LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Thursday, May 18, 1972 2:30 p.m. [T he House met at 2:30 pm.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair.] Bill No. 80: head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS The Gas Resources Preservation Amendment Act, 1972 MR. DICKIE: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill being The Gas Resources Preservation Amendment Act, 1972. There are two proposed amendments and they are merely for clarification.

When a company made an application last year before the Energy Resources Conservation Board applying for the removal of ethane from the province in liquid form, it was accepted although it would deal with ethane as a liquid. Ethane is normally a gas and would come under the definition of gas within the act. A new subsection will make it clear that for whatever form ethane or methane is handled, it is for the purpose of the act a gas so that a permit would be required before it could be removed from the province.

The other amendment did give the Lieutenant Governor in Council certain powers when these permits are issued to attach conditions and to clarify the power of the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make sure conditions could be attached. [Leave being granted, Bill No. 80 was introduced and read a first time.] head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS DR. McCRIMMON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to you and through you to the hon. members of this Assembly 40 Grade VI students from Ponoka Riverside Elementary School. They are accompanied by their teachers Mrs. Massing and Mr. Erickson and by parents Mrs. Humell, Mrs.

Kroning, Mrs. Turner, and bus driver Gordon Reese. I would ask them now to stand and be recognized by the Assembly. MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce to you and to the hon. members of this Assembly some 20 Byemoor high school students from my constituency. They are sitting in the public gallery. They are accompanied by Mrs. Ferrand, their teacher, and several other adults. I would ask that they stand and be recognized. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3543

53-2 ALBERTA HANSARD May 18th 1972 MR. STROMBERG: Mr. Speaker, again it is a pleasure for me to introduce to you and to the hon. members of this Assembly another class from my constituency. Today we have with us 27 Grade X students from Daysland. They are accompanied by their two teachers Mr. Corbett and Mr. Eman. These students are seated today in the members' gallery and I will ask them to stand and be recognized by this Assembly. MR. COOPER: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to introduce to you and to the hon. members of this Assembly 67 Grade XI students from the J. R. Robson School in Vermilion.

They are accompanied by their teachers Mr. Bachmann and Miss Walton. Mr. Speaker, I know many of these students by sight and by name and the young man who resembles me so greatly, seated in the front row, happens to be my nephew. They are seated in the public gallery, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask them at this time to stand and be recognized. head: FILING RETURNS AND TABLING REPORTS MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table Return No. 200, ordered by the Assembly. MR. HENDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Government House Leader could give us some indication as to when we could expect Return No. 195? MR.

HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I'd ask that the Minister of Municipal Affairs might give further information he might have on that one. MR. RUSSELL: I wonder if the hon. member could identify it, Mr. Speaker. I've been trying to keep track of these things. MR. HENDERSON: I think probably the Government House Leader has the wrong minister. It concerns the report of the Environment Conservation Authority on Cooking Lake, Mr. Speaker. MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, when the government accepted that motion, I made some remarks in regard to that report. I indicated that the government would table it during the course of this session.

This is certainly correct, after the government had time to review the report and review the recommendations. What I said then, I repeat again, and it still stands, that after the government has an opportunity to review the recommendations and the report in its totality, it will be tabled during the course of this session. MR. HENDERSON: A point of clarification, Mr. Speaker. Could the hon. minister advise us of whether he means before the recess, or is he leaving this open so that we can't expect it till next fall? MR. YURKO: Mr.

Speaker, if the government has time to manage to squeeze in an opportunity to review the report in addition to all its other work Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3544

May 18th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 53-3 and its hearings that are going to be held next week, then it will be tabled before the session breaks. But if it doesn't have time to review it in its totality before, then it will be tabled during the fall part. I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that the indication is very strong that it will probably be in the fall part of the session. MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table Motion for a Return, ordered by the Assembly. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Woods Christian HomeMR. HENDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address a question to the hon.

Minister of Health and Social Development. I wonder if the minister could advise the House as to the present status, as well as the future status, of the Woods Christian Home in Calgary, which was set up as a treatment centre for emotionally disturbed children some time ago. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Leduc for giving me prior notice of his intention to ask that question. The situation at Woods Christian Home is that the pilot project or experimental program, which I believe is intended to last three years, is at about the midway point.

No evaluation based on data up to this point is available yet. It is expected that a number of months more will have to go by before much evaluation, based on the data accumulated there, would take place. The budgeting for the Woods Christian Home is proceeding in accordance with the original intent in this year's budget. The per diem costs are within the range that were originally experienced -- in the $55 to $65 range per patient per day. At the present time there are 22 children involved in the program. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview, followed by the hon. Member for Drumheller.

Confederate Klans of Alberta MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this question to the hon. Attorney General. Is it true that the Confederate Klans of Alberta, otherwise known as the Klu Klux Klan, was granted incorporation under The Societies Act, on April 7th of this year? MR. LEITCH: I don't know, Mr. Speaker. I'll check for the hon. member and let him know. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question. When the hon. minister checks, would he give consideration to whether the incorporation of the Klan is consistent with the aims and purposes of Bills No. 1 and 2?

Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3545

53-4 ALBERTA HANSARD May 18th 1972 MR. SPEAKER: That might very well involve a legal opinion which the hon. member might seek elsewhere. The hon. Member for Drumheller, followed by the hon. Member for Wainwright. Possession of Marijuana MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the hon. Attorney General. Would you agree that possession of marijuana, solely for one’s own personal use, is a right of the individual to enjoyment of property, a right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law? MR. HYNDMAN: That’s out of order. He's asking for a personal opinion. MR.

SPEAKER: The question is not directed to elicit government policy apparently. It appears phrased as a question for the hon. minister's personal opinion which, in that case, would be out of order. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, in that case I will rephrase it. Does the hon. Attorney General have any intention of recommending to his government the policy recommended by the Le Dain Commission, namely that marijuana and hashish retained for the personal use of an individual should be carried out in Canada? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that I have no such present intention.

The Le Dain Commission report came out yesterday - --at least the last report -- I think it is worthwhile observing that there were five people on that commission; they studied the matter for some years; there was a division of opinion, I think, in the principal recommendations of three to two. I would think that that probably reasonably accurately reflects the division of opinion on that subject across the whole of Canada.

I would think that, when there is a division of opinion throughout the country of that nature, on that important a topic, it would take a good deal of thought and study before I, at least, would be prepared to make any recommendations to this government about it. MR. TAYLOR: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the removal of penalties for personal use not assist greatly in reducing the profits of the traffickers? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is disguisedly debating in asking for an opinion of this kind. MR.

LEITCH: I would like also to mention -- which I ought to have done in answering the hon. member's earlier question -- that this is, of course, a federal matter. The legislation prohibiting the use of marijuana, hashish and other drugs is, of course, federal legislation. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3546

May 18th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 53-5 MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that there are apparently some 150,000 people in Alberta using marijuana, would the government consider taking over the total distribution of marijuana, thereby doing away with the traffickers, who are some of the worst offenders in this country? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, the obvious answer to that is no. The distribution of that drug is illegal in Canada. If the hon. member is suggesting that the provincial government, knowingly and deliberately, would breach a federal law, the answer must be obvious to him. MR.

HENDERSON: Further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the hon. Attorney General if he could arrange to make copies of the latest Le Dain report available to the members of the House. MR. LEITCH: I will certainly consider that and look into it, Mr. Speaker. I don't have a copy of it yet and I am not sure of the distribution system that the federal government and the Le Dain Commission is following, but I will certainly consider the request. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Wainwright, followed by the hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury. Tax Write-Off on Farm Machinery MR. RUSTE: A question to the hon.

Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs. Has the hon. minister made any representation to the federal government requesting that farm machinery be included in the fast tax write-off items announced in the federal budget for production equipment? MR. GETTY: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not done that. MR. RUSTE: A supplementary question to the hon. minister. Would the hon. minister consider making such representation which would assist the farmer in modernizing his equipment? MR. GETTY: Yes I would, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure, however, that, perhaps the matter has already been discussed by the hon.

Minister of Agriculture. If he has something to add I would suggest he do it now. DR. HORNER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The department has made the federal Department of Agriculture aware of the views of Alberta in relation to income tax matters, both in regard to the question of production machinery, and also in regard to other matters that affect the farmer, particularly the capital gains tax, and additionally the new basic curb regulations.

As a matter of fact we have set up within the department a man who is trained in both agriculture and law to help to advise our extension people in regard to the new Income Tax Act. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3547

53-6 ALBERTA HANSARD May 18th 1972 MR. RUSTE: Further supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture. Have you made actual representation as to the fast tax write-off -- and I am comparing this to production equipment that is covered in the new federal budget? DR. HORNER: Well I will check and see what the actual representations have been, but they were included in the entire submission to the federal government. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury followed by the hon. Member for Calgary McCall. Red Deer College MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Advanced Education and ask him if he is in a position today to make a statement with regard to the report on the Red Deer College, after he went to Calgary yesterday. MR. FOSTER: No, I am not, not at this time. MR. CLARK: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did the minister meet with the faculty, students, and board within the last two or three days? And in the course of that meeting, did he let the board, and the faculty, and the students see the report? MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, I had quite a day yesterday.

I met with the junior administration of the college at 10 o'clock yesterday morning, the senior administration at 12, the faculty association at 2, the non- academic staff at 4, the students at 5, the lay members of the board at 6, and I got home at 12:30. I did not reveal to anyone the contents of the Byrne report or the Byrne recommendations, but I was in the college for the purpose of discussing the climate in the college and the atmosphere, and some concerns which I have, but I had no intention yesterday of making the report public to anyone.

I am still giving the matter very careful consideration and I am sure, as my learned friend appreciates, this is a highly complex and difficult matter that I intend to deal with very carefully. MR. CLARK: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the minister makes a statement on the report, does the minister plan to make the statement here in the Legislature? MR. FOSTER: That decision, Mr. Speaker, quite frankly hasn't been arrived at, because I haven't even determined whether or not the report will be made public.

I want to reiterate my former stance on this, that I said before, that I feel strongly that matters of public affairs should be dealt with in public. While I am assessing the report and Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3548

May 18th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 53-7 its affect and ramifications, not only on the Red Deer College but the college system generally, I think it would be perhaps a bit presumptuous of me to make conclusions on which I have not yet got all the facts. MR. CLARK: Another supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister plan to make a major announcement in Red Deer tomorrow morning, afternoon, or evening with regard to the report? MR. FOSTER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think I have answered the question. I might make a major announcement this afternoon, but I haven't decided yet.

