initially undertaken designed to foster small business in that province.

I could go down to half a dozen different programs. But in the case of business in communities of less than 6,000 population, there is a reduction in the interest rate of any money loaned by the government of 4 percentage points. That's a substantially more generous arrangement to get business under way than anything we have from the AOC at this stage of the game. So, Mr.

Speaker, there are things that can be done, and I submit to the government in concluding my remarks and inviting other members of the Assembly to participate in this discussion — I hope we have enough time so the matter can come to a vote — that it really isn't good enough to put all our eggs in the basket of large projects. I know that they capture the headlines and they excite people; no question about that. You get an announcement of a Syncrude project or a Cold Lake project and the initial impact is very striking. But the long-term future of the province, Mr.

Speaker, is going to be written much more in the way we deal with the less striking project; the project that will involve smaller operations; that will involve that sector of the economy that may never be big enough in itself, project by project, to get on the front page of the Edmonton Journal, but countless hundreds and thousands of small business enterprises, particularly related more to the renewable resource sector. Mr. Speaker, in my judgment that kind of approach will yield much better long-term benefits to the people of this province than concentrating our time and effort on the major projects.

In concluding my remarks in this debate, I say to the members of the Assembly that with the Alberta heritage trust fund we have indeed a tremendous opportunity to come up with some imaginative pro grams — not programs that are simply going to put in place uncompetitive businesses, but programs, along with some of the changes I am suggesting in this bill, that will make it possible for the Alberta-owned small-business sector to grow and become stronger. MR. ASHTON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it clear from the outset that I agree with the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview.

I too am in favor of small business. I'm also in favor of motherhood. I'm in favor of lower taxes, higher incomes, a house for everybody. But I think we then have to look at the bill. We both agree that the title is a good objective: The Small Business Act. But, Mr. Speaker, I am against redun dant legislation. Because of my occupation I deal with legislation from day to day, and I think there is a great amount of concern amongst the public, and a resistance to any legislature passing legislation that is redundant.

If the hon. members in the Legislature have read the bill, and I hope they do — I realize they may not read all the bills introduced by the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview, but I suggest they do read this — I think they'll find in there a litany of all the programs the government is now undertaking. Anything that happens to be in the bill that the government is not already doing is probably not justi fied in being done. So on that basis, the bill is about six years too late. Mr.

Speaker, I don't intend to stand here and take the time of the House to enumerate all the govern ment programs, because I'm sure all the members are fully familiar with all of those. AN HON. MEMBER: Take a half hour anyway. MR. ASHTON: I'm sure Mr. Speaker will be speaking later, and will list all the government programs he's familiar with.

In responding to a couple of the comments made by the member who introduced the bill, I suppose I'm shocked, astounded, and very much offended by his implication that in the Stenocord situation the con tract was somehow designed against the other small companies and in favor of Stenocord. I think that's the kind of charge which is certainly unbecoming in this Legislature. What is even worse, when he referred to the other situation where one particular Alberta-based company couldn't afford to lobby the relevant civil servants — I think that's a fairly accur ate quote, Mr.

Speaker — I just suggest to the hon. member that he step outside the Legislature and make that kind of charge. That's certainly an affront to every civil servant in this province, and I suggest he reconsider his comments. He did indicate that from time to time he had been reading some of the government statements on busi ness taxation. I'm pleased he paid so much attention to it. I'm also interested in his comments on the heritage trust fund.

But I think we can't forget that if the hon. leader of the NDP, the Member for Spirit River-Fairview, was ever the government in this prov ince, we would never have had the Alberta heritage savings trust fund. He would have blown it long before now, so there would be nothing there to help the small businessman. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. ASHTON: The hon. member mocks, Mr. Speaker, but I think he realizes I'm closer to the truth than he feels comfortable with. I suppose some people would suggest that I as a member really am not qualified to speak on small business in some respects.

