November 26, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 1875 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Thursday, November 26, 1981 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Government Documents MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister responsible for Personnel Administration. In view of the reports of a manhunt now being conducted in the Department of Transportation to determine the source of an alleged leak of some documents . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The hon. member knows that that kind of inflammatory language is out of order in the question period.

That may be the reason it was used; in any event, that's beside the point. I'd ask the hon. member to ask his question in an appropriate way. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister. In light of this manhunt . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Would the hon. leader resume his seat? The hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I think I have the right to ask the question. MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, if the hon. leader persists in [asking] it improperly, I can't recognize that right. His rights are subject, as are the rights of all other members of the Assembly . . . DR.

BUCK: Just this side. MR. SPEAKER: . . . to the Standing Orders and to appropriate parliamentary procedure. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 12(2), I'd like you to clarify very clearly for me, so that I know what rights I have in the House, this matter of asking questions. I'd like to have the citations as such placed forward for me, so that I know why I have been interrupted, why I can't ask questions in this House, and why I can't find out what this government is doing.

If it's because of the rules of this House and the suppression that's going on, I think that's unfortunate. [interjections] I have a question, and if the rules are going to get that tight and suppressive, I wonder where democracy is. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. [inter­ jections] Yes, there is a point of order. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has raised a point of order with respect to his ability to ask a question in the Legislative Assem­ bly, and whether his use of the term "manhunt" is unpar­ liamentary. Mr. Speaker . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. That's not the point. MR.

NOTLEY: Oh, it certainly is. MR. SPEAKER: No, it isn't. This is not a debate. This is a question. If the hon. leader will look at the 5th edition of Beauchesne, on page 129 he will find a list of reasons, which are not new. They were also in the 4th edition of Beauchesne; it's practically unchanged. The very first of the restrictions with regard to questions in the question period: A question oral or written must not: (

a) be ironical, rhetorical, offensive, or contain epithet, innuendo, satire, or ridicule. Now I'm prepared to reconsider, but if the hon. leader persists in asking the question in the way he already proposed, I must decline to recognize him. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order. I wonder if I could ask you to reconsider your initial judgment with respect to Citation 357. It certainly does say that the question must not be "ironical, rhetorical, offensive, or contain epithet, innuendo, satire, or ridi­ cule". I acknowledge that.

However, I suggest that the use of the term "manhunt" — or perhaps more appropriately these days, "person-hunt" — is in itself not ironical, rhetorical, or offensive. That kind of comment is fre­ quently made in courts of law. It is made with respect to the activities of our law enforcement agencies at all times. I would have to say, Mr. Speaker, that it does not in itself, at least on the face of it, meet the objections in Beauchesne, Citation 357. If the Speaker feels that the hon. Leader of the Opposition has offended Citation 357 in the process of asking the question, so be it.

But the use of the word "manhunt" itself does not, in my judgment, constitute an offence against Citation 357. MR. SPEAKER: Well, I'm sure the dictionary will indi­ cate that the word "manhunt" has a meaning which in the ordinary operation within an administration would not be used. I don't propose to enter into debate with the hon. member. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has quite properly, under Standing Order 12(2), asked me for my reasons. I've given my reasons. It's my understanding, as the hon.

Member for Spirit River-Fairview has said, that this word is used in the criminal world, or in the realm of law enforcement — I've forgotten exactly the expression he used — and it's most commonly used in connection with the hunt for a criminal. Now, I don't know what person the hon. Leader of the Opposition is referring to as the object or victim of a manhunt, and I don't want to know. However, the expression is not allowable in the question period. If the hon. leader wishes to reconsider and ask the question appropriately and directly, I'd be most happy. But if he does not, then my duty is not to recognize him.

Northland School Division MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this ques­ tion to the Minister of Education who, I see, is not in his place today. Who is the Acting Minister of Education? I see it's the hon. Minister of Advanced Education and Manpower. I would ask the minister to outline to the Assembly the reasons why the report on the Northland School Division of July 1975, which contained all the major reasons that the minister announced with respect to the dismissal of the board the other day, was not acted

1876 ALBERTA HANSARD November 26, 1981 upon sooner, in view of the fact that the government received it in July 1975. MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice on behalf of my colleague the Minister of Education. Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Programs DR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker, a question to the chair­ man of the Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Commission in the province of Alberta, the hon. Member for Lethbridge West.