I just don't know when I am going to be able to deal with this. MR. CLARK: Tomorrow? MR. FOSTER: I can't answer that. I don't know. MR. CLARK: Or even three days before Sunday, like today would be all right? One last supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the hon. minister at this time giving any consideration to amendments in the college legislation as a result of the recommendations in the report? MR. FOSTER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I admire my learned friend for his persistence.

I think to comment on whether or not there would be amendments to existing or proposed legislation is to comment on the contents of the Byrne report. And with great respect, Mr. Speaker, I don't think I can do that at this time, but I will make every attempt to do as much of this in public as I can, and to proceed as openly as I can. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, if I could ask the hon. -- MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member said the last one was the last supplementary, and the hon. minister has already made his position abundantly clear. The hon. Member for Calgary McCall followed by the hon. Member for Camrose.

Crime in Calgary MR. HO LEM: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Attorney General. In view of the sharp increase of criminal activities in Calgary, has your department taken any steps to assist the Calgary police force? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, order. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3549

53-8 ALBERTA HANSARD May 18th 1972 MR. HO LEM: I am referring to the sharp increase of crime daring the first four months this year compared with the corresponding period in 1971. Non-capital murders have doubled. Also three attempted murders have been reported compared with none during that period last year, and there are also 24 woundings, up from nine. MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member ask his question directly without the

preamble, even though it may follow the question? MR. HO LEM: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Has your department taken any action? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, the statistics to which the hon. member referred cover rather a short period. This is not a new situation in the major cities of the province, or indeed the province as a whole or throughout the whole of Canada. Specifically as a department we have not in the past and are not now taking any particular action in the sense of increasing members of the police force and things of that nature. The City of Calgary, as everyone is aware, has its own police force.

It increases its numbers as it feels necessary to combat any increase in crime. As I indicated earlier in my speeches in this House I propose to meet with the chief officers of the various police forces throughout the province and with the representatives from the various commissions throughout the province as soon as we recess. We hope to develop programs that will help to combat what I regard as a very serious situation, not only in Calgary but throughout the whole of the country. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Camrose, followed by the hon. Member for Lethbridge West. Pollution Legislation MR.

STROMBERG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question to the hon. Minister of the Environment. In the light of the Crown bringing court action against a company that is polluting the environment, are the same privileges extended to a private citizen if he so wishes to do? MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, if an individual has reason to believe that his private property or private person is affected he can certainly sue under civil law; this is my understanding. However, at this time no third party suits are possible, and by this I would indicate that this is where somebody sues the company on behalf of somebody else.

We have had several submissions made to us in connection with the consideration given to an environmental bill of rights. I think I have indicated in the past that it's our feeling as a government that this type of legislation is premature for the Province of Alberta at this time. The ramifications of such legislation have to be examined, and we feel that other jurisdictions should perhaps test this type of legislation where conditions of pollution and the effect on private citizens is much greater than it is in Alberta.

I understand, of course, that certain jurisdictions in the United Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3550

May 18th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 53-9 States are giving consideration to this type of legislation. In fact, I do believe, if my memory serves me right, that some consideration is being given in this regard in connection with legislation in Canada. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge West, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary Bow. Compensation for Wrongful Imprisonment MR. GRUENWALD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question to the hon. Attorney General.

What criteria were used when you recommended that the provincial government pay $500 compensation to a young man who was wrongfully imprisoned for 20 days in 1970? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, that question raises a rather important matter, and I think the answer to it needs to go beyond the precise words of the hon. member's question. The hon. member is referring to an

article that appeared recently in the newspaper. If the provincial judge involved meant what the literal

interpretation of the words would lead one to believe he meant, I think it would have called for very drastic action on the part of the government. I'm referring to a reference in the story that although he was convinced he couldn't find the accused guilty, he wasn't going to let him off that easily. Also a reference was made that the criminal court shouldn't be used for the collection of damages, but he was going to do what he could to ensure that the woman whose house had been broken into, got paid for the damage that was done.

As I said, if those words, taken literally, were what was intended by the provincial judge, it would be a very serious matter. But I have studied the transcript and spoken to the provincial judge involved -- and, incidentally, this occurred nearly two years ago -- and I'm convinced that he did not mean what those words, if taken at their face value, would appear to indicate.

Firstly, on the question of, "I know you're not guilty but I'm not going to let you off that easily," or words to that effect, at that time the provincial judge was addressing himself as to whether or not the accused might be guilty of an included offence. What he was really saying was, "I'm aware that you're not guilty of the offence with which you're charged, but you may be guilty of included offences." That's a very common thing in criminal law, where someone is charged with one offence and the other offences are not named in the charge.

If the evidence falls short of establishing the charge that is specifically referred to, the court may still convict them of lesser charges, which are known as included offences. In this particular case the charge was breaking and entering, and some possible included offences were unlawfully being in a dwelling house, assault by trespass, and trespass by night; those are offences which might have been included offences.

And these were really what the judge was directing his mind to when he made that comment, namely, "I'm sure you're not guilty of the offence with which you are charged but you might be guilty of the included offences." With respect to the comment about damage, in the criminal courts there is always the problem of citizens using them in an effort to collect money, for example, in the case of someone with a bad cheque. They quite often endeavour to start a prosecution in the hope of collecting the money.

Once the money is collected, they then lose Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3551

53-10 ALBERTA HANSARD May 18th 1972 all interest in the prosecution, and that is something we, of course, frown upon in the criminal court system, and that was to what the provincial judge was, then, alluding. However, there is in the Criminal Code, and this is what he was really directing his mind to, a provision that on a finding of guilt the court is entitled to order that the accused make good the damage he has caused. It was that provision in the Criminal Code that he was directing his mind to when he made the comments about damage. Therefore, while one reads literally the words in the transcript they don't, when you know what was happening in the court room, mean what a literal

interpretation would indicate. Then there came the procedural error which lei to this person going to jail, and it occurred in this way. The trial had been completed when this discussion took place and the provincial judge then set it over for a month for two purposes: to make up his mind what to do and also to enable the accused to consider making good the damage, because that may have had something to do with the extent of the penalty imposed.

The accused did not show up on the date to which the case had been remanded; a warrant was issued for his arrest and he came before the courts a further month later -- that is, some two months after the case had been heard. When he came before the court on the second occasion, his lawyer was not with him -- he had been represented by a lawyer up to that point. The Crown counsel who appeared on this occasion was a different one than the Crown counsel who had appeared during the trial.

The judge and the Crown counsel both assumed that he had been found guilty and was there to be sentenced, and that was where the error was made. The court assumed that a finding of guilt had been made and then imposed a sentence. The court assumed that the finding of guilt had been made, and then imposed a sentence which was a fine and, in lieu of payment, a jail term. The accused didn't have the money to pay the fine, or didn't pay it, then went to jail.

The provincial judge, and of course, the Crown prosecutor and the clerk of the court, one of the three of them, ought to have, because there is an endorsement on the information as to the previous disposition, realized that a finding of guilt had not been made, and the man couldn't be sentenced without such a finding. They made that error. He then went to jail -- it was a few days later that this was discovered -- the case was appealed by his lawyer, and the Court of Appeal, with as I recall, Crown counsel's agreement, promptly squashed the sentence. He was then released.

Then came the question of the compensation, and the hon. member asked the question, "How did we arrive at it?" I think I'm free to say that this was an offer that came to us, and as I said, I would recommend to the government acceptance of that. MR. GRUENWALD: Supplementary to that, Mr. Speaker. Is it the policy of the government to provide legal aid to a person who has been wrongly dealt with by the law? MR. LEITCH: No, Mr. Speaker, you can't put the policy in those words.

The legal aid plan is to provide legal aid for those people who are unable, through financial circumstances at that time, to provide legal aid for themselves. So it's not quite accurate to put it that way. If the government had made some error, and a citizen of the Province of Alberta wanted to take action against the government, and was unable to retain his own lawyer because of his financial circumstances, he could apply to Legal Aid for a lawyer and within the rules that Legal Aid follows, it would be granted. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3552

May 18th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 53-11 MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary Bow followed by the hon. Member for Calgary Millican. Status of Women MR. WILSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Premier. Is it your government's policy to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women which fall within provincial jurisdiction? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I'd be happy to refer that question to the hon. Member for Rocky Mountain House. She may want to elaborate on it. There has been some study and assessment done by the administration on the matter.

MISS HUNLEY: Mr. Speaker, there was a committee formed by the last government that perhaps you are not aware of, and this committee's main function was to analyze the briefs and submissions pertaining to the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, and make recommendations to the government. Some of these have already been implemented, some of them are in the process of being studied and analyzed at the moment, and some of the recommendations will not be possible because at this point they are not economically feasible. But they will become part of an on-going study of this government.

There are some recommendations that perhaps are not socially acceptable at this time, also. So this is the point, we have received the recommendations and, as I said before, they are part of an on-going study that we have in this matter. MR. WILSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. What programs will be implemented to encourage women to seek elected offices, and what policy has the government to increase the number of women on provincially appointed boards, commissions and tribunals? MISS HUNLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to say in response to the first one that I don't really think that is the sole prerogative of the government, although I believe I'm doing all I can to encourage them. I think it has to come, not only from this side of the House. Boards and commissions? We're working on it, but I think you will see some improvement. MR. RUSTE: Supplementary question to the hon. minister. She mentioned 'economically feasible'. Could you give me an example of that? MISS HUNLEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, day care centres. MR. BUCKWELL: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Does the hon. minister not feel that in dealing with women's rights, that a hard, aggressive personality like the hon. Minister of Agriculture's would get better results than a woman? Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3553

53-12 ALBERTA HANSARD May 18th 1972 MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary Millican followed by the hon. Member for Wainwright. Dr. Matthews' Report MR. DIXON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Attorney General. Some weeks ago Dr. Matthews' report on justice was tabled in the House and at the time the Attorney General did give us a few answers on what he thought about the report, but he asked for some time. I wonder if he is in a position today to inform the House as to whether he plans any further investigation or action on Dr. Matthews' report? MR. LEITCH: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

As I indicated earlier we were doing some research on it. We've been in touch with the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and we have asked them to give us some information. I have been checking on that from time to time. It has been much slower coning than I had anticipated. I was talking to the officers of the department a day or so ago and learned that part of the delay is that a person in the Dominion Bureau of Statistics who is working on it has been out of Ottawa or will be out of Ottawa for a few weeks. That has been part of the delay, but I have been following it very closely. MR.

DIXON: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister, With the statistics that you have at the present time, has there been a great difference in what you received from Ottawa and what Dr. Matthews was quoting in his report? MR. LEITCH: I haven't received, Mr. Speaker — and I didn't mean to leave that impression - - reports or statistics from Ottawa. We have been in touch with them but we haven't got anything back from them yet. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Wainwright followed by the hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury. Unit Train Grain Shipments MR. RUSTE: Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon.

