Alberta Hansard — 29 April 1980, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 19, Session 2)

19800429

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

April 29, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 631 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Tuesday, April 29, 1980 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 227 The Farm Pension Act MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce a Bill, The Farm Pension Act. Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, The Farm Pension Act would enable Alberta farmers to receive annuities inde xed to the cost of living.

It would be modelled somewhat on the public service pension plan, but would also be analogous to a recent pension scheme for farmers intro duced in the Federal Republic of West Germany. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spirit River- Fairview has moved that Bill No. 226,

An Act to Amend The Expropriation Act . . . Sorry — right idea, wrong script. [laughter] The hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview has moved that Bill No. 227, The Farm Pension Act, be read a first time. Do you all agree? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. [Bill 227 read a first time] Bill 226

An Act to Amend The Expropriation Act MR. PURDY: Mr. Speaker, you had the right Bill, wrong constituency, and wrong member, but I beg leave to introduce Bill 226,

An Act to Amend The Expropria tion Act. In 1974, the government introduced a new expropria tion Act with the concept of a home for a home. The legislation has been successful in that concept, but my travel throughout the province tells me that people are not being fairly compensated land for land. Therefore the amendment to The Expropriation Act in this Bill sets forth the procedure for land for land.

It will be deter mined in the Bill that "it shall be recognized that the owner should [receive] sufficient compensation to be able to acquire property of no less a quality and convenience to" that person. [Leave granted; Bill 226 read a first time] head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, today I'd like to introduce to you, and through you to members of the Assembly, some visitors from the constituency of Calgary Elbow. They are the grade 5 and 6 classes of Bel-Aire elementary school in my constituency. The group leader is Mrs. Marion Pennell. They have with them their principal Mr.

Welsh, and a couple of mothers Mrs. Swanson and Mrs. Bede. I wonder if our visitors would rise and receive the welcome of the Assembly. MR. KUSHNER: Mr. Speaker, I take the greatest pleas ure in introducing to you, and through you to members of the Assembly, 56 grades 5 and 6 students seated in both galleries. The students are from the Renfrew school situated in the heart of Calgary Mountain View. They are accompanied by two teachers — the group leader Mr. Gordon Hunter, and Mrs. Dora Ingelson — and a teach er's aide Mrs. Joyce Neis.

Some of the students also brought their parents, who are, for your information, Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Kromm, Mrs. Magnus, Mrs. Sowatsky, Mrs. Petruic, Mr. Prime, and Mr. Prime Sr., a grandfa ther of one of the students; and Mrs. Nickolas, who is quite conveniently their bus driver. I would ask that they please rise and receive the cordial welcome of the Assembly. MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Dr. McCrim- mon, the member of the Legislature for Ponoka, it is my pleasure to introduce to you, and through you to the members of the Legislature, 27 students who are visiting us from Bluffton, Alberta.

They are the grade 6 class, and are accompanied by their group leader Mr. Ed Carriger. They are seated in the members gallery. I would ask at this time that they stand and be recognized by the Legislature. MR. COOK: Mr. Speaker, it's with a great deal of pleasure that I'd like to introduce to you, and through you to members of the Assembly, 63 members of the grade 5 classes at Evansdale community school. Evans- dale elementary school is a special school in the city of Edmonton because it is a community school, applying — I might note for the benefit of the Minister of Education — for extra funding this year.

This is Education Week, and the students are here to observe the Legislature. I'd like to ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. head: MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Department of Social Services and Community Health MR. BOGLE: Early in 1978, my predecessor, the hon.

Helen Hunley, announced in the Legislative Assembly major changes to the provincial day care policy, the primary policy announcement being that future provin cial support would follow the child rather than flow directly to certain day care centres, thus allowing parents to choose the licensed day care centre, whether operated privately or publicly. Further, there was to be a five-year phase-in period whereby all licensed centres would be funded on this basis by 1983. Last summer, I appointed a government caucus com mittee to examine the family subsidy program and the regulations. The committee, chaired by Dr.

Charles An derson, MLA for St. Paul, has made its report and recommendations to government caucus. I am pleased today to announce certain changes which will, in our

632 ALBERTA HANSARD April 29, 1980 view, strengthen our primary policy that the subsidy fol low the child: 1. Effective August 1, 1980, the province will provide 100 per cent of the basic family subsidy. Currently this component is cost-shared, 80 per cent by the province and 20 per cent by participating munici palities. This change will effect a $2.5 million sav ings to the 32 municipalities currently participating in the program. Consequently, those municipalities wishing to maintain publicly funded centres at a level higher than the present provincial standards may redirect their savings as they see fit.

The maximum family subsidy will be $215 per child per month. A minimum of $40 for one or more chil dren will be provided by the family. 2. A three-year phase out of the deficit funding component, based upon the provincial grants dur ing the 1979-80 fiscal year, will begin August 1, 1980, and flow through until July 1, 1983. The formula for this phase-out of funding to munici pally operated centres with a deficit will be pre sented to the participating municipalities. 3. Effective August 1, 1980, all day care licensing will be handled by the province.

At the present time, one municipality, Calgary, is administering this function to private and publicly funded centres in the city. Subsequently, all day care centres in Alberta will be licensed by the same authority. 4. As of August 1, 1980, the regulations will be reduced in number and simplified. 5. Between August 1, 1980, and August 1, 1982, meetings will be held with representatives from the day care operators from across the province to examine ways of improving the child/staff ratios and to discuss the implementation of a day care registry. 6.

The 18-day absenteeism clause will be extended to 21 days immediately. In cases of sickness for 3 days or more where medical evidence may be pro vided, the absenteeism will not be deducted from the 21-day period. In addition to the extension to 21 days, an appeal mechanism will be provided to deal with exceptional cases of lengthy absenteeism. The government recognizes there are unique circum stances regarding several municipally funded day care centres. In the 1980-81 fiscal year appeals may be made to the minister for special assistance on a once-only basis. Mr.

Speaker, these adjustments to the policy establish ed by this government in the spring of 1978 strengthen our commitment to quality day care programs accessible across the province. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Prince Rupert Terminal DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, my first question is to the Minister of Economic Development. I'd like to know if the minister is in a position to make any comment on the announcement by Senator Perrault that the federal gov ernment would be completing arrangements for the Prince Rupert port facility.

Is the minister in a position to enlighten the Assembly as to any changes that have taken place within the last two days? MR. PLANCHE: Mr. Speaker, I haven't heard directly from any of the parties involved in that negotiation, but I expect to shortly. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, to the minister. Can the minis ter assure the Assembly that the start-up of the infrastruc ture will be on time, as the minister had announced previously? MR. PLANCHE: Mr. Speaker, that would depend on the confirmation of the federal government's position to honor what we consider to be the agreement they made earlier. DR. BUCK: Mr.

Speaker, can the minister indicate if there have been any changes in the provincial govern ment's commitment to the funding that will go toward infrastructure? MR. PLANCHE: Mr. Speaker, we remain committed to both the grant and the debt funding commitments that we made earlier. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister indicate if the department or the minis ter has done any studies as to the cost that may occur to the farmers of the province? Is this going to be a user-pay facility, or is it going to be funded entirely by governments? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr.

Speaker, I don't think we've reached the stage of finalizing agreements or a decision as to who pays. It would be understandable that the consor tium would operate the function itself and, of course, because of its operating and providing a fee, there would be some involvement with regard to the producer himself. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister.

In light of the fact that the publicity that's gone out has not indicated to farmers — and most farmers are in support of the project — that they may be responsible for a part of that cost, has the minister or the Department of Agriculture not done any studies as to how this will affect the farmers? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, in recognizing the fund ing and the allocations on behalf of the province, of course — done so on behalf of the producers of this province. The decisions haven't been made nor have they been clarified as yet as to the total costs involved in both the infrastructure and the total facility.

MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture or the hon. Minister of Economic Development. With respect to the debt funding that the Alberta government has committed, has the government of Alberta been able to work out an interest rate at this stage that is acceptable to the consor tium? If so, what is it? MR. PLANCHE: Mr.

Speaker, our initial commitment was that $70 million would be at competitive commercial terms and the other 30 per cent would be negotiable in some form, either perhaps with no interest attached or some kind of interest rate that might take some of the bite out of the commercial terms on the 70 per cent.

April 29, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 633 MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to either hon. gentleman. What discussions have taken place with respect to the 30 per cent that the minister alluded to that would be negotiable? Has there been any further discussion with the consortium? Is either hon. minister able to advise the Assembly at this stage where things stand on the 30 per cent as opposed to the 70 per cent? MR. PLANCHE: Mr. Speaker, I don't think those ar rangements have been concluded.

The negotiations have revolved around whether it would be a participating bond or some kind of blending of interest. There's still a discus sion to be had on the inflationary cost overruns that may accrue. Those discussions will be subject to the reconfir mation of the federal government's position. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question again to the hon. Minister of Economic Development. Is the minister in a position to advise the Assembly that negotiations with respect to the debt funding — the 30 per cent that the minister alluded to — will in no way affect the start-up of the project? MR.

PLANCHE: That's a difficult undertaking to make, Mr. Speaker, because we won't commence those kinds of discussions until the federal position is clear. So the onus is on the federal government to get their ducks in a row in time for us to get this year's construction started. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Economic Development. Can the minister indicate if he has been in consultation with British Columbia and Saskatchewan to see if their share of the costs of the infrastructure has changed? Are those proportions and the amounts in volved still the same as they were at the first negotiation? MR.

PLANCHE: Yes, we have been in conversation with them. British Columbia remains as it was, as does Sas katchewan. Saskatchewan's contribution, of course, was zero. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to supplement the answers because of some innuendo in the questions. I think I'd like to make it abundantly clear to Members of this Legislative Assembly that this project would never be going ahead if it wasn't for the commitment of the Alberta government that's involved. DR. BUCK: That was a fine speech, Mr. Speaker. [inter jections] There were no . . . Mr.

Speaker, the Premier's trying to tell us if you ask for anything, it's innuendo, or it's un-Albertan. Well, it's not un-Albertan to ask for . . . [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The hon. member is en titled to respond in kind, if he wishes. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I guess the Premier's hang-up is that he didn't get enough publicity from Lethbridge. [interjections] Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Economic Develop ment. Can the minister indicate if the total figure is still in the vicinity of $250 million for the facility at Prince Rupert? MR. PLANCHE: Mr.

Speaker, I'd need some clarifica tion on what facility he's talking about. There's going to be an elevator and a variety of facilities for other commodities to go through the [inaudible]. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, to the minister. The total expenditures with the terminal and all the infrastructure — the total commitment by the provincial governments and the federal government. MR. PLANCHE: Again, Mr. Speaker, it's not clear to me whether he's asking about the grain facility or the total Ridley Island facility. MR. NOTLEY: The grain facility. DR. BUCK: Mr.