Recognizing that alcoholism continues to be a major public health problem, I wonder if the hon. member would indicate to the House what special pro­ grams have been initiated during this festive season in view of the fact that alcoholic consumption is on an increase at that time. MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the question from the Member for Edmonton Kingsway. As we all know, as a physician he's directly involved with some of the serious results of that.

AADAC is planning a variety of campaigns for the festive season, including radio and television advertising, to create an awareness in people that if they're going to drive, not to drink, or if they're going to drink, not to drive. DR. PAPROSKI: One supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the member clarify whether any special target groups have been chosen as a result of this increased quantity of printed material and television programs. MR. GOGO: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, the target groups would be those who are legally allowed to drink, although we know there is some exception to that.

I should point out that with its mandate, AADAC covers the province of Alberta in six regions. Each region in the province will be conducting programs at a regional level. For example, Lethbridge has an open house and invites several hundred people. In the north, Fort McMurray has another program. Of particular importance — something that has been very helpful, and maybe ministers of the Crown would like to participate — is that all the mail that goes out of AADAC in the next five weeks will have a postage mark on it through the postage meter: If You Drink, Don't Drive. We have found that has been very helpful.

In view of the fact that the government of Alberta is obviously the largest user of the postal system, I would urge members of the cabinet to do the same thing through their departments. Finally, Mr. Speaker, recognizing that the young peo­ ple of Alberta listen to rock groups on certain radio stations, we've done an analysis, and we're going to do selective radio advertising on those stations young people listen to in addition to newspaper and some selective television advertising. ORDERS OF THE DAY head: WRITTEN QUESTIONS 148. Mr. Notley asked the government the following question:

(1) What was the value, by category, of all special tax exemptions, deductions, credits, exclusions, prefer­ ential rates, and deferrals offered by the provincial government through its tax system in 1974?

(2) What was the value, by category, of all special tax exemptions, deductions, credits, exclusions, prefer­ ential rates, and deferrals offered by the provincial government through its tax system in 1975?

(3) What was the value, by category, of all special tax exemptions, deductions, credits, exclusions, prefer­ ential rates, and deferrals offered by the provincial government through its tax system in 1976?

(4) What was the value, by category, of all special tax exemptions, deductions, credits, exclusions, prefer­ ential rates, and deferrals offered by the provincial government through its tax system in 1977?

(5) What was the value, by category, of all special tax exemptions, deductions, credits, exclusions, prefer­ ential rates, and deferrals offered by the provincial government through its tax system in 1978?

(6) What was the value, by category, of all special tax exemptions, deductions, credits, exclusions, prefer­ ential rates, and deferrals offered by the provincial government through its tax system in 1979?

(7) What was the value, by category, of all special tax exemptions, deductions, credits, exclusions, prefer­ ential rates, and deferrals offered by the provincial government through its tax system in 1980? head: MOTIONS FOR RETURNS MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, in respect of Motion for a Return 147, I move that that motion for a return stand and retain its place on the Order Paper. [Motion carried] 149. On behalf of Mr. Sindlinger, Mr. R. Speaker moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing:

(1) What were the Alberta heritage trust fund securities that were sold over the last three years at a net loss of $60,282,000.

(2) What was the date of purchase and the date of sale of each of these securities.

(3) What was the purchase and sale price of each of these securities.

(4) What was the interest rate and maturity date of each of these securities.

(5) If other securities were acquired as a specific re­ placement for those sold, what were they, when were they purchased, what is their interest rate, when do they mature, and what price was paid for each. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, on this motion, this is exactly the same topic, in wording and everything, as we saw last week on the Order Paper. In one form or another, the issue has been responded to three or four times in this Assembly, in committees, and in question period in the full House. Again, I think it's important to summarize the answers.