Minister of Agriculture. When can Alberta producers expect to benefit from the use of terminal elevators in Alberta for unit train shipment of grain as announced recently for Saskatchewan? DR. HORNER: I'm not sure, Mr. Speaker, frankly. The question of the use of unit trains is one of continuing correspondence and negotiation with the Wheat Board. We would hope that eventually we would have that type of shipment from all of the inland terminals in Alberta and that there would be an expansion of those terminals to allow for unit train shipment to the coast.

As my hon. friend appreciates, this is a very complex matter and it also deals with the question of the full use of the terminals that are now presently in Vancouver. We are Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3554

May 18th 1972 ALBERTAHANSARD 53-13 also hopeful that the anticipated port development in Prince Rupert will move ahead quickly, because I think we are going to need a combination of unit trains, better use of our terminals at the coast, better use of our terminals inland, and additional terminals, particularly at Prince Rupert. MR. RUSTE: A supplementary question to the hon. minister. Are you looking, then, at the use of larger trucks to haul grain at greater distances to these terminal elevators for assembly? DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, this is involved, of course, in the study that the hon.

Otto Lang has undertaken, through the grains group, of the entire matter of grain transportation and handling. That study is now in the hands of various governments and farm organizations. It is a very detailed and complex one. When Mr. Lang decides to make that study public we will, at that time, make a response to it as a government. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury followed by the hon. Member for Highwood. Red Deer College (cont.) MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the hon.

Premier and ask if we could have the Premier's assurance that when the government does make an announcement with regard to the problems at Red Deer -- the college -- that that announcement will be made in the Legislature? MR. SPEAKER: I would respectfully suggest to the hon. member that this topic has been exhausted until the hon. Minister of Advanced Education has had a chance to consider further the report and the problems arising out of that situation. The hon. Member for Highwood followed by the hon. Member for Sedgewick-Coronation. Hansard MR. BENOIT: Mr.

Speaker, I am not sure to whom I should address my question. It has to do with the publication of Hansard. Could the hon. minister tell me on what the priorities are based by which the back numbers of Hansard are published? They are published on a hit-and- miss basis. How do they arrive at this, because they don't have any system of publication for the back numbers? MR. HYNDMAN: Perhaps I could shed some light on that, Mr. Speaker.

I spoke to the editor of Hansard just the other day, and he indicated that the problem at the moment is that they are having some difficulty in keeping current on the daily Hansards as they are now appearing, bearing in mind the occasional nocturnal hours kept by the hon. members. He does say, though, that the Hansards are coming out more frequently. They have not come out on any pattern which has been decided upon by the Hansard editor, and I gather that there has been Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3555

53-14 ALBERTA HANSARD May 18th 1972 some justifiable concern by the hon. Opposition Leader concerning some reprints of major addresses he made. But I'm going to be talking to him again today, and I believe insofar as we'll be very shortly approaching the Legislation estimates, at that time when the Hansard appropriation comes up we might discuss this more fully, and I'll get as much background information in the interim as I can. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Sedgewick-Coronation, followed by the hon. Member for Drumheller. Wildlife Habitat Fund MR. SORENSON: I'd like to direct my question to the hon.

Minister of Lands and Forests. Has the government made any plans to establish a habitat fund -- a fund which would be used for the purchasing of land used exclusively for wildlife? DR. WARRACK: Mr. Speaker, roughly two years ago the legislative capacity for a habitat fund was established by the Government of Alberta. In the intervening period no action whatever was taken by the previous administration. The Fish and Game Association of Alberta brought this to my attention in rather thorough detail when I met them on December 20th, in their brief to the Fish and Wildlife Division and myself.

I agreed to take this under consideration, and I am now doing so. But I would emphasize that the legislative capacity is there. It's just a matter of it never having been implemented as far as the intervening period is concerned. MR. SORENSON: A supplementary question to the minister. How would you propose that the money be raised for this fund? Would a large segment of Albertans contribute to it? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister has already replied that the matter is under consideration, and perhaps that should suffice for the time being. The hon. Member for Drumheller, followed by the hon.

Member for Vermilion-Viking. Ombudsman MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the hon. Attorney General, following the questions from the hon. Member for Lethbridge West. Is the door open for the said person to appeal to the Ombudsman if he's dissatisfied with the amount of compensation received? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I have a little hesitancy in discussing the negotiations that went on between the government counsel and this person's counsel. I take it that if, by agreement, the matter is settled, there is no dissatisfaction to take to anyone.

And I take it that if there is disagreement, it isn't settled. So I doubt that the issue is ever going to rise, and as the hon. member knows, anyone is free to go to the Ombudsman with anything at any time. I should also say my hesitancy about discussing the negotiations between the government and the person involved arises out of a respect for his privacy in that area. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3556

May 18th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 53-15 MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Vermil ion-Viking, followed by the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview. Hospital Beds MR. COOPER: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. Minister of Health and Social Development. Mr. Minister, you recently announced that there would be no active treatment hospital beds built in Edmonton for some five years. Does this policy also extend to hospitals in rural Alberta? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr.

Speaker, primarily the policy extends, I would think, throughout Alberta for a period of years, until the demand for beds on the overall provincial average catches up with the available supply. However, no intention was intended to apply a policy which was specifically related to Edmonton or, by a further assumption, to the rest of the province. I would have to say that the position for rural hospitals would be that it would likely be the same except where there are unusual areas of growth or unusual occasions of obsolescence where replacement might have to be considered.

But on the whole the policy would be to try to contain our costs in this high cost area. MR. COOPER: Mr. Speaker, would the same policy apply to the replacement of old hospitals which have been in past years scheduled for replacement? Would that plan be followed out or is there a freeze on that too? MR. CRAWFORD: Maybe I can help the hon. member in this way.

The greatest concern the government has in regard to active treatment beds is not the cost of a structure, but the obligation that is created for the public purse thereafter in regard to 50 or 100 years of operating costs, depending on the type of building that is constructed.

Current figures would show that with active treatment hospitals the capital cost is about twice one year’s operating cost, when you get into nursing homes you find that the operating cost, instead of catching up in two years to the capital cost -- which can be seen to be a very expensive type of facility -- is about a ratio of 3 1/2 to 1 instead of 2 to 1. So the nursing home by comparison is a far more economical operation.

Therefore, facilities like nursing homes, auxiliary hospitals, which are well known to hon. members, along with some newer concepts such as ambulatory care centres and home care programs, are the sort of things where the government is looking for cost containment. In an area where obsolescence and complete dereliction of a building have brought it to the point where a decision would have to be made as to whether to replace it or not, I would have to say that that decision to replace it would not be regarded nearly so seriously by me as a decision to increase the overall number of active beds in the province. MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary Millican. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3557

53-16 ALBERTA HANSARD May 18th 1972 Tar Sands Policy MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address this question to the hon. Minister of Mines and Minerals. By way of information, Mr. Minister, Mr. Spragins, the president of Syncrude, has envisaged 50 oil sands plants in the next number of years. My question to you is, as your government reviews tar sands policy, are you considering in that review long-range development over the next 25 or 30 years? MR. DICKIE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer that. I noted with interest the comments by Mr. Spragins. We had discussed that with him previously.

After our discussions we started our research on a number of plans, and our development policy. We did take into consideration this question. I can assure the hon. member that exactly what we are looking at in our policy is the long-range point of view to see how the tar sands can best be developed. MR. NOTLEY: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When you make your final decision on tar sands policy and make the announcement, are you prepared to table the supporting data and the study information in the Legislature this fall? MR. DICKIE: Mr. Speaker, our thinking hasn’t projected that far.

I would envisage what we are contemplating is another position paper, and in support of that position paper certain data that would be necessary to support it would be tabled at the same time. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary Millican, followed by the hon. Member for Wainwright. Gas Co-ops MR. DIXON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Minister without Portfolio, Mr. Topolnisky. I understand you are in charge of rural development. My question is regarding gas co-ops.

I was wondering if there is going to be any change because of the demand for rural people, and the ones I am particularly interested in, smallholdings outside our city? Are there going to be any changes in the regulations or legislation that would make it easier, and the gas available sooner? MR. TOPOLNISKY: Mr. Speaker, this hopefully could be the case, but we are looking for groups or co-ops in which it would be economical to have about 150 members, or in that vicinity. MR. RUSTE: Mr. Speaker, supplementary question to the hon. minister.

Does he feel that this is the ideal size, or wouldn't it vary in many parts of the province? Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3558

May 18th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 53-17 MR. TOPOLNISKY: Mr. Speaker, I believe it would have to vary from one region to another, but the ideal size would be in the neighbourhood of 150 customers. Pacific Rim Trade MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could respond to a question I had been asked regarding Mr. Chester Ronning and the suggestion made that we contact him relative to a mission we are anticipating making soon to the Par East. The reply that we have received from Mr. Ronning is most helpful.

I think the nature of the reply is such that I don't feel we are in a position to table it, but I did want to inform members that it was the view of Mr. Ronning that it would be advantageous to the Government of the Province of Alberta, to become involved, either soon or in the fairly near future, with an extensive development of a trade relationship with China, having regard to the potential that exists for trade relations between Alberta and China. And we appreciated very much the reaction we have received by Mr. Ronning to our inquiry. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Wainwright.

Policy on Government Announcements MR. RUSTE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. Premier. What is the government's policy as it relates to the announcement of major changes in direction or decisions during the time that this Legislature is in session? MR. LOUGHEED: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure that I understand the import of that question. MR. RUSTE: What is the government's policy as it relates to the announcement of major changes in direction or decisions during the time that this Legislature is in session? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I am still failing to grasp the import of the question.

Perhaps the hon. member could give me an example of what he is talking about. MR. RUSTE: Well, Mr. Speaker, what I have in mind is,iff there is a major announcement to be made by the government, what is the policy of the government as it relates to that? Is it to make it to the members of this Legislature first, or outside of the House? MR. LOUGHEED: Well, Mr. Speaker, that would depend upon the subject matter. I would say in the vast majority of the cases, if the House was in session it would be made here.

If, on the other hand, it is a matter that has developed out of a decision of the Executive Council -- I think last week we had an example of that, where the Minister of Health and Social Development had a news conference and described the background and the nature of some decisions that had been made in Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3559

53-18 ALBERTA HANSARD May 18th 1972 Cabinet that day or the day before, relative to the compensation or charges that were no longer going to be required in certain facilities within the department. And each case has to be assessed on its merits. Primarily it is our hope that these matters would be brought before the Legislature, but it would not be a hard and fast position the government would take. It would depend on the circumstances. MR. SPEAKER: The time has run out for the Question Period. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the House would give me leave to offer information in respect to two matters I was asked about earlier during an Oral Question Period? MR. SPEAKER: Has the hon. minister the agreement of the House? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. Abortions MR. CRAWFORD: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Calgary Millican and the hon. Member for Lethbridge West both asked questions last week in regard to abortions, and the present situation about hospitals in Alberta handling them.

