Alberta Hansard — 13 November 1980, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 19, Session 2)

19801113

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

November 13, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 1473 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Thursday, November 13, 1980 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 87 The Ground Water Development Act MR. STEWART: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill No. 87, The Ground Water Development Act. This Bill will replace The Ground Water Control Act. [Leave granted; Bill 87 read a first time] MR. CRAWFORD: Mr.

Speaker, I move that Bill No. 87, The Ground Water Development Act, be placed on the Order Paper under Government Bills and Orders. [Motion carried] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the response to Motion for a Return No. 115. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. SINDLINGER: Mr. Speaker, may I please intro duce to you, and through you to the Members of the Legislative Assembly, 45 senior citizens from the Open Door Senior Fellowship of Calgary. This society is spon sored by the First Baptist Church.

Among the 44 atten dees are four who received the 75th Anniversary gold medal and 14 who received the silver. They're looking forward to their visit to the Legislature. I ask them now to rise and receive the cordial welcome of the House. MR. STEVENS: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of introducing to you, and through you to the members of the Assembly, two grade 6 classes, their vice-principal, and their teachers, who have come here today all the way from Red Deer Lake school. There is a Red Deer Lake in the constituency of Banff-Cochrane.

By a paper drive and bottle sales, these grade 6 students raised the funds themselves to charter the vehicle to drive them. They went all out to do what so many students across Alberta do, to spend some hours to see the Legislative Assembly at this very important time in the history of Alberta and Canada, Before I ask them to rise, I'd like to share with you, Mr. Speaker, a little quote from a winning essay as a result of the recent visit I had with them. Brenda Riddell, the young lady who wrote this essay, said that after our discussion one of the students said that you, Mr.

Speaker, are a referee, and you ref the whole Legislative Assembly. She also writes that the pages are very neat. So, Mr. Speaker, may I introduce to you then and to the members, Vice-Principal Mrs. Marjorie Huk, their teachers Miss Mary Lynn Werner and Mr. Don La wrence, and all 35 students from Red Deer Lake school. Would they please rise and receive the welcome of the Assembly. MR. HIEBERT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce some special guests to you, and through you to the members of the Assembly. We have Mr. John Keates, the immediate past president of the Parents Organization of Michener Centre.

He is accompanied by executive mem bers Mrs. Dot Keates and Mr. Roy Martins. The Michener Parents Organization took the initiative to raise a quarter of a million dollars to build a summer lodge for the residents of Michener Centre. Hon. Bob Bogle, our Minister of Social Services and Community Health, has presented this organization with a matching grant of $250,000. Hopefully this will serve as a model for others to participate in such programs whereby they are not always looking for 100 per cent participation by government, but rather that the citizens become involved.

I would like them to rise in the members gallery and receive the cordial welcome of this Assembly. head: MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Department of Education MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the government of Alberta has now developed a policy for the evaluation of student achievement in Alberta. I stress, though, that this is only the first phase of a policy which will eventually include an evaluation of teachers, school systems, and programs. The policy has six major components, each of which I will deal with in turn.

The high school diploma: a high school diploma will continue to be awarded to students who qualify, as at present. Comprehensive examinations: a system of provincially set and marked comprehensive examinations will be in troduced in the 1982-83 school year. These tests will re flect the 'normal' or 'normed' expectations about the nature and extent of information, concepts, and skills that a well motivated and achieving student should pos sess upon completion of basic education; for example, grade 12. These will not be minimal competency ex aminations.

It is proposed that there be four such ex aminations, one each in literacy, history and the social sciences, computation skills, and the physical and biolog ical sciences. Writing of the comprehensive examinations will be at the option of the students, or of adults. Comprehensive examinations will be administered twice in a school year; that is, in each semester. The comprehensive education certificate: effective in the 1982-83 school year, a comprehensive education cer tificate will be awarded to students who achieve a satis factory score in the comprehensive examinations.

Achievement of excellence on the examinations may be noted on the certificate. In addition, students will receive a statement of standing. In this regard, employers and postsecondary learning institutions will be able to use any combination of the high school transcripts, the high school diploma, the statement of standing on the comprehensive education

1474 ALBERTA HANSARD November 13, 1980 certificate, and the comprehensive education certificate itself, for evaluation, hiring, and admission purposes. Achievement tests: in the 1981-82 school year, a system of achievement tests will be introduced. This system will monitor student achievement by means of a sampling procedure that is significant at both the local school board and the provincial levels, in grades 3, 6, 9, and 12, in language arts — both English and French — social studies, mathematics, and the sciences. Selected achieve ment tests in the subjects just mentioned will be adminis tered annually.

These tests are intended to monitor the effectiveness of the curriculum relative to the standards and quality of student achievement. Diagnostic testing: Alberta Education, in conjunction with other interested agencies, such as school boards and universities, will proceed to acquire or develop appropri ate diagnostic tests for use by local jurisdictions and teachers. As a matter of policy, we intend to encourage appropriate diagnostic testing for every student as soon as is feasible after they enter the system and at appropri ate intervals or occasions thereafter.

These tests are in tended to improve the educational opportunity for every child by early, systematic identification of problems or strengths that might affect learning. Administration: a student evaluation branch will be established in Alberta Education which will develop, administer, and score the achievement tests, appeal ex aminations, and comprehensive examinations. Certain other questions may be of interest, Mr. Speak er. As alluded to earlier, the present system of appeal examinations in courses commonly required for entry to postsecondary institutions will be continued.

The student evaluation branch will develop and maintain extensive test material for the use of the teachers of this province. The present system of giving school boards access to departmental examinations for local purposes will be dis continued in 1982-83 when the use of comprehensives comes into effect. The present system of awarding the adult equivalency diploma will be retained. That, Mr. Speaker, completes the policy of the gov ernment of Alberta relative to the evaluation of student achievement. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Oil Sands Projects MR. R. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to direct the first question to the Minister of Energy and Natural Re sources. It flows from the recent decision by the Alsands consortium to cut off its expected expenditure of $200 million on Alberta's third oil sands plant. Is the minister in a position to indicate if the announced stoppage of expenditure reflects an intention by Alsands to shelve the whole project, or is it in fact simply a decision to stop work now but not to shelve the whole project? MR. LEITCH: Mr.

Speaker, I haven't had a discussion with Alsands as to their future intention or the decision the question of the Leader of the Opposition refers to. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. Has the minister had discussions with Alsands management to ascertain how long they can keep the project in somewhat of a hold position before a decision would have to be made in fact to shelve the whole project? How long can they stay in a hold position? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, over the past year and a half I've had a number of discussions with Alsands management regarding that question.

I don't know that a firm or fixed date has ever been expressed to me, al though I have been aware for some time that a point would come where the Alsands consortium would have to stop spending money and postpone, delay, or abandon the project if there weren't approval for it to proceed. That, of course, would require approval from the gov ernment of Alberta and an acceptable pricing commit ment from the Ottawa government.

As the Leader of the Opposition will be aware, the Alsands consortium has said the pricing proposal in the October 28 energy pro gram and budget with respect to new oil sands plants was not acceptable. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might pose a supplementary question to the minister. In the course of discussions between the minister and the Alsands consor tium, has the minister asked Alsands how long they could keep the project on hold, and how long is that? Certainly that must have been part of the discussions that have been held. MR. LEITCH: Mr.

Speaker, I thought I had responded to that in answering the last question. I said we'd had discussions about the timing. No fixed time, no expres sion of view as to how long it could be done was ever given to me in definitive terms. Our discussions were always: we are spending a good deal of money; we cannot go on spending it in the expectation or hope that ulti mately approvals will be given. But no fixed time had been given to me as to when a decision would have to be made by the Alsands group as to whether to continue to spend the money in anticipation of getting approvals. MR. R. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, a further question to the minister. Has the minister asked the Alsands consortium how long they can continue in a holding position before they have to shelve the whole project? I can appreciate that Alsands may not have indicated that to the minister, but certainly the minister must have inquired of Alsands, how long can you continue in this holding position? Have we not asked that question of them? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, yes. I thought that was implicit in the answer to the last two questions.

The response was: there was no fixed date; we can't be precise ly sure, but there comes a time when we'll have to stop spending money in anticipation. But no fixed time was ever established. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. The minister indicated that Alsands could not proceed because of the federal government's pricing re the $38. Was that refusal made by Alsands directly, or has that been a refusal of the Alberta government to allow Al sands to proceed on that particular basis if they could? MR. LEITCH: I gather, Mr.

Speaker, that the hon. member is really asking what our policy is with respect to approvals of Alsands and Esso's Cold Lake project. I thought that was well understood, because for a long time now I believe it's been well known that our policy is that approval of those two projects was part of a satisfactory energy agreement, and we've not reached a satisfactory energy agreement.

November 13, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 1475 MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister so we have it clearly understood. Have the Alsands people told the minister that the $38 plus the inflation factor in the federal budget will not allow them to go ahead on the project? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, that's Alsands' public position. MR. R. CLARK: But they haven't told the minister that; that's simply what the minister has read in the paper? MR. LEITCH: Mr.

Speaker, I am not at all satisfied that I should be giving in the Assembly particulars of conver sations we've had with people who are discussing a varie ty of projects with the government, and feel it's only appropriate that such part of those discussions as the developers wish to make public be made public by them. As I've indicated, my understanding is that Alsands has made public the position that the pricing proposal con tained in the federal energy program is not sufficient to enable the project to go ahead. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, just one further supple mentary question to the minister.

We clearly want to understand who is holding this project up. Is it Alsands or the Alberta government? AN HON. MEMBER: Pierre Trudeau. The federal government. MR. R. CLARK: The question to the minister is: is it the Alberta government or Alsands who is saying that $38 plus the inflation factor is not enough? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, we'll let the hon. Leader of the Opposition draw his own conclusions. I'll try to give him the facts. As I understand it, Alsands has said they could not proceed with the price proposed in the energy program on October 28.

Secondly — and this is really a repetition of the answer to the hon. Member for Little Bow — it is our position and has been our policy for some time, that we would not approve either the Alsands project or the Esso Cold Lake project unless we had a satisfactory energy package agreement with the federal government, and we do not have such an agreement. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister. Have there been discussions with the Alsands people concerning the practicality of the project?

If $38 a barrel is not sufficient to make the thing work, when we had an ERCB report on the Cold Lake project saying $32 a barrel in May would make it work, my question is: have there been any specific discussions? Is the minister in a position to advise the House whether we have had any discussions leading to the cost of produc tion or the price which would be necessary to make the Alsands project viable? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the hon. member has asked that question because he asked a similar question a few days back.