The answers bear repeating be­ cause they're the same as I've indicated before, and they make sense. They very simply can be restated in five facts. These are facts and not matters of opinion. As I indicated with respect to this item last week, it's not appropriate for the Assembly to endorse this motion. To summarize the five reasons: firstly, the independent Auditor General of Alberta has confirmed that not a single dollar is missing from the heritage fund and every single dime has been accounted for. Secondly, the inde­

November 26, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 1877 pendent Auditor General has found no evidence of fraud or collusion. Thirdly, the key document we're looking at with respect to all these matters, the annual report of the Auditor General of the province, confirms that all pre­ vious significant concerns he had with respect to any and all internal controls or systems have been satisfied. Fourthly, the performance of every significant investment portfolio, public or private, is measured by looking at the overall yield or rate of return of the portfolio, and not by day to day transactions. Nowhere is that latter method used.

Fifthly, as we all know, every managed bond port­ folio of which the heritage fund has one, whether public or private, has undergone sales losses in the volatile markets of the recent two years, but the heritage fund has made net gains or profits of over $1.5 billion with respect to the transactions. I urge that the motion be defeated. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to adjourn the debate on Motion 149. [Motion carried] MR. SPEAKER: By leave of the Assembly, I wonder if I might revert for a moment to Introduction of Special Guests. HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR.

SPEAKER: I'm pleased to see in the Speaker's gallery a visitor whom we missed some time ago on the occasion of the granting of the annual Commonwealth Parliamentary Association bursaries. Mr. Richard Starke was delayed in coming to Edmonton because of airplane trouble. His mother accepted the bursary on his behalf. As hon. members may recall, he was chosen for this bursary by all his colleagues in the Tuxis Parliament. On behalf of the Assembly, I'd like to offer him our congrat­ ulations and our welcome this afternoon. I ask that he stand so that welcome might be given more emphatically. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, on a point of order. Again, I'd like to refer to

section 12(2) of our rules of the Assembly, and get a citation from the hon. Speaker with regard to the distribution of the material belonging to the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview that I find on my desk today. I understand there has been no consent by the member to present that material to the Legislature, nor has it been entered as part of the debate up to this point in time, nor is the point of privilege under question an item on the agenda of this Assembly.

I'd be rather interested in knowing why the Speaker has taken the privilege, I would say, in presenting this to all members of the Assembly, and under what citation and what authori­ ty that is done. Mr. Speaker, I feel it is rather a breach of trust between the hon. member and the Speaker. I think clarification of that matter is very necessary. MR. SPEAKER: As I mentioned, the hon. leader is perfectly entitled to ask for reasons. In the first place, I should say that this point has been decided. It was dis­ cussed at some length.

I believe I observed at the time and I was reminded that I'm a servant of the Assembly. As a servant of the Assembly I was given, not for the purpose of private or confidential advice, material to support a point of privilege. It's now previous history that I declined to hear that point of privilege or have it dealt with extensively. I identified it briefly because it involved conflicting statements, but I didn't allow it because, as hon. members know, the person against whom it was directed was not here.

It is simply basic fairness, and this is part of my reason for the distribution, that you don't accuse a person in his or her absence. I realize that in this situation that charge of breach of privilege, which is what every point of breach of privilege is, because they don't happen like the rain falling, they are done by somebody — that charge is . . . DR. BUCK: What charge? I've never heard one, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: I said the breach of privilege involved a contradictory statement. [interjection] If the hon. member wants to look at the material, he'll have it.

In any event, if he wishes to speak, would he kindly wait until I resume my Chair. In any case, the reason for distributing the material is again basic fairness, the same reason for which the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview was not prevented from expressing his views in the House. The expression of those views was merely postponed, and when the person involved in the breach of privilege comes to the Assembly — which I expect will be soon — the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview will have a full and ample opportu­ nity to raise the point he wanted to raise when the target of the allegation was not here.

In pursuit of this fairness, which is a parliamentary tradition and amply borne out by the most respected parliamentary authority in the Commonwealth, namely Sir Erskine May, this material, which came into my possession as the servant of the Assembly, and hence into the possession of the Assembly — because whatever I get in that way belongs to the Assembly, unless it's a matter of confidential advice — has been distributed for that purpose and, as I say, in keeping with the parliamentary tradition of fairness, so that when we deal with the question, everyone will be on the same footing more or less as the member who is going to raise the point of privilege.