The situation is that the hospitals which may handle abortions in the province must be accredited by the Canadian Council on Hospital Accreditation. This at once limits the number of hospitals that are able to perform therapeutic abortions in Alberta. The situation, taking that into account, is that 41 general hospitals are so accredited and may carry out abortions. There are 22 of those which do not permit abortions, 12 of them operated by religious orders, and 10 operated by muncipal hospital districts.

In the City of Calgary all hospitals undertake the procedure, and their abortion load is relatively evenly spread. The situation in Edmonton is different, in that the Edmonton General and the Misericordia Hospitals do not perform abortions, and therefore it creates the situation that has been referred to from time to time in regard to the Royal Alex. Drug Treatment Centres Mr. Speaker, that was one of the two questions I wanted to respond to, and the second one relates to a question asked by the hon.

Member for Drumheller in regard to treatment centres for young people who are suffering a bad trip attributable to soft drugs, and also, in regard to this matter, the hon. Member for Calgary Buffalo asked the question in regard to the one particularly in Calgary. The situation is that since the closure of TRUST at the end of 1971 in Edmonton, there is no such agency.

The Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Commission advises me that they are handling the situation, as it exists at the present time, directly through their own facilities at the commission, and that they would consider a street type agency as the changing circumstances may dictate. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3560

May 18th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 53-19 In Calgary, however, the drug information centre is being funded again by the Alberta Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Commission, and is providing services of the type inquired about in the City of Calgary. ORDERS OF THE DAY head: MINISTERIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS Position paper on Financial Assistance for Pollution Control MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government I am pleased to table today, a position paper on financial assistance for pollution control.

"The Government of the Province of Alberta finds no cause or need to offer direct monetary grants to industry for pollution control purposes. Such grants are considered to mitigate against the establishment of viable and responsible enterprises, as they distort the relative regional inter-provincial and even national economic character of such enterprises. Industry must consider pollution control costs as an integral part of the costs of production. It is the government's intent to generate a climate of responsibility and concern for the environment on the part of all enterprise.

Furthermore, government will pursue performance on the part of industry through mutual co-operation, as well as through stringent enforcement of legislation and regulations. Only under the most extreme and extenuating circumstances will anti-pollution grants of any kind be considered for industry -- such being for rehabilitation of an existing industry, so that it may conform with stringent standards, while also preventing major loss of jobs. Provincial government loans for pollution control equipment and facilities will be made through the Alberta Opportunity Fund, in accordance with the provisions of that act.

The Government of Alberta excludes by statute the assessment and taxation of all lands and equipment used for pollution control purposes. Furthermore, the Government of Canada provides industry the opportunity for accelerated write-off of the capital costs for pollution control equipment and facilities, in accordance with its accelerated capital cost allowance program.

It is the general policy of the provincial government not to assist municipalities by offering direct pollution control grants for the engineering design and construction of sewage disposal facilities and trunk line sewers, except under extenuating circumstances where severe health hazards may exist. Under The Municipalities Assistance Act, the province provides unconditional grants to all municipalities for the conduct of their affairs. A revision to this statute in 1970 permits the province to direct a portion of such grants to alleviate or control pollution for which the municipality is responsible.

The provincial government also approves federal government CMHC loans for sewage disposal facilities. The federal government loans cover two-thirds of the cost of such facilities, of which 25 per cent is granted as a forgivable loan. Nevertheless, the provincial government recognizes that municipalities are reluctant to install modern and adequate facilities for sewage treatment because of the high capital cost of such facilities and the burden of existing municipal debt.

The government recognizes that such facilities are particularly magnified in municipalities which fall in either of the following catagories: Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3561

53-20 ALBERTA HANSARD May 18th 1972 Category I - Rapidly growing communities which are requested or find it advisable to install sewage disposal facilities having a capacity far in excess -- MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Is it the hon. minister’s intention to read the entire document which has just been tabled? MR. YURKO: No, Mr. Speaker. Just three pages for the record. MR. SPEAKER: The three page document which has just been tabled? MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, I'm reading the policy position paper which is three pages. The attached report is separate to the policy position paper. If I might continue, Mr. Speaker.

"Category II -- Communities -- MR. SPEAKER: It is best that the hon. minister should have the leave of the House to read a document which has been tabled. MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, the document shouldn't have been tabled until I finish reading the position paper. "Category II -- Communities which are experiencing a rapid decline in population, but which are sustaining a high per capita debt incurred by the construction of modern sewage disposal facilities" -- [Interjections] If I might continue, Mr.

Speaker, one and a half pages left -- a"'Municipality' means city, town, village, county, hamlet, summer village, municipal district, improvement district, and special area, and includes a school district situated in a national park and such other administrative entities established under The Municipal Government Act. The government of Alberta is committed to a program of balanced growth across the province. There is a recognition that if industry is to be established throughout Alberta towns, it is necessary to make as many towns as possible industrially viable.

There is therefore a requirement to provide adequate transportation facilities, equitable power rates, water and sewage facilities, before towns can become suitable candidates for the location of secondary industries. The government of Alberta recognizes this fact and is therefore establishing a Municipal Finance Assistance Program, which will assist the municipalities in their ability to pay for sewage disposal facilities. The program will be administered by the Department of The Environment, with co-operation from the Department of Municipal Affairs.

Funding will be administered by the Alberta Municipal Finance Corporation. Funds will initially be provided from the general revenue of the province, with the possibility of establishing a revolving fund in subsequent years. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3562

May 18th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 53-21 The formula developed for this equitable province-wide program is detailed in the attached report. Basically, the formula is based on the per capita sewage treatment debenture load being carried by a municipality, less a pre-determined amount. Presently, yearly assistance will be made avialable to a municipality when their current per capita capital debenture load for sewage treatment facilities exceeds $150 -- which debenture load is being carried at an average interest rate of 7 3/4 per cent per annum." MR. HENDERSON: Point of order!

I wonder if we could have the next instalment on government time tomorrow instead during Private Members' Day today? MR. SPEAKER: I must find the hon. member's point of order is well taken, whether the document is to be tabled, or whether it has been tabled. MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, this House has been open to the press during this session. Major position policy papers are generally presented to the House in their entirety.

This position paper is two and a half pages long; I would think I could have the indulgence of the House to present a paper of this importance to the House without interference. MR. LUDWIG: To the points of order, are we debating whether he is breaking the rules? But he hasn't got a point of order. MR. DRAIN: Mr. Speaker, this is a point of order. This is of interest to the hon. members. I'm interested in hearing what the hon. minister has to say. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. MR.

YURKO: "The 'Municipal Sewage Treatment Assistance Program' will utilize as a basis for the program the guidelines currently used by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for their sewage treatment assistance program under

Part VI B of The National Housing Act based on a debenture interest rate of 7 3/4 per cent - - MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order -- I'm entitled to have my point of order! On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. minister is doing something that could not be permitted to happen again. He is making a mockery out of the whole proceedings and -- DR. HORNER: State your point of order! Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3563

53-22 ALBERTA HANSARD May 18th 1972 MR. LUDWIG: Yes, well the point of order is this; if every minister is to do this we may as well forget about Private Members' Day. It's against the best interests of this House. He's doing it on Private Members' Day and there are 22 ministers and if they are going to do this, the whole thing will become a mockery. The hon. minister knows this. We have already given up one Private Members' Day an now we lose one to a long-winded minister, and it definitely is against the rules of the House. DR. HORNER: Mr.

Speaker, surely, we had some information earlier in the Question Period today that the hon. gentlemen opposite were concerned about announcements being made in the Legislature. Then directly, almost immediately afterwards, we get this kind of nonsense from the hon. Member for Calgary Mountain View. This is an important document that the minister is presenting to the House. We're doing it in the sense that we believe that whenever it's possible, these kinds of announcements should be made in the Legislature. That doesn't have any regard to whether it's Private Members' Day or Government Day.

This is an important announcement, which I'm sure, if the hon. member will just check with his other members, they are very interested in. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order. It's possibly unfortunate that the item was tabled before the hon. minister got through reading. But I suggest we are wasting more time in just discussing points of order than letting the hon. minister finish the reading, and then get on with the business. MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, on the further point of order raised by the hon. minister -- the 'Premier Number Two'.

I would like to say that if he states that the minister has the right to do this, he should give us a citation and bring himself within the rules, not because he happens to be a minister and he wants to talk, that's enough authority. He has got to come within the rules and I'm saying he's without the rules. MR. HYNDMAN: Oh -- sit down. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order. If there are objections by hon. members opposite to matters of this magnitude being presented, then certainly we are going to reassess our approach; and I'm going to reassess the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Wainright. MR.

LUDWIG: Is that right, Mr. Speaker? MR. SPEAKER: As the minister has explained, this is a major position paper. As far as the Chair is concerned, although the matter seems to be of some length, I'm not aware of any rule which is directly in point which would limit the hon. minister in reading the statement. But when I made my earlier observations, I was under the impression that, since the document was going to be tabled, perhaps it need not be read. However, I'm prepared to put it to a vote of the House, and leave it to the House.

But it would appear to me, from the comments that have been made, that by far the more substantial consensus is in favour of the minister continuing to read the statement. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3564

May 18th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 53-23 SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, It's necessary for me to say a few words before I continue the reading. We all recognize in this House that Hansard has come into this House this year, and that Hansard will, in fact, receive wide distribution, and this is a manner in which a policy position paper can be laid before the people of Alberta. And for the life of me, I can't understand what the argument or the debate is all about, Mr. Speaker.

"It is therefore policy of the government of Alberta to provide yearly assistance equal to the difference between the total current debenture cost of a municipality for all its sewage treatment capital costs and $13.76 on a per capita basis. Such assistance will be carried by the province on an interest-free basis.

Conversely, as the population of a municipality increases so that the current per capita debenture maintenance drops below the pre-determined amount, then the municipality shall return to the government on an annual basis the difference on a per capita basis until the municipality has returned all the assistance back to the government, or until the debenture is retired. Communities which are experiencing a declining population and qualify for annual assistance will continue to receive such annual assistance until the capital debenture is retired with no payback to the province.

The grant portion of all CMHC loans for sewage treatment facilities will not be considered to be part of the debenture load of any municipality in qualifying for assistance under this program. The pertinent aspects of the program are as follows: 1. The Municipal Sewage Treatment Assistance Program will become effective in the fiscal year 1973-1974. 2. Cost of the Program to the provincial government initially will be approximately one million dollars a year. 3. The Program has self-liquidating aspects, based on the ability of a municipality to pay, and is not a "grant" program. 4.