When reviewing the question in Hansard, I noticed he referred to a 15 per cent guaranteed rate of return. I simply wanted to remind the hon. member that there is no guaranteed rate of return in respect of either of the proposed oil sands projects. With respect to discussions about what was needed for the projects to proceed, it has always been our position — and we negotiated with both Alsands and Esso — that those projects should attract the world price.

The royalty arrangements that we have been discussing with them have been based, from our point of view, on the premise that the projects would attract the world price, which was part of the energy package agreement we had concluded with Mr. Clark's administration. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question to the hon. minister. The question is not what the objective is. I can appreciate that. The question is whether there has been any specific discussion between this government and the Alsands consortium concerning whether $38 a barrel is a sufficient price to make the project viable.

The minister has indicated in the House that public statements have been made by the company. The House needs to be assured whether there have been formal discussions between this government and the Alsands consortium on whether $38 is or is not an adequate price and whether there is evidence to back that up. MR. LEITCH: Well, Mr. Speaker, certainly there have been discussions on that question. I don't know how the hon. member could have listened to the questions and answers without appreciating that.

I had said earlier that in my judgment, with those kinds of discussions, the developer's position ought to be made public by them and not by me. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. In view of the ERCB report of a few months ago concern ing $32 a barrel, at what point will the government advise this Assembly, and through this Assembly the people of Alberta, what the price range is and what the figures are? At this stage no information has been made available either by the developers or the government.

Is there going to be a point in time when this information will be made available to the people of Alberta? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, certainly that information would be made available. But in my judgment I should not be making discussions of that kind of information public now, when we have not yet completed an agree ment with either Alsands or Esso with respect to Cold Lake. We have been negotiating, carrying on discussions about royalty arrangements, but we have not yet com pleted them.

Certainly it would be a gross negotiating error on my part to say publicly what I thought would be the terms on which they might proceed. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question to the hon. minister. The minister has indicated that it would be inappropriate to make statements while negotiations are taking place. Does the government's po sition that the projects are in abeyance mean that within that term "in abeyance" negotiations are still active on the two projects as far as this government is concerned? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, negotiations have been going on.

We have been in the process of preparing agreements. I do not expect those to continue at the moment because, as has been announced earlier by the hon. Premier, if we were able to reach an energy agree ment with the Ottawa government, then I would expect those negotiations to resume. But I don't see them con tinuing under the present state of the matter.

1476 ALBERTA HANSARD November 13, 1980 MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, just to confirm what I believe would be the answer. The tar sands plants will be held in abeyance, and no matter what price is offered by Ottawa — let's say they suggest another price — under the present policy, the Alberta government wouldn't give approval for those plans to go ahead unless a total energy package is agreed upon by Alberta and Ottawa. MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, that is correct.

Members of the Assembly will recall that we proposed this energy package, which contained an undertaking to proceed with not only these two oil sands projects but others, by using our best efforts to put a permanent work force in place. We did those things in consideration of getting a fair return for our rapidly depleting conventional oil. In exchange we had also asked that there be no punitive taxation on the industry within Alberta. We asked for that to ensure there would not be federal taxation pro posals that would destroy jobs that Albertans are now working at.

In the proposed energy program and budget we find taxation that is going to eliminate jobs at which Alber tans are now working. Those were the reasons for our proposing the changes that we had, royalty reduced from that applicable to the Syncrude plant. It was part of a package. That is the reason for our taking that position in the first place and for our continuing to maintain that position. Apprenticeship Programs MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the second question really to the Minister responsible for Personnel Administration and the Minister of Advanced Education and Manpower.

It deals with the waiting times of almost two years for apprenticeship plumbers both at SAIT in Calgary and NAIT here in Edmonton. My initial question is to the Minister responsible for Personnel Administration. What is the policy of this government with regard to the hiring of apprenticeship people? I ask the question in light of the situation at SAIT in Calgary and the difficulty the government is having in getting plumbers to teach courses, especially fourth year courses at SAIT. MR. STEVENS: Mr. Speaker, I believe my colleague the Minister of Advanced Education and Manpower will want to supplement my answer.

The hiring practices at SAIT, NAIT, and other educational institutes follow the government's policy of hiring people who are suitably qualified for those positions within the salary grid set out for the responsibilities required of that position. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to whichever of the ministers would care to attempt to explain the matter.

Would the Minister responsible for Personnel Administration explain to the Assembly how it is, then, the case being as the minister just outlined, that SAIT instructors teaching fourth-year plumbing can leave teaching that program, virtually walk across the hall in the institution, become part of the maintenance part of that institution, and get $6,000 a year more, because certainly in the private sector we don't pay maintenance people $6,000 more than we do fourth-year plumbers? MR. STEVENS: Mr. Speaker, the questions asked by the hon.

Leader of the Opposition deal with detail involving a scarcity or an oversupply of particular persons who are qualified or eligible for employment. There may be times when some people will be hired at a second or third level because of the shortage of supply, as one would do in dealing with the clerks or any other classification level. People are hired on the basis of their background, ex perience, and need for the position. MR. R. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, is the minister trying to make us believe that we're paying people $6,000 more for maintenance work than instructing fourth-year plumbers because it's more difficult to get maintenance people than it is instructors to teach fourth-year plumbers? We have 170 students at SAIT. My question . . . MR. SPEAKER: I know the hon. leader hasn't ex hausted the time limit for debate, but perhaps the ques tion has been adequately put. MR. R. CLARK: We have the same kind of answer. MR. STEVENS: I am having difficulty understanding the question. Perhaps the member would like to rephrase it.

I really do not understand the direction you are heading. If you are saying that some people are in . . . MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. minister please use the ordinary parliamentary form. MR. STEVENS: Mr. Speaker, the member is suggesting that some people are paid more than others for carrying out certain duties. That is true. Throughout the civil service there will be different pay schedules based on that person's experience, the need for that job, and the re sponsibilities of that job. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Advanced Education and Manpower. Perhaps he can shed some light on the matter.

Can the minister explain to the Assembly why last year we had over 100 fourth- year apprentice plumbers who weren't able to get into SAIT and that this year the list now extends to 175 students waiting to get their fourth-year apprenticeship finished so they can be journeyman plumbers? What's the holdup? MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer is self-evident. We have had difficulty in attracting sufficient instructors to complete the courses. [interjections] Well, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could be permitted to conclude the answer.

It is also evident, and all hon. members are aware, that we have announced a major program to extend apprenticeship training into the col leges system throughout southern Alberta particularly, through Red Deer College, Medicine Hat College, and Lethbridge college. It is hoped that by doing that we will be able to free up some of the space now taken by various apprenticeship programs at both SAIT and NAIT. Hon. members are also aware that a proposal to build a new technical trades institute in northern Alberta has been announced.

It is true that we are experiencing some delays, but we are making a very real effort to accommo date that training not just in those two major institutions but elsewhere in the province. Insofar as the question of the level of salaries paid to instructional personnel within SAIT, NAIT, and other

November 13, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 1477 provincially administered institutions, all hon. members are aware that those questions are not dealt with by my department but by the Minister responsible for Personnel Administration and his department. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister. Is it a matter of space at NAIT and SAIT, especially that we don't have the classroom facili ties at SAIT, or isn't it, Mr. Minister, a question of not being able to attract the staff? MR. HORSMAN: Mr.

Speaker, in some instances in various trades it relates to the availability of both space and suitable instructional personnel. I would bring to the attention of hon. members that the number of apprentices in Alberta has increased dramatically. Over the past five years, that number has increased from approximately 10,000 to something approaching 24,000 this year. That type of explosive growth has to be accommodated as best we can.

I think we have done a remarkable job in accommodating that type of growth in that limited period, to the point where we in Alberta, with 8 per cent of the population, have 25 per cent of the registered apprentices in all of Canada. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the minister's hearty defense of an indefensible position. The supplementary question to the minister and the Minister responsible for Personnel Administration is simply this: if we can't pay enough to people to attract instructors to SAIT for fourth-year plumbing, when, Mr.

Minister, in your own letter to me some time ago you said we had the MR. SPEAKER: Order please. If the hon. leader wishes to ask a question, would he come directly to the question. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, the question is: why do the institutions that have their own boards of governors — Medicine Hat and Red Deer, if this is where the apprenticeship programs are going to be — appear to be able to attract people to fill these positions when SAIT can't? MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that question.

It is certainly true that there is more diffi culty in the larger centres in attracting qualified instruc tional personnel. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the accommodation of apprentices in Alberta, throughout the entire system, has been a remarkable success story. Cer tainly from time to time there may be problems with regard to certain trades in certain institutions. As I have indicated in this House on many occasions, Mr. Speaker, we are very carefully examining whether SAIT and NAIT would be better governed under boards of governors rather than provincially administered.

I have indicated that that matter is under careful review at present. At the same time, while these matters of trades instructors and other personnel are under active negotia tion with the Minister responsible for Personnel Adminis tration, it is certainly inadvisable for this department to become involved in any activity which might be inter preted in any way as unfair labor practices. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, one last supplementary question to the minister. The question of self-governance at SAIT has been under review by this government for seven years.

How much longer will it take until a decision is arrived at? MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I have an swered that question. If the hon. member will refer to Hansard of October 28, he will see that those same questions were placed before the Assembly. I can only give the same answers at this time. Obviously when matters of this consequence, relating to the negotiation under way between the employer and employees . . . The hon.

Leader of the Opposition may smile, but he would be the first person in this Assembly to rise and accuse my department of having been engaged in unfair labor practices if we made a move at this time which would indicate that a significant number of em ployees under the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees might be removed from that union. Along with the Member for Spirit River-Fairview, he would be the first to make such accusations. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. This would be the first time in history that an offer of higher wages would be considered unfair labor practices.

To the Minister responsible for Personnel Administra tion. What consideration is given by his department to competitive wages in the private sector when negotiations are carried on by the Public Service Commission? MR. STEVENS: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations and the process of meeting at the bargaining table involve prepa ration by both parties, the government of Alberta and the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, that considers all the objectives of each.

One objective our government has considered in negotiations includes not only wage guide lines that have been followed in various ways throughout the negotiation process but also market conditions. When we looked into the matter of teachers and instructors at these institutions, we compare teachers and instructors to other teachers and other instructors. We do not compare teachers to trades personnel. We compare them in the like area. MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, may I supplement the answer to this extent. I don't think I should permit to go unanswered the insinuation contained in the remarks by the hon.