If hon. members wish to refer to Standing Order 2, it says: In all contingencies unprovided for, the question will be decided by Mr. Speaker and, in making his ruling, Mr. Speaker shall base his decision on the usages and precedents of this Assembly and on parliamen­ tary tradition. Now as hon. members well know, our Standing Orders do not directly deal with making an accusation against a member who is absent. Therefore, I must have recourse to the parliamentary tradition of fairness, which also applies in our courts. In reply to the request of the hon.

Leader of the Opposition for my reasons, those are my reasons. It seems to me that is adequate. The hon. member may disagree with me. I respect his disagreement and his right to disagree, but on the basis of the best precedents, it would seem that a Speaker who would not prevent an accusation from being made against an absent member would be derelict in his duty. I'm fully aware that the Standing Orders give the person who raises a point of privilege the right to deal with it.

1878 ALBERTA HANSARD November 26, 1981 MR. R. SPEAKER: That's not the subject. MR. SPEAKER: I'm just saying I realize that is a right, but surely it is subject to the rules of fairness, and a mere postponement of that right is not a denial. It simply avoids having the matter dealt with twice. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order. I don't want to sound unreasonable in what I'm saying or asking, and I didn't want to sound like the role of the Speaker in the Legislative Assembly when I would have called you to order because I felt you were speaking off subject. I didn't know how to do that.

I'd been rather reprimanded for standing up while you're standing up, Mr. Speaker, and didn't want to do that today. But the topic of my discussion with regard to the point of order was precedent, Mr. Speaker. I refer to

section 2 of the rules you have cited to me "on the usages and precedents of this Assembly and on parliamentary tradi­ tion." I don't know of any precedents or tradition where on a point of privilege, information given by a member of the Assembly, supposedly in confidence in my under­ standing, or given even in the care of — let's take away the word "confidence" — in the care of the Speaker of the Legislature, without the consent of the member . . . That's a very important phrase in my statement: "without the consent of the member". In this case, I understand there was no consent.

From your ruling I would like to know — and according to 12(2) I have that right — what were the precedents and on what parliamentary tradition. I haven't got those in your answer, Mr. Speaker. I would appreciate the Speaker either taking that under consider­ ation, giving me the answer on another occasion, or if that information is at the Speaker's fingertips at the moment, I would appreciate it. [Two members rose] MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I believe I saw the hon. minister first. MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, I don't know that it's useful to replough old ground, but I think we're doing that. The hon.

Leader of the Opposition raises the concept of confidentiality. MR. R. SPEAKER: No, I withdrew that. MR. KOZIAK: Well, if he withdraws that, he has no point of order. There is a concept of confidentiality or there isn't. There cannot be a middle ground. If he now withdraws that point, there is no need for me to rise in my place to respond. But I assume he hasn't, because he's still speaking on the question of the distribution of documents. Mr.

Speaker, it was made quite clear that without the one-hour notice, as required by Standing Order 14(2), no breach of privilege can be raised in this Assembly unless it's raised immediately upon the happen­ ing of the event. In this particular case, the question of privilege was not raised immediately upon the happening of the event. It was raised subsequently and must follow the rules. Those rules require the one-hour notice. That is what is involved in this particular issue. Mr.

Speaker, in the same sense, if there is a civil action, the plaintiff must file in the courthouse a statement of claim or an originating notice of motion. That doesn't mean that at the moment the filing takes place the matter is heard. Normally there is a period of time after the filing of the documentation, which brings the proceedings into play, for the defence to file a statement of defence, and the hearing would take place at some subsequent date when it's so determined in accordance with the practices of the court in which the claim is brought. In the same fashion, Mr.

Speaker, the process was commenced within the rules, within Standing Order 14(2), and at the moment that took place, the process left the confidentiality of the hon. member's mind and be­ came part of the process of the House; not part of the process of the hon. member, not part of the process of the Speaker, but part of the process of the House. As such MR. R. SPEAKER: It never got on the floor. MR. KOZIAK: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. The one-hour notice is the condition that determines whether or not it can get on the floor. The one-hour notice is the first requirement.