Perhaps I should point out that I have run a small legal office for a number of years, and my wife and six children own and operate a jeans store. Maybe I'm not that well experienced in the area of small business, but compared to the member who introduced the bill, who I understand has never been gainfully employed in the private sector, I probably could be considered to be an expert. AN HON. MEMBER: Very good, John. MR. ASHTON: On that basis I would suggest that the bill is misnamed, in that it refers to The Small Business Act. Of course, that is misleading — I'm

April 27, 1978 ALBERTA HANSARD 873 sure not intentionally — but it should be because it deals only with certain sectors of small business, primarily those dealing with the provincial govern ment, government purchases, and so on. Therefore, maybe it should be called the Some Small Business Act, the Government Purchases Act, or Government Small Business Act. So it is misleading. If by circu lating a bill with that name on the front of it he is in any way trying to suggest it does something for small businesses generally, I would say that's not accurate. It certainly wouldn't help my wife's jeans store.

I don't notice the government buying too many blue jeans or T-shirts, so it wouldn't help her at all. I'm rather intrigued and sort of entertained by the hon. member's newfound interest in small business. I suppose he's begun to realize, and I commend him for this, that there aren't too many of the type of people he's usually appealing to in this province. And he understands there has been some rather dramatic growth in small business in this province in the last number of years. Of course it suddenly occurred to him that, by gosh, the small businessmen have a very strong political influence.

So he introduces The Small Business Act. But I suggest they are not that naive to be taken in by that rhetoric at this time. When I read the bill I looked at it and thought, well, from my past experience the hon. member doesn't usually have too many original ideas, so he obviously picked up the bill from some other province. Obvious ly he must have gotten it from, say, Saskatchewan, or perhaps the former socialist government in British Columbia had introduced such a bill, or perhaps the former NDP government in Manitoba had brought in such a bill.

I could be corrected, but after some rather thorough research we found none of the other NDP governments that have ever existed in this country introduced such a bill. So I suppose we can indicate that the member is rather unique, and perhaps he did create the idea himself. But then I went a little further, Mr. Speaker, and it was discovered that an almost identical bill was introduced in the Ontario Legislature as a private member's bill by a Liberal MLA.

Now we've of course seen all sorts of examples of the alliance between the Social Credit Party and the NDP in this province, but now they've extended their alliance to include the Liberal. [interjections] Perhaps there have been some conversations between the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview and the leader of the Liberal Party in this province, who we see lurking about the galleries from time to time. That's good, because I'm sure he can use the extra input. Mr.

Speaker, I would like to suggest that the best favor we can do for small business in this province is to continue the approach we have taken for the last number of years; that is, to develop and encourage an increased intensity in our free-enterprise economy, because all businesses benefit. The opportunities are there, not only for big business but for small busi ness. The number and size of small businesses is increasing at a rapid rate.

Again, speaking from my own experience and the experience my family has in running a small business, I think that rather than introducing bills which involve more interference in the private-enterprise economy, we should have even fewer bills like this. I would suggest that if the hon. member wants to do something constructive, he might go back through the statutes of Alberta and consider which of those we might repeal to assist small business. As an example of what is happening in this prov ince, I was aware there were some increases, but I wasn't aware of the rather staggering increases.

As an example, the statistics are, with regard to the number of Alberta companies incorporated in this province — and of course that's a pretty good indica tor as to the number of small businesses that are starting. In 1970, 3,172 Alberta companies were incorporated. In 1977, 13,575 new companies were incorporated. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that's the kind of record that really makes a mockery of an attempt by the NDP to bring in a bill like this. I suppose they're trying to encourage an alliance with the chamber of commerce or something, I'm not sure. But I don't think it'll work.

In that same year, 1977, 885 extraprovincial com panies were registered in this province. They're com ing from provinces like British Columbia, Saskatche wan, and Manitoba. That's what's happening. Com pare that, Mr. Speaker, to what happened in Manito ba in 1977. Now the latter part of that year they were replaced by a free-enterprise government. Although conceding that the population of Manitoba is only about half of Alberta's in that year, there were only 2,675 incorporations compared to our 13,575. There were only 133 extraprovincial registrations in Mani toba in 1976; in Alberta there were 885. Mr.

Speaker, in concluding my comments on the bill, I reaffirm my own position, and I believe the position of every free-enterprise member of the As sembly, that we do everything reasonable to encourage small business. But they don't want sub sidies or special considerations; they just want a fair shake at it. This bill does not do that. It doesn't purport to do it, and although I agree with some of the comments made by the hon. member during his de bate, he wasn't talking about the bill at all. I would suggest he read his own bill. Perhaps his researcher put it together and he forgot to read it.