Speaker, the total figure that will be the consortium, the terminals, the infrastructure — the entire ball of wax, Mr. Minister. MR. PLANCHE: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't believe we ever aid discuss on the floor of this House the total cost of the facility. So I don't have a handle on that. I'd have to go to the same sources that I presume the hon. member would to develop the numbers. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question if I may to the hon. minister with respect to the terminal for grain itself. The minister indicated that there was some discussion on possible overruns.

Is the minister in a position to advise the Assembly whether the government of Alberta is in fact concerned about significant overruns? What discussion has taken place with the consortium on that issue? MR. PLANCHE: Mr. Speaker, I don't believe I said that we'd had discussions about an overrun. I said that we would consider the cost overruns when the government's funding is clear, if there were going to be any. MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture on this subject.

I wonder if the minister could indicate what the general economic benefit might be to Alberta farmers when this proceeds? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh. MR. SPEAKER: With great respect to the hon. member, this kind of debate could be initiated by an appropriate motion on the Order Paper. Housing Programs DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Housing and Public Works. It stems from the minis ter's announcement of the $505 million injected into the housing market. Can the minister indicate if all those funds have presently been subscribed? MR. CHAMBERS: Mr.

Speaker, I think it would be fair to say that they have not; however, the demand is heavy in both programs. It's my understanding from talking currently with the Home Mortgage Corporation that the demand for both the family home purchase program and the core housing incentive program is very heavy indeed. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. Can the minister indicate how long the funding will be available? Is there any cut-off time?

634 ALBERTA HANSARD April 29, 1980 MR. CHAMBERS: No, Mr. Speaker. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, of the 4,500 projected units to be built under CHIP, can the minister indicate how extensive the starts have been in the program? MR. CHAMBERS: Mr. Speaker, I'd be pleased to get an update on that for the member in terms of numbers at this point in time. Of course the modifications to the program are relatively recent, but at this point there are many, many applications in and pending for both programs. DR. BUCK: Mr.

Speaker, is the minister in a position to indicate if any of the starts will be available for the summer under CHIP? Are those starts on the way, and will they be available for the summer or fall? MR. CHAMBERS: Mr. Speaker, there are of course a good number of program starts in all phases of CHIP, varying from coming on stream to the application. Under the amended rate, a number of applications are in mo tion, pending; and I'm sure construction will start on a good number of them before too long. MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the last supplementary on this topic. DR. BUCK: Mr.

Speaker, is the minister in a position to indicate if the funds were allocated on a block basis, or were they first come, first served? The reason I ask is to find out from the minister if funding was allocated to areas that have a great shortage, such as Grande Prairie. Or was it just first come, first served? MR. CHAMBERS: Mr. Speaker, the funding for the 10,000 units through CHIP and through the family home purchase program, the $505 million, is of course our best estimate of what the take-up will be for the year.

The core housing incentive program is applicable to every commu nity of over 5,000 population in the province. We're having applications from communities all over Alberta. Day Care MRS. EMBURY: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Social Services and Community Health re garding his ministerial statement today on day care. Could the minister please indicate how the province will reimburse municipalities during the phase-out period of the deficit funding program? MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, we're using as a base figure the total deficit for a municipality during the 1979-80 fiscal year.

That's the total deficit minus the family subsi dy program and other related costs. Using the city of Calgary as an example, after those other deductions are made, Calgary had a deficit of approximately $65,000 for its publicly funded day care centres. For the four months between April 1 and August 1, 1980, we would provide the funding on the same 1979-80 basis. So approximately $21,800 would flow to the city over the four-month period. On August 1 of each of the three years during the phase-out, we will provide a cheque to the municipality to cover the entire 12-month period.

So on August 1, 1980, the city of Calgary would receive an additional $49,000, which represents three-quarters of the amount they re ceived during 1979-80. On August 1, 1981, that figure is about $32,000, or half the figure; and by August 1, 1982, to cover the last of the installments, it would be about $16,000. MRS. EMBURY: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, on a point of clarification. Did the minister indicate earlier that the city of Calgary could use that money as they wish? MR. BOGLE: Mr.

Speaker, in terms of savings for the city of Calgary, if we look at a different set of figures — that is, what the city is now investing as their 20 per cent portion of the family subsidy program minus their admin istrative costs — they have in excess of $800,000. So the city of Calgary may redirect those funds, as other munic ipalities may, if they wish to provide more day care spaces through their own city-operated program. That's a decision which will have to be made in each municipality. DR. PAPROSKI: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Rec ognizing that the government will be funding the 100 per cent subsidy for day care for children, as they do 100 per cent for hospitals and 100 per cent for social assistance, I wonder if the minister would indicate what the savings will be for Edmonton. MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, without getting into a pro tracted discussion today — because we are participating with 32 municipalities — for the hon. members from Edmonton I'll be pleased to provide that information briefly, if I may. It depends on a number of factors.

Whereas I mentioned that the deficit in Calgary is about $65,000, because of a larger number of day care centres in Edmonton and because Edmonton has not moved during the past two years on decreasing the funding of those centres, as Calgary has, the deficit for the city of [Edmon ton] is in excess of $650,000. So there's a greater amount in the deficit funding program for the city of Edmonton.

If we look concurrently at figures on what the city of Edmonton will save in terms of its overall program, after deducting their administration costs — which again are more than twice as high as Calgary's — the city of Edmonton should still come up with a very substantial saving of more than a quarter of a million dollars. DR. PAPROSKI: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, on that point regarding the city of Edmonton.

I wonder if the minister would make it abundantly clear — and I'm not sure that it was clear in his statement — that the city of Edmonton or any municipality can use those funds for day care if they so wish, but that is optional; it's not a directive of the government of Alberta. MR. BOGLE: Well, Mr. Speaker, for the four-month period covering April through the end of July this year, the municipalities are cost-sharing the family subsidy program with the province, 80 per cent of the cost provided by the province and 20 per cent by the munici palities.

But as of August 1, 1980, the savings that will accrue to the city of Edmonton, as an example, may be redirected at the discretion of the city of Edmonton. There will be absolutely no pressure put on the city by the government as to how those funds should be used. But certainly they're funds that could be redirected into the kind of day care programming that the city of Edmonton has attempted to foster in the past.

April 29, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 635 MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion to the minister. The minister has indicated that the department will be responsible for licensing the various day care centres. Does that indicate that standards will be changed with regard to supervisor/client ratio, also build ing standards? MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is really asking two questions. I did deal with the first question, on staff ratios, in the ministerial statement.

I indicated that between August 1, 1980, and August 1, 1982, it is our intention to have discussions with representatives from day care operations across the province, both privately and publicly operated, to work on the question of the staff/child ratios in the centres as well as the registry. The second question the hon. member asked, Mr. Speaker, relates to regulations. As I indicated, it is our intention to reduce in number and to simplify the regula tions by August 1 of this year. DR. PAPROSKI: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the minister would indicate to the House whether he has any informa tion to indicate that the number of day care spaces will be increased as a result of this very significant program. MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, that's certainly the intent of the program. Through you as MLAs and directly through my office, a number of Albertans have recommended that they would like to see more day care spaces made availa ble in a variety of centres across the province.

We're certainly hoping that one of the end results of the program will be that more spaces will be made available for young people across the province. MR. COOK: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister can advise the House what role he anticipates the cities and municipalities will have in day care programming after August 1, 1980. Secondly, could he advise the House what kind of support there will be to municipalities that are administering the family subsidy program between now and the August 1 deadline? MR. BOGLE: Mr.

Speaker, the announcement today is to provide ample opportunity, more than three months' opportunity, for adjustments to be made by the munici palities which currently administer their programs and, in some cases, to provide ongoing assistance to privately operated day care centres, so that by August 1, 1980 there will be a smooth transition. The question of the role of the administrations current ly working for the municipalities and their future role: that's something the municipalities will have to work out.

For instance, in the city of Edmonton approximately 16 day care centres are operated by the city; if the city wishes to continue operating those on a direct basis and through its own administration, it's certainly able to do so. But the question of licensing, standards, and assistance that will be provided to all day care centres will be uniformly handled by the province. MRS. FYFE: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister. I wonder if he would outline to the Assembly the nature of the appeal procedure announced today. MR. BOGLE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

We recognize that some municipalities face a number of unique circumstances with their day care centres. As an example, it has come to my attention that some municipalities have already ap proved a family subsidy program in excess of the $215 per month that we've announced. I want to ensure, and we as a government want to ensure, that every opportuni ty for a smooth transition is made available.

Municipali ties that feel they have a very unique or special case may appeal directly to the minister, and certainly considera tion will be given to providing one-time-only grants to assist them with the transition to the next fiscal year. MRS. FYFE: Further, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister . . . MR. SPEAKER: Followed by a final supplementary by the hon. Member for Edmonton Kingsway. MRS. FYFE: . . . the nature of the appeal as it affects the 21-day absentee, and how families might apply for an appeal. MR. BOGLE: That's a valid point, Mr. Speaker.

We have not yet named the appeal panel or gone into that in any detail. We will be doing so within the next very short period of time, so that we can communicate to the day care centres across the province where there are unique circumstances regarding absenteeism, so that those situa tions may be addressed in an adequate and fair way. DR. PAPROSKI: A supplementary to the minister, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if the minister would indicate to the House whether as a result of this policy there are any changes or restrictions on private day care centres — which in large part are doing as excellent a job as our public day care centres. MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, the policy and the refine ments we've announced today are not intended to be a restriction or retardation to either publicly or privately operated day care centres.

By clarifying certain aspects which have caused concern, it's certainly our hope and intention that there will be a further expression of good will, that more day care spaces will be established across the province, and that there will be a clear understanding that there's a place in this province for both privately operated day care centres on one hand and, on the other, centres operated by municipalities, community organiza tions, or non-profit groups, so that they can operate side by side. The key point is that the parents have the right to choose the licensed day care centre for their children.

Hospital Workers — Salary Negotiations MR. NOTLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to direct this question to the hon. Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care. It's a follow-up to questions put in the Legislature yesterday with respect to the con tracts that are coming due both for the registered nursing aides and the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

Will it be the intention of the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care or any other member of the Alberta gov ernment to seek an early meeting with the Alberta Hospi tal Association to assure that organization that contract settlements that are now coming up for both support staff and paraprofessionals will in fact be funded by the province? MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, we've had questions of that nature earlier through this session, and I'm rather

636 ALBERTA HANSARD April 29, 1980 surprised at the position the hon. member is trying to put forward. On the one hand, they want us to respect the collective bargaining process; they want us to respect the autonomy of the 83 individual bargaining hospital boards representing a variety of hospital owners; yet they also want us to guarantee a final figure with respect to the collective bargaining with these units. I think it would be wrong to try to meet all those criteria.