The maximum yearly cost per capita, for the provision of sewage treatment facilities will presently be established at $13.76. 5. Sewage treatment (capital) costs would be spread more evenly over future populations. 6. A degree of cost equalization, for the provision of sewage treatment facilities will be provided throughout the province. 7. The program will help prevent financial hardships on the people that originate sewage treatment facilities, but which are also utilized by the future population. 8.

The program considers the normal per capita cost necessary to provide secondary sewage treatment and sets a maximum per capita contribution for liquid waste treatment. 9. A per capita capital cost of $150 is approximately the cost required for providing private sewage disposal systems (assuming an average family of four). There is thus an equalization of cost for providing sewage treatment facilities between urban and rural dwellers. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3565

53-24 ALBERTA HANSARD May 18th 1972 The attached report contains additional detailed matter regarding the formulation of this policy. The report contains a review of the municipal sewage treatment debenture load for each municipality. The per capita load indicated in the report is preliminary only and will be updated for each municipality before the Municipal Finance Assistance Program becomes effective in 1973.

The onus will be placed on the municipality to establish and provide proof to the department of the amount of the current per capita debenture load being carried when applying for assistance under the program. Assistance to any municipality shall only be provided on a basis of a contractual agreement between the province and the said municipality. All new sewage disposal facilities, additions or alterations to existing facilities will require Department of the Environment approval under the pertinent statutes and will be subject to the priorities established by the government.

The provincial government will be establishing such regulations as may be necessary to properly administer the assistance program and shall make such changes to the program as from time to time it considers necessary. The entire program will be administered under the statutory provisions of the Department of the Environment Act and the Clean Water Act." Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the permission to read this policy paper. head: MOTIONS FOR A RETURN MR. WILSON: Mr. Speaker, I move the withdrawal, for the time being, of Motion No. 204 standing in my name on the Order Paper. MR.

SPEAKER: Does the seconder, the hon. Member for Drumheller, agree to withdraw the motion? MR. TAYLOR: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: Does the House agree to the withdrawal of the motion? HON MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: The motion is withdrawn. head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS Pre-Audit Surveillance of Publ ic Expenditures MR. HINMAN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the hon. Member for Lethbridge West, Motion No. 1, standing in my name on the Order Paper: Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3566

May 18th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 53-25

Be it resolved that this Assembly endorses a continuation of the Pre-Audit system of surveillance of provincial government spending as generally described in The Financial Administration Act. In speaking to this motion, I am going to start by saying that my constituents got a message which reads: "Your MLA works for you. Forcefully and effectively he presents on the floor of the Legislature the issues set forth here. He represents you as part of a team. He is always on the job, his attendance record is outstanding.

Let him know about your concerns." This is not dated, but it is a very legitimate message because it is signed by no other than the Premier. I am going to try to live up to the announcement by presenting firmly in the House the issue presented. One of the issues was taxpayer’s protection and an auditor general to ferret out waste and needless expenditure. I don't know whether the Premier, at the time of this announcement, felt that his government would so get out of control that someone would have to ferret out these things. But at any rate, I am partially in favour of his decision.

I was a little bit concerned, though, about something else that came out and this was in August -- this one is dated -- it says: "He also renewed his call for an auditor general to replace the provincial auditor responsible to the Legislature and not to the Cabinet." This is the part that upset me a little bit. I am not so concerned whether or not there be an auditor general to do just what was indicated. We have a system of controls under The Financial Administration Act of Alberta, 1968, which sets up under

Part 3,

Section 29 and succeeding subclauses, the controls which the Auditor has over expenditures. These, to me, are very, very important. Under an auditor general system, the Auditor General does a post- audit. He does, as the message indicates, dig into the expenditures made by departments of government. He finds it his responsibility to point out where expenditures were wasteful, where there was anything else wrong with the expenditure. Sometimes I realize, in making appropriations, you do make wasteful provisions in government, because you cannot always anticipate the exact use to which an appropriation will be put.

Under the act, you are aware from the estimate that an appropriation covers certain votes, and funds can be transferred from vote to vote but not from appropriation to appropriation. The business of the Auditor, as we have it in the pre-audit system, I'm going to cover a little bit, as it comes from

Part 3, Disbursement of Public Money. "The Auditor shall, subject to the exceptions provided in this Act, ensure that no cheque or treasury branch order issues for the payment of public money (

a) for which there is no direct appropriation." Strange as it may seem, the Auditor has to exercise this authority every once in a while. I'm not suggesting that anybody is being dishonest or that anybody is attempting to do something out of order. But the departments themselves initiate expenditures and sometimes they err. "(

b) that is in excess of any appropriation, or (

c) that is in excess of any sums that have been deposited with the Government in trust for any person." Now if you want to study The Financial Administration Act, you will find that this does not mean that an appropriation cannot be added to by a procedure called Special Warrant. If an appropriation Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3567

53-26 ALBERTA HANSARD May 18th 1972 is insufficient, if the government, in its wisdom, thinks that more money ought to be spent, then the money can be appropriated by an Order in Council, as a special warrant. The money will be spent and the Auditor will make sure that the House gets a full accounting for this money when the time comes. To go on,

Section 30: "Whenever an appropriation is exhausted, the Auditor shall at once notify the department to which the appropriation belongs, and the Auditor shall not sanction any further charges to an exhausted appropriation, except as provided in this Act." These are pretty important duties of the Auditor, under a pre- audit system.

Section 31: "All balances of appropriations remaining unexpended at the close of any fiscal year, or other term lapse, and shall be written off, except in the case of liabilities incurred during the then expiring fiscal year, accounts therefore may be charged to, and form part of, the expenditures of that year." Now this is one place where perhaps there is room for an Auditor General to do something. It was my experience, and I'm sure it will be the experience of this government, that there will be a rush to spend the balance of any appropriations which may be left in the last seven or eight weeks.

In this rush unwise expenditures are made from time to time. This goes on in the university. It goes on in all branches, and for that reason perhaps an Auditor General will serve a useful purpose in pointing out what has happened in these instances.

Section 32 says: "If any difference of opinion arises between the Auditor and any department, respecting the appropriations to which any authorized expenditure should be charged, the matter may be referred by the department to the Treasury Board, and the Board shall determine in what manner and to what appropriation or account the expenditure is to be charged." This simply means that the Auditor does not have complete control. His duty is to make sure that the government knows what is being spent, and if it needs to make further expenditures the Treasury Board can over-ride the Auditor. But their report would be presented to this House.

Section 33: "All disbursements of public money shall be made by cheque on a bank, or order on a treasury branch, and in the form determined by the Treasurer. Cheques and orders shall be prepared in the Auditor's office, be signed by the Auditor or clerk appointed by the Auditor for that purpose, and then forwarded to the Treasury Department for the signature of the Treasurer or his deputy or any person appointed by the Treasurer for that purpose. The signatures required to be upon a cheque or order may be engraved, lithographed or otherwise mechanically produced.

All completed cheques or orders shall, with all dispatch, be forwarded to the Treasury Department by mail or delivered to the persons entitled thereto." Now these are not unreasonable controls. All this says is that the actual payments have to originate under the authority of the Auditor. I assure you that this relieves the government of a great deal of responsibility and gives them a protection which ought to be very much welcomed.

It doesn't mean that the Treasury is not in control of the expenditures of government, subsection (5) says: Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3568

May 18th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 53-27 "The Treasurer shall ensure that there is kept in his department a record in which shall be entered the particulars of all cheques and orders signed by him and which shall give in each case the bank or treasury branch upon which it is drawn, the date of issue and the serial number thereof." These are important functions. Nobody could possibly do the Auditor General's function of ferreting these things out, were these sections not in the pre-audit system.

Section 34 says: "

(1) Subject to the

section and sections 35, 36, and 37, no cheque or order for public money shall be issued except upon the certificate of the Auditor that there is legislative authority for the expenditure." For the life of me I can't see how you could control this particular part of the business if you use only a post-audit system. "

(2) The Auditor or any other person authorized to countersign cheques or orders issued by the Treasurer shall, before countersigning a cheque or order, satisfy himself that the cheque or order is authorized under this Act.

(3) This section, and sections 35 to 38 do not apply to monies deposited with the government in trust for any purpose." The whole purpose of the sections of the act which I have read is to place the responsibility on someone to see that the appropriations voted by this House are spent in accordance with the appropriation, that they are not over-expended, that the monies are not transferred improperly, that we know to whom the money was paid, at what date it was paid, and that we have a record of it. If there is a dispute -- if the Auditor seems to be out of line --

Section 35 provides: "If, upon any application for a cheque or order, the Auditor reports that there is no legislative authority for issuing it, then, upon the written opinion of the Attorney General that there is legislative authority, citing the authority, the Treasurer, irrespective of the Auditor's report, may cause the cheque or order to be issued." These are safeguards so that the auditor doesn't become supreme. I think that is important too. Special warrants I have mentioned, but I am going to read the section.

"Where at any time the Legislative Assembly is not in session, the Treasurer reports that the minister having charge of any matter has certified that, in the public interest, an expenditure of public money is urgently required with respect to that matter, and reports either that (

i) there is no legislative authority for an expenditure with respect to that matter, or (ii) there is a legislative authority for an expenditure with respect to that matter, but the amount of money so available is insufficient, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may order a special warrant to be prepared to be signed by himself authorizing the expenditure of the amount estimated to be required, which shall be placed to the credit of the appropriation account and against which cheques or orders may be issued in the usual form as they are required." This happens many times.

If there is an outbreak of fire in our province, and if the appropriation for fire-fighting falls far short, then an Order in Council can issue for a special warrant. But in each case the auditor is aware of it. And in each case the Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3569

53-28 ALBERTA HANSARD May 18th 1972 government is responsible to the Legislature in the succeeding session to account for that expenditure. Should the auditor refuse,

section 37 covers it. "Where the Auditor refuses to issue a certificate for a cheque or order of the Treasurer (

a) on the ground that the money is not justly due, or that it is in excess of the authority granted by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, or (

b) for any reason other than that there is no legislative authority, the Treasury Board, upon a report of the case prepared by the Auditor, shall judge the sufficiency of the Auditor's objection and may in its discretion sustain him or order the issue of the cheque or order." These did not just come out of the air. All of the provisions in this act were put there after many years of experience, a great deal of thought. And they are pretty essential for the protection of the government of the people of Alberta.