Member for Spirit River-Fairview. The subject that would be complained about in terms of unfair labor practices has nothing to do with the level of wages. That does not come from my department. But the subject of whether to move that institution into board-governed sta tus, thereby possibly removing those members from the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, would certainly be so construed. [interjection] The hon. member may shout all he wants. The facts are there. He would be the first — or I don't know who would be the first . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

With great respect, the hon. minister has gone beyond the area of fact and is now attempting to predict what is going to be done next by the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview. Nursing Homes DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood, the chairper son of the Health Facilities Review Committee. Can the hon. member indicate if in the course of the chairperson's

1478 ALBERTA HANSARD November 13, 1980 tours of health facilities, the question of sedation of senior citizens in our senior citizens' homes was brought to the attention of the hon. chairperson? MRS. CHICHAK: Mr. Speaker, that is a good question from the hon. member of the opposition party, because that matter has had the attention of the members of the committee, not necessarily as a result of complaints placed before the committee but simply of observation.

The matter of sedation certainly has to do with the direc tion of the medical officers or doctors responsible for the medical care of the patients in these particular facilities. So I think the committee has certainly been very obser vant with respect to that particular matter. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. member. Is the member in a position to indicate how extensive the practice of sedation and oversedation of people in nursing homes is? MRS. CHICHAK: Mr.

Speaker, as I indicated in my response to the first question, sedation and medications are under the instructions and observations of the medi cal practitioners. Whether overmedication or overseda tion exists is very difficult to determine in any particular instance. However, I must indicate that the committee has requested the College of Physicians and Surgeons perhaps to inquire of their membership on the regularity with which medication and the level of medication needs are reviewed with respect to citizens in the health care facilities. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the hon. member.

Can the hon. chairperson indicate what recom mendations or monitoring is going on now to make sure that if this practice is continuing, it will be discontinued? What recommendations or monitoring does the hon. member have to make sure this doesn't happen further? MRS. CHICHAK: Mr. Speaker, I'm not clear on wheth er the hon. Member for Clover Bar has concluded that there is in fact a violation of the appropriate procedures. I hope he has not necessarily construed that from my answer.

The committee as such has been following very closely the practices of medication distribution and the direction of the medical profession in making regular examinations with respect to their patients, as to whether the level that had been prescribed at any point in time is still needed, needs to be increased or decreased, or wheth er there needs to be a change. As they have visited the facilities, I think members of the committee are forever vigilant and continuously draw the attention of the ad ministration of these facilities to ensure that there is no violation.

Perhaps to answer the hon. member more clearly as to whether there is an active program of investigation — if that is the appropriate word for what the hon. member is trying to allude to. I'm not sure investigation is the appropriate word, Mr. Speaker, because the fact that the committee is constantly observing to ensure that there isn't a violation might be construed by the hon. member as an investigation. It is an observation to see that the regulations are followed and that the medical profession examines at regular invervalsthe prescriptions and treat ment that are given.

Perhaps there is some concern that some of the doctors are not making their examinations as regularly as they might. That matter has been brought to the attention of the College of Physicians and Surgeons. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. member. Can the hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood indicate if, in the course of the member's duties to tour and review these facilities, there was any break down in the comparison between private and public nurs ing homes? Can the member indicate if there's any indica tion that there is more of a problem in one type of home than another? MRS.

CHICHAK: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it's a detail I would need to check on to be absolutely accurate. From our observations, I think the problems — if they exist, or as they come up or are observed — vary and are of a short term. At times there will be observations in private nursing homes where attention needs to be drawn to certain aspects of the care being provided. At other times perhaps we will find some problems in the publicly oper ated institutions. So it varies from one to the other.

To say definitely that there are constantly more problems in privately operated institutions — I would have to check to be sure I give an accurate response. MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary on this topic by the hon. Member for Clover Bar. DR. BUCK: For clarification, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member. Can the member indicate to the Assembly if, in this so-called observation, the committee was just walking through the institutions and observing the people, or was the hon. member actually looking at the records of what medication was used on these people? MRS. CHICHAK: Mr.

Speaker, the procedure the committee follows in its visitation of the various facilities is: committee members speak with the administration, administrators, staff, residents in the facility, relatives or other visitors, and observe the schedules in place for the various services provided. When it's food, we look at the guidelines and menus that are prepared on a rotating basis and their adequacy for nutrition. We look at the type of procedures that are followed with respect to dispensing medications.

The committee is not permitted to examine the private records of patients or guests in the facility, because those are of a private and confidential nature. In other words, the legislation neither allows us the privilege or the opportunity, nor do we follow a practice of looking at individuals' confidential records. But we will examine the procedures in place, whether the personnel, the staff on hand have the competence and training to carry out the function that they are recognized or hired, and the role they play in the facility.

We go to the extent that our legislation allows: If there is any question with respect to whether any particular record or administration of medi cation or service may be inappropriate and requires an examination of a confidential record, the committee will request the minister, through his office, to carry out that further investigation. DR. C. ANDERSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps we could deal with it briefly. There are still three members who wish to ask their first question, and we're running out of time. DR. C. ANDERSON: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary to the Member for Edmonton Norwood. I wonder if the member could tell us whether there are any scientific

November 13, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 1479 studies or data to support the view being presented here that there is a problem with overmedication or overseda- tion of patients in nursing homes. MR. SPEAKER: With great respect, the hon. member seems to be asking the hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood concerning some medical research, which per haps might be done otherwise. Energy Negotiations MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. I understand the minister has had a conversation or a meeting with the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, Mr. Lalonde.

I wonder if the minister could elaborate on that meeting or conversation at this point in time. [interjec tion] Within the last day or two. MR. NOTLEY: Just a little

summary. MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, there has been no meeting. As I heard the question, it involved whether there was a meeting. As a matter of fact, there have been a couple of telephone conversations recently between me and Mr. Lalonde. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, could the hon. minis ter indicate whether an agenda for further meetings has been established, with regard to discussion on the energy question between Alberta and Ottawa? If so, could the minister elaborate on that agenda? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I've agreed with Mr.

La londe that there should be meetings between officials of the Department of Energy and Natural Resources and federal officials with respect to getting clarification and additional information relating to the energy program and the budget. But there have been no arrangements regarding any meetings by officials or anyone else, with respect to negotiations. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion to the minister. Was there any discussion with regard to a target date by which some type of agreement could be reached with Ottawa?

Has Alberta a target date in mind, or has Ottawa suggested a target date for some of the finalization of discussions between Alberta and Otta wa, particularly with maybe an involvement of ministers of energy or first ministers? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, there is no target date. Perhaps the series of questions the hon. Member for Little Bow is asking calls for me to make some comments about my view, approach, or attitude toward further negotiations. In order to do that, I would need to review briefly my assessment of what has gone on in the way of negotiations with the present federal administration. Mr.

Speaker, I have no doubt that some time ago the Ottawa government reached the decision as to their bottom-line position with respect to an energy package. I think we saw that bottom-line position in the budget and the energy program on October 28. I think it is equally clear that when they reached the decision that that was going to be their bottom line, they were also totally convinced there would be no way Alberta would agree to that and therefore no way they could reach an agreement with Alberta. But they then had a problem, Mr. Speaker.

They had to do something between the time they reached that deci sion and the time they could put a budget and an energy program in place. So the something they did was

schedule a series of meetings and talk about the negotiating, talk about the number of offers they were making, and talk about walking the last mile. Members will recall my review of that matter of a Monday when we were debat ing Resolution 21. They could in no sense be negotia tions; they were window dressing, public relations operations. Now we had to go through them, because it was not until they concluded that we could be sure that that was the position. I simply want to add one other fact, Mr.

Speaker: that in an effort to have meaningful negotia tions, we made a substantially restructured offer to the federal government on July 25, which was not accepted. In light of that history, Mr. Speaker, my position with respect to the negotiations simply is this: there is no point in having additional meetings, described as negotiating meetings, until we have received information from the federal government that they are prepared to make a significant movement from their budgetary and energy program positions announced on October 28.

I think it [inaudible] to hold such meetings which create great expectations in the public if you're convinced they're going to be a repeat of what I regard as public relations meetings that went on between the time of the present administration's taking office and the budget of October 28. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. In the earlier answer, I believe the minister indicated that officials would again initiate some type of discussion from the conversation of the hon. federal minister and the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources.

What directive has been given then to those officials, if the federal government hasn't placed any position before us to examine? If negotiations are not going to bring about any type of new agreement, why have our officials in Alberta been directed to speak to federal officials at this time? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, it's not a matter of initiating new discussions. Those discussions have been going on.

It's a matter of their continuing and of officials from the Department of Energy and Natural Resources here get ting additional information from officials in Ottawa so we thoroughly understand the intentions with respect to the elements of the energy program and budget. There were a great number of gaps as to how these things might be implemented. We need to get that information. We've been doing that since October 28, but it will be continu ing. That is the kind of meeting that has been held and I anticipate will continue to be held between officials from Alberta and the federal government. MR.

SPEAKER: We have just about exhausted the time for the question period, but I have already recognized the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview. If the Assembly agrees, perhaps we might have time for one short ques tion and one short answer. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, since my questions deal with the Blue Quill shopping centre, they may perhaps take a little longer than one short question. Perhaps I could be permitted to put a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Energy and Natural

1480 ALBERTA HANSARD November 13, 1980 Resources. As I understand it, we are now having meet ings of officials. That has gone on since October 28. In view of the Prime Minister's statement in his news release that the federal government is prepared to discuss items in the budget, at what point is the government of Alberta prepared then to enter into discussions? Surely we're not going to wait until we have the federal government pub licly backing down and saying, no, we're going to throw out our budget in total. At some point discussions have to commence.

At what point is that going to take place as far as this government is concerned? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, if I didn't cover that ques tion adequately in my answer to the hon. Member for Little Bow, I'll repeat it. In my view, before we can begin further negotiating sessions, there needs to be an indica tion from the federal government that they're prepared to make significant alterations in the energy program. I wouldn't anticipate details of that, simply anticipate an indication that they were sincere and ready to make some appreciable or significant changes in the energy program and budget.

Once I was satisfied of that, then I think discussion should start at the official level. MR. SPEAKER: I regret that there were two members we didn't reach. I suppose that hon. members' tolerance for a list of supplementaries depends on how soon they're reached in the question period. ORDERS OF THE DAY head: MOTIONS FOR RETURNS MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, I move that motions for returns 127, 130, 133, and 134 stand and retain their place. [Motion carried] 132. Mr.

Notley moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing a statement by the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources of the total monetary value, from January 1, 1975, to date, of all cash grants, tax rebates, tax credits, exemptions, royalty deductions, and other incentives instituted under the Alberta petro leum exploration plan of December 1974, said statement to be given by year and by item. MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I wish to recommend to the Assembly that this motion be rejected, though it may be that after I've made my comments the hon.

Member for Spirit River-Fairview might consider withdrawing it and restructuring it. There are several reasons why I suggest that it be rejected. First, it asks for an assessment, and there is no such assessment in place. So the request is not for a document or information now in existence. I appre ciate, Mr. Speaker, that you would not have been aware of that when the motion reached the Order Paper, but the fact is that there is no such document, assessment, or information in place at the moment. I would think that in itself is justification for rejecting a motion for a return. I might go on to add, Mr.