I've said many times in the House that the hospitals have not been left short as a result of any contractual arrangements they have made with their bargaining units, and I'd repeat that statement again today. Surely I can't be clearer than that. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister.

With respect to the registered nurs ing aides, whose salary has normally been based on 75 per cent parity with nurses, would it be the position of the Alberta government that negotiations would be exclusive ly the responsibility of the Alberta Hospital Association and the registered nursing aides, or would it be the view of the government that that ratio — which I believe also applies in other provinces — should be continued? MR. RUSSELL: Mr.

Speaker, I think the majority con ciliation report that I referred to in my answers yesterday dealt very specifically with the special circumstances sur rounding the nurses' bargaining unit this year. I think it would be wrong to mislead anybody by saying that any member of the Alberta Hospital Association or the pro vincial government is committed to maintaining some kind of numerical ratio with respect to the differences among bargaining units. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Labour, if I may.

The Minister of Labour indicated yesterday a research component of the Department of Labour advises the department in its mediation and conciliation efforts. Very directly to the minister: has the research component of the Department of Labour examined the difference between Alberta and British Columbia in the salaries for nursing attendants: $1,038 in Alberta, compared with $1,404 in British Col umbia? Has that been specifically examined, in light of hopefully trying to avoid down the road a strike similar to that we've just recently gone through? MR. YOUNG: Mr.

Speaker, I think it quite irrelevant whether it's been examined or not, because the whole point offered is not very relevant to begin with. There are all kinds of comparisons of groups as between provinces. The hon. member refers to British Columbia. Undoubted ly he could also refer to Saskatchewan; he could also refer to Manitoba. I believe that leaves about six other provinces that could be used as reference points. So I fail to see the significance of picking out one province and suggesting there's a magic relationship between an occu pational group's salary in that province and one in Alberta. MR.

NOTLEY: You could look at other provinces too. But my supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is directly this: hopefully to avoid a strike, what research is the Department of Labour research component — which the minister alluded to yesterday — undertaking now, so that information can be made available to the department mediation and conciliation staff, who hopefully have to try to bring together both parties so we don't have another strike. MR. YOUNG: Mr.

Speaker, as I mentioned yesterday and will re-enunciate for the hon. member's understand ing again today, the preliminary, foremost responsibility rests on the parties to the bargaining process to develop their own information. Surely, each one of them will have in hand the kind of information to which the hon. member makes reference. Secondly, Mr.

Speaker, the research component of the Department of Labour has indeed been reviewing all the information available to it in the health care sector across Canada, along with the construction industry — and I could go on with a number of industries and occupational groups; it's a long list. But we have been giving special attention to the health care field. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister.

Has the government indicated at this stage that advice will be given to the mediation and conciliation personnel who have the problems of trying to mediate between the Alberta Hospital Association and the various components who are now negotiating new contracts, in light of the very just nurses' settlement — but a settlement that has clearly raised expectations. My question is: has there been any advice from the minister to the mediation and conciliation staff of the department? MR. YOUNG: Mr.

Speaker, it is not necessary for me to give advice to the mediators on how to conduct their occupation and their responsibility. With respect to some other observations the hon. member has made — which again are quite irrelevant to his question, Mr. Speaker — I would only say, again for his benefit, that the settlement that was reached with the nurses and the hospital boards is a very unique situation according to the information we have. I think that should be underlined. The hon. member does an injustice to the rest of society to suggest that it is anything other than that. MR.

SPEAKER: Might this be the last supplementary on this topic. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to either the hon. Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care or the hon. Minister of Labour. Beyond the statement contained in the majority conciliation report, which really dealt with one issue, the nurses' strike, and was certainly not em phatic; it indicated "may appear". My question to either hon. gentleman: will there be any other investigation, in view of the fact that other components of the health system are strongly of the view that they require some catching up too? MR. YOUNG: Mr.

Speaker, I think it very important to recognize that the nurses were a very unique situation. I described yesterday some of the unique features and what contributed to creating that unique situation. Clearly, if the hon. member is making the case that every other occupational group in society is equally unique, then it seems that the whole identification of the nurses as having had a basis for an exceptional settlement falls, because they soon will be no better off in relation to others than they were before the settlement. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I reiterate again — and I hope the hon.

Member for Spirit River-Fairview can get the message this time — that the settlement with the nurses is a very unique situation.

April 29, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 637 MR. MAGEE: Mr. Speaker . . . MR. SPEAKER: Is it a supplementary? MR. MAGEE: No. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I believe you recognized me to ask a supplementary. MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member then proceed, followed by the question by the hon. Member for Red Deer. Labor Legislation DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Premier is chairman of Executive Council. Several days ago I asked the Premier if there would be an amendment to the Labour Act that the Legislature rather than the Lieutenant Gov ernor in Council would be invoking emergency powers.

Is the Premier in a position to indicate if that amendment will be brought in or is being considered? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, it's certainly not being considered. We await the decision of the court dealing with the matter of the validity of the order. At the time that decision is reached, some consideration may or may not be given to the matter. Day Care (continued) MR. MAGEE: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to go back and ask a question, if I may, through you to the Minister of Social Services and Community Health, relative to his ministerial statement today, which has about seven dif ferent segments and involves some 53 day care agree ments with municipalities. My question is, if the minister could elaborate: how would a municipality commence the appeal process if it were felt that there were special circumstances? MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, I thought I dealt with that question. I'll briefly go through it.

Any municipality which feels it has a unique set of circumstances pertaining to the publicly funded day care centres within its jurisdic tion, and where the deficit has either been high or the family subsidy rate has been set in excess of the $215 per child per month that we've announced today, or any other very special and unique features — that municipal ity may appeal directly to the Minister of Social Services and Community Health. I in turn will personally review that appeal with senior officials in the department.

We will determine whether some special assistance should be provided on a once-only basis to assist the municipality, in turn, to help the day care centre to operate between now and August 1, 1981. By that time, we would expect whatever unique circumstance there is to be adjusted, so that the municipality is being treated like all other munic ipalities that are participating in the day care program across the province. 75th Anniversary — Funding MR. PAHL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is directed to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, in view of his 75th Anniversary responsibility for per capita grants to municipalities. At present it appears that the 30,000 plus citizens of the Mill Woods community of Edmonton, because of their geographic separation from the rest of the city, will not benefit in an identifiable way from the $20 per capita grant program. My question to the minis ter is: are there any checks in place to redress or correct this deviation from the intention that all Albertans would share in the 75th Anniversary programs? MR. MOORE: Mr.

Speaker, as the hon. member knows, there are a number of other programs going on through out the province that I think benefit all Albertans. With regard to the specific question of the per capita grants, the very reason we went to a program of per capita grants to municipalities was so that we might be sure the bene fits of the government's expenditures on the 75th Anni versary program were spread across the province, unlike the sort of single-project concept of previous celebrations.

With respect to how a municipality expends those funds, they must abide by the guidelines that were issued at the time we made the announcement of the $20 per capita grant. But I would say that, within the spirit of those guide lines, I believe most municipalities are looking at all sections of their municipality and people in different walks of life and so on. I would only say to the hon. member that it would be our expectation that various parts of a municipality would benefit, but the matter rests entirely with the council of the municipality. I suppose, Mr.

Speaker, that's where concerns should properly be expressed. MR. PAHL: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister could advise whether the per capita grant funding has already been disbursed to the municipalities. MR. MOORE: Sorry, I didn't catch the last part of the member's question. MR. PAUL: Mr. Speaker, have the per capita grant moneys gone to the municipalities already? MR. MOORE: Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker. The per capita grant funds were mailed in the latter part of January, I believe. Banff and Jasper — Municipal Status DR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address my question to the hon.

Minister of Municipal Affairs as well, but it's nothing to do with the 75th. In view of the importance to the residents of Banff and Jasper, who are represented by the hon. Minister respon sible for Personnel Administration and me, could the minister give any indication of the time of release of the studies that have been done by his department on the option of self-government for the towns of Banff and Jasper? MR. MOORE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The Department of Municipal Affairs has completed studies on the option of local government for the communities of both Jasper and Banff, and it would be my intention to have those reports released at the latest by Monday of next week. They will be accompanied by comments from me relative to both the report and the recent events that have occurred in Banff and Jasper with respect to the federal government's notification of very substantial lease increases for the year 1980 and ahead.

638 ALBERTA HANSARD April 29, 1980 DR. REID: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the change in the federal government during the course of those studies, is there any indication of discussions with the new federal minister responsible for national parks regarding the various options? MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I have not had any discus sions. My colleague the hon. Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs may wish to comment.

The only thing I can say is that while the work done in the reports that we'll release shortly was a very comprehen sive study of the cost of local government in those two communities, if they were to be able to receive the same provincial benefits that other communities in Alberta do, that was done without taking into consideration the kind of escalation in lease rates that has recently been apparent in those two communities.

Frankly, it's a little appalling to spend some months developing those reports and a local government option in those two communities, then find in the middle of that, about the time we concluded the report, that a very substantial roadblock has been thrown in the way by the government of Canada. MR. NOTLEY: Supplementary question to either the Minister of Municipal Affairs or the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs.

In view of the order in council passed by the Clark government — on February 16, I believe — on which these unfortunate escalations are based, has any representation been made by the government of Alberta to the new government of Canada to rescind that order in council so that we might have a renegotiation of the entire issue? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, just to be very clear, I have had a chance to discuss with Mr. Clark what did take place. I want the record to be clear that in fact they did not recommend the particular increases which took place. I think as a matter of fact that should be clarified.

But let me just go on to say that with the report we now have in place, and the possibilities for considering other options than that which is now available to the residents of Banff and Jasper, I think it's clear to say that this study will focus on the various options which are available, and will be a starting point for negotiations with the federal government. I am firmly convinced that we can offer to the people of Banff and Jasper a better option than they now have. DR. REID: A supplementary to the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs, Mr. Speaker.

Would the minister be able to give some assurance to the people of Banff and Jasper that the Alberta government's

part in the negotiations that he just mentioned would be with all haste, in view of the impending increase, now delayed until April 1, 1981? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I'm very happy to give the assurance that we will use our efforts and energies to bring this debate to a conclusion and, with the support of the people of Banff and Jasper, to attempt to effect a reasonable settlement in their interests. Manpower Shortages MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Advanced Education and Manpower.

