April 15, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 343 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Tuesday, April 15, 1980 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS MR. COOKSON: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure this after­ noon to introduce to you, and through you to members of the Assembly, three very important people from that great territory to the north, the Northwest Territories. They are here having discussions with some of our peo­ ple, including myself, with particular regard to the Slave River studies. They are the Hon.

George Braden, Minis­ ter of Economic Development and Tourism; Hon. Ri­ chard Nerysoo, Minister of Renewable Resources; and Hon. Arnold McCallum, Minister of Social Services and the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation. They're in the Speaker's gallery. I'd ask that they rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. HIEBERT: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Member for Edmonton Belmont, who apologizes for not being here, I would like to introduce two groups to you and to the members of the Assembly. We have a group of grade 10 students from M.E. LaZerte.

We have 30 in the public gallery and some in the members gallery. They are accompanied by their group leader. Would they please rise and accept the warm welcome of the House. Mr. Speaker, also on behalf of the Member for Edmonton Belmont, we have a group of grade 5 students from McLeod elementary school. They are accompanied by their group leader Mrs. McKeen. Would they please rise and accept the cordial welcome of the House. head: MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Workers' Health, Safety and Compensation MR. DIACHUK: Mr.

Speaker, on February 28, the community of Grande Cache was shaken by the deaths of four of its citizens in an accident at the Mclntyre under­ ground mine. The occupational health and safety division has been investigating the circumstances which resulted in this tragedy, and has now completed its report. Officials of the division are in the process of meeting with repre­ sentatives of Mclntyre Mines Limited and with the union representing the miners to discuss the actions required to ensure that the recommendations of the report are im­ plemented.

As of this morning, both parties, the United Steelworkers of America, Local 7621, and management have agreed to commence immediately review and im­ plementation of the recommendations. I intend to be personally involved in meetings with the union and management, together with my officials. Mr. Speaker, I wish to file three copies of the report with the Legislature Library. Copies will also be available to interested parties through my office and the occupa­ tional health and safety division. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Nurses' Salary Dispute MR. R. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to direct the first question to the Minister of Labour, or perhaps to the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care. It's a result of the nurses in the province of Alberta voting some 94 per cent in favor of strike action. Yesterday in the House, the Minister of Labour said that there may be an appropriate time for him to become personally involved in the nego­ tiations. I think I used the term "face-to-face negotia­ tions".

My question to the minister: in light of the vote the Alberta nurses have taken — 94 per cent of the nurses voting to go out on strike — and the anguish being caused to a great number of Albertans as far as the health care potential for members of their families and them­ selves, is the minister now prepared to become personally involved in the negotiations between the nurses of the province and the Alberta Hospital Association? MR. YOUNG: Mr.

Speaker, I think all hon. members regret when there is a situation which causes any upset to society, any possibility of misunderstanding, or extended collective bargaining which creates that sort of situation. This is one of those occasions. The vote which is being completed today — and some public comment has al­ ready been made on it — is a stage in the free collective bargaining procedure. For me to commit to my future course of actions at this time, when there has not been an announcement of any strike or work stoppage, would be a deliberate undermining of the collective bargaining pro­ cess.

As I indicated to the House yesterday, we have mediation services available, and we are maintaining con­ tact with both parties. Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yester­ day and as I will re-indicate now, I am prepared to assist when the time seems appropriate to do that. But to indicate when and if I'm going to make personal interven­ tions at this time would, in my estimation, jeopardize the possibility of other developments which may occur. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care.

Is the minister in a position to indicate to the Alberta Hospital Association that the Alberta government will back the Hospital Association in one last attempt to avert a strike, by making more money available to Alberta nurses? Does the minister have the support of the Treasury Board in making that commitment? MR. RUSSELL: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I think the record shows that the government, through the department, has usually and traditionally met the legitimate financial needs of the hospital boards as they've been submitted to us, and that in the past we've honored the commitments the hospital boards have negotiated through their associa­ tion, the Alberta Hospital Association. Again, I think it would be unwise, in fact unwelcome, for me to indicate any particular ceiling of financial commitment when these important negotiations are still under way.

344 ALBERTA HANSARD April 15, 1980 MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question then to the minister. Mr. Minister, in light of that answer, does the Alberta Hospital Association have a free hand to negotiate what it would adjudge to be a responsible final offer to the Alberta nurses' association? MR. RUSSELL: I'm a bit puzzled by that question, Mr. Speaker, because of course they do. I don't think there's been any sign whatsoever that we have attempted through the department or branches of government to place any restrictions on them.

We've given guidelines, and I em­ phasize the word "guidelines", to the public sector man­ agement agencies with respect to what we hope will be their position with respect to bargaining. But of course every individual association must respond to their partic­ ular association. In that regard, Mr. Speaker, it might be helpful if I read a communication from the president of the Alberta Hospital Association which I received this morning, out­ lining very clearly what their last offer to the nurses is. If hon. members would like to hear that, I'd be pleased to read it. HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. RUSSELL: Mr.

Speaker, the message is dated 10:45 this morning, and gives details of the Alberta Hospital Association offer of 32 per cent over two years to the United Nurses association.

It goes on to say: With regards to the breakdown in contract negotia­ tions with the nurses, may I advise that the last offer by the Alberta Hospital Association to the United Nurses of Alberta negotiating team was that of wage parity currently in effect for Ontario nurses More specifically the offer effective January 1st, 1980 con­ stituted a 19.15 percent increase in minimum salary rates to 1450 per month and a 15.27 percent salary increase to 1676 per month at maximum salary rates to be followed in 1981 by a 10 percent general increase.

In addition the association agreed to addi­ tional benefits over the next two years equivalent to 3 percent of salary costs. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is wise to read that into the record for information purposes, and I'd like to file a copy for the Legislature Library. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Hospi­ tals and Medical Care or to Minister of Labour. Where would the most recent offer the Alberta Hospital Associa­ tion has made place Alberta nurses in comparison with the recent settlement in British Columbia — above, below, or equal to? MR.

SPEAKER: With great respect, it would seem to me that any hon. member who wished to make that compari­ son would be free to do so without expecting it to be a ministerial responsibility. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, then to the minister. Is the minister in a position to assure the Assembly that the last offer made by the Alberta Hospital Association would enable Alberta nurses to be compensated on a basis equal to nurses in British Columbia? I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that one may say this is a matter of public information.

But what we're talking about here is that within 48 hours there is the possibility of Alberta nurses walking out. In light of getting that kind of comparison out in the public arena, it seems to me that that would be extremely helpful to know — not just for the nurses, members of the Assembly, or the Hospital Association, but for all Albertans — given the concern expressed by a large number of people who will have to have themselves or members of their families withdrawn from hospitals. MR. SPEAKER: If the Assembly wishes to agree to that kind of questioning, of course I'm not going to stand in the way.

But I point out again that this is the sort of comparison that any member of the public and any member of this Assembly can make. It's not within the function or the official duty of our ministers to make assessments of that kind as to what's going on in other jurisdictions. MR. KNAAK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it's more than that. The hon. Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that actually a responsibility that belongs to the hospital boards and the nurses, and their negotiation independent of this government — and that offer was not made by the government but by the Hospital Association.

In, fact, he's asking a question which relates to the Hospital Association, and this government has no re­ sponsibility at all with respect to that negotiation. DR. BUCK: Who puts the money up, Knaak? MR. KNAAK: If the member over there wants to speak, please rise on that point of order. MR. NOTLEY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. First of all, members in this House are well aware that last- dollar funding comes from the provincial government. DR. BUCK: Everybody except Knaak. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, on the point of order spe­ cifically, the question of comparisons with other prov­ inces is certainly the kind of question that can be put. It's not obligatory that the minister answer it. But in fairness, I would point out that frequently when questions are posed in this House, when it is in the interest of the government side, where the comparisons with other prov­ inces are favorable to Alberta, we get one minister after another standing up joyously giving us the good news. [interjections] Mr. Speaker, if they choose not to answer the question, that's up to them; but the question can be put. MR.

SPEAKER: Exactly. The hon. member has summed up the situation in his conclusion. It is up to the ministers and the government, and it's not for me to decide what information they voluntarily wish to make public. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, then I'll pose one further question to the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care. Is the Alberta government prepared to support a settle­ ment in Alberta that would enable Alberta nurses to be compensated on a footing equal to nurses in British Columbia? MR. RUSSELL: Mr.

Speaker, I just can't believe I'm hearing that kind of question from the Leader of the Opposition at this stage in important negotiations. DR. BUCK: Well, you've heard it.

April 15, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 345 MR. RUSSELL: I've tried to make it very clear that the record shows that this government has delegated the responsibility for collective bargaining on the hospitals side to the Alberta Hospital Association. And I think the record has shown that the government has responded to the financial requirements which have accrued as a result of those negotiations. But for me to say publicly at this stage to what level we would support in comparison with other provinces would, I think, be totally irresponsible. Alberta Corrections Review MR. R. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to direct the second question to the Solicitor General and ask what the basis was for the change in orientation of the report done by that group from Chicago — when there were no Canadian firms available, according to the Minister of Housing and Public Works. When was the focus of the report changed from, really, a master plan for the correc­ tional services in the province to an overview or a review of the correctional operations in the province? MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, I'd have to take that as notice. I know that the name was changed.

I think that occurred as a result of discussions between the consultant and the departmental people in the Solicitor General's Department and perhaps in the Department of Housing and Public Works. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, then to the Minister of Housing and Public Works who, according to Hansard on June 27, really was responsible for entering into the contract. Could the Minister of Housing and Public Works indicate to the Assembly when the change was made from a master plan to a review or overview of the penal system in the province? MR. CHAMBERS: Mr.

Speaker, I think my colleague the Solicitor General has adequately responded to that question. He said he'd take it under advisement. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, to either of the hon. gentlemen. Could either hon. gentleman indicate to the Assembly why neither one of them knew last June 27 that the change had been made? According to Hansard, they both refer to the — Mr. Harle, the hon. Solicitor Gener­ al, refers to it as a master plan, and the hon. Minister of Housing and Public Works used the same kind of termi­ nology.

Why didn't they know last June, when the report was virtually finished and the minister was waiting to get it? MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, I didn't receive the report until the end of January or the beginning of February of this year. MR. R. CLARK: To the hon. minister. Would the hon. minister not have been informed by his officials in the department that they changed the whole focus of the report? MR. CHAMBERS: Mr. Speaker, I don't really accept the import of that question. Again, my colleague said that he'd take the matter under advisement and respond. MR. R. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, to the hon. minister, either of the hon. gentlemen. Could the Solicitor General indicate to the Assembly when it was first brought to the minister's attention that there had been considerable re­ writing of the report? MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, the consultant and the two departments developed a plan for carrying out the work that the consultants were asked to do. A considerable amount of work was done over the period from 1978 until the final report was prepared. I received it, as I say, roughly at the end of January or the beginning of February 1980.