That's all I have to say, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: May the hon. Member for Spirit River- Fairview revert to introduction of special guests? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS (reversion) MR. NOTLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now that I have the hon. members sufficiently exercised that we can have a good debate, I'd like to introduce four people in the public gallery. They are not from the small-business sector, but they are actively involved in the farm sector. Jean Lehy is the women's presi dent of the National Farmers Union of Canada.

I wonder if she would stand and be recognized by the members of the House. Doris Jeanotte is the regional director of the National Farmers Union in the Peace River block of British Columbia. They are accom panied by Joe Grendys and Harry Rienders.

874 ALBERTA HANSARD April 27, 1978 head: PUBLIC BILLS AND ORDERS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Second Reading) Bill 214 The Small Business Act (continued) MR. DIACHUK: Mr. Speaker, I thought for a minute we weren't going to continue with the bill when you recognized the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview, but I want to take my few licks at this legislation. Being a small businessman, I want to say that I share with many businessmen in this province that the less legislation, the better off small business is.

You can kill small business with too much kindness, particu larly with government legislation. The target, as the mover indicated, is to have some 40 per cent of government contracts to small busi nesses. I can see the same member rising and ques tioning a minister of our government why the portfo lio responsible for allocating and looking after the tendering has risen maybe by 100 per cent in staff. You know, this would be fine. Some of these approaches the mover has made would definitely pro vide employment, because we would have to have that many more civil servants to administer this.

Maybe it is the objective of the Member for Spirit River-Fairview to create more positions for civil serv ants, but I really hope it isn't. The suggestion to establish a select committee to review government obligation to small business would be a good exercise. However, our government has had several reports placed here.

The example used by the Member for Edmonton Ottewell of the growth of small businesses in this province indicates that small businesses are doing well and are thriving under the Conservative government It is interesting to listen to the mover, as reflected with no experience in business, again prepared to tap the heritage savings trust fund to provide some imag ination for the small-business community. I can't really believe, and I'm not really shocked, but I can expect that from the NDP member.

However, what troubles me is how differently a member of the NDP can speak in this province when some of his col leagues in the neighboring province of British Colum bia, when in government, did just the opposite. They took all the advertising, all the publicity the govern ment of British Columbia was providing, and farmed it out to a giant corporate magnate from the province of Ontario who set up an office in Vancouver and took over this business. Now what happened there? The same philosophy, the same party . . . They practically took him from Wall Street.

The man was doing so well there that they thought they'd take his advice. I'm not against taking somebody from Ontario and helping out British Columbia. MR. NOTLEY: He was from Montreal. MR. DIACHUK: Was he from Montreal? Well, even so much farther. Possibly that's what started the separatist movement, by taking the first businessman from Montreal to British Columbia by the then Barrett government.

It's interesting also that back in '71 — I reflect on the comments made by a returning officer for one of the Edmonton constituencies where a candidate for an aldermanic election here who supports the same philosophy as the mover of the bill, the Member for Spirit River-Fairview, kept admitting that he forgot to put the label of the printer on his publicity. And off the cuff the admission was: well, I went to a small private printer because I got it cheaper; when I go to the union shop it costs me twice as much. Again, this is a member of the NDP who ran for the aldermanic position in Edmonton.

It's interesting how differently these people of the same philosophy, the same party, can do business in these provinces. We would really be way out if we tried to adopt this bill and force it on the business community. I like the example the hon. member used of Mr. Bulloch, but you know, he has a well-paid position, he is doing well for himself, and he's honestly not a small busi nessman; he's now an entrepreneur for an organiza tion that has quite a voice, I admit. I read his publica tion and enjoy it. I don't necessarily agree with all his approaches and recommendations on small business in this nation.

But to hope that small business would endorse this — I haven't had any correspondence from any constituents or businessmen in my constit uency to support this small business act. I hope they don't, because it would shock me more than what I've heard here today. But I doubt that I would be overwhelmed, as we do get correspondence on some of the legislation we receive. In closing, I would like to support the Member for Edmonton Ottewell in some of his references and his eloquent assessment, as a member trained in law, that this legislation is just not worth supporting. That is the way I intend to look at it. Mr.