It's with regard to economic development in Alberta and the shortage of engineers and other technical service profes sionals. The indications are that there are a thousand or so vacancies at the present time. I was wondering what program the minister has in place for training, and filling these positions in the next few years in Alberta. MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, the development of new programs is the responsibility of boards of governors of the various institutions, and that of course is done on a co-operative basis with the Department of Advanced Education and Manpower.

I think the system presently in place is very useful. I would say that hon. members are aware from the estimates of my department, which have been approved, that additional funding has been granted for new program development at several institutions in this current budget year, including an additional $810,000 to the University of Alberta particularly designated for the development of professional faculties, but without specifying the professional faculties to be enhanced with those additional funds. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion to the Minister of Economic Development.

In Fe bruary the minister indicated that there would be need for greater immigration of skilled labor into Canada to fill some of these needs. I was wondering if the minister could elaborate on that position. Is it the position of the Alberta government at the present time to bring the necessary professionals from outside Canada? MR. PLANCHE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to refer that question to the Minister of Advanced Education and Manpower. MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, of course the question is one which might require a fairly lengthy answer.

It relates to discussions which I have held with the current minister and his predecessor at the federal government level with respect to opening up the opportunity of bringing to this province people with particular skills and training. At the same time I want to make it quite clear that Albertans who are seeking the opportunity to obtain training within our institutions in Alberta will be given every opportunity to obtain that training here.

It is only when clearly identi fied shortages exist that the federal and provincial pro grams of seeking manpower outside the province of Al berta or outside Canada come into play. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion for clarification to the Minister of Advanced Educa tion and Manpower. The minister is saying at the present time that there is not a clear strategy by the government with regard to training personnel who will be needed in the next few years. Indications are that by 1985 an enormous number of professionals will be required in this province.

Is it going to be left to the universities, or is the government taking some type of initiative? MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has posed his question by way of comment. It is certainly not the case that there is no strategy. We have a manpower development policy in this province. It is a policy which has been presented to this Assembly and approved. In addition, we have The Manpower Development Act, which is also very significant and, I would point out,

an Act which is in the forefront of such legislation in Canada. In addition, we have a very active and aggressive policy of development of new programming on the part of the universities. There is a program co-ordination poli

April 29, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 639 cy in effect in the Department of Advanced Education and Manpower, by which we make available new pro gramming, in consultation with the institution in this province. I might say that programs such as the most recently requested co-operative education proposal by the Faculty of Engineering are currently under review by my depart ment. Of course, since that proposal came forward within the last few days to my department, it is not possible at this stage to indicate what might take place with that proposal. But certainly we are prepared to be adaptable and flexible.

Of course, I think that is very important when the province is enjoying the type of economic development that we have seen over the past decade. MR. SPEAKER: We've run out of time for the question period, but I have recognized the hon. Member for Edmonton Kingsway. If the Assembly agrees, perhaps we could deal with his question briefly. And I believe the hon. Minister of Agriculture would like to supplement some information previously given. HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. DR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker, I have one question and two supplementaries.

I hope the Legislature will permit me to do that; otherwise I would rather defer. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Defer. [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: It appears the hon. Member for Ed monton Kingsway has frightened the Assembly some what. [laughter] The hon. Minister of Agriculture. Prince Rupert Terminal (continued) MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to supplement the answer given to the hon. Member for Clover Bar.

I would hate for the question period to come to a close with any doubt in either the member's mind, or indeed any other member within this House, of certainly Rupert and its rapport and future for Alberta producers. To supplement the answer in this way, Mr.

Speaker: despite some unknown factors that exist for the future of Rupert, both in its operation and the extent, the Alberta producer of course imperative to Rupert from a distance factor — an opportunity for the type of throughput that Rupert can provide, and that throughput of course the availability to markets, to say nothing of the availability to an Alberta market which has been there, on which we have touched, perhaps provides a future for us in south east Asia being exactly one sailing day closer to that market.

So Rupert and the benefits that would accrue to Alber ta producers, not only from availability, throughput, and market concept, the indications we have at the present time — could perhaps save Alberta producers another 25 cents a bushel by shipping through Rupert. Hence, Mr. Speaker, the interest and indeed the government's re sponse to Rupert, both in the infrastructure costs and the ongoing capital. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, if I may on a point of privilege correct the record. It appears that the introduction of Bill 45 yesterday was more difficult than I thought it was.

The amendments in The School Election Amendment Act are as a consequence of amendments to The Municipal Elec tion Act, not to The Municipal Government Act, and the aim is to make the procedure with respect to school elections consistent with the operation of municipal elections.* head: MOTIONS FOR RETURNS MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, I move that Motion for a Return No. 112 stand and retain its place on the Order Paper. [Motion carried] head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 209. Moved by Mr. Knaak:

Be it resolved that this Assembly urge the government to consider the introduction of legislation to formally estab lish the entrepreneurial profession, give it self-regulating powers, enable it to set its own standards of ethics and conduct, prescribe education or experience qualifications, and provide for training and practical experience by serv ing a period of articling. MR. KNAAK: Mr. Speaker, before commencing my presentation on Motion 209, I would ask for unanimous leave of this House to make a very minor amendment. I won't be speaking very long to the amendment either.

It's simply to change "entrepreneurial" to "business execu tive". It's only used one time. So the motion would read:

Be it resolved that this Assembly urge the govern ment to consider the introduction of legislation to formally establish the business executive profes sion, give it self-regulating powers, enable it to set its own standards of ethics and conduct, prescribe education or experience qualifications, and pro vide for training and practical experience by serv ing a period of articling. MR. SPEAKER: Of course the ordinary way to amend a motion is by an amendment formally moved, but with the unanimous consent of the Assembly there is no reason at all why the change in the text cannot be achieved.

Does the Assembly agree? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: So ordered. MR. KNAAK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The idea of professionalizing the business executive is somewhat novel. The purpose of introducing the motion is to stimu late debate within this Legislature and among the public to determine whether the concept is of practical applica tion. At this point I have not had the benefit of sufficient discussion to be totally convinced of the practical applica tion of the concept as I will outline it today.

I think it has sufficient merit and possibilities, however, and I hope the concept will be adequately discussed both here in the House and by the public, particularly business executives. Mr. Speaker, I am on record as strongly supporting *See page 593, left column, paragraph 12

640 ALBERTA HANSARD April 29, 1980 what I call the private enterprise/private capitalistic sys tem. Although not perfect, I believe it is better than any other system in permitting individuals to reach their full potential and permitting them to grow. From the point of view of the public it is the best system, since it can provide an array of goods and services at minimum real cost. It is a system that permits the maximum individual freedom.

However, over the last 10 years, and the last several years in particular, the integrity of businessmen and industrial leaders has been challenged by consumers, the media, environmentalists, and politicians. I would like to quote a few lines from a well-known American businessman and author, Robert Townsend, who is best known for his best-selling book Up the Organization.

This gentleman has been a director of Dun and Bradstreet, head of the investment and international banking division of the American Express company, pres ident and chief executive officer of Avis Rent-a-Car, and chairman of an executive committee of a magazine and college textbook publishing company. I give that intro duction to outline the kind of weight we can give to his comments. I now begin the quote: My twenty years in organizations have given me great faith in individuals and absolutely no faith in large institutions.

Because the leaders of large [insti tutions] are distracted and corrupted by luxuries and the trappings of corporate success, they have no time to consider fundamental values like honesty, truth, and justice. They have no time to listen to the voices of their own people who know what's right and what's wrong with their products and services. Not knowing what's wrong, the leaders speak . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. With great respect to the hon. member, he is reading an opinion of someone whom he has set up as an authority.

Also with respect, the authorities in this Legislature are the members, and it is their debate, their opinion, rather than the opinions of people who are not elected to the Assembly, that is the purpose of the debates we hold in the Assembly. I realize there are occasions when, because of the complexity of information such as statistics, it is neces sary to rely either on written notes or quotations.

But when a quotation is an out-and-out expression of opinion which may or may not be agreed with by other members of the Assembly, we could conceivably get ourselves into a debate where the participants on each side would simply be quoting other people's opinions rather than their own, which they were elected to express in the Assembly. MR. KNAAK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think I've communicated enough of the quote to get the general idea of what this gentleman's views are. Since the

article has some relevance to the presentation, I would like to file some copies of the

article in the Assembly, rather than read the quote. I'm not sure whether Mr. Townsend is as disenchanted with big business as he sounds. Nevertheless, he has had 20 years of experience in big business and big organiza tions, and his comments deserve some consideration. Much of the public criticism is probably based on mis conceptions; nevertheless, some does have a valid basis. The result has been extreme pressure on governments to continue the ever-increasing proliferation of regulation and laws to restrain what, from the point of view of the public, might be undesirable business practices.

As well, there seems to be a slow but ever-increasing public ac ceptance of government participation in business. The public appears to be accepting the principles of socialism and state capitalism even though the public does not embrace to a significant extent the socialistic parties. It is my personal view that the private enterprise/private capi talistic system is not only worth preserving, but worth expanding in relation to the economy as a whole. Mr.

Speaker, it appears in the North American context and in the context of our western industrial society that the business sector as a whole is fighting a losing battle. Public and government support for the type of private enterprise/private capitalistic system we know today is diminishing. I'm not speaking about the Alberta govern ment. It is one of the few private enterprise governments left, and I'm proud to be part of this government. The answer may lie in the restoration of confidence by the public in the business sector.

In addition to keeping an eye on profits and growth of their companies, more business executives must also keep an eye on the public interest in general. Novel and innovative ideas must be considered if we are to stem the present tide against the private enterprise/private capitalistic system. One aspect of the solution may lie in urging business executives to professionalize.

When I speak about the professionalization of the business executive, I'm refer ring to the requirement of business executives to adhere to a self-imposed code of ethics and conduct enforced and regulated by a governing body of their peers through disciplinary procedures. I'm not suggesting that most businessmen and industrial leaders do no not now abide by individually imposed standards of ethics and conduct.

However, with respect to present professions such as lawyers, doctors, engineers, and dentists, it was found desirable for these professions to be bound by a code of ethics and conduct which is enforced in each case by the governing body of their profession through disciplinary procedures, notwithstanding that the majority of these professionals would also abide by their own self-imposed standards of ethics and conduct.

There may be some problem with the word "profes sionalization" since that has often referred to the provi sion of personal services by an identifiable group provid ing a service relating to a specific learned area of study such as law, engineering, or medicine. In the context of my discussion professionalization is only intended to sug gest that a body of business executives, once professiona lized, would conduct their business responsibilities within a self-imposed code of conduct and ethics and where such behavior is enforced by the governing body of peers through disciplinary procedures.