That one-hour notice was met and, at the moment it was met, the process was in place. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, in addressing a few com­ ments on the point of order, let me go right back to the very first citation you cited in our Standing Orders: In all contingencies unprovided for, the question will be decided by Mr. Speaker and, in making his ruling. Mr. Speaker shall base his decision on the usages and precedents of this Assembly and on parliamen­ tary tradition. Well, Mr. Speaker, there's no question about parliamen­ tary tradition with respect to a question of privilege.

Parliamentary tradition is simply this: there is no ques­ tion of privilege until such time as it is formally raised in this Legislative Assembly. As a matter of fact, there is no question of privilege, as one looks at the rules, Mr. Speaker, or reads Beauchesne or Erskine May, until such time as the Speaker decides there is a prima facie case of privilege. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I want to deal with the question of parliamentary tradition because you, sir, have based your decision to have this material run off at some expense and distributed to members of the Assembly on parlia­ mentary tradition, despite the fact that on Tuesday last there was not an opportunity for me to raise and address the matter in the normal way in this Assembly. Hon. members, including yourself, sir, have suggested that be­ cause the nature of an accusation was in a complaint, it was only fair that the "accused" be present. I think the hon. Speaker even referred to a prisoner in the dock. Well, Mr.

Speaker, let us look at parliamentary tradition, because you must be guided by it. What is the evidence of other assemblies? I think it's appropriate that we examine the evidence of other assemblies, particularly for mem­ bers of this House, because yesterday in the debate we had the alleged procedural expert of the Tory party, the Minister of Education . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I don't know how much parliamentary tradition the hon. member has in his hand, but he well knows that it is not appropriate to reflect on past debates of the Assembly, especially when they have been concluded by a vote.

So let's get back to the point. MR. NOTLEY: All right, Mr. Speaker. I certainly won't make any reference to the hon. Minister of Education and research he might well consider. But I want to refer to the issue at hand; that is, the question of raising a

November 26, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 1879 matter of privilege when the other individual is not pre­ sent, and the procedure followed as a consequence includ­ ing distribution of documents. Since you, sir, have based your explanation today on parliamentary tradition, I ask you then to advise the Assembly on what basis the October 27, 1977, question of privilege put by the hon. Member for Oshawa-Whitby to the hon. Prime Minister, Mr. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, was allowed to be put before the matter was held over so the Prime Minister could be present. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

Are we dealing now with the distribution of documents given to the Assembly through me or with something that has already been decided, appealed, and decided again? MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, we're dealing with a course of procedure in which it is proper for you to distribute documents. MR. SPEAKER: Fair enough. Let's deal with that. MR. NOTLEY: The second evidence I cite: on May 27, 1975, the Rt. Hon. John G. Diefenbaker raised a question of privilege related to the Prime Minister of Canada, who was not present.

The matter was put and held over until the Prime Minister was present, but it was put before any further action was taken. Now any further action taken means distributing material sent to the Speaker. Here's an example involving a close personal friend, I'm sure, of many members opposite, the hon. "Member for Calgary Centre, Mr. Harvie Andre. We could go on and on with so many examples of the procedure in other assemblies or parliaments. One could spend the rest of the afternoon citing examples. But the issue . . . MR. SPEAKER: I hesitate to interrupt.

But in order that the thing may be dealt with expeditiously, possibly the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview would be willing to enlighten the House with a few dozen of these multitu­ dinous precedents. MR. NOTLEY: If the hon. Speaker would like me to table this information, I'd be very pleased to do so. Mr. Speaker, the point that has to be made very clearly is with respect to your ruling that you are guided by the precedents of this Assembly and parliamentary tradition. It is very clear what parliamentary tradition is: there really isn't a question of privilege until it is raised in the House by a member.

There has to be a proponent. You are not the proponent. You are not raising a question of privilege. You are a servant of the Legislature. The prob­ lem we all have to deal with is that before information given to you as background material can be distributed, the literal and formal process followed in this House has to be consistent with other jurisdictions. When one looks at the record — whether it's the case of Mr. Diefenbaker in 1975, Mr. Broadbent in 1977, Mr. Andre in 1978, or other examples I could cite — the fact is, Mr.