Speaker, that the motion calls for cash grants, an itemization or addition of the grants under ALPEP. There are no cash grants under that program. It asks for tax rebates and credits under that program. There are tax credits and rebates under the program, but the information with respect to those is not with the Department of Energy and Natural Resources. It's with the Department of Treasury. I wouldn't want to be taken as binding my hon. colleague the Provincial Treasurer, but I suspect if the motion were in that form, it would be found acceptable.

With respect to the exemptions asked for, I presume that relates to oil and gas royalty holidays under the drilling incentive plan, but again I'm not sure. With respect to royalty deductions, I don't know what that means. It may have reference to the adjustments in the oil and gas royalty rates, which are made as a result of changes in the select price for oil and lowering of the marginal royalty rate on natural gas. Mr. Speaker, I simply say to the hon.

Member for Spirit River-Fairview that it is a mind-boggling task if you ask us to go back and calculate what royalty would have been payable in respect of production from all the wells if we hadn't made that change. The hon. member will know that royalty payments are both production- and price-sensitive. There is a reference to other incen tives, and I assume that refers to the drilling incentive plan. I'd simply advise the hon. member that that is not part of ALPEP. That plan was put in place before ALPEP came into being, although it was adjusted under ALPEP.

With respect to the royalty exemptions, if that is the royalty holiday under the plan, Mr. Speaker, again that would call on the minister to reach a judgment as to what royalties might have been payable in the absence of such a plan. Again it's my submission that it would be inap propriate for the Assembly to order ministers to make judgments. Summing up, Mr. Speaker, there's no such document in place as is asked for; the information requested is not in the department referred to in the order — some of it would be in.

Treasury; and the other areas would, to some extent, call on a minister making a judgment and express ing a view or an opinion. I think any of those reasons would be ample justification for rejecting the motion. Combined, they make an irresistible case. I think it's so strong that perhaps the hon. Member for Spirit River- Fairview would just withdraw it and restructure it. We'll try to get him the information he's looking for. MR. SPEAKER: It would seem to me, from the hon. minister's opening remarks, that I should be rising on a point of order.

As the hon. minister has pointed out, there's no way for the Chair to know what information exists or doesn't exist within a department. But if the information doesn't exist and requires something in the nature of an assessment, then the question is not appro priate for the Order Paper, and I'd have to say it was out of order and couldn't be moved. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could rise on a point of order. I'll certainly restructure it and we'll take another run at it, because I want this information.

I just point out that we didn't really have any problem getting this information, I believe, three or four years ago. But all of a sudden we find that there are insurmountable diffi culties. I'll read very carefully the comments of the hon. Minister of Energy and Natural Resources on this partic ular motion. We'll restructure the motion for a return to meet every one of the concerns and, rest assured, it will be on the Order Paper shortly.

November 13, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 1481 MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the point of order, I just want to make a comment with regard to one area and one of the first statements of the hon. minister, which was with regard to the assessment the minister indicated does not exist. In terms of that, the motion for a return is not really in order.

I think there would be cases in the Legislature — and it would be right for a minister to reply in written form — that an assess ment is not available or has not been done, because maybe in checking through information or requiring in formation, that is one of the answers we would like for one reason or another. I would hate to see the remarks of the minister used as any precedent in other motions for returns we might place in this Assembly. MR.

SPEAKER: With great respect to the hon. member, it would seem to me that an order for a return may not compel a department or minister to collate a whole lot of information and make assessments that involve matters of opinion — perhaps even expert opinion — on a question of economics: As I understood the hon. minis ter's remarks, it could very well be a matter of opinion or expert opinion to assess the values of some of these items listed here. However, the question is amply disposed of.

The hon. member has agreed to withdraw it, and I've had to say that it's out of order. head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 225. Moved by Mr. R. Speaker:

Be it resolved that this Assembly urge the government to implement additional policies and programs to reduce and prevent violence and violent crime in Alberta. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, it certainly gives me pleasure today to move this motion. The topic of the motion I am now introducing, violence and violent crime, is crucial and certainly affects the total fabric of our society here in Alberta.

Because of the absence of factual information to guide what we feel are good policies and programs in Alberta, we in the Social Credit caucus asked some of the persons in the centre of criminology research at the University of Alberta to do some back ground work for us in preparation for this debate today. We asked Dr. James Hackler and Laurel Gauld to put together a paper and study that looked at three specific areas. For the availability of the members, I would like to table three copies of that report at this time. [Mr. Appleby in the Chair] We asked these people to look at three areas.

First, we asked them to accumulate background information that could aid in developing policy and programs and act as a starting point for public debate. Secondly, we asked them to assess practices and policies intended to deal with violence and violent crime to determine which were effec tive, which were not effective, and where the best results have been obtained. The third objective was to discuss the implications of the findings for policy and programs to reduce and prevent violence and violent crime.

The results of this study were released this September at a symposium the official opposition held here in Edmonton. In that discus sion and symposium, we found a number of areas of agreement and disagreement. I'd like to say there were some areas where we as a caucus agreed with the conclu sions of the report, and certainly there were areas where we disagreed. But the report was an excellent starting point for our discussion.

Over 100 people interested and involved in either de veloping or administering public policy in social services and correction attended the September symposium to discuss their views among themselves and also with us four as members of the Legislature. Many different pers pectives were posed at the forum. As I said, some agreed with Dr. Hackler, and some did not. But we had a lively and thorough discussion on the many different issues raised.

One point all participants seemed to agree on was that the solutions will be found only through a long and complicated process of much discussion and communica tion, not only between members of the Legislature and the general public, but also between the professionals in the field and certainly the consumers of some of the programs delivered in Alberta at the present time. We found that the roots of the problem cut to the heart of our very society and do not lend themselves to easy solutions or one single solution. All people in society must work together to create a healthy society.

To this end, it was felt that even the media have a very important part to play. It was suggested at this conference, and I certainly agree, that discussion and focus of the media on more exotic or sensational violence to the exclusion of the broader picture does not lead to some of the solutions we want. I feel that we as politicians must adopt policies that are based not on unfounded stereotypes and public opinion but on solid data, so our policies really can reduce the amount of crime and violent crime among us today. As policy-makers, we must not confuse political expediency with effective legislation.

According to Dr. Hackler in his report — and I agree with this statement — society mistakenly focuses atten tion only on those who are considered candidates for long-term incarceration. This provides us and the general citizenry with a distorted and relatively useless picture for those interested in more informed and intelligent policy making, which is really our responsibility. This picture leads to a reliance on the criminal justice system to deal with violence by taking action after the crime has been committed. It is hoped that conviction, in this case, will have a deterrent effect. Dr.

Hackler's research indicates that although harsh penalties may make society feel bet ter, it is more important to increase the likelihood that criminals will be captured and convicted regardless of the severity of the sentence, and more effective. A criminal must know that violence is unacceptable and that he will be caught and convicted. That seemed to be the focal point in the discussion and research we had. If a person knew they were going to be caught and convicted, there was a better deterrent effect.

In assessing such harsh stands and public opinion and response in the realm of sentencing and parole policy, Dr. Hackler concluded there could be a 5 to 10 per cent reduction in violent crime if there were stiffer offences. Long-range programs that focus on the modest reduction of the violence of many persons and families would have a much greater impact on the reduction of violence in the future. If we are serious about the reduction of violence, we cannot rely solely on the criminal justice system. We must consider policies and programs that act in a very preventive nature.

For the most part, we find it is the socialization process and internalized values of people

1482 ALBERTA HANSARD November 13, 1980 that keep people from committing crimes. It's found that 48 per cent of prairie homicides results from domestic disputes; 83 per cent arises out of family, social, and business relationships. Only 26 per cent of homicides in British Columbia, and 30 per cent in Ontario, are domest ic. Clearly, to reduce the amount of violence and violent crime in this province, we must deal with the acceptability of violence in interpersonal relationships and take steps to restore the strength of our family units and certainly, in turn, the strength of our communities in Alberta.

To these ends, I would like to propose that we consider very seriously factors that contribute to violent crime. One of these, which today is more commonly talked about than ever before, is the stress under which many individuals are placed. Looking at this, I feel as well that we should act on some recommendations. We should look first of all at the possibility of lowering the unemployment of groups who traditionally are unem ployed and among whom violence is a problem.

Second ly, we should emphasize community participation and non-traditional better paying jobs for women, especially in some of our boom towns, to give them a sense of self-worth and decrease their dependence on others; third ly, develop strategies to decrease violence in the media; fourthly, reduce alcohol abuse; and fifthly, one which I'm sure is very important to all of us, develop policy and programs specifically aimed at reducing the amount of family violence, including wife-battering and certainly child abuse, which we have spoken of in this Legislature.

I'd like to make a few further comments with regard to this last point of family violence. I recognize that each and every aspect of this problem could be dealt with extensively; however, this particular area warrants special attention in my opinion. Mme. Payette, MP for Montreal Mercier and Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada, made the following comments at the symposium we held here in Edmonton: Wife-battering is more than a legal problem. It is a moral problem, an economic problem, a civil rights problem, a health problem, and an educational prob lem.

If children are involved, the consequences are even greater. I've already pointed out that 48 per cent of homicides in this province may be attributed to domestic disputes. I've also learned that one in 10, or approximately 500,000, Canadian women are estimated to be battered by their husbands each year. Recently, child abuse was said to be the major cause of death for children in this province. We as an Assembly must affirm our commitment to the people of this prov ince to help them reduce and prevent this kind of domest ic violence.

A policy regarding women's shelters general ly, and battered women's shelters specifically, must be come a top priority item. To hire a consultant is indeed a step in the right direction, if we can class it as one direc tion. It may be a tardy one, but acceptable. However, Mr. Speaker, it is crucial that the Minister of Social Services and Community Health rally the talent he already has in his department and the communities in this province to get a system in place to deal with these needs as soon as possible.

Programs and policies must be initiated and expanded within the ministries of Social Services and Community Health, the Solicitor General, and certainly the Attorney General. At the present time, this province needs the following things.

I'd like to list six: first of all, better preventive family counselling; secondly, funds for educational pro grams for rape crisis centres; thirdly, expanded home maker programs to relieve the pressures of families under stress; fourthly, funds to train municipal police forces to handle domestic disputes, funds and staff to provide support for these officers in dealing with the problem, and certainly funds available so officers can be trained and better prepared to handle situations and domestic fights that they encounter in their regular duties.

Fifthly, there should be a policy and assistance to establish bat tered women's shelters throughout the province, not only for the victims but for those whose explosive home situa tions could result in violence. And the sixth item: to work with the federal interdepartmental committee on family violence to co-ordinate federal and provincial involve ment in this specific area. If these recommendations are implemented, I believe we will go a long way to reducing violence and conse quent crime in this society.