The meaning of the word "profession" is changing, and is now broader than merely describing the older profes sions. I think it is appropriate in this context. Neverthe less, I do not wish to debate the question of the appropri ateness of the word, but hope that the debate will centre on the principle that business executives — as do doctors, lawyers, and engineers — conduct their responsibilities within a self-imposed code of ethics and conduct enforced through disciplinary procedures by the governing body consisting of their peers within the profession.

Included in such a profession should be all those busi nessmen who have responsibility for final decisions ulti mately affecting the welfare of the public and the corpo ration. It would certainly include all senior executives of a corporation. The key element of this motion and the concept of professionalization are therefore: a self- imposed code of ethics and conduct, the establishment of a governing body consisting of peers within the business

April 29, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 641 community, enforcement of such a code of ethics and conduct by the governing body through disciplinary pro cedure, and possible expulsion from the profession, with the result that if an individual is expelled he can never again become a member of the profession or be employed in a senior capacity in a business establishment.

It would involve a method of dealing with legitimate complaints by members of the public and government in an efficient manner through the disciplinary procedure, so that the governing body of the profession may cut through the corporate veil and get directly to the person who made the decision that is offensive to the member of the public or the government. A legitimate question would be: why would I think professionalization would change the perceived need for government regulation, and why might it reduce the pre sent onslaught of the general public?

At present there are few forces, other than self-imposed ethical standards, that constrain business executive behavior. A difficult compet itive environment or board of director pressure for im proved performance can lead business executives to par ticipate in undesirable behavior such as offering bribes, predatory pricing practices, conspiracy to fix prices or bids, permitting unsafe working conditions, conducting business outside environmental standards, producing unsafe products, false advertising, or breaking agreements entered into in good faith.

Although there are several civil and in some cases criminal laws relating to such practices, the laws rarely penetrate the corporate veil and few executives are personally liable. In this regard I pulled out examples of laws relating to the Alberta government. One was The Coal Mines Safety Act, and I believe the other one was The Clean Air Act. In fact the person who's liable under those cases, if business is conducted by a corporation, is the corporation, and there is absolutely no sanction against the individuals who authorize or motivate the corporation to break the law.

Clearly it would be in the interest of business execu tives to weed out the few unscrupulous individuals among them. Self-regulation can be an effective means since the sanction is against the individual, imposed by his peers. The purpose of self-regulation related to the public interest . . . Clearly, senior executives have as much or more impact on the welfare of society than does the individual lawyer, doctor, or other professional now op erating under a code of ethics and conduct. Professions have been relatively immune to government regulation.

In my view one of the reasons is that the code of conduct and ethics that guides their behavior requires them to keep one eye on the public interest and one eye on the interest of the profession as a whole. Although a code of ethics would be developed and evolve over time, one of the fundamental underlying themes would be integrity. Integrity is the first rule for the Canadian Bar Association code of professional con duct. I'll quote from the Law Society: The lawyer must discharge his duties to his client, the court, members of the public, and his fellow members of the profession with integrity.

This clause could be rewritten to read: The business executive must discharge his responsibilities to his company, the public, the consumers of his product or service, the employees, and his fellow members of the profession with integrity. "Integrity" is defined in the notes of this quote as soundness of moral principle, espe cially in relation to truth and fair dealing, uprightness, honesty, and sincerity.

Illustrations of conduct which may infringe the rule as set out would certainly include the behavior I've listed: the offering of bribes, predatory pricing practice, con spiracy to fix prices or bids, permitting unsafe working conditions, conducting business outside environmental standards, producing unsafe products, false advertising, breaking agreements entered into in good faith.

The ethic would also include and involve a person who assists, enables, or permits any other person to act fraudulently, dishonestly, or illegally toward a consumer of the product or service, the employee of the company, or who kno wingly assists or enables another business executive to break the law. This rule would also include as a rule of conduct that any business executive who knows of a breach of the ethics by another business executive or member of the profession must report such a breach to the governing body, or himself be subject to disciplinary procedure.

I'm not suggesting that the professionalization concept is a cure-all. Yet I do think it's a better alternative than increased government regulation and government partici pation in the business sector. The second aspect of this motion is a recommendation that entry into their profession require a one- or two-year period of articling. The purpose of this suggestion is to increase the speed of transfer of business skills and, to some extent, permit the transfer of an approach to busi ness in a difficult, competitive environment, yet within the code of conduct and ethics of the profession.

Membership would initially be on a voluntary basis. The question of education with respect to the business executive profession is a matter on which I have no strong views, since some of the best business executives have had no formal education. Certainly from the point of view of initial membership, the grandfather clause approach would be necessary.

My hope would be that if this proposal is deemed to have merit, within 15 years most individuals groomed for top executive positions will be members of this new profession, and that within 40 years all executives of corporations with publicly traded shares and large private corporations would be required to be members of this profession. However, there would be no restriction on individuals conducting their own businesses. Such indi viduals would not be required to be members of this profession.

This would then be consistent with the legal profession, medical profession, or other professions where an individual doing work on his own behalf would not need to belong to that profession. For instance, a person could do his own legal work, his own medical work, and his own engineering work if he had the skills and if it were for his own benefit only. In substance, Mr.

Speaker, the question is whether each individual business executive is prepared to give up a portion of his conceived freedom by imposing on him self a code of ethics and conduct, in order to eliminate or reduce the perceived need of governments throughout the western industrialized world to infringe further on the private business sector. That's creating a greater freedom and a more positive business climate for the business sector as a whole. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that this is a somewhat novel approach to maintaining the vitality and growth of the private enterprise/private capitalistic system.

I shall listen with great interest to my colleagues in this debate. Thank you. DR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to rise on Motion 209, placed on the Order Paper by the hon. Member for Edmonton Whitemud. I recognize he belongs to a profes

642 ALBERTA HANSARD April 29, 1980 sion other than mine, and that we have somewhat of a reputation for having our differences. I'd like to reassure him that on this occasion I intend to support his concept, with one minor reservation. Mr. Speaker, to consider the motion, I think we have to discuss the concept of what a profession is. It is to some extent delineated in the government's policy docu ment on professions and occupations. But any profession — be it medical, legal, or otherwise — has to fulfil certain factors to be regarded as such. Of course it has to be self-governing and largely self- regulating.

It has to license its own members, usually under some Act of this Legislature. To go with that licensing, it has the responsibility for disciplining any members who indulge in infractions of the code of ethics, the regulations, or other professional requirements. In fact, in most professions the most serious offence you can commit is to indulge in unprofessional conduct. Also, a profession has to be there not only for the benefit of its own members but for the benefit of the general public.

In fact, public benefit is to some extent the major responsi bility of a profession, rather than its own members' bene fit. Fifthly, any genuine, true profession has to be an swerable to the public, either for complaints about what the member of the public may think is malfeasance on the part of the member of the profession, or for the general activities of the profession as a group. I think that concept of professionalism fits in very well with my concept of what government should be doing.

If you had a group of professions which were to a large extent self-governing and -regulating and answerable to the public, it would avoid the necessity for the govern ment to get involved in regulating such occupations and activities. I'm not trying to do the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs out of an occupation; he has another profession to fall back on in any case. But it would in fact decrease the requirement for government intervention in the general operating of the free-market concept. Mr.

Speaker, many professions have two parallel or ganizations which, although they function in parallel, have completely different responsibilities. I'll stick with my own profession, where we have one entity called the College of Physicians and Surgeons "and another called the Alberta Medical Association. The college, which has lay, non-medical members on its board of directors — which incidentally was a very novel concept when it was introduced, with some doubts by the professional mem bers — is responsible for those five functions that I've already mentioned.

On the other hand, the Alberta Medi cal Association corresponds approximately to a manufac turers' association, a trade association, the Alberta Con struction Association, or somebody such as that. It essen tially looks after the interests of the members of the profession. It may indulge in group insurance, it may negotiate with the government or attempt to, but it really looks after those interests that apply only to the members of the profession. As I've said, those trade associations — and there are very many of them in both this province and this country — fulfil that role.

But those trade associations, to be quite specific, do not license, regulate, discipline, or answer to the public for the activities of those associa tions or the various members of those associations. In fact, at the moment there is no self-governing body that does have any answerability to the general public for the activities of those occupations. Maybe as a result of the fact that there is no public answerability evident, there have been criticisms — some times justified and sometimes unjustified — of the activi ties of the business executive.

As a result of those criti cisms, there is a normal reactive function of government. When the criticisms reach a certain level, the government tends to step in and try to regulate the activities of the people who are being criticized, in order to cut down on the criticisms being expressed. Such regulations have been introduced in this Assembly by previous govern ments and this government, and have been introduced by most governments in western democratic societies where it is possible to criticize the activities of another person. But such reactive legislation by its very nature has some problems.

It is, of course, reactive. The problem has to become evident and has to be complained about before the legislation is normally put on the books. Therefore it always follows events and problems, sometimes with con siderable delay because of the delays built into the legisla tive process.

The other problem with such regulation by legislation can often be that because it's introduced by legislators and with the assistance of bureaucrats who are not ex perts in that particular field, such legislation often tends to produce more problems than it gets rid of or even to introduce new problems that have never been thought of. All one has to do to clarify that situation is to look at the effects of governmental regulation on emission from motor vehicles.

Subsequently we now have the problem of the government's interfering in the mileage per gallon or per litre — I suppose nowadays I should be saying kilometres per litre — of the individual vehicles in the fleet produced by a manufacturer. Those regulations have brought one of the powerful corporate entities in the world, General Motors, down to the stage where they're scarcely making a profit. After all, in the free enterprise system if there is no profit, there is no system. We don't need to think about what it has done to lesser lights in the automotive industry, such as Ford and Chrysler Corpora tion.

Those corporations, which were functioning on a strictly economic basis perfectly well, have been brought to their knees by government regulations that had noth ing to do, apparently, with the fiscal and monetary poli cies of those companies. Mr. Speaker, when I read the original motion, I was a bit concerned about the word "entrepreneur". I was going to tease the mover of the motion somewhat. Perhaps in his legal capacity he was willing to give us a definition. Of course he would have been responsible for his activities to his professional peers for that particular definition.

I'm glad he changed it to "business executive". Mr. Speaker, I think we have to look at the possibility for self-discipline in the business executive. If a doctor, an engineer, or a lawyer goes into business, they are still responsible to their own professional body for activities in that business which are strictly within the confines of their profession. If a doctor works as the medical director of a company, he is responsible for his medical decisions. If the engineer is responsible for designing a boiler, he is responsible as an engineer for that design.