There was continuous dialogue over that period of time between the consultants and the officials in the Department of the Solicitor General. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question to the minister. Recognizing that the minister has just said the report was commissioned in '78 and received in January 1980, why was it that six months before the minister received the report — June 27, 1979 — neither minister knew it was going to be an overview rather than a master plan, as was indicated in Hansard on that occasion?

And on that occasion, why didn't either minister know the departmental officials were going to be doing the laundering of the report? Because in this situa­ tion, in Hansard there is no indication of that laundering at all. It talks about a master plan by the firm of Moyer Associates of Chicago. MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think the Leader of the Opposition has used a very unfortunate expression. Certainly the dialogue that occurred and the work that the consultant asked of departmental officials were done at the request of the consultant.

Any informa­ tion, any records, any material, ideas, alternatives, op­ tions were all supplied to the consultant. The consultant developed a review team which went over that material. We have received what I believe to be an excellent report, now entitled Alberta Corrections Review. I had no con­ tact at all with the officials or the consultants until quite late in the fall last year, when I met the consultant very briefly. I've been waiting, as have many people, no doubt, for the Corrections Review.

It's now been received and contains some 90 recommendations, which we'll be con­ sidering and acting upon over the next period of years. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. Mr. Minister, were there any changes made in the report after the minister met with the consultant? MR. HARLE: As far as I know, there was drafting of the report done by officials in the Department of the Solici­ tor General and communication with the consultants, leading up to the final date of printing. I have no idea what those were. Those were done in co-operation with the consultant.

Anything that was finally arrived at as the final form of the report bears the name of the consultant. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, just one last supplemen­ tary question to the minister today. Mr. Minister, why was it needed to go out to Chicago to get consultants for $250,000 if, to use the term the minister just used, offi­ cials of the department were drafting the report? MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, I would reject that last comment. MR. R. CLARK: You made it yourself.

346 ALBERTA HANSARD April 15, 1980 MR. HARLE: The drafting was done at any request that was made by the consultants for information of whatever kind and was done over a period of time. The report bears the consultant's name. He had absolute authority to receive, reject, modify, or change whatever material was supplied. That was the obligation upon the consultant and, as I think any consultant is entitled to do, he relied upon information and work done by the department. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister. MR. SPEAKER: Followed by a final supplementary by the hon.

Member for Little Bow. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, is it the normal course of action in the Department of the Solicitor General or other departments of government that where consultants have been engaged to do certain work for the people of Alberta, changes can in fact be made in the data base and the time frame, consulting with senior officials of the department, without obtaining at least the consent and agreement of the responsible minister? MR. R. CLARK: If the minister doesn't run the depart­ ment, who runs it? MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, I was not involved at all in the material within the report. MR. R.

CLARK: Who's responsible? MR. HARLE: The report was asked for by the Depart­ ment of Housing and Public Works, which commissioned the consultants. The consultants quite naturally went to both departments involved for a variety of information. That information was supplied as requested. Alternatives and options were considered. The material was prepared. A considerable amount of effort went into the review process, which has resulted in an excellent report. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. We have a number of other members who have not yet asked their first ques­ tions.

If there's time, we can come back to this topic. The hon. Member for Grande Prairie, followed by the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview. Quebec Referendum Debate MR. BORSTAD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Premier. I understand that the Liberal leader Claude Ryan will seek outside help from the other provinces of Canada in the upcoming referendum debate. Will the Premier be speaking in Quebec if asked to do so? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's question is clearly hypothetical. The eventuality hasn't arisen. Perhaps some other way of putting the question would escape that difficulty. MR.

BORSTAD: Would it be the policy of the provincial government to attend and speak in that debate? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I think I've answered that question previously in the House, merely by saying the discussion I held with the Liberal leader in Quebec, Mr. Ryan, when I was there in early March was that we would be prepared to participate in the referendum de­ bate within the province of Quebec if we were asked to do so. Nurses' Strike Vote MR. NOTLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to direct this question to the hon. Minister of Labour. It flows from the recent strike vote by the United Nurses of Alberta.

Is the minister in a position to advise the Assembly under whose authority two Calgary-based agents of the Department of Labour seized ballot boxes used in conjunction with the UNA strike vote in the town of Canmore and the city of Medicine Hat? MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I could take those questions as notice. I can respond in part to my understanding of a situation in Canmore; that is, there apparently was a question about who was eligible to vote. I understand that that question has been resolved today, and that clearance has been given for the vote to proceed. Mr.

Speaker, in the event that there is any difference of opinion as between the employer and the employees concerning who is eligible to vote, there is responsibility in the Department of Labour to resolve those matters. That was the case in Canmore. I would have to take the matter of Medicine Hat as notice to determine what may have been the cause for that development, if in fact there was such a situation there. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question to the hon. minister.

Is the minister in a position to explain to the Assembly why the ballot box seized in Canmore was held overnight in the home of the Calgary agent who seized the box, rather than being locked up in a department office? And why was it seized before the vote count was taken, as was done in the case of the city of Medicine Hat? MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I've already indicated that for the moment I've exhausted my fund of information on these very perceptive and intriguing questions. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister.

With respect to Canmore action, the minister indicated that certain complaints were lodged. Is the minister in a position to outline to the Assembly where those complaints came from that prompted the action by officials of the department at a time when the issue was very clearly charged and one would think that everyone would be very cautious in approaching this matter? MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the prob­ lem in Canmore did arise from an abundance of caution, that there was a disagreement, and that the matter was stalled at that point in the process until the issue in question could be resolved.

That has been resolved today. So I have to underline that the very problem apparently originated from an abundance of caution. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. Is the minister in a position, then, to advise the Assembly that two boxes, I gather, in Medicine Hat, as well as the one in Canmore, will in fact be returned to the United Nurses? In the case of Medicine

April 15, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 347 Hat, I gather that the votes were in fact tabulated, but will the ballot boxes be returned to the UNA today? MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I think a very grave miscon­ ception is being developed here about the responsibility for the conduct of a strike vote. That is a responsibility on the Department of Labour. That is a supervised strike vote and, as required by The Alberta Labour Act, the ballots as well as the procedures are mandated by the Department of Labour, and the results have to be re­ ported pursuant to requirements of the Department of Labour. So, Mr.

Speaker, it is not a question of any ownership on the part of the United Nurses of Alberta. So far as I know, it's strictly carrying out a procedure which is the responsibility of the Department of Labour. MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the final supplementary on this topic. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. The question is not just the physical ownership of the ballot boxes, but the ability of the United Nurses of Alberta to know, in fact, that those ballot boxes have been properly counted under the pro­ cedures set out by the Act. MR. YOUNG: Mr.

Speaker, I can only advise hon. members that no problem of concern has been expressed, as far as I'm aware, with respect to any improper pro­ ceedings, which seems to be the allegation I'm interpret­ ing from some of those questions. As far as I know, everything is in order. Where problems did arise, my understanding is that they've been resolved. But I shall be checking into it. Drivers' Licence Records DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Solicitor General.

I'd just like to know if the minister is in a position to indicate, or has the answer to the question I asked last week as to what co-ordination there is among the western provinces in the dissemination of drivers' licence records. MR. HARLE: As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, the system is that the jurisdiction where an offence occurs reports the conviction to the jurisdiction where the driv­ er's licence originates. It's a mutually operated system whereby information regarding, for example, impaired charges under the code is passed on to the jurisdiction where the individual holds his driver's licence. DR.

BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Is the minister in a position now to indicate to the Legisla­ ture the situation that applied to Mr. Lindquist, when information that was forwarded to Saskatchewan from the Solicitor General's Department was incorrect and caused the incarceration of this young man? MR. HARLE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It will take me a few moments to do so. On September 8, 1976, Mr. Lindquist was convicted in Alberta under

Section 236 of the Crimi­ nal Code and suspended for six months from that date, up to and including March 7, 1977. He completed an impaired drivers' course on September 22, 1976, and his Alberta licence was reinstated on March 8, 1977. On July 9, 1978, a Manitoba conviction under

Section 236 of the Criminal Code of Canada was entered against his Alberta driver's licence. On July 16, 1978, a second Manitoba conviction under

Section 236 of the Criminal Code of Canada was entered against this individual's licence. On August 18, 1978, a notice of suspension was sub­ mitted to Mr. Lindquist's last given address, 5715 - 115 Street, Edmonton, effective July 16, 1978, to July 15, 1981. This notice was sent by certified mail. The period of three years was given as a result of the three Criminal Code convictions applied to Mr. Lindquist's record. On August 21, 1978, the certified mail was signed by a P. W. Lindquist. On February 15, 1980, Mr. Lindquist was picked up for speeding in the Grenfell district in Sas­ katchewan.

At that time at check was made on CPIC, and it was noted that he was a suspended driver in Alberta. As a result, he was issued a summons for driving while under suspension and for speeding, and was to appear on March 5, 1980. At that point, I am led to believe from the information given to officials in the department by the RCMP that Mr. Lindquist informed the police officer that he knew he was suspended in Alberta, but was unable to find out why. On March 5, 1980, Mr. Lindquist failed to appear on the summonses and, as a result, a warrant was issued for his arrest.

He was arrested on March 22, 1980, and incarcerated pending a court hearing. On March 26, 1980, Mr. Lindquist appeared in court, at which time the RCMP dropped the charges for driving while under sus­ pension, since they had received information indicating that the entry on the CPIC records was incorrect. I might say that as soon as it came to the attention of officials in the motor vehicles branch, it was obvious that the two Manitoba convictions were in fact not even against Mr. Lindquist.

Had this come to our attention at any time [before] the issue of the notice of suspension, it could easily have been corrected. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. In light of the fact that the information that came from the minister's department was inaccurate, does the minister have a system in position at this time to make sure these things do not happen? Secondly, can the minister indicate if there have been other instances such as this, of incorrect records being sent out to other jurisdictions? MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, I would have to take that as notice. I am not aware of any.

The system, of course, depends on humans to operate it. The reviewing officer quite obviously made a mistake, and I have sent a letter of apology to Mr. Lindquist. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister. Can the minister indicate if there's any avenue open to the person in question as to compensation for the loss of time, the loss of a job, plus the anguish of staying in jail for five days when he really shouldn't have been there? Is there any compensation available to the person? MR. HARLE: Mr.

Speaker, the normal practice when someone has been adversely affected by a decision made by an official in the department is to make a complaint to the Ombudsman. In my letter to Mr. Lindquist, I have suggested that if he is not satisfied with the apology, he should approach the Ombudsman.

348 ALBERTA HANSARD April 15, 1980 Premier's Toronto Speech MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs. It would relate to the Premier's speech in Toronto tomor­ row, I believe. Could the minister indicate whether the Premier will be announcing any new policies in that speech that haven't been announced in this Legislature? We know what happened in Vancouver, and we see another repeat performance coming. [interjections] MR. R. CLARK: Johnston doesn't know. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Speaker, I think that requires some knowledge about what's going to happen tomor­ row. I just don't have that at my fingertips. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques­ tion to the Acting Premier. Has the Acting Premier been advised with regard to the contents of the Premier's speech tomorrow in Toronto? Will it violate one of the sacred principles of this Legislature, that new announce­ ments should be made here? [interjections] MR. HYNDMAN: The hon. member should endeavor to contain his anticipation until tomorrow. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, it's nice to be arro­ gant.