Section 38 says: "The Auditor shall prepare a statement with respect to each fiscal year (

a) of all legal opinions, special warrants and cheques or orders issued without his certificate, and (

b) of all expenditures incurred in consequence thereof, which shall be delivered by him to the Treasurer, to be laid before the Legislative Assembly by the Treasurer at the time the Public Accounts for the same fiscal year are submitted." This is a duty of the Auditor, and it places right back on this Legislature the opportunity and the responsibility for justifying these expenditures. Now if they are foolish, of course, perhaps ah Auditor General could point that out. Accountable advances is another thing that has often come up, especially in the federal government.

"The Treasurer without any further authority than is provided by this section, may from time to time, advance to any department or part thereof any sum required as an accountable advance for the purpose of making refunds for monies deposited or required to be deposited in the General Revenue Fund." Now, once in a while it does happen that it is necessary to make an advance, a legally required advance, and authority is here, so again, though the Auditor is quite aware of it, he has no authority to stop it, and he has not usurped any of the power of the Legislature or the government. Paying bills of commissioners.

"

(1) Every comission, rebate or refund paid under any Act shall, without any further appropriation, be paid out of the total revenues received, and shall be shown as a deduction from those revenues in the accounts of the Government.

(2) All documents covering the payment of any commission, rebates, or refunds, shall be submitted to the Auditor for certification before being paid. ( 3) Subsection 2 does not apply to a refund from moneys advanced pursuant to

section 40." Now, a succeeding

section makes it possible to make advances for expenses, which are sometimes required to be paid in advance of actual billing and invoicing of the government.

All I am trying to bring to the attention of this House is that in a thing as big as government -- and this government grows, as you know, and with so many departments responsible for purchasing and we have a purchasing agent who does most of the purchasing -- the services required, the expenditures to be made, are so numerous that there is every opportunity without a pre-audit for expenses to be incurred which are not legitimate, for the government to be subjected Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3570

May 18th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 53-29 to payments of money which are beyond the appropriations or which are not in appropriations, for the manipulating back and forth between appropriations of funds of the government. It is for this reason, Mr. Speaker, that I bring this motion before the House. I'm not concerned if in the next few weeks, or the next few days, the Provincial Treasurer brings in

an act providing for an Auditor General whose business will be exactly what was intimated in the message, that of ferreting out. 1 don't think he has to do much ferreting; all he needs to do is read the accounts of the Auditor's report, but if he can point out to us that sometimes we are persuaded to approve appropriations which are a waste, which were not properly conceived, which are not in the best interests of the province, then the Auditor General too serves a very good purpose, because a little embarrassment is going to smarten us all up.

And if he were to do that, I am not suggesting that the blame would all be on the government, because we sit on this side of the House, we approve these appropriations. We rely on the Auditor under The Financial Administration Act. We rely on him to make sure that the money is spent for the purposes for which it is appropriated. But nobody can ever be sure -- that includes the Treasurer and the members of the front bench -- nobody can be sure that the appropriations which they are asked to make on behalf of the various branches in departments of government are always wise or necessary or useful.

In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that the present pre-audit system is the greatest protection a government can have or a Legislature can have. It is the greatest means of controlling civil servants, of making them aware of their responsibilities, of helping them, too, to overcome the objections of people in departments who are always anxious to initiate new things, to make new purchases, to start new systems. I would be very loathe if anything happened in this Legislature to change the control of the pre-audit system as it is set forth in The Financial Administration Act.

On the other hand, I reiterate if the government feels that an Auditor General would serve a good purpose I have no objection as long as it doesn't do what this one announcement says, that it does not replace the Provincial Auditor responsible to the Legislature. That little

article intimated that the Provincial Auditor is responsible to the Executive Council and not to the Legislature. The act provides that he is appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, but he can only be removed by an order which is presented to the Legislature. So the present Provincial Auditor is the servant of this Legislature and is pretty independent to make those judgments which he is required to make. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make the motion standing on the Order Paper in my name and I hope it will receive the very serious consideration of this Assembly. MR. GRUENWALD: Mr.

Speaker, in seconding the motion I would just like to indicate that I will take only a very short time, because I'm sure that the hon. Provincial Treasurer would like to respond to this motion, and undoubtedly accept the proposal put forward. My colleague who has just moved and spoken on this motion has outlined very clearly and very logically why we should continue with the pre-audit system. All of Sections 57 through 67 of

Part 6 of The Financial Administration Act, in particular, I think are very reasonable safeguards also that should be maintained, and it should be consoling to the government to have those sections in there as well regarding audits. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3571

53-30 ALBERTA HANSARD May 18th 1972 I see no inconvenience in this system to anyone, so let us not really entertain any notion of dropping the concept of the pre-audit system, because after all it's not going to be that hard to deal with for the government. Now the hon. Member for Cardston, who is a former provincial treasurer, has had considerable experience as a treasurer, and in matters of this magnitude and in this area, I would certainly be one that would want to heed his advice, and I'm sure that you would at the same time.

I don't think that we need to spend a lot of time discussing this motion, because there are, as you can see, many logical reasons why we should continue the pre-audit system. It's sound, it's logical, it's practical, and I submit it should be continued. MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in the debate this afternoon I should like first of all to say that this is somewhat of a dry subject. Secondly that I am trying to participate without in any way commenting upon the personnel as they exist at the present time within our pre-audit system.

I am going to put myself in the position of repeating some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Cardston, particularly those items of reference to The Financial Administration Act. First of all I would like to draw the relationship very clearly between the Auditor and this Legislature. There are a number of relationships which should be kept in mind, and I intend to deal with them.

First of all there is the relationship with this Legislature, there is a relationship to the Treasury Board, there is a relationship to the Provincial Treasurer, and there is a relationship to the department heads and the ministers. I think we have to have a good view of this in order to appreciate all of the arguments.

Section 57 of The Financial Administration Act says that "the Auditor shall maintain a system of pre-audit," which means that he shall examine, check and audit all accounts. If we go back to

Section 12 of The Financial Administration Act we find there the authority by which the Auditor is appointed by the Lieutenant Govenor in Council. We also find, in

Section 12, that he may be removed -- as the hon. Member for Cardston has already indicated -- that he may be removed only by address to this Legislature. In other words, he cannot be dismissed by the Executive Council. We find in

Section 61 that "every appropriation account shall be examined by the Auditor on behalf of the Legislative Assembly", and that's a very key statement because it establishes very clearly the relationship of ultimate responsibility to this Assembly that the Auditor has. It has already been recorded for us that in

Section 38 "the Auditor shall prepare a statement with respect to each fiscal year of all legal opinions, special warrants," etc., issued without his authority and he shall present it to this Assembly. Having identified the relationship to the Assembly, I would like to spend a moment looking at the functions of the Auditor in terms of his particular duties. Again, most of these were identified by the hon. Member for Cardston. He has indicated to us that the Auditor shall ensure no issue for public funds for which there is no direct appropriation.

In other words, there has to be some appropriation accepted by this Assembly before any funds can be issued; that the issue cannot exceed the appropriation or the trust, whichever the case shall be. He also checks to see that there is legislative Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3572

May 18th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 53-31 authority for the expenditure and, as I read through, it seems to me that those two items are very much one and the same. He checks to make sure that the issue which is requested is supported by appropriate records, by proper documents or proofs of services. He checks to make sure it is being expended for the purpose for which appropriation was intended in the first instance. So he has to check for the appropriation, for the authority, and then to make sure that we have actually received the goods and services. He has another function, under

Section 46, and

Section 60. He is the guardian of the original records.

Section 46 says, "The Auditor shall maintain the principal financial records", and that is a separate and distinct function from the others that he has. He has yet another function in connection with the estimates. It is the Auditor who can require the estimates to be prepared in a certain form, or at least

Section 55 says, explicitly, "Estimates shall be prepared in such form as may be approved by the Auditor." Now in the relationship of the Auditor to the Treasurer, it is recorded in

Section 25 of The Financial Administration Act that it is the responsibility of the Auditor to draw cases of improper retention of funds by a servant of government to the attention of the Treasurer. That is if any public servant does not deposit funds as he should do, or turn them over to government, it is the function of the Auditor to draw this to the Treasurer’s attention. On the other hand,

Section 63 says, "If the Treasurer desires any account or document to be examined by the Auditor in greater detail the Auditor shall cause it to be subjected to such detailed examination as the Treasurer may prescribe." So we come now to one instance wherein the Treasurer can actually direct the work of the Auditor. Most of my comments in relation to the Treasury Board are again of the type that I've just mentioned in relation to the Treasurer. The Treasury Board shall issue the administrative directives which are followed by the Auditor, and by the government.

The Treasury Board is a committee of Cabinet, and, as the hon. Member for Cardston mentioned, the Auditor refuses to issue a certificate or a cheque or an order of the Treasurer on the grounds that the money is not justly due, or on the grounds that it exceeds the authority granted by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, or for any reason other than that there is no legislative authority -- the Treasury Board may over-rule the Auditor. It's true that these situations are to be reported to this Assembly, but I would draw to your attention that the Treasury Board may over-rule the Auditor.

Also, the Auditor is required, under

Section 47 to furnish the Treasury Board, monthly, with a statement of revenue and expenditure for the province. There is one other relationship which I think should be brought to the attention of members, and it relates to the Attorney General and the Auditor. If the Auditor reports that there is no legal authority for a certain action, the Attorney General, under

Section 35 of The Financial Administration Act, has in fact, the authority to over-ride the legal opinion given to the Auditor. This, I think, is worth bearing in mind. So we find then that there is a whole series of relationships, the primary one supposedly to the Legislature. Secondary ones are to the Treasurer, the Treasury Board, and for that, I think one would have to assume that that is virtually the same as saying to the Cabinet. Now I think it is important to recognize these relationships in terms of evaluating the independence of the Auditor.

It's not, in my estimation, that much different whether it's a pre-audit or a post- Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3573

53-32 ALBERTA HANSARD May 18th 1972 audit in terms of making sure that the money is properly spent, or in terms of checking whether sufficient vouchers are available to warrant payment, but rather in terms of the kind of situation that can arise between the Cabinet and the Auditor, and the Auditor and this Legislature. And this issue revolves around the independence of the Auditor. Its my view that the Auditor, no matter what we like to think, cannot really be as independent in a pre-audit situation where he is in fact functioning as part of the administration. And the hon.

Member for Cardston pointed this out to us. I was going to use the term 'admitted this' to us. Because he said, at one point in his remarks, that the pre-audit system relieves the government of certain responsibility, and I question whether, in fact, that is a desirable situation. I think, in

summary, on that point of independence, that it is extremely important that the Auditor feel unencumbered in any respect to report directly back to us. And I draw this again to your attention by alerting you to the kind of audit reports which are received by the federal government as compared to the ones which we receive here. This particular report for 1967, this one for 1970, contain very few statistics at all. These are comments by the Auditor General on the state of the administration as he found it. As you will recollect, there are some gems among his comments from time to time.