If a lawyer is drawing up contracts between one company or another or between the company and a union, he is responsible as a lawyer for those contracts he draws up. But as soon as those three individuals cross the fence and become the business executive or entrepreneur, they leave behind all that professional responsibility. There is no self- disciplining body to control their activities. I would think that the motion of the hon. Member for Edmonton Whitemud is of extreme interest because it

April 29, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 643 does introduce the concept of such activities being con trolled by the people who are performing them. Historic ally it has worked extremely well in the medical profes sion. It has also worked very well in the legal profession. Those are probably the outstanding examples. But it also functions in what may not appear on the surface to be self-governing professions, such as nursing and teaching. Those people tend to be employed by others,

whereas lawyers and doctors tend to be self-employed. But even in the employed professions — and the business executive is to a large extent employed by the business he's working for — the concept of self-discipline has been shown to be very valid. I can think of many activities within business and commerce where the concept of self-discipline applies, but at the moment I will stick to only three where I hope I have some knowledge that would enable me to make some valid remarks. I would like to start off with the concept of self-discipline for a safety director.

Both in accident prevention and in the investigation of accidents, professionalism would mean that the safety director would have to obey not his own self-set rules and ethics but those of his profession. More noteworthy, in the occupational health and illness field, if a safety director had any initial evidence that there was a particular health problem developing within his industry, he would per force, because of his professional responsibility, have to do something about it and report it to his professional body.

I can remember 25 years ago as a medical student, in fact almost 30 years ago, hearing about a disease called asbestosis and the problems that were showing up with the use of asbestos. It took approximately 20 years for that concern to get out of the narrow confines of the medical profession and into general public knowledge. But the medical knowledge devolved from findings in industry and in workers in particular industries. We've since had the problem with vinyl chloride and liver tumors, and many other instances. Coalminer's lung is an example.

But the safety director who found such an entity occurring in his industry, if he belonged to a profession would perforce, because of his professional nature, have to do something about it. The manager of a company would become directly responsible for the safety of his product. Hopefully he would become responsible for the labelling of the con tainers of any noxious chemicals that were produced by his company.

He would have to label those to the satis faction of his own profession, and his own profession might move considerably faster than government regula tion in the requirements for labelling of such containers. The environmental engineer, who at the moment only has to function within the regulations of the Minister of Environment — and, as I've said, those regulations some times tend to follow rather than precede events.

Instead of following those regulations only, he would have a professional requirement and concern for making sure that labelling kept up with advancing knowledge, on a current basis as opposed to waiting for events to happen. Those three instances alone, within my own narrow field, indicate how important professionalism by the business executive could become. I would like to mention a particular instance that came to our attention on the select committee's trip to Europe. We were not just involved as politicians in looking at the narrow confines of that select committee.

In Germany we found that there is almost professionalism because of the co-operation tenet of their industry, that the regulations for safety and pollution standards are set from within the industry and are then brought into legislation by the government. But they are initiated by the industry and by the executives of the industry. That was brought very much to our attention by the biochemical people at Leverkusen. Mr. Speaker, I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks that I had one concern about professionalism for the business executive.

Being a general practitioner, it may be that I'm a [jack] of all trades, but I'm certainly not a complete master of one. Specialization has been defined as knowing more and more about less and less until one knows absolutely everything about nothing. The concern I have is that most professions tend to become more and more rigid in the educational requirements for the profession. Originally a specialist in medicine was somebody who limited his practice. Following that was the introduction of certification in the speciality, and subsequently the introduction of fellowship in the specia lity.

I'm not sure that a specialist with a fellowship is any better than a specialist who has learned by experience, by a preceptorship, and who describes himself as limiting himself to that speciality. My concern is that a profession of business executives might gradually begin to regard a university degree or some other commerce training as being the sine qua non of belonging to that profession.

I think we all know, and the member mentioned the problem, of very good, ethical business executives whose only knowledge of postsecond- ary education is driving by the doors of the particular educational facility on their way to work. These are people who have got ethics and morals within their business occupation which are often better within that occupation than those of people who have got degrees in commerce. With the one proviso that restrictions be placed on the ability to develop purely educational requirements, I would like to urge that this House consider favorably the motion put forward by the member.

Thank you. MR. BORSTAD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise and give a few comments, from a small businessman's point of view, on Motion 209 brought forward by the Member for Edmonton Whitemud, which is to establish a profession known as the business executive profession — and I'm glad he changed that word, because I don't know whether I could have said it before — to regulate and to control the standards pertaining to the profession, and to protect the public against incompetence and fraud. This could endanger the health and/or life of an individual.

We can look back in time to when the professions were formed in the 15th century in response to petitions by local justices. I suppose we could go back even further than that to the stonemasons working on the temple of King Solomon. They were professionals and their work, of which they were very proud, was good. They were a tight-knit group who guarded their profession. So I suppose we can say that the professions have been around for a long time. In fact some of our lodges today symbolize those ancient stonemasons, who practice honor and vir tue among their fellow men.

Therefore there is a long record of groups forming professions to aid their neigh bors and themselves. Self-government is a privilege delegated to the profes sional or occupation by a legislature. Only when it is clear that the public can be better served by delegating this authority — and the matter is not to be too lightly taken.

644 ALBERTA HANSARD April 29, 1980 As in other professions, there is an assumption that unethical, undesirable, and sometimes illegal practices would be greatly reduced by the establishment of this profession being discussed here today. I strongly believe that they would. I only have to recall — and I speak as a small businessman — my experience with some purchas ing agents who expect you to pay them off before your bids are even recognized. So the thing is around. And there are many more examples I might be able to cite.

The integrity of the businessman and industrial leaders has been challenged by consumers and media groups alike. Most of the criticism is probably based on miscon ception, though no doubt some is valid. This is why we have Ralph Nader's group and other groups springing up to help and protect the public. Professionalism would mean a code of ethics, enforceable through a disciplinary body, and expulsion from that profession on some privi lege or right being offended. It would be in the business of the business executives to get rid of unscrupulous individuals amongst them.

The establishment of the busi ness executive profession would not be a perfect remedy to some of the practices that go on in private industry, such as offering of bribes, false advertising, unsafe prod ucts, permitting unsafe working conditions, and many others, but it would go a long way to improve a much more desirable alternative than increased regulations and controls by government. Self-regulation does not preclude government interven tion, because governments that created them can still intervene and prevent abuse to those powers.

Therefore I support Motion 209 as a small businessman, and I urge the members of the Assembly to support this motion. MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, I welcome as well the opportunity to enter this debate on a very important question put before the Assembly by the hon. Member for Edmonton Whitemud. For that he is to be commend ed.

I believe he is addressing our attention to a couple of very major concerns in society today, and certainly on the part of members of this Assembly: namely, the status and continued prosperity and health of the private enterprise system as we understand it; a concern about the ever- increasing degree of government regulation, which of course extends not only into the enterprise system but into our daily lives; and, as well, the increasing awareness of the need for public responsibility on the part of all citizens in society. I believe the hon.

Member for Edmonton Whitemud has very effectively explained the erosion of public ac ceptance of pure and uncontrolled private enterprise. He has talked effectively about the perception on the part of the public for government regulation and the need for government regulation. At the bottom line, he suggests a cure — if not an entire cure, at least some sort of substan tial remedy that would help to preserve the system of private enterprise which I believe we all support. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I certainly share his concern about the erosion of the private enterprise sys tem.

I appreciate his suggestion of a possible remedy, but I cannot say with candor that I believe we have struck upon that solution. I rather think that we are perhaps trying to put a square peg in a round hole. I too look with great interest for subsequent remarks in this House, and I'm certainly prepared to be convinced. But as much as I accept and share the concern of the member, I really have a number of concerns. The first of these, of course, relates to one of the essential ingredients for the establishment of a true pro fession; that is, a commonalty, an identifiable group that has a common interest.

I have some difficulty, Mr. Speaker, in discovering in my own mind how the manag er of Frank's welding shop has very much in common with the division manager for IBM. Of course this high lights the question: who is a business executive? How do you define such a person? The Member for Edmonton Whitemud has very fairly recognized the right — and surely it must be a fundamen tal right of an individual — to start and operate a business. But that really avoids the question of who, then, a business executive is. Because according to

definitions that have been advanced, the fellow who's hired by Frank to manage his welding shop is really a business executive and subject to the same kinds of requirements as the division manager for a large corporation. Do you draw the line based on the size of the organization, or do you do it on the basis of the responsibility of the individual in the work place? I think that's a very major problem.

Of course related to that, surely the member's not suggesting that in this country of ours, in this province of ours, one wouldn't be allowed the opportunity to climb the corporate ladder without some special degree. I think such a concept would be open to the very real criticism of being somewhat elitist and, in fact, a disincentive to highly motivated and capable people in our society who just don't happen to have had the opportunity to obtain this special university degree or other training. As a matter of fact, without reverting to a direct quotation, Mr.

Speaker, in the preparation of my re marks I happened to come across an old text that I studied in commerce at university when I was engaged in the bachelor of commerce program. Mr. Peter Drucker talked about ways in which the business sector must seek to avoid breeding public opinion which is hostile. One of the things he talked about in particular was the exclusive hiring of college graduates for management positions, thus cutting off chances for men inside the company and narrowing promotional opportunities, which is one of the most important rungs in the traditional ladder of success, as he termed it.

With all due respect for the good inten tions of the member, I think that would be a very damning criticism of the proposed profession — that it would in fact have that effect which, of course, I'm sure is not intended. This was alluded to by the hon. Member for Edson when he spoke. He referred to it as one of the provisos to his complete approval of the notion of a separate profession. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I find it more than simply a proviso; I find it a very major stumbling block.

There is an additional concern that I'd like to bring to the members of the Assembly: I would bring that concern forward in this way: surely what is really at issue and what is needed is not the establishment of some profes sion, but rather one looking at the conduct one might normally expect of a person engaged in business with an attitude toward public responsibility and the public inter est. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that while the tradi tional professions are established by legislation, as was mentioned by a previous speaker, the spirit of profes sionalism is in fact conferred by society.

It's conferred by society on the basis of society's assessment of the conduct of an occupational group, if you will, within society, and in particular in terms of the sense of responsibility to society that that group is displaying. I'm saying that what we need, Mr. Speaker, is not a formal structure that will create the trappings of so-called professionalism, but rather a sincere demonstration by the business sector of a

April 29, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 645 sense of real social responsibility in its conduct. That's part and parcel of the goals and objectives of a business. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it really is more a question of attitude than anything else. As was pointed out by previous speakers, the modern use of the term "professional" has extended far beyond the traditional notions of doctors, lawyers, engineers, and others. I think this is due in large measure to the heigh tened awareness of the responsibility of all citizens to recognize a duty to society in the conduct of their occupa tional affairs.