But if the Premier is going to talk about something new, has he talked about it to the rest of you fellows? [interjections] Has he let you in on the good news? Regional Water Services MR. BATIUK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my ques­ tion to the Minister of Environment. It's a follow-up to a private member's motion requesting the government for regional water services throughout the province. Could the minister advise whether any action or progress has taken effect since then? MR. COOKSON: Mr.

Speaker, yes, we are moving in different parts of the province in terms of a regional concept for shared costs and use of a common facility for transportation of water. MR. BATIUK: A supplementary question to the minis­ ter. Have any commitments been made to any of the municipalities? If so, is it the intention of the minister to finance such regional water systems? MR. COOKSON: Mr. Speaker, at the present time there are a number of ad hoc regional systems within the province that deal with both water and sewer.

I would suggest to the Member for Vegreville that probably the most significant one has to do with his particular constit­ uency, and that we have just recently approved a regional water supply that will serve at least five communities, culminating at the town of Vegreville. As to front-end financing, we have worked closely with the mayors of the five communities. They are in agree­ ment with special front-end funding for a specific period of time. Following that time there will be a review based on the population growth in the area. DR. BUCK: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question re­ lating to the regional water line. Can the minister indicate what upgrading will be required on the line from Edmon­ ton to Fort Saskatchewan to increase the carrying capacity? MR. COOKSON: Mr. Speaker, I could take that as notice from the Member for Clover Bar. At the present time there is a line that runs to Fort Saskatchewan. I think they are in the process of upgrading, but I'd just have to take that as notice. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. HORSMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I would move that Motion for a Return No. 111 stand and retain its place on the Order Paper. [Motion carried] head: WRITTEN QUESTIONS 105. Mr.

Notley asked the government the following question: (1) what was the total value of royalties paid by Manal- ta Coal Ltd. as a result of operations at their Sheerness mine in 1979; (2) what was the total value of royalties paid by Manal- ta Coal Ltd. as a result of operations at their Sheerness mine in 1978; (3) what was the total value of royalties paid by Manal- ta Coal Ltd. as a result of operations at their Sheerness mine in 1977; (4) what was the total value of royalties paid by Manal- ta Coal Ltd. as a result of operations at their Sheerness mine in 1976; (5) what was the total value of royalties paid by Manal- ta Coal Ltd. as a result of operations at their Sheerness mine in 1975?

MR. NOTLEY: I think they say yes. head: MOTIONS FOR RETURNS 102. Mr. Notley moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing all reports, recommendations, or written information received by the Minister of Environ­ ment from the Hazardous Chemicals Advisory Commit­ tee regarding proposed amendments to The Hazardous Chemicals Act. MR. COOKSON: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to move a slight amendment to Motion 102: after the words "all reports" strike out the four words "recommendations, or written information", substitute those words with simply "and recommendations", and accept it on that basis. [Motion as amended carried] head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 204. Moved by Mr. D. Anderson:

Be it resolved that on behalf of the people of Alberta this Legislative Assembly publicly express to Canadian Citi­ zens in Quebec our hope that they will remain within Confederation, and that we further declare our commit­

April 15, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 349 ment to working with our fellow governments to bring about a restructured Confederation in which the unique features of each province are properly recognized and represented. MR. D. ANDERSON: Mr.

Speaker, in rising to propose this motion to the Assembly today, it's my opinion that the unity debate, which has taken place for a couple of years and is now reaching its crescendo with the an­ nouncement today that the vote in the province of Quebec will take place on May 20, is of great importance not only to the people of this country as a whole but perhaps to an even greater extent to the people of this province at its time in history. I fully believe Alberta shares many of the frustrations felt by fellow citizens in the province of Quebec.

The difficulties they've encount­ ered as a result of distance from the rest of the country in terms of language and culture is indeed felt by us in a different way because of a distance in miles from the central part of our country and a lack of population base. As part of this nation, Quebec has perhaps been frus­ trated since it joined. Indeed, some may ask why this country has been held together at all. The province of Quebec, or what is now Quebec, was forced into Confed­ eration on the Plains of Abraham when France lost its foothold in this part of North America.

Since that time issue after issue has come up which has shown that there is discontent and frustration in that province. The hang­ ing of Louis Riel was seen by the people of Quebec as a move by English Canada not to deal with their problems but in fact to enhance the frustrations in that particular province. The conscription issue in World War II came close to tearing the country apart.

Then the FLQ crisis during the last decade showed us that indeed there were people in the province of Quebec, though in the extreme minority, who felt so strongly about the problems they faced that they were willing to take violent action. The most recent indications of frustration in Quebec, of course, were manifested by the election of the Parti Quebecois government a couple of years ago. Alberta too, perhaps in a more quiet and unassuming way in past years, though that may not be said for the last while, has felt frustration, beginning with its time as really a colony of eastern Canada.

We did nothing but supply raw resources to the east. In fact we were respon­ sible for nothing but looking after the needs of that part of the country, and were governed by that part of the country, through to the time we began to develop our agricultural base and our independent economic status, and still faced the frustration of having our economic sphere operated out of Bay Street in Toronto. Political control has perhaps been even more frustrat­ ing, because we haven't had the population base the eastern provinces — or the central provinces, to be more accurate — have had.

Therefore we have never been able to help control the destiny of the nation in the manner we would like to. But, Mr. Speaker, despite these frustrations of Quebec and Alberta and, I'm sure, of other partners within Confederation, we have grown together. We have fought together in two wars. We have indeed gone through a depression and have striven to the point where we are a nation today — a basically strong and united nation, I believe, which has shown itself to be one of the great leaders in the world in many areas. I'd like to quote from a column in Maclean's magazine dated May 9, 1977, where Mr.

Harries said: Confedera­ tion cannot survive in its present form and renegotiation is a necessity. Renegotiation of the economic basis of Confederation is necessary, not because the original ar­ rangement failed, but rather because it achieved a re­ markable degree of success. It's my opinion that that voluntary coming together of the people of Alberta and the people of Quebec with those of all other provinces and the territories has let us develop to the point where we now have to make a choice with respect to the Confederation which, as a basically young country, we have built to maturity.

How does Quebec feel today about the Confederation which they worked so hard to hold together and build in the past? It's my personal belief, from a knowledge of people in that province and from discussions I've been privileged to have in the past, that they still feel basically the same. There is a warmth, there is that kinship that comes from the fighting and growing together over years. In fact last year the hon. Member for Edmonton Mill Woods and I had an opportunity to meet with three members of the Quebec National Assembly who were members of the Parti Quebecois.

Even with those indi­ viduals — individuals who had dedicated themselves to breaking apart the nation — I felt that warmth and sincerity. How does Alberta feel about the people of Quebec and their position currently in Confederation? The Canada West Foundation, in a series of 14 seminars and work­ shops held in 1977 — one of which I had an opportunity to attend — came to the following conclusion.

First, most western Canadians found some similarities between Que­ bec's ambitions for recognition and the west's ambitions for recognition; second, a majority of people at those meetings rejected the concept of sovereignty association; and third, the people at those meetings felt that a strong nation could not be built on different deals with each province, but on equality for all provinces. Mr.

Speaker, I think the feelings of the people of Alberta toward the people of Quebec were underlined to an even greater extent in the People to People petition, which brought around 115,000 Albertans together to ex­ tend that hand of friendship to our sisters and brothers in the province of Quebec and to ask them to consider remaining within Confederation and working with us there. It's the problem of frustration that we now have to deal with. We have to enlarge upon options and explore the alternatives. The frustrations were outlined very clearly, in my opinion, by the hon.

Premier of this Legislature in the 1978 first ministers' conference on the constitution. He said: Historically, Albertans have not felt that their in­ terests and concerns have been adequately accom­ modated within the present federal system. They sense that their accomplishments and aspirations, both individual and collective, have been frustrated by the historic concentration of economic decision­ making in the so-called "golden triangle" centred in Toronto . . .

It is not only a matter of freight rates [the Premier said] but Alberta's aspirations have been obstructed by federal policies affecting agricul­ ture, transportation, natural resources, development policies, international tariffs. At that conference, the Premier mentioned as well that the unilateral imposition of controls by the federal gov­ ernment in terms of wage and price guidelines in '77 was the greatest example of infringement on rights of the provinces. I think if the hon. Premier were here today and had an opportunity to speak, he might well amend

350 ALBERTA HANSARD April 15, 1980 that to read, the force majeure clause initiated a couple of weeks ago, and the other activity we've seen on the part of the federal government, primarily yesterday in the Speech from the Throne. So with the frustrations apparent, with the problems there, with the people of Quebec now prepared to vote on exactly what they want to do about Confederation, we have to look at what alternatives we have as a nation and, in particular, what alternatives the people of the province of Quebec have in terms of this Confederation.

The first, of course, is to accept the proposal of the current Premier of that province for something called "sovereignty asso­ ciation". I should make it clear initially that in my opinion if the Premier obtains that vote — and I hope he will not — that won't necessarily mean the people of Quebec have voted to leave Confederation.

In a survey of businessmen in the province of Quebec, just handed to me by a colleague in the House — and remember these are businessmen, people who have a knowledge and understanding of the operations of gov­ ernment by virtue of their occupation — this question was asked: in your opinion, does sovereignty association mean that Quebec will become a country unto its own, distinct from Canada, or that Quebec would remain with­ in Canada without becoming a distinct country? Of the businessmen surveyed, 32.7 per cent said sovereignty as­ sociation meant remaining within Canada without be­ coming a distinct country.

Another 9.1 per cent didn't know. Clearly, over 40 per cent did not understand the concept the Premier of that province has put forth. Indeed, if we take a look at that concept of sovereignty association, he clearly calls for a separate sovereign state. The association part, the hon. Premier of Quebec says, is bringing together the two countries so that we can have a free circulation of goods and services, a monetary union between the two countries, a free circulation of people back and forth, joint control of agencies like Air Canada and Canadian National, and so on.

In other words, the Premier of Quebec has suggested that while they can be a separate state, they can receive all the benefits Quebec now derives from Confederation. Indeed, I don't think we in this Legislature or people in any part of Canada can accept that particular concept.

I quote from a recent statement made by the western premiers: the western premiers reject both the status quo and Quebec independ­ ence followed by an economic association with Canada, the so-called sovereignty association option considering neither to be viable alternatives for solving the problems currently confronting the federal system. So it is clear that sovereignty association is a call for a separate nation with the kinds of contacts with Canada which cannot be possible.

Indeed, that particular vote taking place on May 20 may be seen as a ruse, an attempt in some way to fool what could well be at least 40 per cent of the people of Quebec. But it is one of the options which the people are going to have to choose on May 20. The second option is presented by the leader of the federalist forces in that province, Mr. Claude Ryan. He has presented a paper in which he outlines the kind of Confederation he sees.