At the same time, though, even when we may follow through with these recommen dations, steps must be taken, first of all, to provide more follow-up and assessment of juvenile offenders; secondly, to attract to Alberta more qualified and experienced family therapists and counsellors whose main perspective is that of corrections.

Thirdly, we should develop more rehabilitative programs within provincially run institu tions and support this kind of move in federally run centres; fourthly, develop more appropriate pre-release programs for inmates; and fifthly, encourage the judiciary to use community-based alternatives rather than incar ceration in appropriate cases. Mr. Speaker, as I gathered after reading the report and research presented to us and after sitting in the sympo sium and listening to the various delegates from a large cross

section of professionals in the province of Alberta, from the police forces, departments of social services, the ministry, lay personnel, and hearing from people who were just interested in this whole area of crime and violence, we found there was really no single, simple dramatic solution to the problem. There was no single, simple dramatic change we could make to eliminate vio lence in our society. But I feel and our Socred caucus certainly feels, Mr.

Speaker, that there are some basic policies and programs and some changes in present policies and programs that can reduce violence and certainly prevent the develop ment of social situations from which violence emanates. At this time I urge the Assembly to examine these recommendations, to consider them very carefully. I hope that in the discussion hon. members of this Assembly can support some of those ideas and also add others, because I think the situation at the present time is most serious.

The root of the problem certainly is caused by various social pressures in Alberta at the present time, our economic pressures, and we as legislators must be respon sive to those social and economic pressures and under stand them. At the same time, we must listen to many of the professionals in the field, who I'm sure are attempting to direct us and give us answers to those specific prob lems. I feel we must be responsive and attempt in every way available to us to implement preventative measures to deal with the problem and reduce the amount of violence and certainly the amount of crime.

That's the best we can do, but that is our responsibility as legislators. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. LITTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the oppor tunity to speak to this motion proposed by the hon. Member for Little Bow. I would like to thank the

November 13, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 1483 member and congratulate him for bringing this matter to the Legislature. I recall one of the first speeches I gave in this Legisla ture back in '75 in response to the first Kirby report. I stated that I had a feeling the public of this province no longer felt as secure as they once did. I had a feeling that they questioned the effectiveness of law enforcement. I had a feeling that they had lost confidence in the courts. I don't believe this situation has changed significantly since that time. Mr. Speaker, the philosophy of prevention in law en forcement is nothing new.

In fact when Sir Robert Peel organized the London metropolitan police force back in the early 1800s, he stated that the first objective of good policing was the prevention of crime. The manner in which the members of that force looked after prevention of crime was to see that criminals were moved off their beats and onto somebody else's beat to commit the of fence. Believe it or not, when I started my law enforce ment career with the Calgary city police, we followed exactly the same procedure. It was actually quite effec tive.

They moved from beat to beat, and finally they were out of the city and out of the jurisdiction altogether. But speaking of programs and crime prevention, the Calgary police were one of the pioneers in crime preven tion programs in this whole country. I was appointed public relations officer for that force back in 1968, with a mandate to create and operate a number of crime preven tion programs. I might mention, Mr. Speaker, how dif ferent the funding was in those days. For my first year I was assigned one part-time secretary and a budget of $1,200.

So it was necessary to seek out the assistance of various organizations, service clubs — we even had a funeral home sponsor one of our programs. We called one of the first programs the Child Molester. This was a program to train parents to in turn teach their children to avoid the attacks of the child molester. In the course of the first two years we addressed over 20,000 parents. And believe it or not — this is one of the reasons I'm so suspicious of statistics — the police chief became quite upset at the end of the first year because the apparent incidence had risen dramatically. As.

I explained to him, the incidence did not rise but the reporting did. This is one of the principles of law enforcement reporting: the more confidence the public has in the law enforce ment agency, the higher the rate of reporting you get. However, one of the news types interviewed me and said, how's the program going? I said, as far as numbers are concerned, very, very well; we have standing-room audiences for most of the programs. However, I said, I think I'm talking to the wrong people. Maybe we should be setting up down in the local bar, because those are the parents who don't care about their kids.

The parents coming out to the programs are the dedicated, responsi ble parents. So as you see, Mr. Speaker, I have some reservations about crime prevention programs per se. I think it's a real mistake to place too much dependence on them. As I found, there is no substitute for traditional police investigation and traditional law enforcement. A significant portion of the report presented today has to do with domestic violence. Professor Hackler is quite correct: it's a very, very serious phenomenon in modern society. In fact I believe his numbers, if anything, are low.

In 1973, the last year I was on the Calgary force, there were over 5,000 domestic complaints attended by mem bers of that force, and many of them with considerable violence. But they did have a common denominator: liquor was involved in almost every one of those offences. Another comment Professor Hackler makes is that it's also a sport of the upper echelon of society but the public, and more particularly the law enforcement people, are inclined to pick on the poorer people. I think this is a bit of a fallacy on the part of Professor Hackler, because the police respond to reports.

If the offence is not re ported, there's no way they can respond to it. The police don't go around neighborhoods in the evening, knocking on doors and saying, are any wives being assaulted at this address tonight. They wait for a report. If the higher echelon of society don't see fit to report it, there's no way they can become part of the statistics. So in my estima tion the 5,000 attended by the Calgary police in that particular year in no way determine the total enormity of the problem. Another area I'd like to look at is murder.

Professor Hackler states, at least in the report, that approximately 48 per cent of all murders occurred during domestic assaults within the family. I don't question this for a moment. For many, many years we came up with the figure that two-thirds of all murders takes place either in the family unit or persons known to the family. And so what? But a mistake many of these analysts make is taking for granted that because two-thirds of the sample behaves in a certain way, three-thirds does. Nothing could be further from the truth.

That other third is some of the most vicious, the most unspeakable offenders in our society. These people shouldn't be allowed to see the light of day. There is only one solution for them: keep them locked up for the balance of their natural lives. I could tell you, Mr. Speaker, of a couple of offences I personally attended. We had a case a few years ago. At 4 o'clock one morning a local pimp and drug peddler was beating up one of his women on 9th Avenue and one of the east-end streets of Calgary, and a truck going through the city on its way to the highway came by.

The driver, quite a small man, 5'7" or 5'8", came to the woman's assistance. Savard was the driver's name — and this is significant. The big pimp picked up the little guy, dashed him to the sidewalk, and jumped on his leg. Savard called out, please, leave me alone; you've broken my leg. Schultz said, I'll show you how to break your leg. He dragged him over to a light standard, wrapped the leg around it, and tore the leg off right on the spot. Now what do you with a man who commits an offence of that nature?

Long before I came to this legislature, I personally had a great deal to do with bringing crime compensation legis lation to this province. I am happy to report that Savard was the first recipient of benefits from that Act. But I say to you again: what do you do to an offender who commits an unspeakable offence such as that? I can tell you another one — a hostage robbery. The purpose of a hostage robbery is to extract money or information from the victim. Three of our worst criminals went into the home of a Safeway manager one afternoon.

The first persons home were the Safeway manager's little 12-year-old daughter and her friend. They beat up the little kids; drove the little girl's teeth through her lips. The second person who came home was the wife of the manager. As she attempted to turn her key in the door, this fellow swung the door open. She screamed when she saw him. And I don't blame her. Most of you would be repulsed by the character if you saw him. He beat her down with the butt of a gun, kicked her in the face, and drove her teeth in.

Then they got the little girl to phone her father at the store and say, please come home; my little sister is ill. He came home. He was stripped down in

1484 ALBERTA HANSARD November 13, 1980 front of his wife and his little daughter and her friend, and the family was subjected to 12 hours of torture and humiliation. Now I don't recommend that we have any rehabilitation programs for people of that nature. One of the finest reports I ever had experience in was the McRuer report of 1957 by Mr. Justice McRuer of the Supreme Court of Ontario, which deals with the criminal law pertaining to criminal sexual psychopaths. I would recommend it to the members. It's the most complete study, and nothing has changed since '57. Mr.

Justice McRuer was one of the first writers I ever heard define the objectives of penology. Good penology contemplates three objectives: one, the protection of society by the confinement of the prisoner; two, the reformation of the prisoner; and three, the deterrent effect of the sentence on the prisoner and others. Do you notice the order? The first objective of good penology is to protect the public by taking the offender out of society. For those types I told you about — and I can tell you of many more — there is only one answer: take them out of society. Mr.

McRuer also commented at that time on why the procedures were ineffective: We are convinced that the law in Canada dealing with the "criminal sexual psychopath" is not accom plishing its purpose. This failure may be due . . . to one or more of three things — (1) the phraseology of the law, (2) the lack of proper enforcement of the law, and (3) the reluctance of the courts to commit a person to imprisonment for an indeterminate term Members of the Legislature, that's what we need to return to. One other area the report makes reference to is vio lence and the media.

This is a significant problem in North America today. There is an excellent report by the president's committee on crime entitled just that: Violence and the Media. It is an area in which I detest censorship of any type. It's quite repugnant to me. But I think this an area we've just got to take a look at. Indeed one of the areas the report dealt with even more than the violence depicted on the screens was the select life. You know, the people in the ghetto have been shown the beautiful life, areas they can't even attain, and they found that this precipitated a great deal of crime also.

If we are going to adopt programs for prevention and the assistance of the offender, Mr. Speaker, I would recommend that we concentrate on the juvenile. Most of the people I spoke of are beyond rehabilitation, beyond redemption. I am speaking of the criminal offenders, not the domestic offence. But the juvenile has a great deal going for him. All adult offenders were once juvenile offenders, and this is the area where our dollars should be going. To adopt programs — in fact a number of programs in the province at the present time dealing with juveniles are extremely effective and are to be commended. Mr.

Speaker, I know that this subject that has been introduced this afternoon is most interesting, and several other speakers would like to address themselves to it. So once again, my thanks and my congratulations to the Member for Little Bow for bringing this matter to the Legislature. MR. CAMPBELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for letting me rise to speak to Motion No. 225. I would also like to thank the Member for Little Bow for bringing this to the Assembly.

It's with a great deal of interest that I peruse some of this material and find that by definition of the Criminal Code crimes of violence are murder, attempted murder, rape, other sexual offences, woundings, assaults, and robbery. These are very interesting to me. Certainly the Member for Calgary McCall has been involved in this for some time. It was probably a lifetime's work. [laughter] I will not mention on what side. This reminds me — I spent some years in a small town in east-central Alberta. I'll always remember this. I hap pened to be meeting a bus that day.