In other words, professionalism is not the exclusive domain of the traditional professions. I must take some issue with the remarks of the hon. Member for Edson when he suggested in his example that when one goes behind the corporate veil one leaves behind his professional responsibilities. That's certainly not my con cept of professionalism, Mr. Speaker. I think the exten sion of that term beyond application to the traditional professions bears some witness to the fact that that is not the general public's view of the explanation and definition of the professional.

With perhaps too much of a critical look, I've suggest ed that while the member has raised a very critical issue, the solution offered may not in fact be the one that is going to lead us out of the wilderness. What then can be offered by way of solution? Mr. Speaker, with the great est of respect, I don't purport to have a precise solution, except to suggest this: what is required is a continued and accelerated focus by the business executives in both advo cating and practising business with the public interest as a clear objective of corporate business. I think that's a tall but attainable goal.

It's a tall order, but I think it certain ly is one that is being addressed more and more by the business community. I certainly don't mean by my re marks to suggest that there is no focus on this critical area. But I do think there is a particular dilemma the business corporation finds itself in, and that is that one of its foremost objects must be to maximize the return to the investor. When I was a student of commerce it was suggested there was a complimentary goal in terms of our social obligations, and I think those goals are mutually attain able.

It's a fair comment, that it does pose a continuing and constant dilemma to the business executive, when faced with critical decisions that are going to affect the profitability of a corporation, to keep in mind the need for that social responsibility and that public interest.

So on that basis, while I too am concerned about the amount of red tape that business experiences — and there's no question about it; as the son of a small business man and having worked for many years in the small business and shared the frustrations of my father as he endured what he felt was very needless government regulation and red tape — I must say that government has a responsibility and a proper role. I see government as working hand in hand with the business community in helping to ensure that our society operates on the basis that society as a whole feels is appropriate and fair.

So I feel that the goal is certainly an attainable one. I would like to commend the Member for Edmonton Whitemud for his encouragement of the self-discipline and sense of public responsibility and accountability that is implicit in his motion. That certainly is desirable. The hon. member and this member certainly agree on that principle.

We both share a belief in the value of the private enterprise system, which I think has undeniably provided and continues to provide the greatest opportuni ty for individual achievement and encourages excellence through the provision of the incentive technique, which I don't think has a comparable approach in terms of excel lence and in meeting the economic needs of society. Surely the best proof of that is the standard of living and the quality of life that we enjoy in both this country and this province. In conclusion, Mr.

Speaker, I would simply say I be lieve we have an obligation to maintain and improve that quality of life. I think that is the challenge to this Legisla ture, and I believe the members of this Legislature on both sides of the House are up to the challenge. I rest very comfortably in the assurance that government, work ing hand in hand with business and with organized labor, will be well able to serve the needs of the people. Thank you. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take the opportunity of saying a few words with regard to this resolution.

I think one of the points of view we all have in common — certainly in this Legislature, with the excep tion of maybe one member — is our support and our commitment to the capitalist system or the free enterprise system to operate not only the province of Alberta, but the private economy and Canada as a whole. I think the question raised in this resolution is with regard to that free enterprise system and where it's taking us at the present time.

Many of us are very concerned with regard to the regulations and controls that become imposed on the free market system and cause delays, cause difficulties for business and entrepreneurs to fulfill some of the objectives they may have in society and in playing a very important role in the economic develop ment of a private community or a province as a whole. That's the first thing.

I think the second thing that has evolved that is raised in this resolution and is a concern, and the solution suggested is sort of because of the symptom, is the mistrust the general public has at the present time for the free enterprise system, and generally at the corporate level — the mistrust and the misunderstanding of what is happening. I believe the hon. mover of the resolution put his finger on it in saying that you don't know who to put the finger on in the corporate system with regard to responsibility.

Through this resolution the hon. member is attempting, through some mechanism, to set up a business executive professional organization that says you are responsible for your actions, responsible not only to yourself but to your fellow men who are in the free enterprise system and in the system you are serving so well.

But when we examine the resolution, I think we should go back to some of the original goals of the free enter prise system to understand how we've arrived at where we are today, at a point where we must seek to clear the air — I think that's what we're doing in our discussion at the present time — about the morality in business and mora lity of business people in making them professionals. Capitalism, as we all recognize and have understood during our period of time in life, is a system that we feel committed to.

We feel that it does work and will fulfil our needs, first of all economically in our province and in our own lives. But our social goals can also be fulfilled by the free enterprise system. If we look back in history, when our forefathers came to this continent and our country, they conceived a system of liberty and a great deal of freedom: freedom to make choices about where they live, what type of enter prise they are involved in, and a way of life for their

646 ALBERTA HANSARD April 29, 1980 families. Rather than a social economy centred around religious or aristocratic orders, we brought the old dom estic values of prudence, diligence, trustworthiness, and ambition right to the front of our system of economy. Channelled through a healthy drive to better oneself rath er than one's master, we built this economic system, a free economic system based on the liberty and the freedom in our society. We have seen, though, Mr.

Speaker, since that indus trial revolution something that those early free- enterprisers like Adam Smith and others had not foreseen at that time: the growth of large bureaucratic corpora tions. I can say that I suppose there is nothing wrong with the growth of these large companies. I think we've all welcomed the collective research capabilities, the large capital resources, new products and, most of all, the job security they have brought with them. But, Mr.

Speaker, within certain limits, mistrust and dislike of bigness is that healthy democratic instinct; because as corporations grow larger and more powerful, each of us loses a certain measure of sovereignty, a certain measure of freedom, and certainly a certain measure of identity within our system. Mr. Speaker, I maintain that this is the source of the mistrust the public feels toward corporate executives. It is a natural, democratic reaction to bigness, not a direct attack on the executives as individuals.

In our system the ultimate reaction of mistrust is to nationalize an industry, with all the waste and inefficiency that results from that particular process. Under that system, we are able and can direct the motives of that industry. But to me, and I'm sure to others in this Legislature, that is unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, it was the pioneers who built this great province of ours; risk-takers who left the relative security of the east and came west. It was the risk-takers who drilled the first oil well at Leduc and went on to develop our economy to a level that we enjoy today.

We did not regulate Alberta into being; we did not pass a lot of laws. The only reason our province of Alberta works as well as it does is that free men are able and were able to make free choices and exercise a freedom in taking the risks and earning the benefits. That is the basic premise of the market place economy that has caused this province to grow to the place where it is today. The motion that we have before us seeks to remedy the problem of public mistrust of businessmen by establishing a semiprivate type of bureaucracy.

While a profession for business executives might improve the public's trust of them as individuals and give a feeling of false security, we will still be left with the public's healthy distrust of bigness as represented by the big corporations. Mr. Speaker, no one could ever establish the criteria for an entrepreneur. Some hon. members in this Legisla ture have referred to that matter at this point in time.

I feel no one should be able to do just that type of thing, because the beauty of our free enterprise system is that anyone with skill, foresight, or perseverance — even a bit of luck — can generate economic excitement in our system. They can create wealth, jobs, new products, new innovations, and continue to build a new and exciting type of economy in our province and throughout all of Canada and North America. In this country. I feel the public loves its freedom and has a dislike for anything big, powerful, and secretive. That is the perception of most corporations, so the public does not really trust them.

I don't see how the establishment of a profession for businessmen will help this particular concern out in the system at the present time. In any case, Mr. Speaker, a professional is by definition dedicated to a standard of service to others, to his clients. Entrepreneurial endeavor, whether at the corner store or at the head of Exxon, is motivated by healthy self-interest. That's how the free enterprise system works. I don't see how entrepreneurs fit the definition of a professional. I don't see why they really should fit into any mould.

The secret to our success and the system we have supported over the years is that it has flexibility; it has the opportunity for people to use the energies or abilities they have to direct their lives and to assist and work with others in their communities. The intent of the mover of this motion was to build ethics and standards of conduct into business people. I'm sure that's commendable. However, our market place is based upon a certain level of trust and honesty in those who operate it. It has been said many times in this Legislature and other legislatures that you can't legislate honesty, ethics, and values.

I don't think at this point in time we should try to, Mr. Speaker. For this reason, and my concern that we should not limit anyone's freedom, I don't feel that I could wholeheartedly support the concept of this professional type of organization. At this point in time I think that if a group of business people feel it is worth their while, or feel it is to their advantage, to form some type of organization on a volunteer basis or on their own initiative and those people who join the organization have to meet certain criteria, our society, legislation, rules, or whatever, allow people the freedom to do just that.

There's freedom of association and freedom of organization — we should allow that to happen. But really, Mr. Speaker, I feel even that isn't necessary, and wouldn't be supportive of that kind of organization. Each of us as individuals, entrepreneurs, business executives, or people attempting to earn a living for ourselves or to provide a service for our fellow men in the communities should know that the ground rules of honesty, integrity, and respect for others are high priority items and should not be violated.

If they are violated by us as business people or persons earning a way of life in the community, then we should not have a place in the market place. Consumers as such should ignore whatever product we're selling, whether it's physical or non-physical, and at that point in time our control over our actions is certainly controlled. There is a governor on us in that manner. Mr. Speaker, I hope that's the kind of system we can work under, as people in the province of Alberta and as Canadians.

I'm sure that in the long run there may be a few pitfalls, there may be people in the system who do not take all their responsibilities, but there are controls in place at the present time. I have confidence that they will continue to work. MR. MUSGREAVE: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to this motion, I must confess I'm a little confused. I don't want my colleagues to agree with me. I'd like to go back to the word "entrepreneur", but first of all I would like to comment on some of the remarks by the hon. Member for Little Bow. I agree with what he was saying. Howev er.

I hope the member who introduced this motion brings it back again, because there are some points the Member for Little Bow made that I would like to take exception to. Unfortunately, I don't have my research prepared enough so that I can debate it intelligently — and I heard one hon. member agree with me. I would like to go back to the idea of the entrepreneur, though. There are four main factors of production. These are land, capital, labor, and entrepreneurship. The entre

April 29, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 647 preneur is usually the idea person. Quite often it's not his idea, but he is the one who takes the idea, puts these factors of production together, and creates a new product or in some way satisfies the wants of people. He must combine these factors of production to produce goods or services, and they have to make a profit. If they guess wrong, the market place is going to penalize them. All we need to do is think of the Edsel.

We know what the market place did to that automobile, and we know what the market place is doing to the large cars being produced by the Chrysler Corporation today. Mr. Speaker, although I find difficulty with the con cept of an entrepreneurial profession subject to rules and regulations of conduct, I agree that it is necessary. Sever al years ago some senior executives of General Electric were sent to jail because they were collaborating on keeping up the prices of generating equipment to various power companies throughout the United States. In Cana da we are all familiar with the recent dredging scandal.