Speaker, that in my judgment you are making another error by having this material distributed. I think that's regrettable in the extreme. DR. BUCK: Just briefly, Mr. Speaker, I would like one or two rulings from you, if I may receive them. MR. SPEAKER: Could we make one ruling at a time. We're now dealing with one involving the distribution of documents. DR. BUCK: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that's right. But that also has a spillover into what ruling was made by you previously. MR. SPEAKER: Which one was that?

I'm sorry to inter­ rupt the hon. member, but just to be practical and expeditious about the discussion, would he kindly inform the Assembly which ruling he's now talking about. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I'll be speaking on the distri­ bution of documents given to you. Before we were work­ ing on these present rules, as I remember, a member did not have to give one hour's notice. Now, Mr. Speaker, with the decision you have rendered on the Member for Spirit River-Fairview, where evidence was given to you that other members of the Assembly did not see, I would like your

interpretation. If I were the person giving you that information, does that mean we have now set the precedent that all that material would be distributed to all members of the Assembly? That is the first question. The second question: after the ruling on the distribu­ tion of material, will we be following

section 119 of Beau- chesne where: Speakers' rulings, once given, belong to the House which . . . must accept them without appeal or debate. Mr. Speaker, the second question I'm asking directly: will the Speaker now be in a position in every instance to make a ruling on a point of privilege as was done yesterday? Is that the procedure we're going to be follow­ ing in this House from now on? Is that the precedent? Because under rule 119, I understand we will be doing that. You, sir, with all respect, will now be deciding in your wisdom if it comes before the Assembly or not. MR.

SPEAKER: I'm sorry, I'm unable to identify the two points made by the hon. member. Could he just state them briefly and succinctly. Let's deal with the first and then with the second. DR. BUCK: Okay, Mr. Speaker. Let us set the scenario. An hon. member wishes to raise a point of privilege. He has documentation that he gives to you. As of this in­ stant, will you be distributing that information to all members of the Assembly before the hon. member moves it in the Assembly? That is the first question I would like answered. MR. SPEAKER: Certainly I'm going to deal with each case as it arises.

But if I get notice of a point of privilege about to be raised, get material in support of it, and am able to arrange to have that point of privilege dealt with on one occasion instead of several, especially if it deals with an absent member being charged, whether he be from any place in the province, Spirit River-Fairview, if you will . . . MR. NOTLEY: On a point of order, if I may. MR. SPEAKER: I hope I haven't said anything out of order. MR. NOTLEY: Yes, you certainly have.

1880 ALBERTA HANSARD November 26, 1981 MR. SPEAKER: Well, the hon. member will have an opportunity to say that. Let's just look at the simple fairness and essentials of this thing. A member gives me notice that he intends to say that something done by another member — and it doesn't matter whether or not he's prominent. The rights of prominent members of the Assembly, if that's not a bad expression, are just as great and no greater than those of unprominent members, if that be a proper [ex­ pression]. But they are not less; that's what I'm saying.

In any case, if I'm able to see that the question can be dealt with with all members on an equal footing and fully informed, then I'm going to do whatever I can to achieve that. If the information has been given to me in confi­ dence and it's expressly stated, then it may well be that the point of privilege may fail for lack of supporting information. As I say, you have to assess each situation on its merits. But let's just look at the simple essentials of this. The hon.

Member for Spirit River-Fairview has already said that after he had mentioned this information, which presumably was not known to other members, to the Assembly, he would then table it. That would mean this: the hon. member, having the information . . . [interjections] The hon. member has agreed that the Assembly should see the information. He proposes to table it. But he doesn't want to table it until he has had a chance to present it a first time, so that later on it's presented again.

Then if the hon. members are on an equal and fair footing, he gets another chance to present it, the first one being, you might say, a free run in the absence of the person accused. MR. R. SPEAKER: That's part of the system, free speech. MR. SPEAKER: Free speech is part of the system. A person's good name is part of the system. Fairness to all members of the Assembly is part of the system. To play poker with information so that you can play one of the cards before anybody else gets a chance to know what's in it is not part of the fairness of the system. DR. BUCK: Change the rules. MR.