That Confederation would include a maintenance of the federal system of government, the existence of provincial powers strong enough to take charge of tasks relating to the development of physical and human resources, natural resources, land use, local and provincial commerce, education, culture, and so on. And the Legislative Assembly should act with full par­ liamentary sovereignty limited only by those matters as­ signed to the jurisdiction of the federal government.

He makes a number of other suggestions with respect to bringing together the two cultures and allowing a mechanism federally which would deal with the cultural differences between the two provinces. But clearly the option put forth by Mr. Ryan is a positive one. It is one which calls upon that province to remain part of Confed­ eration, yet talks about the restructuring of Confedera­ tion in such a way as to ensure that the people of that province will be able to control their own destiny. Mr.

Speaker, there's a third option for Canada and this is Harmony in Diversity, a document we're well aware of in this House, presented several years before the Ryan paper but which, in my opinion, includes many similar points.

If I may briefly outline the six points on which the Harmony in Diversity paper is based: — responsible parliamentary government must be the basis of our system of government; — the principles of constitutional monarchy must be maintained; — all provinces have equal constitutional and legal status within Confederation; — strong provinces make a strong, viable Canada, complementing the role of [the] federal government; That's an important statement — a strong and viable Canada made by provinces "complementing the role of [the] federal government". — within their respective spheres of jurisdiction, the two orders of government — federal and provincial — are equal, neither being subor­ dinate to the other; — each of the two orders of government must respect the responsibilities and jurisdictions of the other.

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion it's within that document that this government in previous days outlined the vehicle through which our nation can hold together, where our people can again feel part of a country and are able to maximize their advantages regardless of what part of this nation they remain in. I believe quite firmly that at this time in history, the people of Quebec are like another brother in the same family. It's a new living arrangement which we must have.

But I must say, before closing my introductory remarks on this motion, that I am deeply concerned with the role the federal government may well have set aside for itself, not only within this debate but within Canada.

At this time in our nation when more than ever before we require a government which will bring together the people, which will ensure that each province has the ability, the re­ sources, and indeed the legislative right to control its own destiny, the government has seen fit to enact a force majeure clause unilaterally and announce yesterday in the House of Commons part of a deal with Alberta for which there has been absolutely no negotiations. Mr. Speaker, I think it's unfortunate those measures have taken place now.

I think they have increased the frustration level in this province and indeed must make every province, including the province of Quebec, con­ cerned about what role they will continue to play in Confederation. Regardless of that, I think it's our time in history to extend our hand to our sister province ex­ periencing similar frustrations, and to ask them to stay within this family of provinces, to bring together the kind of nation that will allow us to realize our maximum potential.

Let us hope that through the passage of this motion and future actions this province may take, Que­ bec and Alberta and the people in those two provinces, as

April 15, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 351 well as in the other eight provinces and two territories, may be able to say in the future without qualifications, without hesitation, and in one breath rather than in two: I love my province; I love my country. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part brief­ ly in the debate on Motion 204, first of all I would like to congratulate the hon. Member for Calgary Currie for an excellent introductory speech and for an ongoing interest in this very crucial issue. In prefacing my remarks, while acknowledging the initiative taken by the hon.

Member for Calgary Currie, I think in a sense it's unfortunate that a matter of this importance is not being dealt with as a government motion; and that in fact the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs or the Premier himself isn't leading off the debate. I say that, Mr. Speaker, because frankly if one looks at what is happen­ ing in other jurisdictions . . . In our neighboring province of Saskatchewan the Premier recently made a major speech to the Saskatchewan Legislature on the question of Confederation.

We've seen a broad-ranging, three- week debate in the province of Quebec — albeit the question is, going to be put to the voters of Quebec. In upcoming days in the House of Commons, it's my under­ standing that the primary focus of the Speech from the Throne debate is going to be on the issue of constitution­ al change and the Quebec referendum. That being the case, Mr. Speaker, I say to members of the government that it is unfortunate it is not a motion introduced by the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs that we are debating today.

I would hope that minister would take the opportunity during the course of this debate to outline very clearly the government's position on this matter. Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with just two or three aspects of the forthcoming debate in the province of Quebec. I would have to argue that the ultimate decision an whether the people of Quebec remain in Confedera­ tion must lie with the Canadian citizens who live in the province of Quebec.

But having said that we cannot keep the country together by force and that it must be the citizens who decide by ballot whether that very important part of the country stays within our national fabric, I think it is important that we also say we are not neutral about the referendum, that we very much want the people of Quebec to decide in the upcoming weeks — and to decide by a decisive majority — that no, they are not going to support Mr. Levesque's proposal for sovereignty association. Mr. Levesque is a very able and skillful person, an individual leader whose social conscience is undeniable.

His contribution to the Quebecois is beyond challenge. But on this issue, I think the proposal for sovereignty association, while tactically shrewd in many ways, Mr. Speaker, is putting a false question to the people of the province of Quebec. If the PQ government were to state honestly and categorically to the Quebecois that they wish independence with everything that implies, then the question of the referendum would be more clear cut.

But the PQ ministers and their advisors are shrewd enough to know that if they can get a fudged referendum past the voters of the province of Quebec, these things develop a momentum of their own. The tremendous traumatic ex­ perience that would, I think, affect not only the people of Quebec but all the people of Canada should the referen­ dum pass, would develop a momentum which could very well lead the government of that province to achieve its long-term end, which is an independent, sovereign state. Mr.

Speaker, I was proud that the Premier of Sas­ katchewan took the initiative the other day to go to Quebec and make a speech. Some people — some in the traditional left in this country — criticized Premier Bla- keney for journeying to the province of Quebec to, I think, call it as it is; to say very clearly that we want the people of that province to vote no, that we want to see them remain in Canada, and that as an indication of good will we're prepared to look at major constitutional restructuring that perhaps will challenge some of the tra­ ditional views many of us have held over the years.

But if the people of Quebec vote yes for sovereignty association, if it is a oui vote, then it is not reasonable to expect people in the rest of the country automatically to jump in enthusiastic response to a form of economic union, particularly people in western Canada who over the years have had to pay more for goods and services produced in Ontario and Quebec. Part of the bargain, if you like, has been a recognition that we are in it together, that we are part of a great nation.

But if the people in Quebec decide that they wish to develop their own sepa­ rate state, frankly it is a little bit much to expect that the sheltered markets for woollen products and clothing pro­ duced in Montreal and Quebec would find the same tariff protection in western Canada. Surely that's a bit much. It seems to me it is only fair and reasonable that we present that view to the people of Quebec in as diplomat­ ic a way as possible, not in a threatening sense. I think it would be a very serious error in tactics to say, either you do it our way or else.

But there is a difference between threatening tactics, Mr. Speaker, and simply stating hon­ estly that as part of Canada we are all willing to give and take — that's part of our view of this country — but that if any part of it decides to go on its own, whether it be the PQ government in Quebec or two members of the Sas­ katchewan Legislature who also want to break up this country, that simply cannot co-exist with the bargain that is Confederation. So, Mr. Speaker, the question at this time really is: is our Legislature going to support categorically the first part of this proposal?

I have no difficulty in saying yes, I think it is a reasonable position. It is unfortunate that if is not the Premier of the province who is saying that in the Legislative Assembly today. We've had debates in the past. We had a debate in 1976 on a constitutional amending formula. We had a debate in 1978 on the government's position paper which took some time to complete in this House. While I had some very serious concerns about many aspects of that position paper, nevertheless at least it was discussed in the Legislative Assembly.

But before the people of Quebec vote in what has to be admitted is the most important action ever taken by a citizenry in any part of Canada in the history of the country, surely it is not unreasonable that we should be debating a government position paper. I want to deal very briefly with the second part of the resolution. In 1978 I didn't agree with the government's position paper. I think there are important distinctions between the proposals of Mr.

Claude Ryan and the posi­ tion paper accepted by this Assembly in 1978, the most important of which is the recognition in the Ryan document that there should be an entrenchment of lan­ guage rights and a Bill of rights, so that rights of Canadians would exist wherever they live in the country. Other areas in the Claude Ryan paper are somewhat analogous to the Alberta document. Although as I read Mr. Ryan's paper — he is barnstorming Quebec, perhaps not directly on behalf of, but at least it's the alternative to

352 ALBERTA HANSARD April 15, 1980 the PQ proposal for sovereignty association — there is probably greater recognition of the need for effective central leadership. I'm more comfortable with the Ryan proposal than I am with the document passed by this Legislature in 1978. But, Mr. Speaker, it would probably be premature for any of us to say at this juncture that if the federalist forces win in Quebec this spring — and we all hope they do — we will be able to prejudge what the restructuring of Confederation will be like. Quite frankly, that can't be predicted at all at this stage.

First of all, we are going to have to have, as a continuing guide, a spirit of generosity and good will, and secondly, a commitment to be flexible and to recognize that the national interest is going to have to involve the modification of not only regional but national stands. I well remember the 1978 constitutional conference. The hon. Member for Little Bow and I were honored to be able to sit in on that particular conference as obser­ vers. On the first day the general feeling of most prov­ inces was that the federal government was prepared to take a very hard-nosed stand: no conciliation, no com­ promise.

But on the second day, good heavens, it was a different Prime Minister Trudeau. He came in with accommodations in a number of key, important areas. I think that's the sort of thing we have to keep in mind, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Calgary Currie raised some concern about the Speech from the Throne yesterday. Certainly there are going to be arguments over oil pric­ ing, no question about that. But one positive feature in the federal Speech from the Throne yesterday was recog­ nition by the federal government that should the "no" forces win, things aren't going to be left as they are.

The Prime Minister and the federal Liberal government re­ alize that there has to be some pretty fundamental consti­ tutional change. That being the case, Mr. Speaker, I just say to the members of this Assembly that while we can support the second aspect of the resolution, we must not be so firm in our resolve that we mandate the leadership of this province to take a rigid position over the next several years, when in fact tolerance and flexibility will be required. But that is not the crucial issue now.

The crucial issue in the next few weeks will be to make it clear that while the people of the province of Quebec have the right to self-determination, none of us in this country is neutral about that. No one is committed to using force of arms to keep anybody in Confederation. But all of us deeply want that vote to be no. To facilitate that, we are all perhaps prepared to take a look at some of our traditional posi­ tions in order to see a new and, hopefully, stronger Confederation, but a stronger Confederation that very much includes the continued role of the province of Quebec. MR. KNAAK: Mr.

Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to participate in the debate on Motion 204. I wish to compliment the Member for Calgary Currie for bringing this important and timely topic to this Assembly for discussion and debate. Before going into my prepared notes, I just want to comment on the remarks made by the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview. One of his apparently strong comments was that this should have been a government motion rather than a motion by one of our outstanding members not in the cabinet. I see the member's leaving now; he doesn't want to listen to these remarks.

May I say it's well known that we work as a caucus and as a team, and that non-cabinet members introduce govern­ ment bills. In this case, I can confidently state that the government supports this motion, as do I. The other points — and it's a bit disconcerting to me, because sometimes I feel the Member for Spirit River- Fairview is just not living in the province of Alberta. He talks about Premier Blakeney's speech in the province of Quebec. He talks about preferring Claude Ryan's paper over the Alberta government's paper. But the biggest omission of all, Mr.