As an aside I might say to the hon. members that the pre-audit system tends to remove from us some of those genuinely embarrassing items which cause so much fun for the members of the federal parliament. I, for instance, could draw to your attention that in the 1970 report of the Auditor General, on page 39, he draws to the attention of the parliament that a report was received too late to be of use. I know that some hon. members here will be quite keenly interested in this, having in mind some of the questions being asked about the Moir Committee report which we have yet to receive.

I am not so sure it will be too late to be of use but it certainly is late. I am sure that it is a kind of thing that the Auditor General in the federal situation brings to our attention. It is a kind of thing which I am not so sure that an auditor, functioning as he does in a pre-audit situation, where he is in fact part of the administration can feel free to draw to our attention here. There is another comment in that same report of the Auditor, where he reflects on page 52 upon the cost of the National Art Centre in Ottawa. He doesn't make judgments, he just lists facts.

Hon. gentlemen, that reminds me of a situation which has happened in Alberta. That was the increase and escalation in cost of the Alberta Resources Railway. Here is something which I am sure an auditor functioning in the capacity of the Auditor General in Ottawa would have reported on for our attention. I would like to say that the present system is one which allows us, as members, to dig and dig through the big blue book, and if we are members of the Public Accounts Committee, we may zero in and ask questions and perhaps we can dig some of these things out, if they are not immediately evident on the surface.

But I am not so sure that that is a good check. I would like to turn my attention now to some of what I regard as even more important reasons why one might consider a post-audit rather than a pre-audit. First of all, I think that the government, the administration, would be a lot freer and a lot more responsible. I think it is a bad thing to suggest, as the hon. Member for Cardston does, that we have without a pre-audit every opportunity for payments which are not legitimate, for manipulating back and forth.

Hon. members, if that is the case, then I think we have got some real Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3574

May 18th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 53-33 problems in our public service and I don't think that situation exists. But my point is this, I don't think it appropriate to suggest that this might happen, because if, in fact, we have a public service which would do this and is only saved from doing this by the fact that we have a pre-audit system, how many other ways, how many other problems, may we have which are beyond the purview of the Auditor? This to me reflects a potential irresponsibility on the part of the public service and I can't accept that.

So I would like to make the point most strongly that I think a post-audit system would develop a greater responsibility on the part of our public service. I think they would have to recognize and they would be well aware that they are responsible for the initial decisions. They are responsible for making sure that proper financial management is adhered to every step of the way. If they fail in this respect the Auditor will eventually be reporting their actions to the Legislature. I think that is a good thing and it will develop responsibility.

A second thing, it seems to me, that will develop is managerial capacity. I would suggest that we probably, in the pre-audit situations -- certainly if we make the assumption, as the hon. Member for Cardston does, that the pre-audit system relieves the government of responsibility -- certainly if we make that assumption, I think we tend to assume that we're not required to develop managerial capacity in a financial sense. That is in my estimation one of the drawbacks of a pre-audit. I think that we cannot divorce financial management capacity from total managerial capacity and development of that capacity.

I think this would be a desirable feature of a different kind of a system. A third element which should be kept in mind is that it would be much simpler to decentralize certain government operations under a post-audit system than under a pre-audit system. I refer again to one of the sections of The Financial Administration Act, was brought to our attention by the hon. member that all cheques have to be certificated or proved by the Auditor before payment, it seems to me that if we had responsible Public Service, which I'm sure we do, we could decentralize. We could have payments issued at outlying points.

The Auditor, in instances where a full-time representative is not required, could come out on occasion, whenever a reasonable amount of work exists for them to review, and audit the books in that particular location. I think that would be a very beneficial development, for it would lead to what I regard as a fourth advantage of a post-audit system. And that is, speed in terms of payment - - speed in terms of the government's ability to meet its commitments and to carry out its responsibilities. I would like to conclude with a strong disagreement, if I may, with the hon. Member for Cardston.

I think he gave us to understand that the pre-audit is a more certain system than the post-audit in terms of government expenditures. I would disagree with that. I would suggest to you that the post-audit gives us a more certain control of financial management than does a pre-audit for reasons which I have tried to bring out before. The fact is that we would have a more responsible public service which would, in fact, do an internal audit on itself. I suspect this is being done even in the pre-audit system that we already have.

So we would, if you will, have an internal check by the operating line management service people, and then we would have a second check by the auditor, not just the one check which we presently have. I have not heard as many arguments as I hope will come forth from the Assembly on this particular matter, but I would like to say that the one argument that I see in favour of the position taken by the hon. Member for Cardston is that the pre-audit system is perhaps more economical in the sense that the Auditor functions as a part of the administration.

But I again repeat, in summing up, that I think we would have a more flexible system, a faster system, a system which Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3575

53—34 ALBERTA HANSARD May 18th 1972 would allow us to decentralize and regionalize a system which would develop a greater responsibility in the public service, and a system which would develop greater managerial capacity in the public service, as well as a more certain system of audit if we had a post- audit system rather than a pre-audit system. MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, I doubt that this matter will come up again on the Order Paper in this session. I would have spoken to it, I thought -- if the House would like to hear from me as Provincial Treasurer, I would be happy to speak to it, otherwise that is fine.

But I will need three or four minutes past 4:30. Mr. Speaker, may I first of all say to the hon. Member for Cardston that I have felt a oneness with him from the time that he has been in the Legislature, because, as a former Provincial Treasurer, I respect his remarks and advice and was very interested to see his private member's resolution on the Order Paper. Mr. Speaker, may I say at the outset that Alberta has been extremely fortunate in having a Provincial Auditor for the past 30 years, one Mr.

Keith Huckvale, and the success of the pre-audit system in Alberta has largely been due to the tremendous competence and integrity of Mr. Huckvale, and I cannot over-emphasize that. Mr. Speaker, there are advantages and disadvantages to the pre -audit system. One of the advantages is the fact that under the present system, Alberta has one of the better commitment control systems. However, there are disadvantages. As an example, the hon. Member for Jasper Place indicated that in fact it discourages decentralization of government payments.

This is, of course, a desirable policy from the point of view of the government of Alberta. I think it was also indicated that under the pre-audit system there is no provision for the Auditor to, in fact, report on wastages and inefficiencies that exist in government. This was indicated by both the hon. Member for Cardston and the hon. Member for Jasper Place. Mr.

Speaker, coming from a professional auditing background, I would have to indicate to the House that the term 'pre-audit' is really a misnomer, in that in financial and accounting circles it would more appropriately be described as the internal control function or comptrollership function, which is that all expenditures are bonafide and you ensure that all expenditures are bonafide, prior to their payment. Pre-audit does not describe that function properly. Mr.

Speaker, in professional accounting circles it is argued that, in fact, there is a limitation on the independence of the auditor if he is placed in the position of having to approve the expenditure on the one hand, and subsequently expressing his opinion on the accuracy and propriety of revenues and expenditures as indicated in the provincial public accounts. In other words, how can you approve it and then subsequently come along and report that it was all right, there is some conflict of independence in that role.

This has built up in Alberta over the period of some 30 years, and has placed the Auditor in that role, but I am just trying to advise the pros and cons it has caused over that period. Most provinces, Mr. Speaker, have dispensed with the pre-audit system. Since the auditor can be a much more valuable servant to the Legislature and to the citizens of the province by allowing him an expanded role, which would include not only reporting on the propriety of government expenditures, but on inefficiencies and wastages as well, or the Auditor-General concept as indicated by the hon. Member for Cardston.

Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3576

May 18th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 53-35 In order to be effective in this kind of role, the pre-audit cannot be confused with the Auditor General role. You cannot be both, because it would not ensure his independence on the one hand if he is expressing his opinion, and on the other hand, actually being involved in the expenditure of public monies himself. Mr. Speaker, to conclude because I don't want to take too much of the time of the House, at the present time, out of 11 government jurisdictions, there are now eight that have dispensed with the pre- -audit and have gone to the Auditor General or similar concept.

But I would like to indicate very clearly that there is no decision in my mind at the present time, or in our government's mind, although we feel that as with other things in government, we have a responsibility to look at this and consider the pros and cons of whether in fact, it is a pre-audit or whether, in fact, an auditor general's role would be preferable. Government decentralization is a very important thing that we would like to accomplish in the future, and pre-audit hampers that.

Basically, pre-audit would require that in a regional office there be a full-time stationed member of the provincial auditor's office. And this could create a tremendous amount of, in effect, wastage of time, because you don't require, say in a small regional office, a full-time person to do that function.

Whereas if the audit was done post, you can just assign a person for a period of a week or two weeks, as is done in the case of industrial auditing and corporate auditing. All the auditor does is go in for the period that is necessary to check that all expenditures and revenues have been bonafide and in accordance with the interest of the shareholders, in the case of a private company. Now in Alberta, our shareholders are the citizens. The Auditor must be independent from government, whichever role he is in, whether it is a post or pre- audit role. And he must report to the Legislature.

That is the single most important consideration. He must report that, in fact, government expeditures have been made within the intent of the Legislature when they approve the expenditures. In my view, whether the expenditure is examined by the Auditor in fact before or after, is really academic, as long as the Legislature receives a report from the Auditor regarding the propriety of government expenditures, and the adherence by our government to the intention of the Legislature. MR. HENDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to adjourn the debate. MR. SPEAKER: Can the hon. member have leave to adjourn the debate? HON.

MEMBERS: Agreed. head: PUBLIC BILLS AND ORDERS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT ORDERS (Second Reading) Bill No. 203: The Family Homes Expropriation Act (Adjourned Debate) DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, when this bill was before us last time, I had just initiated some remarks, but they were rather rudely interrupted by the hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Leduc. I did want to make just one or two comments in regard to the bill. We appreciate that this is a strategy of the hon. Member from Mountain View to regain some political stature -- [Interjections] Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3577

53-36 ALBERTA HANSARD May 18th 1972 MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, I am up on a point of order, and the hon. minister is to sit down and give me a chance to state my point of order. The point of order is this, that no one knows better than the hon. minister that he cannot impute a motive to me. I think that perhaps he is accusing me of playing politics, and I wouldn't dare accuse the hon. minister of playing politics. He has never played politics since I have known him. Notwithstanding, Mr. Speaker, he cannot impute a motive and he should withdraw that statement.

He has been in parliament a long time and he has been here a long time. He knows the rules, but there is no indication that he does know them. But he mustn't impute a motive. He is definitely wrong, Mr. Speaker, and I want you to rule that he withdraw that imputation and carry on with his debate if he has got anything to say. DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is now saying that he, in fact, is not a politician- - AN HON. MEMBER: Agreed. Agreed. DR. HORNER: -- and I would like to know what he is doing here really -- MR. LUDWIG: ...to check on the ability of the minister -- DR.