Many people have been given prison terms, and I would suggest to you that many members of the boards of directors are probably former chartered accountants, en gineers, or lawyers. Obviously the courts have to move against these people. The Atlantic Acceptance Corpora tion is another example of an organization involving many millions of dollars and people with wide profes sional backgrounds. Unfortunately greed for wealth or power frequently dissolves any integrity these people may have had. Mr.

Speaker, let's get back to an entrepreneur What is this person whom we want to organize and control, even though it is by themselves? I would like to go back in history and look at the example of an entrepreneur and how important it was in both private industry and gov ernment. When the old trade routes of the spice lands were cut off, European countries decided they would have to find access to these countries by sea routes. It was an entrepreneur by the name of Prince Henry of Portugal who set up a school for navigators and finally found trade routes around Africa.

Another example is Spain, which financed the trip of Columbus to North America. In old Egyptian civilizations, there are many examples of business transactions where business people put to gether various projects to satisfy the Pharaohs of those times. This is one of the difficulties in our emerging nations today. One of the problems in the developing countries is not that they don't have land or people, but they don't have the enterprisers who can put the factors of production together. To give you another example from history, let's look at Venice, a city of great wealth.

It had no arable land, yet they built a rich empire using the capital resources available to them. Similarly, in Japan today they have little in the way of land, forests, oil, or gas, yet they are one of the most wealthy countries in the world. Why? Because they have entrepreneurs who wanted to satisfy people's wants, develop industries to serve them and the world, and they have grown rich in the process. One of the tragedies in the American auto industry — and I know some hon. members have said that the reason the auto industry of the United States is in such trouble is government regulations.

I suggest to you the reason the industry is in trouble is because of lousy management. While they have been designing bigger fins and fancier grills, the Germans and Japanese have been designing automobiles that are safe, efficient, strong, and small. Most important of all, they use less gasoline. That's why in the United States today more automobiles that have been manufactured abroad are being sold in that country than those manufactured in the United States.

I would like to suggest that one of the reasons I support the idea of an entrepreneurial profession as such, but for different reasons than the mover, is that entrepre neurs can be in government or in private industry. I would like to remind you of the CBC in Canada. Many of my colleagues can't stand the CBC, but I would like to suggest that it's one of the important links that has held our country together. Air Canada is another example of a transportation vehicle that was set up by a Conservative government way back when, but it served the purpose of helping to keep our country together.

Another example is the rescue of the bankrupt railroads, which we now know as the CNR. In Alberta we have our own examples of government enterprise. We have the provincial Treasury Branch sys tem, the Alberta Government Telephones, the Alberta Energy Company in which this government placed $75 million. In Calgary they have the largest co-op grocery association in Canada. I think it's rather ironic. Calgary is supposed to be the red neck, free enterprise city of Alberta, yet it has the largest grocery co-op in the country. Mr.

Speaker, one way we could encourage entrepre neurs in Canada is to put more money into our universi ties. Right now, according to the latest report of the Bachelor of Commerce program in the University of Alberta, 640 students were denied admission to the B.Com. program last year for lack of funds. Yet at the same time we all know that Canada is short of manage ment people. I would suggest that any encouragement we can give to our citizens to engage in productive activities should be supportive. Going back to Mr. T.J.

Johnson's Professions in Power, the question is raised: do the lawyers really guard our liberties? I know I am surrounded by these honored gentlemen. But according to Mr. Johnson, if you were a black power militant or a women's liberation supporter, you would probably look on a lawyer as an upholder of an exploitive system.

Another example, covering all pro fessions in England, the monopolies commission report on professional services, 1970, led one writer to the London Times to suggest that a number of restrictive practices carried on by professional groups and justified on the basis of community welfare looked in fact rather like arrangements for making life easier for practitioners at the expense of their clients one way or another. The hon. Member for Edmonton Whitemud mentioned that laws rarely penetrate the corporate veil, and I must confess that I have to agree with him.

Again going back to the United States, many people there feel that corpora tions are national institutions and should be protected as such. And they should be protected from their board of directors. They feel that many of the boards of directors of many large organizations are incompetent. Unfortu nately they feed on one another's greed and are prey to nepotism in the worst form. Obviously they have prob lems. Would the code of ethics, for example, stop Gulf Oil? Back in the early '50s this company was producing oil from shut-in oil wells in the province of Alberta.

If it hadn't been for the perseverance of an inspector of the conservation board, as it was known in those days, this company would not have been found guilty and taken into courts as it was. When the hon. member introduced this motion, he mentioned the fact of integrity as suggested by the Bar Association. I would point out that every one of Presi

648 ALBERTA HANSARD April 29, 1980 dent Nixon's cabinet were lawyers. I would suggest that something happened to their integrity. AN HON. MEMBER: They're looking for work. MR. MUSGREAVE: Yes, they're looking for work, once they get out of jail. This is the irony of our situation. They get out of jail, write a book, and become millionaires. When one looks at the available material on profes sionalism, a lot has been written.

From what little reading I have been able to do, I would say that there is a lot of concern by a lot of people who feel a professional is a person who carves out from society his own area of concern and opportunity. If he hides behind a facade of doing public good, so be it. This is why I cannot support the idea of improving standards of competence in the business world by suggesting that we set up the profes sion, as suggested by the hon. member.

If we want to improve the business world, I suggest we put more money into our universities, SAIT, and NAIT and more encour agement of in-house training programs such as the RIA and CGA in accounting. Another reason I cannot support this, Mr. Speaker, is that in the year 1900 in Ontario, 4.6 per cent of the labor force were professional; in 1971 it had risen to 12.7. In Ontario there are 22 occupations with some measure of self-government. Under the profession code in Quebec there are 38 self-governing agencies.

Secondly, we live in an age of consumerism, and when we as consumers look at all these people who have all these little organizations to look after themselves — we're the people who pay for their services. We have no way to turn if we don't like the quality of their services. Quite often it's an essential serv ice, and we have no one else to turn to. We live in a democratic age, and in this Legislature we should be concerned about any powers we give to any people to run their own profession.

Another reason I cannot support this is that young people today see the high incomes of professions, and once again they're concerned about the lack of opportuni ty of entrance to universities, to participate in this ob vious improvement in the economic status of professions. The public is aware of the high incomes, and the old law of supply and demand does not seem to apply to these people,

whereas it does to the rest of us. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the public has to pay for the educational facilities. We already have a high bill for medicine: we pay a lot for legal aid. I wonder if we now want to increase this bill on the public purse. MR. PAHL: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Edmon ton Whitemud is to be commended for bringing forth this motion, which is in fact a complex issue. Listening to the debate thus far is perhaps a question of confidence rather than fact. However. I must also add that in amending his motion the hon. member has to a large extent deflected my contribution to the debate.

But he's going to get it anyway. The possibility of just how you get into the business executive profession is an interesting one. Self-regulation, training, and experience in themselves won't buy it. Of course once a person gets into the category of business executive, particularly if he owns his own business, how are you going to make him become a professional? What I think we're really talking about here, Mr. Speaker, is perhaps a government-nurtured technocracy. Before going to my main remarks.

I would add, as others have, that I hope this is not an implied slander or slur at the producers or the doers of this society. With respect, it is the private sector producer, not the profes sional service sector, that makes it happen in this society. The suggestion and implication that the business sector has done all that badly in North America is certainly refuted by the material well-being and quality of life we enjoy.

I would also submit that the public-spirited nature of our many, many businessmen and their achievements over the 75 years of our province supports that as well, and I would include farmers in the category of businessmen. Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the motion proposed by the hon.

Member for Edmonton Whitemud regarding the establishment of what I will call a managerial profession with self-regulating powers, my approach will be first to test it against my own conservative bias, that govern ments first and foremost have a role in regulating and arbitrating among competing self-interest groups; second ly, to stimulate where necessary and appropriate; and thirdly, where unavoidable, to operate. I'm sure the hon. Member for Edmonton Whitemud will be pleased to hear that his motion has so far passed my first test. Mr. Speaker, the next important question is one of need.

The question of need is one that this Assembly should ask itself very seriously before any legislation is passed, because when it comes to laws more is not necessarily better. The good Lord started us out with 10 laws for all of mankind; immediately behind me there are six volumes, or nearly 400 chapters, of the statutes of Alberta. I think that might be termed questionable pro gress. Moving from the Ten Commandments, the first law regulating commerce that comes to mind is from ancient Rome. The history lesson won't be quite that long; that law was caveat emptor, let the buyer beware.

Surprisingly enough, that laissez-faire approach to the market place — which was simply that, a market place where the seller, who was usually also the producer, had a direct, face-to-face communication with the buyer, who was also the consumer of the product. This market place contact worked very well for a long, long time. Mr. Speaker, the age of mass production of products and mass marketing through distant and impersonal channels of marketing and distribution led to the imprac ticability of caveat emptor.

The first response was gov ernment regulation, and it's interesting to note that that was largely brought on in the meat packing business at the turn of the century through an expose by a chap by the name of Upton Sinclair. In this case of, in effect, consumer abuse from mass-produced products, the first response was government regulation, which has become more sophisticated, responsive and, I guess to some, burdensome, a result in part of the consumerism move ment. By and large the result is that when you buy a can of Canada fancy grade government-inspected peas you know what you're getting.

By implication, if we take Motion 209 to its logical conclusion, we as a society will be assured of government-mandated, self-regulated, guaranteed ethical, management professionals, consistent in quality from mould to mould. We can then be happily assured of having the same high quality consistent with the standard of managerial decision-making we currently enjoy within our medical, legal, engineering, architectur al, and accounting professions.

Knowing that they're both members of the legal profes sion, I also commend my hon. colleagues, the Member for Edmonton Whitemud and the Member for Calgary Forest Lawn, for putting aside all self-interest in propos

April 29, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 649 ing this motion. For once managers become profes sionals, all hope of contentious litigation in commerce will go out the window. Mr. Speaker, perhaps even more laudable is the state of redundancy that such a coterie of management professionals will place upon this Assembly.

I'm sure we can all appreciate the need that could be filled within the ranks of our public service by a group of men and women — I quote from the motion — self- regulated by their "own standards of ethics and conduct", for the need for ministers of the Crown would surely disappear, because management professionals with the prescribed mix of education and experience will have no problem whatever coming up with government policies. The next step of course: the Legislature would surely disappear, because management professionals with ethics, education, and practical experience going for them would h

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19800429
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L19 S2 19800429 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	a0b82f76328066bf153097a853b658b0c25aa0db

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