Speaker, is a lack of recognition that there's now a real concern in Alberta as well, not just in the province of Quebec. Not one word was mentioned about that concern in Alberta. Three years ago the province of Quebec elected a party that ran on a platform to take the province of Quebec out of Confederation. The vote on the referendum will occur on May 20. The referendum will ask whether or not to give the Parti Quebecois the mandate to commence nego­ tiation of separation from Canada. Clearly the feeling by the citizens of Quebec of dissatisfaction with Canada as it is today is deep and strong. Mr.

Speaker, what gives me such great concern is that feelings similar to those in the province of Quebec are developing in Alberta, perhaps for different reasons. These feelings are stronger than mere alienation. More and more of my constituents are asking whether it is no longer possible for Albertans to receive fair and equal treatment from our federal government. What can be done to assure a viable future for our young children if the federal government is consciously eroding our strength? Can we no longer trust our federal government? It's asked over and over again.

There is a feeling that our success is in spite of the federal government, rather than with its support. These feelings are deeply felt and, the people of Alberta feel, legitimate. The reasons for this are many. I may mention that I'm now talking about feelings toward the federal govern­ ment; I'm not necessarily talking about feelings vis-a-vis central Canada or other governments within Canada. The reasons are these. Just recently we had a unilateral decision by the federal government to enforce the force majeure clause in the agreement with Syncrude.

It's well known that not only will this affect the price received by Syncrude, but it will dramatically affect the royalty received by the citizens of the province of Alberta, a royalty really needed to pay for the infrastructure costs put in by the province of Alberta. The pricing of oil: it's now become such an accepted proposition that we negotiate for the price of oil with the federal government that we lose sight of the fact that there's no other commodity in Canada where the price is negotiated with another government.

It's a unique situa­ tion, where one province produces a product and that province must negotiate the price of that commodity which, by the constitution, it owns. That alone, not even to mention the level of the price, is disconcerting. The export tax the federal government unilaterally placed on the oil exported from Canada was again an historical precedent. Never in peacetime has the federal government imposed an export tax on a commodity produced by one province and kept the revenues unilaterally. Other longer or historical concerns are the freight rate and transportation concerns.

It was a major item at the Western Economic Opportunities Conference when it appeared that the Trudeau Liberal government would take a concerted effort to resolve some of our long-felt

April 15, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 353 frustrations. Normally, as I've mentioned in this House before, a tariff barrier gives equal protection to all parts of the country. It does not do so, however, if you combine it with a discriminatory freight rates structure that makes it impossible to ship our goods competitively to the markets. It's twofold discrimination: one is that the rates per mile are higher in western Canada. They're discriminatory in the sense that the rates for finished goods moving from Alberta to Ontario are more expen­ sive than for the same goods moving from Toronto to Alberta.

The combination of the present freight rate and tariff structure makes it virtually impossible for industry to develop spontaneously in Alberta unless some support or extraordinary beneficial climate is created in Alberta, as this government has done with its favorable tax legislation. The other frustration felt by Albertans and western Canadians is the lack of progress in the movement of grain and the port facilities. The United States, over a period, has increased its exports of grain fivefold, while we've merely doubled ours.

A frustration which manifests itself, rather than being apparently obvious, is the centralization that's begun in what we might call the membership of the Supreme Court of Canada. What's the significance of that, and how does it manifest itself? Well, if the federal government appoints very, very learned people to the bench who have known centralist views, that creates a negotiating and legislative advantage for the federal government that it would not otherwise have. The present court is such a court. It's viewed from Alberta's point of view as a centralist court.

Doubtful legislation — where otherwise a province and the federal government would be, say, at a fifty-fifty probability of winning their case — has shifted in favor of the federal government. This has allowed them to negoti­ ate much more vigorously and strongly, and in fact to enact legislation that prior to the existence of this court would probably have been unconstitutional.

Other frustrations include the lack of representation in the federal government or any real power or authority within the federal government, since in whatever govern­ ment we have the caucus is dominated by the Ontario and Quebec membership. When there is a legitimate trade-off between western and central Canada concerns, which there is, this leads to more of them being in favor of the central government than the western Canadian provinces. Whether or not all these concerns are well founded, they are deeply rooted, many with justification.

As men­ tioned before, I hope and pray that Canada will remain a united and strong country. But I fear that more and more Albertans are giving up hope that Alberta will ever be treated fairly within Confederation. Whether we like to acknowledge it or not, some Albertans and some western Canadians are seriously discussing the question of separa­ tion. In fact, two members of the Saskatchewan Legisla­ ture have left the Conservative caucus to form a new party for the purpose of seeking western independence. I hope this is not necessary and that it won't happen.

If the present energy negotiations between the govern­ ment of Alberta and the federal government break down and if the federal government imposes sanctions from Alberta's point of view, using present legislation and then referring this legislation to the existing Supreme Court for more or less confirmation of constitutionality, that will have the result of expropriating ownership rights. By ownership rights I'm talking about the normal rights attached to ownerships — whether or not you want to sell and at what price you want to sell. Albertans don't see it just as a negotiation of a price.

We're not talking merely about dollars. We're talking about a change of attitude. We're looking for fairness and treatment as an equal within Confederation. Albertans would interpret this as another confirmation of an unwillingness by this federal government to treat Albertans equally and fairly. If these energy negotiations break down, the mood of very serious concern that I've talked about will deepen. It will be a sad state for Alberta, because not all Albertans will feel the same.

Many of us, no matter what, will want to remain Canadians, and others with equally legitimate views will wish western Canada to separate. Not only will we have an intensified division within Canada, but within western Canada itself. Mr. Speaker, I don't want to be overly dramatic, but I want to emphasize to the federal government and to my colleagues that the federal government is at risk of very seriously affecting the unity of this country if Alberta does not receive fair treatment in the energy negotiations. What's the answer? Well, I don't have all the answers.

I'm sure I don't have an answer for this complex prob­ lem. But I do have some suggestions. Certainly constitu­ tional amendment will go part of the way. However, it is not up to the federal government alone to propose consti­ tutional amendments. We need the concurrence of the province of Ontario as well. Constitutional amendment can only occur if we have unanimous approval of all the provinces. That may cause some difficulty, especially if we're talking about moving to the provinces some of the legislative authority which is now concentrated in the centre.

Any such constitutional amendment should in­ clude the principle of the equality of all provinces: no amending formula where one province has lesser rights than the other; the need for greater provincial legislative authority with the ability of interdelegation with consent; reconfirmation of ownership rights by the provinces over natural resources, including the ownership right for a fair return; recognition of the need for Supreme Court of Canada appointments to be made with provincial input and a representation of a cross

section of Canadian inter­ est and understanding; and, fifthly, a federal government where representation is based on a system different from the present system, where all provinces would have their interest expressed in a real way, in a more equal manner. Although constitutional change will go a long way, or part of the way, in resolving our problems, one can't hold out hope that constitutional change will occur easily, especially with the province of Ontario having a veto on any recommendations that may come forth from the federal government, the province of Quebec or, for that matter, the province of Alberta.

What do we do in the interim? Very difficult negotiations lie ahead for Alber­ tans and the federal government on the energy question. No doubt the Alberta government has to be flexible, but it also needs to be strong. And there's a reason for being strong. In this particular instance, I believe Alberta is right. That sounds a little bit pious. But I'm going to make the points why I think Alberta is right in showing responsible Canadian leadership in the energy package it offered to the federal government, which as I understand it was almost, or in most points, accepted by the former Conservative government.

Alberta agreed to increase oil prices in stages and to keep the domestic price of light crude at no more than 85 to 90 per cent of the average United States price at Chicago. This would have preserved the competitive edge of all industry in Canada, especially Ontario's industry. Alberta would carry the cost, in terms of both infrastruc­

354 ALBERTA HANSARD April 15, 1980 ture and social costs, to accelerate the development of the oil sands to provide greater energy self-sufficiency for Canada. The Alberta government was prepared to give Ottawa a larger share of the income from future oil sands plants. In other words, the Alberta government was pre­ pared to accept a royalty formula different from the present one for the greater benefit of all Canadians. The Alberta government was prepared to invest approximate­ ly $3 billion from the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund in equity and debt in the next two large energy projects.

Of course Alberta was prepared to pay for all the infrastructure associated with the development of those projects, which would have run into hundreds of millions of dollars coming out of these royalty revenues from conventional crude oil. Quebec City was to have the same gate price for natural gas as Toronto, which meant that Alberta producers would pay the transportation cost from Toronto to Quebec City. The gas was to be priced at a lower rate than the present conversion value for oil for incentive pricing, so that Canadians would in fact substitute gas for imported oil.

This would have two results: it would allow cheaper energy for other Cana­ dians and would reduce our balance of payment deficit on the oil account. Alberta was prepared to participate in debt financing of other energy projects in Canada. Alberta agreed to lend $2 billion over five years to a national energy bank. That is a good deal for all of Canada and a responsible energy package. The present Liberal federal government has indicated it's not prepared to accept this package.

In fact we see signs that it's going to come forth with proposals which are fundamentally opposed to principles on which the Alberta government will not yield. Why am I talking about being so strong in energy negotiations with the Liberal federal government? The reason is this: we're not necessarily negotiating with the people of Canada. We're not negotiating with the people of Ontario. We're negotiating with a Trudeau Liberal government. Its views of the national interest aren't ne­ cessarily right.

What I'm suggesting to my colleagues in this House is that this package is a responsible energy package for Canada and demonstrates leadership by the Alberta government. It's my view that under our constitu­ tional rights Alberta could have insisted on world prices. Alberta could have very legitimately reduced output for conservation needs, but we haven't done so. We re­ sponded to Canadian needs. At the current rate of out­ put, all of Alberta's conventional light and medium crude oil will be gone in 13 years. All of it, at current rates of output. Where has Alberta shown other areas of leadership?

Where has it served the national interest as well as its own? In a willingness to develop the heavy oil sands. A person might ask how this shows national leadership. Well, Alberta doesn't need the oil; Canada does. Two heavy energy projects commencing at the same time will have tremendous impact on our budgetary requirements to put infrastructure in place, and can possibly overheat our economy and cause serious labor disruptions. In fact, it can cause a higher level of wage rates in Alberta than in the rest of Canada, with serious consequences to our young manufacturing industries.

Nevertheless, the Alber­ ta government was prepared to go ahead in the national interest. Our loans to the other provinces: it's good for Alberta; it's good for the other provinces. It's a policy of this government to lend to all provinces at the most favorable rate obtainable from that province at its most credit­ worthy. Again, it's a policy in both Canada's and Alber­ ta's interest. The natural gas incentive pricing proposal that was part of the former energy package was, again, in both Alberta's and the national interest. It's a leadership that Alberta and western Canada have shown.