HORNER: -- because in my view, one should be proud of being a politican provided one enters into that profession with some degree of integrity, and with some honour and the dedication to serve one's constituents. Then I would suggest to the hon. gentleman he shouldn't be touchy about being accused of being in political action. Because that's what we're all about, this is political action. I say again, Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of withdrawing what I said because I simply stated the fact. MR. LUDWIG: I didn't say that at all. MR. HENDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I think there's a very valid point here.

It's not a question of whether the hon. member is a politican on this side or not, but the hon. Deputy Premier imputed that there is some loss of stature implied in the member of this House having shifted from that side to this side. I think there's very definitely a question of imputations involved here, and I think he should withdraw it; it's an insult to any member of the Opposition, every member of the Opposition. DR. HORNER: Mr.

Speaker, they are awful touchy about the change that has taken place, but that was at the request of the people of Alberta and it's not up to this Legislature on a point of order to change that. There has been a change in the stature of the hon. gentleman for Calgary Mountain View -- much to his chagrin -- but much to the pleasure of the people of Alberta. I suggest again, Mr. Speaker -- Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3578

May 18th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 53-37 MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, is the hon. minister still debating the point of order, or is he on the bill? MR. HYNDMAN: If you'd take the wax out of your ears. DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, I'm attempting to speak on the bill but apparently the hon. Member for Calgary Mountain View doesn't want me to speak on the bill because he continues to interrupt. MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. We did not get a decision on the point of order. The hon. minister definitely imputed a motive -- the rule prohibits it -- and it is your responsibility Mr.

Speaker, to ask him to withdraw, otherwise I don't think that we are playing the rules in this House and it could be a pretty rough House if we abandon the rules. So I'm insisting on a ruling from you whether he withdraw or not. There's no question as to the fact that he imputed a motive, if we understand the spoken -- MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I appreciate the point of order that was raised by the hon. Member for Calgary Mountain View. I have to accept the hon. Deputy Premier's explanation that he feels that he didn't break any rule, and that he doesn't intend to withdraw it.

I would suggest that the Assembly continue on with the debate on Bill No. 203, and that the hon. Deputy Premier present his debate on the bill. DR. HORNER: The hon. Member for Calgary Mountain View continues to interrupt. Does he want to have a debate on this bill, or does he want to try and and protect -- MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to appeal your ruling to the Assembly. It's definitely a mistaken ruling. MR. MINIELY: What nonsense! DR. HORNER: Again on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman can't do it on his own. MR. LUDWIG: Mr.

Speaker, an appeal of the Speaker's ruling is not debatable, and the hon. minister ought to sit down and keep quiet. Your ruling has been appealed. DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, there's no ruling on the point of order. The hon. gentleman doesn't know what he's talking about. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3579

53-38 ALBERTA HANSARD May 18th 1972 MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, your ruling has been appealed and it isn't debatable. What's the minister complaining about? DR. HORNER: I'm on the point of order. MR. LUDWIG: No you're not. DR. HORNER: I certainly am, and I'm speaking to the point of order and the hon. gentleman either has a great deal of ignorance about the manner of parliamentary performance, or is deliberately establishing some sort of nonsensical appeal when there is no appeal available on a point of order which is not substantiated.

It is, in fact, not a point of order because I suggested to him that he had political motives -- MR. HENDERSON: [Comment inaudible] DR. HORNER: What kind of nonsense is that? Mr. Speaker, if I might then return to the debate on the hon. gentleman's bill and have some comment in regard to it. MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, I'm not going along with this at all. You ruled, I appealed your ruling to the Assembly and you have to take the necessary procedure. The appeal is not debatable -- it's in the rules -- and if we don't, then all I have to say is that we are not complying with the rules. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I appreciate again the hon. Member for Calgary Mountain View standing up. When I made reference to your point of order, I only indicated that I didn't feel that there was really a point of order in there. This is my explanation and the hon. Deputy Premier should continue with his debate on Bill No. 203. I feel that if the hon.

Member for Calgary Mountain View would go back to the records in Hansard, unfortunately that would take a little time because I do not really recall the exact words that were used by the Deputy Premier and I would beg that the Assembly accept this and continue with the debate on Bill No. 203. DR. HORNER: Well, at the risk of encountering, again, the ire of the hon. Member for Calgary Mountain View, I wonder if it's all right for me to continue the debate and to suggest, again, that the hon. member brought forward a bill for political motives.

I hope he doesn't object to that, because most of the things I do on this side are for political motives, believe me, and I want everybody to be aware of that. The hon. Member for Calgary Mountain View is having difficulty getting that across so I want to be very clear about my position. Having regard to that, Mr. Speaker, and having regard to my definition of politics, as I outlined earlier, in that one has to be dedicated to the service of one's constituents, then I think that the Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3580

May 18th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 53-39 bill in its present form is not worthwhile. We've been having in my department and under my jurisdiction some considerable discussion in regard to the entire matter of expropriation. In regard particularly in that area, of course, to the question of expropriation of farm land for natural resource development, some of the things that have happened in expropriation proceedings over the years; just haven't been right, proper, or fair.

One of the better things that the previous government did was to refer the entire matter of expropriations to the Institute of Law Reform at the university and this is, as I said, one of the better things that they have done. Because this is a complex matter, Mr. Speaker, and it shouldn't be dealt with in a haphazard, hastily constructed bill, put forward for political purposes, in an attempt to show the people in Calgary Mountain View that he's all for them. That's fine, Mr. Speaker, I hope that he can continue to show the people that, but I have some doubt about whether or not he is going to be able to do that.

I say that the bill is not complete and it is not good enough for the simple reason that it doesn't take into consideration any compensation for the inconsiderations that happen to people who are expropriated. Just to say, "We'll get you another home down the road," isn't good enough, because there are those inconveniences and those hardships, those emotional things that are very hard to measure in dollar terms, that have to be compensated for.

The question of whether or not the home might have some family significance dating back a number of years; the question of the inconvenience of children, for instance, relocating in another school; the hardships that this might put on a variety of people because of the expropriation. All of these matters have to be covered in expropriation proceedings that are far more detailed than this piece of paper that has been put forward by the hon. member. In my view this bill, then, as I said at the outset, is nothing but a political exercise but, unfortunately, a very poor one.

It doesn't meet the requirements that the people in the province of Alberta are entitled to. And, therefore, Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in saying that I, for one, can't accept this bill because of its nature -- it just doesn't do the job -- and it doesn't do the job I would like to see done for my constituents in the whole matter of home expropriations, whether it be by Crown or any other agency.

I would hope and I know that we will, having regard for the ability of the present Attorney General, ccme forward with a new expropriation act after he has received his report from the Institute of Law Reform and we will be able to come forward with much better legislation in the expropriation field. However, I did want to make some comment before I conclude Mr. Speaker, in regard to the hon. Member for Cardston's contribution to this debate, because normally we enjoy the hon. member's remarks in regard to many subjects.

But I think he was being a little bit facetious and I hope he won't get up on a point of order and try and interrupt me, Mr. Speaker. I think he has a little more ability to bounce than the hon. Member for Calgary Mountain View. However, I want to take issue with something the hon. Member for Cardston said, that he was a little bit surprised that after seven months the 'now' government hadn't straightened out some of these inequities and so on. I want to suggest to the hon.

Member for Cardston that when he makes that statement he is leaving himself wide open -- and I hope, again, he won't be upset -- to a rather stinging political attack, if I was so disposed; because there are 36 years that we could go over very carefully and talk about the inequities that have been in this field for that long a time. I'm sure the hon. member doesn't really want me to do that. But I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that this is a complex matter, and it isn't one of those inequities that can be changed by Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3581

53-40 ALBERTA HANSARD May 18th 1972 an Order in Council, or changed by sitting down and quickly disposing of the matter. I want to point out to him that there have been a great number of inequities that have been changed in the last seven months, those that could be changed quickly and were obvious, and didn't require a great deal of study and examination as to their long-term effect. Those inequities have been changed, in a lot of the time. So I want to assure the hon.

Member for Cardston that he should be very careful of his language, and I appreciate his language, it's one of the nicer ones to listen to in this Legislature. But when he starts making statements like that, then the value of Hansard comes out, Mr. Speaker, because it's been written. Well, I would refer the hon. member to Hansard, April 13th, page 28-44, in the first paragraph of the hon. member's remarks. It was one of those days when he was being a politician also, Mr. Speaker. And I say again, that is not really a bad thing provided one has some liking for the profession, and feels honourable to be in it.

And certainly I've always felt that way, Mr. Speaker. So again I say to the House that this Bill No. 203, is inadequately prepared, doesn't go far enough, doesn't cover the situation. And therefore should be disposed of by either delaying it further into the session or voting it down. MR. WILSON: It's all well and very good for the hon.

Deputy Premier to criticize, condemn, complain, and make light of the sincere efforts of those of us on this side of the House, who are concerned for the well-being of families being dispossessed, and to assure that they end up with a comparable home when their property is being expropriated. Bill No. 203, The Family Homes Expropriation Act, very clearly states: "that where it is decided to expropriate a family home the owner shall receive such compensation as will insure that the family unit is in no worse position as a result of the expropriation." In other words, that he will get equivalent accommodation.

And I don't think that this is a matter that we should poke fun at, or laugh at, or to make light of. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, there is some considerable precedent of former concern by some members opposite in days gone by. As a matter of fact, last year, Bill No. 141,

An Act To Amend The Expropriation Procedure Act was submitted to this House by the hon. member, Mr. Dickie, who is now a Cabinet Minister in a position to implement his bill. AN HON. MEMBER: He's a Liberal, isn't he? MR. WILSON: And I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that in the explanatory notes to this bill that was presented by Mr. Dickie last year, it states, "The purpose of this amendment is to implement what is colloquially referred to as a 'home for a home' principle.

The Expropriation Procedure Act does not spell out the basis of compensation, and value to the owner has been applied." His explanatory notes to go on to say, Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3582

May 18th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 53-41 "this amendment has the effect of replacing the value to the owner principle with 'home for a home' principle, and specifically includes complete indemnification for loss of income, moving expense, business interruption and complete indemnification for the costs of expert witnesses and counsel." Well now, Mr. Speaker, perhaps Bill No. 203 doesn't go so far as to pay for legal counsel, and to pay for loss of wages in business interruption, but it's a step in the right direction. And I'm sorry that the hon. member, Mr.

Dickie isn't here to comment on his thoughts on this bill in comparison to the bill he submitted last year. But if the government members are sincere in thei