Speaker, as a small businessman in this province I don't need any more legislation. Neither will I be supporting this bill. I'm sure I'm not surprising the Member for Spirit River-Fairview with the fact that I don't intend to support it. Thank you very much. DR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe this bill is necessary, on the grounds that in Alberta the government is already doing much to stimulate the activity of small business. I believe the Alberta gov ernment is providing a significant support program for small business.

As well, the statistics are readily available, and the hon. member who introduced this bill, the NDP member, has those statistics; he has a researcher and those statistics have undoubtedly been drawn out to show him that in fact this has been going on and that small business is doing well. Mr. Speaker, small business does not want, and has not wanted, a handout. They don't expect any thing extraordinary, traditionally or historically in Al berta. The hub of our economic society has been small business. Indeed, they merit support in our society, emotionally and socially, and they get that.

I think any extraordinary support is unnecessary; this government has already provided the needed support to give them the necessary stimulus. Mr. Speaker, let me give you some examples that this has in fact happened in Alberta. We refer to the Alberta Opportunity Company, which, hon. members will remember, was established to finance small business in Alberta and to provide loans where the usual financial institutions do not provide those

April 27, 1978 ALBERTA HANSARD 875 loans. In other words, the conventional loans are not provided because there is apparently a higher risk. So if they go to banks, treasury branches, and so forth and are refused, they may come to the Alberta Oppor tunity Company. This is an example where this gov ernment has taken up the challenge, where the risk is indeed a little higher.

Yet we as a government estab lished this particular program — not only for small business but the Agricultural Development Corpora tion for farm activity in a similar vein — because we recognized that the traditional financial institutions were not filling that gap. Mr. Speaker, let me examine some of the elements regarding, for example, hotels and motels, and Alber ta Opportunity Company financing in Alberta. They may charge, for example, 1 to 2 per cent less for a new business in a small town to help it get started.

But in a larger community or for the expansion of an existing profitable operation, they keep their rates in line so as not to steal business from other motels, which is in line with the free-enterprise system. Of course they provide the ability to repay over 15 to 20 years or 10 to 15 years and, as a matter of fact, discourage the 20-year payout, because they'll be paying more interest. After many explanations the small businesses recognize this, so in fact they're providing advice regarding financing and how this should be done.

Because of the risk and because many small busi nesses sometimes need the extra stimulus to get started . . . And believe me, once they get started they take off like a bullet. This has in fact been proven in Alberta. As a matter of fact, it's been proven right across Canada, with respect to small business, because that is where the economic activity really is. This of course shows very well in other countries like Japan. But, Mr. Speaker, the Alberta Opportunity Company even gives postponements if they later encounter some difficulty with respect to their business.

I think this is very significant, because a small businessman with a family business, or where he may be in business for the first time, may indeed encounter some difficulties, and have increased confidence. That confidence is reflected by the Alberta Opportuni ty Company, which is this government, our society helping these small-business people. Mr. Speaker, there is general across-the-board advice regarding construction, engineering, insurance, and so forth. The availability of the Alberta Opportunity Company is widespread, to stimulate small business across the province.

Just to remind hon. members where these offices are located, there are branches in Grande Prairie, Edson, Edmonton, St. Paul, Calgary, Leth- bridge, and Medicine Hat, in addition of course to the head office in Ponoka. Besides all these branches, Mr. Speaker, the Alberta Opportunity Company don't just sit in their branch offices and wait for the business to come in, although maybe they should be doing that. They really are assuming the higher risk of small business, where other financial institutions have turned them down.

They go out to other communities and advertise and inform the public in an open-governmental way that this opportunity is here. Many other small communities have benefited as a result. Mr. Speaker, with respect to the advice they give to small businesses, of course they also recommend that the small business should not get a loan over 80 per cent of its development costs. Again, it's in a wise, economic frame of mind. To put it bluntly, they say, listen, you've got to take a risk anyway, but don't take a greater risk than you have to, because you may fold.

So it's cautious, but it stimulates, helps, and assists, and it advertises that. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the program has been immensely, fantastically success ful. Let's just take one month. I think hon. members of the Assembly will appreciate this: in March 1978 the AOC for the average small business has approxi mately $40,000 to $50,000 per loan. So it is truly the small business that the hon. member seems to be concerned about. Yet in the bill I see nothing that would assist them to any great degree. The activity in loans in March 1978, Mr.