The medical research foundation is happening in Al­ berta, in Edmonton. But it's not merely for the benefit of Albertans and wasn't envisaged that way. It was an expenditure of over $300 million to benefit all Canadians. With respect to grain transportation, it is in the interest of both Alberta and Canada that this happen. Increased exports mean more prosperous farmers, which means greater prosperity for chemical plant producers, fertilizer producers, and certainly machinery equipment producers, most of whom are located in parts of Canada other than western Canada.

What Alberta has done is shown some degree, and I think a very significant degree, of combining provincial interest with national interest. Why haven't enough of our friends in the rest of Canada — we do have friends in the rest of Canada — recognized it? I think one of the problems is the present political situation and the hyster­ ical eastern media, as Bill Thorsell calls it. It's really up to us as Albertans to do a better job communicating our policies to the rest of Canada.

The stakes are too high to leave it to politicians in Ontario to communicate our message, or to leave it to the press in other parts of the country. I have a real concern with the Conservative government in Ontario. I understand it's a minority gov­ ernment and, being a politician, Bill Davis has to try to re-win an election. But to really develop, as has been done over the last three years, a conflict between Alber­ tans and citizens of Ontario serves no one.

It is irrational to argue that Canadians need prices significantly lower than all the countries in the world, when both Germany and Japan have demonstrated that world prices can make you as competitive and even more competitive than your trading partners. Mr. Speaker, I see a real concern ahead for Canada and for Albertans, and I'm very sympathetic to the people in the province of Quebec. I say this is not the time for Albertans to forsake their previous commitment to show leadership in Canada.

The present Liberal federal gov­ ernment, which I think can carry a significant part of the blame for the present tension in Canada, won't be there forever. The present Conservative government situation in Ontario will also change. I'm not saying, let's be Canadians, and Canadian unity forever under all circum­ stances, all conditions. But I say this is not the time to lose our cool. This is a time to summon our strength, to show some leadership and try to unite Canada. Thank you. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take

part in the debate this afternoon, initially I want to commend the hon. member Mr. Anderson for putting Motion 204 on the Order Paper. I intend to address my remarks in basically four areas. First of all, I want to make some comments with regard to what I think Alberta has to base its defence upon. I found the comments by the hon. Member for Edmonton Whitemud interesting, and I had considerable agreement with a number of the points the hon. member made. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I want to make some comments with regard to the Quebec referendum as I see it. Thirdly, I want to point out, not only to the Legislative

April 15, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 355 Assembly but to people outside this Assembly, that basi­ cally, speaking to people of Quebec, over many years the provinces of Alberta and Quebec have perhaps had more in common than any other two provinces in Canada. That is, regardless of the political stripe of the govern­ ment in this province or Quebec, we consistently have been the two prime defenders of provincial rights. That point very often goes unnoticed by people in the province of Quebec, and I think is very often lost on our own people.

The fourth point I want to make deals with a sugges­ tion made just yesterday in the Speech from the Throne in Ottawa. It dealt with the appointment of a committee of Parliament to examine the electoral system to ensure that the highest degree of representation and responsibili­ ty is involved. I think it's important that we in Alberta take some steps to see that it isn't only a matter of federal input as far as that House of Commons committee is concerned. I want to allude to some comments I made following the last federal election that I think are worth repeating on this occasion. Mr.

Speaker, just before I become involved in com­ ments in those four areas, might I say to the hon. Member for Edmonton Whitemud that I welcomed very much his comments with regard to the attitude of the present government in the province of Ontario. This will not be a popular thing to say in this Assembly because of the close relationship between the Premier of this prov­ ince and the Premier of Ontario over a period of many years. But frankly I have considerable difficulty determin­ ing who has made the people of Ontario madder at Alberta — the Premier of Ontario or the present Prime Minister of Canada.

As far as I'm concerned, it's about six of one and half a dozen of another. That's the message I wish a number of members who sit on the other side of the House might make to representatives of the government of the province of Ontario. DR. BUCK: He was trying to get re-elected. MR. R. CLARK: My colleague says the Premier of Ontario was trying to get re-elected. But at the same time, I hear rumors that if the Premier of Ontario does get re-elected with a majority, before very long he will have aspirations to lead the federal Tory party of this country.

If that is the case, frankly I would see very little difference in attitude between the Premier of Ontario today and if he were the leader of the national Conservative party down the road, because his roots and the base of his support would be in the province of Ontario. And while I have this opportunity, I say to members of the Conserva­ tive government in this Assembly, be very leery of the Premier of Ontario becoming leader of the federal Con­ servative party at some time in the future. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to deal now with the four points I want to discuss this afternoon.

I don't always agree with the Member for Edmonton Whitemud, but I thought he made an excellent presentation of one of the ways in which Alberta's position can be defended. That's the situ­ ation of our constitutional defence. But I say to all members and especially the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs, who's here this afternoon, that I don't believe we should put our greatest reliance on constitutional defence. I believe that as a province our greatest reliance as a province should be in developing good will with the other provinces in Canada.

Because should any federal government be so much out of touch with reality that they take steps to deal with Alberta's resources — I use that as an example, although others could be used — the matter would eventually go to the Supreme Court of Canada and lie there for a considera­ ble period of time. Regardless of its view, be it Liberal or Conservative, any government controlled in central Canada would do that only if they felt they could have the support of the bulk of the provinces in Canada.

So the point I want to make to hon. members is that, yes, our defence of our rights as a province rests with the constitution, but even more importantly with the good will and support we have with other provinces in Canada, in convincing other provinces that what could be done to Alberta, Saskatchewan, or British Columbia, could be taken against those provinces in the future. I say to the members of this government that the examples of medical research in Alberta that are going to benefit all Canadians are fair ball. It's a good initiative.

But it seems to me that that kind of initiative and the idea of lending money to other provinces in Canada is not the way in which we really develop long-standing good will with the other provinces. I use the comparison of the United States and the money they lent to various coun­ tries following World War II, under the very best of intentions, just like we're lending money to other prov­ inces in Canada. Sometimes I think it's important that we ask ourselves, what kinds of long-term allies were really developed?

I think an approach which would have more long-term strength in helping to protect Alberta's position within Confederation would be that if we as a province were to take some leadership in developing a national economic plan for Canada. When my colleague the Member for Little Bow spoke in the Assembly two years ago, I be­ lieve, he used the example of big Albertans and little Albertans, big westerners and little westerners, and talked about the need for some sort of new national economic strategy for Canada. I suppose if one were to go back to the plan Sir John A.

Macdonald developed, since that time we as a nation really haven't developed the next generation of an economic plan for Canada. It seems to me that with our financial resources, we as a province might give leadership in the development of a national economic plan for Canada for the 1980s and '90s. We're in the fortunate position of being able to say to provinces, let's move in this direction collectively, albeit with the federal government.

With the provinces giving the kind of leadership that's possible there — because very candidly, members of the Assembly, in Canada we have the situa­ tion of provincial governments that are stronger than the national government. There's an opportunity for the provinces not working in isolation from the federal gov­ ernment but giving leadership there. We in Alberta have the opportunity to use the Heritage Savings Trust Fund resources available for investment outside the province not on a loan basis but for desirable projects which will stand this country in good stead for the next 10, 20, 30, 40 years.

I think that kind of leader­ ship by Alberta, and hopefully by western Canada, would build strong relationships between Alberta and western Canada and the other provinces in Canada, so that if any federal government in the future were to be so stupid as to raid our resources or something in one of the other western provinces, there is that reservoir of good will between Alberta and the other western provinces and the rest of Canada and no federal government, regardless of its political stripe, could get away with it.

Our defence would not be in the Supreme Court of Canada, but in the reservoir of good will we have with other provinces in

356 ALBERTA HANSARD April 15, 1980 Canada. To me that's the kind of leadership we in Alberta and western Canada should be taking. Mr. Speaker, the second point I want to make deals with this question of the Quebec referendum. I think it should be clearly, clearly stated to Premier Levesque and his government that what they talk about in sovereignty association is beyond question, totally unacceptable as an alternative to this Legislative Assembly and to Albertans.

When that referendum is held — I believe one of the hon. members spoke on this while I was out, and I apologize — if the vote is yes, then in fact the rules of the game for changes in Canada's constitution in the future will be unalterably changed. No longer would we be able to sit down as 10 provinces and the federal government and be involved in negotiating to change the constitution, change the BNA Act and patriate that Act. It seems to me that discussions on the future of Canadian federation have to be based on a number of principles. I think it's important that four be outlined this afternoon.

First, the control of natural resources and property rights must be vested with the provinces. Se­ condly, the language rights of all minorities should be protected in areas where they form a significant percent­ age of the population. Thirdly, the constitution of Cana­ da should be patriated, but not before an amending formula is established. And fourthly, an amending formu­ la which requires the consent of every province to an amendment directly affecting that province must be worked out. I think those are four of the basic principles that should be involved in any attempt toward renewed federation in Canada.

Some three or four years ago this Legislature passed a motion dealing with patriation and the working out of an amending formula before. But I point out to members again today, as I did on that occasion, that to talk about patriation is one thing, but we cannot support patriation until an amending formula is worked out or we're really flirting in an area of very, very dangerous negotiations. Let me conclude my remarks in this second area about the Quebec situation and a new constitution for Canada by saying this: I, as well as any member in this Assembly, know that it isn't going to be worked out quickly.

Members will recall — I guess the first nationally tele­ vised debate on this question took place back in 1967, Canada's centennial year — when John Robarts had the conference in Toronto. Really the position put forward — and I say this with the greatest of respect — by the government of Quebec at that time, which was the Union Nationale government under Daniel Johnson, was very similar to the position put forward by Claude Ryan and the federal forces under Mr. Ryan today.

But let me conclude my remarks here by saying: let there be no misunderstanding that if the people in Quebec vote yes on sovereignty association as put forward by the PQ in the referendum coming up, that will put an end to any semblance of ongoing negotiations for changing the BNA Act or bringing it back to Canada, because in my judgment sovereignty association as set out by the gov­ ernment of Quebec is totally unacceptable under any circumstances. Mr. Speaker, the third point I want to deal with is this question of the similarities between the province of Alber­ ta and the province of Quebec.

I welcome the question that was asked by the Member for Grande Prairie this afternoon, and the confirmation of what the Premier said earlier in the House that, in essence, if the Premier were asked, he would take

part in the discussions down there. The Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs will recall that some two or three years ago I was extremely critical of the province for not becoming much more actively involved in the question in Quebec at that particular time. But it's very often lost on the people of Quebec, and the people in Alberta too, that from the standpoint of provincial rights for decades Alberta and the province of Quebec have stood shoulder to shoulder on that issue.

It seems to me that that is one of the points the government of Alberta must make in the course of being involved in that referendum; that on the question of provincial rights, people in Quebec have no stronger ally anyplace in Canada than the province of Alberta. That point should not be lost. The fourth and last comment I want to make, Mr. Speaker, deals with this question of the federal govern­ ment setting up a parliamentary committee to examine the electoral system. Whether we want to admit it or not in this Assembly, we're in a situation today basically where we have no national political parties.

That causes additional strains on the country. It's not my purpose this afternoon to talk in terms of whether we should be looking at some sort of proportional representation or some other proposals.