SPEAKER: The rules of fairness have never been abrogated as far as I know, certainly not intentionally in regard to any parliament of the Westminster system. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I really think some of your comments . . . I really think you might review Hansard . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I must say that we've gone into the question very fully. As hon. members know and as I have mentioned previously, the Speaker is not supposed to debate — albeit I acknowledge it must look that way — but he is asked to give reasons. It's impossi­ ble to give reasons without appearing to debate.

I have given my reasons . . . SOME HON. MEMBERS: Citations. MR. SPEAKER: I gave my reasons. They're in Standing Order 2, "parliamentary tradition". I must respectfully say that I doubt very much the existence of multitudinous precedents against allowing all members to be equally informed about a matter that is going to be debated or discussed in the House. In any event, I've given my reasons, and I must respectfully say the matter is closed. CLERK: Motions other than Government Motions. MR. SPEAKER: Just before we proceed with that. I wonder if the Assembly would agree that the hon.

Minis­ ter of Government Services might revert to Introduction of Special Guests. HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS (reversion) MR. McCRAE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. On looking up at the members gallery I note a very special and distinguished visitor, a man with a very distinguished military record, a man with a very distinguished alder- manic record, and a man with a very distinguished record with a number of service organizations in Calgary. His record of achievement was recently recognized by the federal government with the designation of the Order of Canada award.

He is my good friend and associate, Mr. Mark Tennant. Mark, would you stand and be recog­ nized by the House. head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 217. Moved by Mr. Mandeville:

Be it resolved that this Assembly urge the government to accept responsibility to provide additional protection for Albertans from intolerably high interest rates so that Albertans can continue to afford housing, farmers can continue to farm, and businessmen can continue to con­ duct business. [Adjourned debate May 21: Mr. Notley] MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, in order that there'll be no misunderstanding, the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview indicated to me that he had to leave early today and sent me a note.

I didn't retain the note, but it seemed to me it said he had no objection if the matter was simply passed over as far as he was concerned. The Clerk couldn't know that. In light of that, I think the process now simply takes its course. MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry. I was distracted. I was trying to give the hon. Government House Leader another copy of the memo from the hon. Member for Spirit River- Fairview, who had the courtesy to provide me with a copy as well. I'm not sure I caught the purport of what the hon. minister was saying. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I thought I might be the only one with the information.

My memory of it was — I didn't retain a copy — that when 217 came up, the next speaker should simply go ahead. I assume that would be the case. MR. KOWALSKI: Mr. Speaker, it's been several days now since we had an opportunity to take a look at Motion 217. Prior to beginning my remarks this after­

November 26, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 1881 noon, I would like to go over the motion:

Be it resolved that this Assembly urge the govern­ ment to accept responsibility to provide additional protection for Albertans from intolerably high in­ terest rates so that Albertans can continue to af­ ford housing, farmers can continue to farm, and businessmen can continue to conduct business. One of the fascinating things about looking at the Canadian economy in 1981, as at any year in the past, is that one has to appreciate that the prime responsibility in this country for determination of interest rates rests with one level of government and one level alone: the federal government.

Of course in recent months each week on a Thursday a prime rate of interest is determined by an agency of that government, the Bank of Canada, and is widely publicized throughout the country as being the governing rate of interest for the following seven days. In that context, it's of interest to me that if a federal government chose, through this one particular agency, to encourage those who administer that agency on the basis of generalized situations existing in Canada and North America, they in fact are in a position to influence that interest rate.

Yesterday and in previous days we had a number of discussions in this House about the Canadian economy. It's amazing to me that the shared responsibility for inter­ est in this country — it should be suggested by some members of the House that this particular government is in a position to correct an interest rate that applies to Canada as a whole. It seems to me it would be very difficult at this time for this Assembly to suggest that the Canadian interest rate should be 10 per cent and see it actually implemented or, for that matter, suggest that it be 12 per cent and see it implemented on a national basis.

In remarks I gave on a previous motion on Tuesday of this week, I indicated that I was really quite concerned that the very time we're talking about interest rates in this country — and heaven knows, every Canadian citizen is concerned and very, very perturbed, and in fact hurt by a high level of interest rates. But as one individual member in the province of Alberta, it's amazing to me how we have seen the federal government turn its back on that bread and butter issue that concerns so many Canadians.