Speaker, was the highest since the AOC came to reality in 1972. It's an 82 per cent increase in dollar loans over the same month in 1977, and 34 communities were involved: places like Fort Vermilion, Milk River, and Bear Canyon — I don't even know where it is; I apologize to the hon. member who represents Bear Canyon — places like Kitscoty, and I know where Kitscoty is. MR. TRYNCHY: Bear Canyon is in your constituency. DR. PAPROSKI: In my constituency, he says. I'd be really worried there, hon. member. The question immediately asked, Mr. Speaker: what kinds of loans flow out to what kinds of businesses?

One might get the impression that this is a big multinational corporation. And the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview knows very well that these are for small family businesses: general stores, millwork shops, the professional pilot who has one airplane and wants to spray crops or apply necessary pesti cides and so forth, and support for his equipment for that airplane. These are the kinds of things, Mr. Speaker, that the Alberta Opportunity Company has been doing for small business. Maybe the members of the Assembly should be reminded that there is no other such program in Canada.

We are the only province doing this. We can so quickly forget that in fact this is happening here for these businesses when we're so involved in our day to day activity. Mr. Speaker, let me examine some other activity which demonstrates the activity and success in Alber ta, and why this bill is not necessary. Small business is indeed very, very active. As of June 30, 1977, regarding industrial projects, the planned projects were 120, the value was $6.45 billion, and the jobs created were 6,584. Under construction, another 92 projects with a total value of $5.3 billion, creating 5,220 jobs.

Opened in the past six months, another 52 projects with a value of $0.524 billion — and I underline "billion dollars" — with a creation of 1,088 jobs. Mr. Speaker, again the word is "fantastic" business activity. The small business is involved directly, indirectly, and prominently, and there is no shortage of activity for the small-business community. The total number of companies incorporated to do busi ness in Alberta is now well over 75,000. The hon. member from the other side of the House alluded to that. Again, fantastic. Many of these are small busi nesses, coming in and doing a very good job.

876 ALBERTA HANSARD April 27, 1978 Regarding corporations, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who spoke after the introduction of the bill indicated that there were only 3,000 companies in corporated in 1970, but in 1977 there were over 13,000 incorporated companies. A very important statistical fact that hon. members of the Assembly would appreciate, and I think the hon. NDP member should appreciate, is the business failure rate. In Alberta in 1976 there were 204 business failures, and in 1977, 122: a decrease of 40 per cent. Mr. Speaker, that is fantastic when the economy of Cana da is where it is at this time.

When we compare this to our neighboring provinces — and I won't go through all the provinces, Mr. Speaker, because I'll tell you the statistics are shocking. First we'll take Canada: there was a 33.5 per cent increase in business failures,

whereas during that same period in Saskatchewan there was a 96 per cent increase. And what government is in power there? As I suppose this hon. member gets his infor mation from Saskatchewan, it really worries me when we're going to go in that direction. Let's take Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, where the so- called NDP government has just left. I can see why they left, because during that same period of time the statistics show there was a 60 per cent increase in business failures also. [interjections] Sixty-six, somebody said. Well, it's 60.3 to be exact. Mr.

Speaker, these statistics are valuable to the hon. members, because when we analyse such a bill we have to ask ourselves, as one of the hon. members has already indicated, do we need more regulation to hamper the small business? I suggest not. If the hon. member would travel around this province and speak to some of the small businesses, I can assure him he would get that same remark. Mr. Speaker, let me reveal some of the provincial corporate income tax rates in Alberta, relative to other provinces. Again it demonstrates that small businesses are stimulated and are relatively better off.

And we're not even speaking of the lowest natural gas rates, the fact that those same business men are men and women out on the street and families who pay the lowest personal income tax as well as the lowest corporate income tax, no gasoline tax, and no sales tax. The general rate in Alberta is 11 per cent. In Manitoba it's 15 per cent. In Sas katchewan it's 14 per cent. Another item, Mr. Speaker, regarding regional de velopment. Regional development in this province has been stimulating activity in the smaller communi ties in

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19780427
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L18 S4 19780427 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	93aa8961828627ebef681d54e2c59901bf2deb63

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