The point I want to make is this: with the announcement by the government of Canada to set up a committee in the Parliament of Canada, I think it would be very appropriate for the Alberta government, along with the governments of Saskatchewan and British Columbia where there are no federal representatives on the government side of the House, to make representation that in setting up that parliamentary committee some means be established where there is representation from the province on that House of Commons committee.

Ini­ tially I'm sure the federal government will say, no, that isn't possible, or there will be MPs who represent western Canada on the committee. But it seems to me important that there be some provincial government representation on that committee from the three western provinces, which just happen to be the three producing provinces as far as energy is concerned. A day or two after the federal election I urged the creation by the federal and provincial governments of an electoral reform commission, which would look very ex­ tensively at the question of representation in the House of Commons.

Whether it's the committee set up by the federal government or it's a federal/provincial electoral reform commission, I think there has to be federal gov­ ernment, House of Commons, and provincial government input in that kind of review. From the standpoint of attempting to show western Canadians that there's real interest and concern for their points of view, the federal government should move to have provincial involvement in that committee, other than simply appointing MPs who represent western Canada. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SINDLINGER: Mr.

Speaker, first of all, I'd like to congratulate the Member for Calgary Currie in bringing forth the motion. I think he has displayed both initiative and boldness, and I look forward to the conclusion of the debate on this motion. Mr. Speaker, I have only two quick points to make. One, I've heard the word "frustrated" quite often this afternoon in regard to Quebec, and the statement that they would like to be in control of their own destiny, in effect to be masters in their own house. Well I can say to Quebec: so do we in Alberta wish to be masters in our own house.

Secondly, in regard to the restructuring of Confedera­

April 15, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 357 tion, I believe there's a need for change in Confederation. It's like anything else: as times change, the requirements and desires of people change as well. I think we in Alberta support the restructuring of the country, but that restructuring has to provide an equal opportunity for Albertans and the province of Alberta relative to the other provinces in Canada. A restructuring that results in a perpetuation of the status quo, where favoritism is shown towards the eastern provinces, is unacceptable to Albertans. DR. CARTER: Mr.

Speaker, now that we've come through the first hour and a portion of the next hour, I think perhaps it's time that we re-read the motion: . . . that on behalf of the people of Alberta this Legislative Assembly publicly express to Canadian citizens in Quebec our hope that they will remain within Confederation and that we further declare our commitment to working with our fellow govern­ ments to bring about a restructured Confederation in which the unique features of each province [and, I assume, territories] are properly recognized and represented.

I wonder if I might revert to one of my other profes­ sions for a moment, and think of the cultural heritage of another people. I would quote from the sixth

chapter of the Book of Genesis. As these people looked back in terms of their own heritage, this was one of the comments made: In those days the giants were on earth; they were the heroes of old, men of reknown. That comment really is one that relates to most nations in this world when we think of previous generations. We think of the giants in our land who went before us, those who founded this nation, those important people who had the courage to forge a nation.

Those of us within this Legislative Assembly, and I'm sure those beyond its borders in terms of this province and certainly within this nation, realize that we owe a great debt of gratitude to our forebears within this country. Oftentimes, as we think of an issue such as sovereignty for the province of Quebec, many of us wish for the good old days when there were giants in the land, great political figures who would be able forge a new unity. It's there when we really need to pause and think, because the real giants were really ordinary people. They were people just as each one of us here.

It's the ordinary, everyday citizen who is forging any kind of new interpre­ tation of what Confederation or the whole destiny of this nation is. So there's a real sense in which we should have this ongoing call for Canadians, all of us to be leaders, all of us to have a sense of vision. So there's a real sense in which we should have this ongoing call for Canadians, all of us, to be leaders, to have a sense of vision. There is a real sense in which we as fellow Canadians, together with the people in Quebec but also in all parts of this nation, share the heroes of our nation.

There's a real sense in which we need to think back to the white discovery of this nation, when people sailing westward just happened to bump into some land. Often­ times they came for economic expansionist reasons. I think that if we examine even the history of the province of Quebec in terms of its settlement early in the 1600s, one reason Samuel de Champlain came was to seek wealth on behalf of yet another country.

This whole matter of the voyages of discovery, to make colonies, if you will, of other parts of the world, and in a sense later on the opening up of this whole vast interesting country of Canada, had economic reasons. They weren't the sole reasons. Oftentimes the reason was simple curiosity, but more often than not any kind of government or organiza­ tion has the bottom line as to how many dollars you are going to commit and produce in terms of any kind of exploration venture.

For a moment I would like us to take a look through my life in terms of the visits I have had to the province of Quebec, the realization of the cultural richness within that province. When I first travelled to the province of Quebec in 1960, I found as an historian that my heart really did quicken within me as I stood on the ramparts of the fortress of Quebec, the Citadel. One of the most moving moments of my life in terms of being a Canadian was to listen to the Van Doos regiment on the parade square really belt out Vive le Canadien.

There was a real sense there, as one could look over the ramparts upon the broad sweep of the St. Lawrence, and the surrounding countryside, that indeed this is an impor­ tant part of this fabric, this nation, this Confederation of Canada. Certainly I could think of Quebec's having a part to play in the roots of my own family, because it is where my own mother arrived from England, a child of one. Then again in 1926, my father emigrated from England to make this country his country.

There is no doubt, if you wander around the streets of the province of Quebec, whether in the urban or rural areas, that there really is not only a sense of history but a sense of romanticism, a sense that awakens the poetry within each of you if you happen to go there. Very definitely, when we think of the province of Quebec, we need to think in terms of individuals. That is something we forget when we're dealing with other na­ tions, provinces, and even other cities and towns with any other kind of jurisdiction.

But while there are those broader entities, nevertheless we must deal in terms of the specific relationship with individuals. As you walk on the colorful streets of Quebec City below the fortress, through the magnificent grandeur of the Gaspe, or if you are, for example, on Mount Royal hill in Montreal, the whole mosaic of Quebec is not one that can be cate­ gorized in terms of one kind of image. It's a whole kaleidoscope of color, a whole montage, if you will, of interesting people together, of those who may well trace their origins in Canada to French, English, or Jewish backgrounds.

There's a whole great diversity encom­ passed within the word we use to delineate that province of Quebec. Very definitely, should it come to pass, all of us within this Legislature, within this province, would decry that Quebec would be withdrawn from this Con­ federation. Canada itself would truly be impoverished by that withdrawal. In the motion before the Assembly, we talk about the unique features of each province and territory. Other colleagues who have spoken here this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, have made adequate mention of that particular point.

But there is no doubt that no matter where we go within the broad panorama of this country, there are indeed unique features, not just from a geographical point of view but in terms of individual personalities, the individual perspective, if you will, as to how we can forge this nation into a stronger nation in the world's family of nations. No matter where you go in Alberta and Sas­ katchewan, there's no doubt that there seems to be a higher degree of independence than one can discover in other parts of the country, especially in central Canada.

There is also the whole matter of that self reliance, a willingness to open oneself, one's mind, to new possibili­ ties in terms of the whole spectrum of life, but also to

358 ALBERTA HANSARD April 15, 1980 open oneself to the whole possibility of new approaches to a Confederation, one where there is that diversity, but there is that whole aspect of stronger provinces, stronger communities together, making in sum total an even stronger nation of Canada. When one speaks of separation — I know, for ex­ ample, in my travels in the Yukon, there also is a part of the country that feels it is cut off, not only from eastern Canada but from almost everywhere else in this nation.

There again, those attributes of independence and self reliance, and an openness and willingness to engage in other kinds of channels, even in terms of government. As we examine western Canada, there is a very real sense that, as was mentioned earlier this afternoon, we find certain components which rely on a sense of disfranchi­ sement from eastern Canada, a feeling of having been cut off from the real power and responsibility in this nation. Yet at the same time, there is also that thirst for a greater involvement in the making of a stronger Canada.

Students of history have read about the 1869 Riel rebellion at Red River. The whole aspect there was the seeking of greater aspects of self-government, consulta­ tion in terms of determining one's own destiny. Again in the Northwest Rebellion of 1885, where Louis Riel comes out as the predominant figure, it's a whole matter of decisions being made way off somewhere else, decisions made to affect land ownership, forms of government, language rights, and education. We in western Canada have to appreciate that those incidents where Mr.

Riel was prominent nevertheless were very much part of the growing pains not only of western Canada but of this whole fabric of a larger nation. As a child in Regina, I would often go to the RCMP barracks and try to visualize the hanging of Louis Riel. That obviously meant something to me, but it was being distorted. It had been distorted in terms of the education­ al process I had participated in in Regina. The distortion was that here was a rebel; here was someone wild eyed, who deserved to be hung.

But later when I started to do research into that, I discovered that Louis Riel was someone who was speaking in much broader terms, one who really was dealing with the issues of a stronger Confederation and the right of all people in all parts of that nation to be legitimate participants in decision­ making processes. So it is that as you visit the grave of Louis Riel in Saint Boniface in greater Winnipeg, here again one should be brought back to the realization that in that predominately French-speaking community on the banks of the Red River was a symbol of growth within this nation.

In any community and in any family, there will always be grow­ ing pains. Any individual, each one of us, will suffer growing pains. Hopefully we won't decide to cut off one of our limbs so we can then have a restructured Confed­ eration, but far rather that we work to a wholeness of that system to make that stronger Confederation possible. Within the province of Quebec today, we know that some recent position papers have been developed. It is interesting to note that within the so-called Ryan beige paper, fundamental rights of first inhabitants of this country must be recognized.

I hope our brothers and sisters in the province of Quebec will also realize some fundamental rights on behalf of our native Indian Canadians. In the same paper is also the matter of the recognition of the richness of cultural heritages of different regions. I'm sure that each one of us here can agree and applaud that kind of cultural diversity which is part of the rich, varied, wonderful make-up of this country of Canada.

There is no doubt that the government of Alberta is willing to work toward forging an even stronger Confed­ eration, and that willingness, that undertaking to work with our fellow governments, has been made evident on more than one occasion. Mr. Speaker, there are other areas in which we as a province, as individuals, can become involved in terms of forging together this greater sum of what this country can be.

One of the interesting things that happens from time to time within the province is the matter of student exchanges between various parts of the province, between various parts of the country, and the very important role that can play by our children being housed in the homes of people in Quebec, for example — the great potential for growth and understanding that is there. The whole matter of interprovincial travel each one of us takes

part in: perhaps we could very seriously give up thoughts of trips to Hawaii and, instead, turn the direction of our trip and visit the province of Quebec. The whole matter of the twinning relationship between the city of Calgary and Quebec City is one that should not only be noted but built upon. I think there are many people within this province who are very much interested in the construction of the Q & M pipeline as a means of supplying gas to eastern Canada, including the province of Quebec, as a means of helping them in terms of energy self-sufficiency and security of supply. Mr.

Speaker, I would make these last two comments. In recent weeks, together with a number of members of the Legislature I'm sure, I have received correspondence from other people in western Canada urging us to state our position with regard to separation from the rest of Canada. Of course, I can only answer for myself. To any of those letters I received, I can only reply as politely as possible and utterly reject their proposition.