In these towns at that time, for some reason you happened to get policemen from Calgary dressed in a stetson with the brim pulled over their eyes, a shoulder holster, and a trench coat that had enough straps, belts, and various other things to make another coat. Of course they used to stalk the streets. This particular time I was in a hotel, and a gentleman came in. This policeman was just new in town. He mentioned to the people in the hotel how he was going to straighten out the traffic problems and parking in the town. I'll never forget this. An elderly man, a retired hoghead on the railroad, said, Mr.

Policeman, do you carry a gun? The policeman said, yes sir, right here in my shoulder holster. Well, he said, if I were you, sir, I would go down to the local machine shop and get that front sight filed off. The policeman said, why would I want to do a thing like that? He said, because when those ran chers and farmers put that gun where they're going to put it, it's going to hurt if it has a front sight on it. [laughter] This is what happens when you have policemen coming into smaller towns. Of course this isn't the municipal variety, and it's some time ago. But these are things that happen.

In smaller towns in Alberta, boom towns particularly, you frequently have high violent crime rates. Towns in my constituency that have particular problems are Eck- ville and Caroline. Due to the fact that the police force is some 40 miles away in one case, for some reason or other — maybe it's due to the CBs we have in this day and age — an early warning system seems to be devised. By the time the RCMP gets to these towns, of course the damage has been done and everyone has left. These are some of the things happening. As far as I am concerned, it is a problem.

I can relate one instance when a gentleman stole a car in Red Deer. He went through numerous barriers the police had put up. Unfortunately, on this particular evening the power went off; there were no street lights. He came into this village, going in excess of 100 miles an hour. There was a gentleman crossing the street. I need not tell you what happened from then on. I will only mention that next morning I came into the village and some sea gulls and magpies were on the streets picking up what was left. From what I understand, this man was driving again within several months.

This is the point I bring to the Assembly this after noon. These things seem to pass by. Of course time is a great healer. I don't know whether it's within our court systems, but I know full well that the officers of the law go to great lengths in order to get a conviction and get people to press charges. For some reason or other in this day and age, when it comes to pressing charges, whether the people are afraid of retaliation or whatever the case may be, it seems the police officer is wasting his time. Nevertheless I'll get on to a few things like long-term incarceration.

The criticism of this approach is that when the offender gets through this he has despair, hostility, and indifference to the consequences, and commits more serious crimes on release.

November 13, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 1485 It is suggested that the real root of the problem is in the home; that a violent criminal is the result of a violent home. More concern with forms of domestic violence such as child abuse and wife batterings should be shown. The public asks, why was a person with a history of violence not put away sooner? The reply is that there is a problem identifying those offenders who will go on to commit more serious crimes and those who will not. The predictions of psychiatrists are not completely accurate.

Therefore the criminal justice system tends to be cautious, taking action after the crime is committed, and hoping conviction has a deterring effect. In the release of the Solicitor General just a few months ago, they're putting $4.1 million into the cities and towns to assist them with the costs of providing police service within their boundaries.

I hope and really do pray that this particular expenditure will result in some of the smaller villages — I'm talking particularly about the towns and villages below 1,500 population, because they certainly need additional policing due to the fact that we have pipelines, forestry, and all these dif ferent industries going on. Certainly when they get into town on a Saturday night — the Member for Calgary McCall would know what would happen from then on.

Members of the Assembly, I'd just like to go on to a few of the preventive programs they have: business securi ty, credit card fraud, lady beware, neighborhood watch, operation identification and provident, ski check, theft of auto, and vandalism. These are just a few. There is $50,000 in crime prevention grants given to assist the police forces, and a $350,000 total Solicitor General's budget for crime prevention. In closing, I really do believe in crime prevention. As I mentioned earlier, I only hope that some of the additional policing expected in this province will show up in our smaller urban centres.

Thank you. MR. KUSHNER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to rise for a few moments to contribute to the debate on Motion 225. I share the concerns of my colleagues and, I feel confident in saying, the concern of every individual in this Assem bly regarding the incidence of violent crime in today's society. It is very, very justified. This concern is not limited to the people of our province nor to the people of our nation. The motion before us is broad in nature, therefore I would like to limit my comments to only two or three specific areas.

Before I begin I would like to thank the official opposi tion for showing their interest in this matter, also for conducting the study on violent crime in Alberta. It is a valuable supplement to the work now being done by the government and other people in this area. Mr. Speaker, I conducted some research into the inci dence and nature of violent crime in Alberta. In paper 1 of the study I have just mentioned I noted that crimes of the most violent nature, such as rape and murder, attract the greatest attention and result in public uproar and great emotional response. Of course, this is for a most valid reason.

Public knowledge of rash and violent crimes — and I'll admit they are often sensationalized by the media — frightens each and every one of us, although the most violent crimes may be those of the lowest incidence and just the tip of the iceberg of the crime problem. But it is these crimes that do most to shake our feelings and those of society in general. We see numerous efforts to deter crime in Alberta. The valuable and highly competent work of our police forces is the most visible example. We see that $4.1 million will be allocated to the various municipalities by the Solicitor General.

These funds are to assist the municipalities with providing police service. In keeping with local autonomy the funds are unconditional, and therefore will enable the individual forces in the province to respond to the condi tions in their communities for which they feel they are best equipped to do. The government has established numerous policies and programs aimed at preventing vio lence and violent crimes.

Yet I wonder if we might encourage greater attention to areas such as: what moti vates criminal activity, whether heavier sentencing is in fact a deterrent, and the social conditions under which criminal activity is greatest. I can well appreciate the difficulties involved in main taining accurate statistics on crime, as I have encountered this problem in my research. As an example, I set out to determine how many rapes occurred in the province of Alberta last year. There are many sources for this infor mation, and the Department of the Solicitor General was very helpful in obtaining this information.

They are high ly trained people, and explained the various reporting and interpretive problems I should encounter in analysing the information. I contacted some of the major police forces in the province, and they were also helpful in providing me with data with regard to rapes in the province of Alberta. I contacted the rape crisis centres in Edmonton and Calgary and was provided with their sta tistics. But then I found that only 50 or so per cent — and I may be overestimating here — of the rape victims who seek the assistance of the rape crisis centres eventually report the crime to the police.

Of course, not all those who report to the police have gone to the rape crisis centre. Then there are the women, the victims of this crime, who have never reported to anyone. I brought this example forward to point out how diffi cult it is to determine the incidence of criminal activity, for a variety of reasons, despite the work of many able and concerned people. As we all know only too well, statistics on any subject can be interpreted to suit the person using them. In terms of policy initiatives, I would like to see work on standardized reporting of statistics by police forces and other responsible agencies.

Armed with such an understanding, policies can be tailored to combat crime more effectively. It has been pointed out that we are experiencing a rather high violent crime rate in some of the province's smaller centres. This is an unfortunate circumstance that is aggravated by high growth and economic vitality. As the hon. Solicitor General noted in his announcement regarding increased funding to municipalities for law en forcement, a priority of the government is ensuring that all communities in Alberta can provide a high level of law enforcement.

He added that this is particularly important because of the growth in population and economic activi ty we are experiencing in Alberta. Again, I believe this increased funding in the hands of municipalities will go a long way toward reducing crimes. It is often pointed out that a large percentage of violent crimes occurs in a domestic situation. The violent attack er is more likely to be a friend, relative, or acquaintance than a stranger. This would suggest to me that we should be emphasizing policy aimed at preventing violence in the home.

Recognizing that the family and community are important influences in the prevention of crime, a number of programs are available through Social Services and Community Health, including preventive social services

1486 ALBERTA HANSARD November 13, 1980 counselling, group homes, homes for battered women, and the list goes on and on. One recent example of government initiative in this area is the child abuse hotline announced by the hon. Minister of Social Services and Community Health. This service will allow individuals to report incidents of child abuse or neglect on a 24 hour a day, seven day a week basis. As the unit will be staffed and trained by social workers, they will be able to respond directly to the allegations of abuse or neglect of children. This initiative, Mr.

Speaker, combined with the educational programs aimed at heightened awareness of this service and its benefits, is an important step toward control of a tragic and all too often hidden problem. However, Mr. Speaker and members of the Assembly, I don't feel we should be too smug about what's happen ing. I'd just like to conclude my remarks with these few phrases: Bus fired on, girl injured; Father admits beating baby; Scream of fear in the dark; A grisly find begs an answer; Ontario man arrested in stabbing; Savage night of terror described during rape trial.

Those were head lines that appeared in our local papers in the last two days, and those were incidents that happened in this province. DR. C. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, it's a privilege for me to be able to rise to speak to Motion No. 225, which states that additional policies and programs should be established to reduce and prevent violence and crime in Alberta. As we enter the '80s, we observe the great advances man has made, and we expect to find happy people enjoying all the processes in the good life we have.

Instead we find ourselves in an air of confusion that has grown out of a complex industrial and technological so ciety. In spite of the benefits we have, it has brought us many problems. I appreciate the efforts of the official opposition, especially the Member for Little Bow, in focussing attention on this important issue. The Solicitor General and the minister and Department of Social Serv ices and Community Health are providing an ongoing, concerned, realistic approach to the issue. I'm sure they're realistic, because you cannot legislate life styles.

It's very well to say the province should be doing more to protect and prevent tragic events, but where does one draw the line? Do we curtail the freedom of movement of individuals, and how far do we go? I feel that most of our problems have arisen from the morality we have develop ed within society. Through this morality breakdown and the breakdown of the family unit, we've seen a gradual decay of society and the establishment of more crime with more groups taking over. This crime is gradually going into the family, and more of them involve domestic situa tions.

Spence said that when family life is destroyed, the very existence of a nation is threatened. Over the past years we've seen the development of more pornography, more films exploiting sex, violence, and whatever. I be lieve we see more playwrights and managers publicly using drama titles which are sexually suggestive. The dominant purpose of theatre and television concentrates on immorality. The movie Bonnie and Clyde dealt with a killing rampage across the United States, with utter disregard for human life. It was depicted in a comedy situation and one found himself laughing at the antics.

You became sympathetic toward the people when the FBI finally caught and killed them in the shootout. That movie led to designers developing Bonnie and Clyde fashion garments that stormed the markets, and was exploited by the commercial industry. Barbara Graham was the last woman executed in the state of California. She was a prostitute, and had vicious ly strangled an old lady in a wheel chair. Her actions were so repugnant that when her accomplices returned to the scene to remove the articles used to murder the poor old soul from around her neck, they subsequently reported the murder to the police.

This event was used in a movie to show that this lady had been misrepresented and misunderstood. The movie was instrumental in abolishing capital punishment in the U.S. Mr. Speaker, in view of the time, I beg leave to adjourn debate. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave to adjourn the debate? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: PUBLIC BILLS AND ORDERS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Second Reading) Bill 212 The Utility Consumers' Advocate Act MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to move second reading of Bill 212, The Utility Consumers' Advo cate Act.