I firmly be­ lieve that we work together for the further construction, the enlargement of this concept of a Canada by having stronger provinces, stronger territories, but all having that kind of true, firm, partnership decision-making so that together we can grow into a larger nation. Finally, Mr.

Speaker, I would say this: Canada is really in need of leaders, Canadians, of greater vision, so that in interpreting the mosaic of this great and varied nation, with all its diverse richness of cultural identities and concerns, in terms of this whole nation including the province of Quebec, we will be seen together by future generations and be referred to as giants in their day, men and women of renown, men and women of vision. MR. ISLEY: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate on Motion 204. First of all, I would like to congratulate the hon.

Member for Calgary Currie for presenting this motion. To address this motion in its proper perspective, I believe we must look at two very basic questions: ques­ tion one, what is Canada? Question two, what does it mean to be a Canadian? As a political organization Canada is, or should be, a family of provinces working co-operatively to form a strong country. To function fully in that family, each province must have equal constitu­ tional status. I believe this is clearly expressed in our government's position paper, Harmony in Diversity: A New Federalism for Canada.

I refer to recommendations 24 and 25: The Alberta government recommends: 24. that an amending formula must reflect the principle that all provinces have equal constitu­

April 15, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 359 tional [rights]; and 25. that an amending formula reflect the principle that existing rights, proprietary interests and jurisdiction of a province cannot be diminished without the consent of that province. Mr. Speaker, any strong family is made up of strong members who share a mutual respect for one another. You do not find strong, long-lasting families where the strength is retained in the head of that family.

This leads me to recommendation No. 6 in the same booklet, Harmony in Diversity, where our government's position is very clear on provincial ownership and control over natural resources: 6. that the existing sections in the British North America Act protecting provincial ownership and control of natural resources be strengthened. Our Liberal government in Ottawa shows little respect for provincial resource ownership. Their recent invoking of the force majeure clause in the Syncrude agreement demonstrates this very vividly. Mr. Speaker, Canada is a very diverse country.

Each province has its strengths and weaknesses. If we build on our strengths, we have the ability to become a strong nation in which our citizens can hold their heads high and take a sense of pride in being Canadians. However, if we emphasize our weaknesses, we will become involved in continual bickering, divisiveness, and will destroy our­ selves as a nation. Canada has the ability to become self-sufficient in energy and to eventually control her own economic de­ stiny. Alberta is in a position to play a leadership role in this development, and certainly has indicated a willing­ ness to do so.

However, our federal government is reluc­ tant to allow this to happen. How does what I am saying relate to Motion 204? I believe Quebec's aspirations in Confederation are similar to Alberta's. They wish an opportunity to build on their strengths and have more control over their destiny as a province. I firmly believe that if our federal government would direct its efforts to strengthening rather than weakening the provinces of this nation of ours, our fellow Canadians in Quebec would be able to achieve their aspirations within Confederation. Socially, Canada was built on the mosaic philosophy.

Immigrants to Canada came from all over the world and had the opportunity to become Canadians and, at the same time, retain their culture and a pride in their herit­ age. Mr. Speaker, to me this mosaic fibre makes Cana­ dians distinctly different from the citizens of our neigh­ boring country the United States of America. Without a continued emphasis on our heritage, we can lose this unique characteristic. The position of this government recognizes this feature of our social fibre.

Recommenda­ tion No. 14 in Harmony in Diversity states with respect to culture: The Alberta government recommends: 14. that culture be included in the Constitution as a concurrent power, with provincial paramountcy. The expression of our unique culture through the arts, literature, and the preservation of our diverse heritage is a vital part of our society's fabric. The provision by this government of a separate department of Culture, which offers numerous diverse programs, certainly demonstrates Alberta's commitment to this point. Mr.

Speaker, I have stated previously in this House that the Bonnyville constituency which I have the honor to represent can be viewed as a micro-organism of Canada. Our population is made up of a large number of Canada's first citizens, the Indians. We have strong set­ tlements of citizens of French background, settled pri­ marily in and around Bonnyville, St. Vincent, and Therien. You will find citizens in these communities from almost every other ethnic origin.

Canadians of Indian, French, and Ukrainian backgrounds are particularly ac­ tive in retaining their culture — and in the case of the French, also in retaining their language. Alberta Culture has offered a great deal of assistance to these citizens in fulfilling their aspirations. Alberta Education has also played an important role. Many schools in the constituency offer courses in French, Ukrainian, and Cree. French immersion courses are be­ coming increasingly popular.

Students in the Bonnyville area have the opportunity of attending a bilingual school where subjects other than French are taught, using French as a language of instruction. Students in the Therien-St. Vincent area have access to a similar oppor­ tunity by attending the Mallaig school in the St. Paul constituency. Mr. Speaker, the varied needs of this diverse popula­ tion do not always lead to smooth easy solutions. But they certainly contribute to exciting, vibrant, strong communities. The mircro-organism is working well.

If we build on our strengths, there is no reason that the total organism, Canada, cannot work well. On behalf of my constituents, I would encourage our Canadian citizens in Quebec to remain within Confederation and work with us, their fellow Canadians, to build a stronger and better Canada. MR. PAYNE: Mr. Speaker, I too appreciate the oppor­ tunity to participate today in the debate on Motion 204. As other members have observed, it is a motion with two parts. The first is an expression of this Assembly's hope that the citizens of Quebec will remain in Confederation.

The second is a declaration of our commitment to work with other provincial governments in achieving a restruc­ tured Confederation. Mr. Speaker, I submit that both parts of the motion are significant. I would like to comment briefly on both. You may recall, sir, that earlier in this spring sitting in my reply to the throne speech, I spoke of a tension in Canada, a tension that derives primarily from our energy price negotiations with the federal jurisdiction. This mo­ tion, of course, addresses itself to another equally serious tension in Canada.

That arises from the deep-seated feel­ ings of inequality in Quebec and, by implication, else­ where in Canada. A number of years ago, Mr. Speaker, while I was serving with the Royal Canadian Navy, it was my good fortune to live with a French-speaking family in Levis, Quebec, for a period of about six months while my ship was undergoing an extensive refit in the shipyard there. The home I resided in was about a mile from the shi­ pyard, and twice daily I would walk the main street of Levis, Quebec, dressed in the uniform of a Canadian naval officer.

Several times a week during that walk to or from the shipyard, groups of young French-speaking children would point and chatter to each other and in French say the equivalent of "there goes the Englishman". Until that experience, the words "two solitudes' were nothing more to me than a book title. But since that experience, I've come to realize that the words "two soli­ tudes" describe a profound cultural chasm between English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians. Since

360 ALBERTA HANSARD April 15, 1980 that time, and until this present moment, as a concerned Canadian I have tried to make a modest personal con­ tribution toward the resolution of that most serious na­ tional problem. With that goal in mind, Mr. Speaker, I'm most pleased today to confirm that the hope expressed in Motion 204 is indeed my hope.

The referendum vote taken on May 20 will decide whether or not Quebeckers will agree to give their gov­ ernment a mandate to negotiate what is termed "sover­ eignty association", an independent Quebec associated with the rest of Canada through a common market and a common currency. At this point in time, with 35 days remaining in that referendum campaign, the outcome is very difficult to predict. Many observers in fact have predicted that results will be very, very close. Mr. Speak­ er, I doubt that any one single event or development will persuade those presently planning to vote yes to change their intention.

Any such change in intention will come from a mix or a combination of factors. However, I am fully persuaded that the news of the passage of this motion today could prove to be one of the more influen­ tial developments in the referendum campaign period. A recent news analysis quite perceptively observed that fear is a key element in the referendum campaign. Some of those who advocate a no vote have resorted to a scare campaign, pointing out that a yes vote would mean economic decline and the loss of some federal benefits. I don't believe, Mr.

Speaker, it is appropriate for me to comment on the validity of that tactic in this Assembly, but I have often felt that hope is a far more enduring motivation than fear. I trust that this motion today will give Quebeckers renewed hope and assurance that they are not one solitude, but in fact are equal partners. Now, Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted a slight digression. I was intrigued with the comments made in the House today by the hon. Member for Spirit River- Fairview.

It was of interest to me to compare the tone of his comments today with that of the remarks he made in this House during the debate on the government's posi­ tion paper on a renewed constitution, I believe in the fall sitting in 1978. At that time he made this comment: "we are, in my view, taking far too extreme a stand in favor of provincial rights." And on another occasion in that same debate: "the bottom line of the proposals we are debating today would be a decentralized Confederation that would, in my judgment, seriously balkanize this country." Mr.

Speaker, I believe I have detected a position shift with the comments made today by the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview, in which he advocated that our position be one in which flexibility and tolerance will be required. Now I must confess to a certain uncertainty as to the cause of that shift. I'm not sure it could be ex­ plained because he's perhaps been positively impressed by various philosophical positions advanced by members of the government.

Or is it perhaps simply the exercising of a chameleon-like quality, in which there has been a change in oratorical hue from red to reddish-blue, for whatever per se political advantage. I'm not at all certain, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I regret there is precious little time today for me to elaborate on my support for this government's position paper on constitutional reform, Harmony in Diversity. This has been done very well by my colleagues today. But, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to point out to you and the hon. members present that there are two interest­ ing precedents, or examples, that will impact locally and internationally if the referendum fails, if Quebec remains in Confederation and a restructured Confederation can be achieved, in which the unique features of each prov­ ince and territory are recognized. On the local level. Mr. Speaker, in every community there are racial, class, and cultural differences which I don't believe can ever be remedied or resolved by legisla­ tion.

Only by individual effort and commitment can dis­ crimination ever truly be eliminated in Canada, and cer­ tainly in Alberta. I submit today, Mr. Speaker, that the kind of individual commitment needed is more likely to develop in a national setting in which differences on a national scale have been addressed and accommodated. Obviously I feel that the reverse is true: that these various differences, these discriminations at the local level, are less likely to be resolved in light of the failure of attempts to restructure our constitution and Confederation. On the international level, Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to suggest that other nations' respect for Canada can signifi­ cantly influence international negotiations, trade, travel, and so on. It appears to me, sir, that if we can achieve a restructured Confederation in which these unique features of each province and territory are indeed recognized, international admiration for this country quite probably will result and all Canadians will benefit, directly or indirectly, from such admiration. In conclusion, Mr.

Speaker, it is my hope that through this motion today, through the decision of Quebeckers to remain in Confederation, and through a restructured Confederation and constitution, at some time in the fu­ ture an English-speaking Canadian naval officer will walk down the streets of Levis, Quebec, and little children will point and say, here comes the naval officer, implying that he is neither English-speaking nor French-speaking but simply Canadian. At that time, sir, a new Canadian novel might appear with the title "No Solitudes". Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. COOK: Mr. Speaker, it's an important debate today.

Confederation really is at the crossroads. I'd like to offer my congratulations, too, to the hon. Member for Calgary Currie for bringing this important topic to our attention. It's particularly auspicious today, because the referendum date was set in the Queb