As indicated at the time of introduction of the Bill, its purpose is to help ensure that Albertans affected by the decisions of the utilities tribunals in this province — and I'm speaking particularly of the Energy Resources Conservation Board, the Public Utilities Board, and the Surface Rights Board, to name some — will be able to receive a full and proper representation before those tri bunals, regardless of their financial means.

This Bill will provide for the creation of the office of the utility consumers' advocate, who will be appointed for a term of five years and renewals thereof and will be dismissable only for cause — this is to ensure the inde pendence of that office — and who, additionally, will be able to retain the technical expertise and legal counsel necessary to assist in properly representing Albertans before these quasi-judicial boards. It is the intention of this Bill, Mr.

Speaker, to try to help balance the scales, if you will, between the utility companies, that are well- equipped to present their point of view in the essentially adversarial atmosphere of these hearings, and individual Albertans who may be affected by such decisions and who often lack the financial means and technical exper tise to fully protect their rights.

The office of the utility consumers' advocate would be available to Albertans on an optional basis and would require neither consumers, consumer groups, nor other interest groups to use its services if they felt well able to represent their own interests, nor would it preclude any such individual or group from intervention independent of the utility consumers' advocate. The office is intended for and would serve those who seek its assistance and help. Mr. Speaker, some may ask, why is such an office required?

Don't these various tribunals presently have the staff and the ability to ask questions on behalf of the consumer, whether the issue be setting utility rates or the location of a transmission line? The fact is that while these tribunals do have certain inquisitorial functions,

November 13, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 1487 they will not necessarily take into account all the interests which might be expressed by the individual citizen or citizens. I want to make it abundantly clear that this is in no way a criticism of these tribunals. It is simply a recogni tion of the complexity of the issues these bodies face and the present essentially quasi-judicial nature of their role. But one may still say, surely the present regulations provide for an intervener's costs to be compensated. Why can't a private citizen simply hire counsel and the techni cal experts required for this purpose?

The problem of course is that the tribunal does not make any award as to costs until well after the hearing is concluded. Also there is no early indication as to what costs either the board or the applicant will consider reasonable. This has the effect of potentially creating great uncertainty in the mind of an intervener as to the nature and extent of funding availa ble to him.

The net result of this uncertainty may well be no representation at all by that private citizen, or a minimal one which lacks either or both the adequate legal preparation and the technical expertise required in these tribunals for a truly effective presentation. In addition, there may be those sceptics who would argue that this Bill may ultimately permit a self- perpetuating bureaucratic function that merely duplicates what is already being done.

While that argument must be considered very carefully whenever government considers the expenditure of public funds, one must look at the inescapable realities of the Alberta of today. Alberta is an energy province, where we can and must anticipate more intrusion into the area of private rights; for example, in the placement of transmission lines, pipelines, and other carriers of energy. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, the rising cost of energy, because of its scarcity, makes it clear that consumers will be faced with more and more applications for rate increases by utility companies in years to come.

To get a perspective and see how the scales sit between the utility companies and consumers, consider the follow ing examples. Number one, Calgary Power's application to the Energy Resources Conservation Board to build Keephills 1 and 2 sought regulatory approval of a $660 million capital spending program. Number two, Alberta Power's application to that same tribunal, the Energy Resources Conservation Board, to build Sheerness1 and 2 sought regulatory approval of a $750 million capital spending program.

Number three, in the case of major electricity rate cases before the Public Utilities Board, the combined revenue requirements of Calgary Power and Alberta Power are now in excess of $400 million annual ly. The decision to approve or withhold approval for a 10 per cent rate increase is thus a $40 million per year decision.

In contrast, the current annual budgets of consumer interest groups potentially capable of representing con sumer interests in such regulatory decisions are: number one, the Union of Rural Electrification Associations, $28,000; number two, the Alberta branch of the Consum ers' Association of Canada, $20,000; number three, the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association, $105,000, which is spread over a range of activities. Mr. Speaker, I believe mention should also be made at this juncture of the office of the Farmers' Advocate.

I want to make abundantly clear that the intent of this Bill is not to detract in any way from the function of that important office, and it would not. In fact the Farmers' Advocate has described his office's involvement with ru ral utilities as minimal. The fact is, of course, that consid erable specialized technical and legal expertise is required for effective representation before these quasi-judicial bodies. Mr.

Speaker, it is respectfully submitted to this Assem bly that when one considers the wide discrepancy in funding available to the power companies compared to existing consumer interest groups, the minimal involve ment of the Farmers' Advocate in this area, and the uncertainties of cost recovery and the cost of good tech nical and legal representation, it becomes abundantly clear that a void presently exists between the board and the intervener.

That void should be filled to ensure that no Albertan is denied proper representation in such mat ters because of limited financial means and, further, to instill greater public confidence that the interests of the individual are being properly protected. That is in no way an adverse reflection on any of the tribunals involved. The fact remains that the job is a mammoth one, and requires special representation.

It should be noted that in addition to the positive purpose that has already been enunciated, the office of the utility consumers' advocate would provide a valuable service by simply being accessible and available to Alber- tans for advice and counsel, which in many instances might well result in an intervener determining not to proceed with an intervention, the approval process there by being shortened, Mr. Speaker, rather than lengthened. In other words, the number of interventions may well be reduced.

As well, in those instances where an intervention is proceeded with, the advocate's office may bring togeth er a number of individual interveners which will thus provide a clearer focus for common concerns at the hearing for all parties concerned. It may also be suggested, Mr. Speaker, that the concept of the utility consumers' advocate could give rise to con flicts of interest between different interveners who seek the assistance of that office.

That argument raises the valid observation that there must be some discretion granted to the utility consumers' advocate in determining to act or not act in a particular case. So while informa tion and technical and legal advice can be provided to parties with different interests in respect of the same hearing, if the office of the utility consumers' advocate concludes there is a significant conflict of interest between different parties who wish its assistance, the office would not act for one party over another at the actual hearing.

In response to that argument, if it is being used to suggest the concept is unworkable, it must be noted that the concept is in place in over 21 states in the United States of America and is working well. It's working well despite that argument about inherent conflicts of interest. It should also be properly noted and mentioned that members may have recommendations for amendments to fine tune this Bill in some way. I want to go on record, Mr. Speaker, as being quite receptive and pleased to see such amendments brought forward and considered during the committee stage of the Bill.

What's important is the principle inherent in this Bill. All in all, Mr. Speaker, it is respectfully submitted that the proposal entailed in this Bill has advantages that far outweigh the disadvantages. It is acknowledged that other approaches may be considered to meet the principle in herent in this Bill. One such approach, for example, would simply be to provide greater financial assistance to interested parties.

However, while that approach would avoid the concern about an appearance of more bureauc racy, it is submitted that it might well provide a far less effective control over expenditure of public funds, and

1488 ALBERTA HANSARD November 13, 1980 really wouldn't allow for the development of a reservoir of technical and legal expertise for individual Albertans to call upon, and at arm's length from the quasi-judicial functions of these regulatory tribunals. In short, it is hoped that the concept incumbent and inherent in this Bill will be viewed in a favorable light by other members of this Assembly, with the goal — and I think we have to keep the ultimate goal very clear — being the protection of the rights of the individual citizen in this province. Mr.

Speaker, just prior to resuming my seat and af fording other hon. members the opportunity to partici pate in this debate, I wish to acknowledge with regret, and by way of an apology to subsequent speakers, that I find myself with an unavoidable commitment in Calgary later this afternoon. As a result, I will be unable to remain in my seat in the Assembly for the balance of this debate. However, I wish to assure those members that I will read with the greatest of interest their remarks in Hansard, and look forward to having an opportunity to review this full debate. Thank you very much. MR. PURDY: Mr.

Speaker, it's my pleasure to partici pate in the debate this afternoon on Bill 212. I might say to the Member for Calgary Forest Lawn that maybe he should stick around or he can read it in Hansard, but I think it's timely that he does bring this to the floor of the Assembly, with the number of submissions that have been made to me as a member of my constituency and, I'm sure, to a lot of other members in the Assembly. I read with interest the Bill the hon. member has brought forward.

I would think that the title of the Bill, The Utility Consumers' Advocate Act, might have some problems with the individual citizen in rural Alberta. Because reading through the various sections of the Bill, it doesn't actually do that much to protect the consumer, unless you're going to say you're going to protect the person who has the land the utility company is attempt ing to expropriate or use for a utility corridor. The Bill has no

section that deals with compensation. As I follow the various rulings of the Energy Resources Conservation Board and ones that have gone through the surface rights hearings and so on, I think this type of Bill should probably also be dealing with compensation be cause of the problems we have. We have a number of cases in my constituency where Calgary Power has ex propriated land for plant use and then it has gone to hearings and subsequently been settled. But it took the people involved a considerable amount of time to get fair compensation for their land.

So I think it's very impor tant that if the Assembly does consider this legislation, the utility advocate would also have the power to deal with compensation. I look at the Bill and go back about six years when by order in council the cabinet of the present government unilaterally placed a restricted development area around Edmonton and Calgary. Restricted development areas were primarily set up for utility corridors and so on. I'm wondering how this consumers' advocate would have acted in that particular case when the landowners in the area did not know what was happening to them.

They read the next day in the Edmonton Journal, or saw when the O.C. came out on Wednesday morning, that in fact the land around Edmonton and Calgary had been taken for a utility corridor by order in council of the govern ment. I have a fair amount of that in my constituency, and still have representation made to me on an ongoing basis about the unfair manner in which these particular pieces of land were taken.

Now the people who want to do particular upgrading, farm operations, or anything that may deal with expanding their livelihood have to come to the provincial government for permission to do any development on these sections or tracts of land. This is one area where I think even now, if the legislation were put in place, this advocate would be of some assistance to the many landowners around the cities of Edmonton and Calgary. I go back, Mr. Speaker, and look at the vast develop ment taking place in my own particular constituency, the Stony Plain constituency, especially in the Lake Waba- mun area.

Calgary Power has built one plant with six units on the north side of Lake Wabamun called the Sundance plant, which is under full production; and now the Keephills plant, which the hon. Member for Calgary Forest Lawn mentioned, is under construction. Power lines have to come out of those plants to distri bute that electrical energy throughout Alberta. I believe that prior to 1970 there were little or no problems trans porting the electrical energy out. After a lot of our environmentalists and a number of other people came into place, the problem became very evident.

We recently went through a hearing where Calgary Power has applied to the board — and I'm not sure if a decision has been handed down — to run two 500 KV lines from the Keephills plant to a new substation south of the city of Edmonton for transmission into other areas. I'm not sure how the consumers' advocate could have helped those landowners along there. I think the landowners them selves, as interveners in the hearings, did an excellent job. I believe that the company involved, Calgary Power, considered the views and so did the board at that time. Mr.

Speaker, I have before the Assembly and have given first reading to Bill 226,

An Act to Amend The Expropriation Act. That's the main concern in my con stituency right now. I don't think the Bill will come up for debate in this fall session, but in the spring session of '81 I'll be reintroducing the Bill immediately so all members of the Assembly will get an opportunity to debate its very important principles. I think the principle of that Bill is to allow fair compensation for land being expropriated for plants and other natures. Mr. Speaker, with The Utility Consumers' Advocate Act, I could actually see a duplication of services in some regard.

The hon. member mentioned the Farmers' Advo cate. I have high regard for the Farmers' Advocate and his office, because I think he is basically the watchdog in rural Alberta for our farm community and has done a commendable job in the past number of years since being in that office. The farmers in rural Alberta certainly rely on Mr. Entrup and his people to intervene on their behalf to try to get a fair settlement. He has done this in a number of cases.

We know fewer cases have been made to his office regarding utility corridors and so on, but in the ones in which he has intervened it certainly has been beneficial for the farm community. Mr. Speaker, just to summarize: I guess I'm lukewarm on the particular Bill. I think the Energy Resources Conservation Board now in place, and the appeals out of that, is a mechanism the landowners can appeal to to make their hearings known. I think that in some cases it may be beneficial. The one I outlined was the restricted development area around Edmonton and Calgary.

If leg islation were enacted, I believe that office would probably help these people deal mainly with the Department of Environment to which they have to appeal for any devel opment to their lands.

November 13, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 1489 I'm sure a number of other members of the Assembly would like to speak on this, Mr. Speaker, so I thank you. MR. COOK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to rise and participate in the debate on Bill 212, presented by the hon. Member for Calgary Forest Lawn. I'd like to support the concept. As we develop as a province, I think it's important that we arm the consumer with the ability to challenge some of the assumptions utility companies make in their rate applications. The hon.

Member for Stony Plain has dealt with the question of landowners and their dealings with utility companies, for power lines, for example. Those are all valid concerns. I think we have to look at the nature of this question and what is happening across North America. For ex ample, Mr. Speaker, I understand consumers in the state of New York are given the opportunity to match dollar for dollar the expenditures of a utility company that comes before a rate board with an application for an increase.

Consumers there are dealt with in a way that equalizes the balance between the ability of a large company to put together a battery of technical experts, resource people, lawyers, and accountants to go and make their case for them. If they are to start a class action to try to question a rate increase that they are ultimately going to have to pay, most consumers don't have those resources available. The attempt of Bill 212 is, I think, to redress the balance. Mr. Speaker, the Bill provides for a utility consumers' advocate. Probably the operative features of the Bill are in

Section 4, where the advocate can retain counsel. He can collect evidence, he can retain experts, and he can report to the minister on any matter. Now the point I'm trying to make is simply this. I'll use the example of Calgary Power.

The offer to purchase shares by several large companies in the province raised the question in the public domain, I think quite legitimately, whether the share offer would force a rate increase to pay off that very large cost incurred, the price of capital, to take over control of the company, and whether that cost bore any relationship to the actual cost of production for electrical energy.

I think that's a reasonably good question to ask, but it would be a difficult one to ask with any degree of factual base unless one retained a number of financial experts, people able to gauge intelligently whether a stock offer for control of a company, for example, is a reason able one — what impact that would have on the cost of doing business for the utility company and on the rates for the consumer. So, Mr. Speaker, this Bill would allow a utility con sumers' advocate to hire the kinds of expertise that would have to be found to make a good case to protect the consumer against unwarranted rate increases.

Right now the balance quite clearly is weighted heavily on the side of utility companies which can afford to bring that expertise to a public forum, like a utilities board or the Energy Resources Conservation Board. But that expertise is not presently available to a consumer group. Now it's true that a consumer group can apply for costs. But it's also fair to note that costs may or may not be awarded; they are discretionary. There's no way a consumers' group can anticipate receiving some payment for the costs of putting together a case.

The costs are awarded only after the case has been decided, so quite clearly there's a bias against consumers' groups banding together to put a case before a tribunal or board. I think Alberta, with sister provinces and other juris dictions across North America, should join in the trend to try to address this concern consumers quite legitimately have, and I view Bill 212 as being the logical outcome of that kind of concern. The state of New York has a different approach, Mr. Speaker, and it might be worth while dealing with it briefly.

I understand that in that state a consumer group may ask to have the same amount of money made availa ble to it as the utility company has spent in preparing the brief for a utility board. For example, a power company, Consolidated Light, might ask the state of New York for permission to charge consumers a certain amount of money, and they might spend $500,000 putting together that kind of case, assembling the financial and technical expertise to do that.

Then a consumers group could apply to have an equal amount of money made available by Consolidated Light and Power to allow them to make a case on the other side, and they are matched dollar for dollar. It's a different approach, Mr. Speaker, to deal with the same concern. I think Bill 212 does this quite adequately. In this case I think the consumers' advocate is protected, because he is at arm's length from the Execu tive Council for five years.

In that term of office the advocate can be relatively free of concern that the Execu tive Council can influence him or her with budgetary control, for example, or lack of tenure. I think the approach the hon. Member for Calgary Forest Lawn has outlined is a good one. It's reasonable. It provides protection for the consumer.

It also gives the minister responsible for the process — I assume the Minister of Utilities and Telephones in this case — the opportunity in five years to review the performance of the office and make recommendations to the Legislature to continue or not, and to hire someone sensitive to those concerns. Mr. Speaker, I think it is a reasonable ap proach to a problem a lot of consumers across North America are starting to address. It's an approach that deserves the support of hon. members in the House. I look forward to hearing further debate on the issue. [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] MR. BATIUK: Mr.

Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to rise and participate on the Bill before us. I would like to start by expressing my agreement with what I take to be the intent of my colleague, the Member for Calgary Forest Lawn, in bringing this Bill for consideration. As our society becomes more and more complex, we as citizens face an almost daily task of reconciling public need with private right. When we first became a province, the lines separating public need and private right were quite clear. We were directly involved in decisions that affected our lives.

To relate this concept to the Bill before us, our needs to be exercised on our behalf by the government were comparatively small: building roads, other communications, and organizing a method of en suring our children were schooled. Together with our neighbors, and with a collective assistance through public financing, we formed utility co-operatives. We helped each other build a strong province. While we did many things collectively, we knew the source of our independ ence and strength as individuals. As society and numbers grew, so did concerns and so did governmental responsibilities.

One of the earliest cases of regulations in Alberta, for example, was the equipment standardization regulations for telephone systems. The regulations were needed so we could talk to each other. Today governments do, and are expected to, formulate regulations in matters of public

1490 ALBERTA HANSARD November 13, 1980 interest. Seventy-five years ago we could and would have be come a government agent who would have had the auda city to march onto an individual's property and say, we're putting a pipeline or a transmission line through your property. Our society was small enough then that we as individuals had and took the time and energy to get together with our neighbors and provide these things for ourselves. That still is the case, of course, for many new and existing co-operatives. But our society has grown by leaps and bounds since then. Demand for such services has grown greatly.

Today we have a society that has all individuals dependent upon each other. The concepts of public need and private right and the arena for discussing these matters has grown as people need a service, Mr. Speaker. A price is paid. Some members of the public may be inconvenienced so that all can benefit. But proprietary acts and rights, fundamental in our free society, remain. If a person has to give up a possession so that society will benefit, we recognize those rights by fair compensation. We have mechanisms to ensure that these fundamental rights remain and that the individual is protected.

I understand and agree with my colleague's concern. If someone wants to enter my land to put in a transmission line, I want to be assured that my legal rights are recog nized. Moreover, I want to know it is necessary. In our complex society today, many rights of entry belong to others, for the public good. The question, Mr. Speaker, is: what right do I have to deny my neighbor some conveniences? To be five or several hundred kilometers away, the same access to such services as electricity, as an example, that I have — what right do I have to deny my neighbors heating fuel, diesel, that I myself enjoy?

I be lieve the answer is that we all have equal rights before the law. Our role as representatives in this Assembly is to ensure that the rights are preserved. Like it or not, we also have the responsibility to ensure that those rights are preserved. We also have the responsibility to see that the public need and private right are complementary. When some one succeeds in putting up high voltage lines on our land, even though we receive compensation, we still have to drive our tractors around it.

It is no doubt an incon venience to do that, but we also have to realize that maybe somebody has to drive their tractor for our con venience, for some utility we are using. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague's concern. The Bill before us would establish an independ ent advocate to assist individuals and groups in ensuring that they have adequate representation when decisions are made regarding right of entry and appeals. For example, I want to express my appreciation to the Member for Calgary Forest Lawn for making such an eloquent and informed case for an advocate.

On first consideration, I tend to think it's a good idea. I think many other people will feel likewise. But, Mr. Speaker, I have several questions in my mind about supporting the establishment of an advocacy role directly from this Bill. How many people will demand such a service? If anyone affected by an increase in utility rates demands it, soon we will all be writing to him. If not everyone potentially benefiting from the advocate's serv ice can have it, what then of our role as legislator in enacting fair legislation? Will the expense be justified by the value? Will the privilege offset the responsibility?

What of the current structure and mechanism we have? Under existing legislation, right of entry must first be granted by the Energy Resources Conservation Board acting under the hydro and energy Act, also The Energy Resources Conservation Act. The surface rights then gov ern and establish fair rules for the Surface Rights Board. Granted, one lonely person may feel it's a tough fight against a corporation lawyer, and no doubt it is. But we have legislation that provides fairness, and what else do we need?

We have the intervener regulations which per mit the Energy Resources Conservation Board to award costs of intervening to the intervenor, including solicitors, normally awarded to the landowner. Granted, this may be unpredictable, but such protections exist and I think they go a long way to remedying the concerns before us today. Mr. Speaker, the boards themselves perform a function in this regard, in ensuring fairness and reviewing applica tions. For example, what was the order to return some profits made by the utility company in our province not very long ago? An order the Public Utilities Board made.

As the former speakers mentioned, we have the Farm ers' Advocate, who has played a very important role in this province over the last few years. I don't think there has ever been a tribunal or anything set that has brought such good results. I have never heard anyone say any thing unfavorable about the services of the Farmers' Advocate, and I feel he can still do a lot in his capacity. Very often we may complain that maybe power is expensive. And it is. Just the other day I looked at my first electric bill when I became a member of an REA. It has gone up almost five times in the last thirty years.

But what hasn't, Mr. Speaker? When I thin

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19801113
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L19 S2 19801113 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	95b69a7fef8496556efe55fb11e9adbf416b519f

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