In fact just recently it took some $8 billion to $10 billion out of the Canadian economy with the issuance of the 1981 Canada savings bond at a guaranteed interest rate of 19.5 per cent for a minimum 12-month period. If any level of government goes to the public market to borrow money, it in fact is competing with its citizens in whatever environment that government is in. In this case, we have the most powerful agency in Canada, the government of Canada, going to a public market, taking out between $8 billion and $10 billion, and prepared to provide an inter­ est rate of 19.5 per cent guaranteed for one year.

It's hardly likely that any of us can look through at least the next 12 months and see any reduction in the prime inter­ est rate that currently exists in this country. It's remarka­ ble to me that this same government, which has the responsibility to move and see the Canadian economy come to a recoverable position, is competing with the citizens of this country on the one market. It's very, very horrendous.

As well, I think all hon. members appreciate the posi­ tion taken by the province of Alberta in recent months in indicating that one of the alternatives in looking at the future is to move away from a tracking of an American interest rate in North America and have that tracking apply to Canada as such. There are advantages, because the government of Canada can review its interest rate every week, in looking at a longer term review and coming up with a new kind of policy that would see Canadian interest rates follow a Canadian mechanism rather than simply track an American mechanism.

Surely if all members take a look at the European situation, where you have a number of freely independent countries, all with their own basic economic institutions, environ­ ments, policies, and procedures, they do not track one another in their basic interest rates.

At any given time, if one were to hop in a plane today and fly, first of all, to the United Kingdom and then to the Netherlands, Luxe­ mbourg, Belgium, West Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Austria, and make the Royal tour, he or she would find that the interest rate in any one of those countries is different and, rather remarkably, that the difference in the interest rate between two countries might be as high as 10, 12, or 13 points.

Certainly, if you take a look at the prime interest rate currently being utilized in Austria, as compared to the interest rate the citizens of Italy have to follow, the difference is very, very substantial indeed. Mr. Speaker, basically my point is this: Canada does not have to track American interest rates. We all recog­ nize that if Canada were to work away from that policy and adopt a new policy, some negative short-term im­ pacts might accrue to the Canadian economy. An ex­ ample would be this.

If Canada were to adopt its own policy and say, let's find what the rate of inflation is and add three points to it — if the rate of inflation is 11 per cent and we add three points, we say that 14 per cent then becomes the prime interest rate for the people of Canada. If the American interest rate continues to be higher than that, of course we will have a short-term negative impact. In all likelihood, investment dollars would flow from this country to the United States.

Perhaps a second negative would also occur, and that would be that the value of the Canadian dollar compared to the American dollar might drop from its current level of approximately 84.5 cents. But we have to recognize those two negatives when we recognize the positive aspects that also accrue to that.

It's time that serious economists on a Canadian national level start looking at the longer term implica­ tions of allowing a Canadian interest rate to immediately track the American interest rate, and at the positive environments that might occur to the Canadian economic environment if in fact a new policy were to be adopted in that regard. Mr. Speaker, with respect to the interest rate, I don't know how the government of Alberta can accept respon­ sibility for what is happening on a national level. That's simply impossible.

There's no way in the world that the people of Alberta can be in a position to accept that responsibility. This government is not responsible for set­ ting that rate. Secondly, I don't know if the hon. member who moved the motion is suggesting that the government of Alberta provide a nation-wide subsidy to assist Cana­ dians in meeting these high interest rates being created by a national government that has forsaken its interest in the people. The province has done a number of things to negate the impact of high interest rates upon its own citizens.

We can take a look at a number of areas in which this government has already moved with respect to this and be very, very proud. This afternoon I'd like to make a few brief comments about one area of direction, agriculture in this province, and look at a number of programs that have been in­ itiated by policy of government and, secondly, by imple­ mentation through the Agricultural Development Corpo­

1882 ALBERTA HANSARD November 26, 1981 ration. If you look at the funds that might be available, unfortunately it is almost impossible to assist every indi­ vidual, every request, in any particular sector of this province. As always, this government has indicated a certain degree of compassion by helping those who per­ haps do need some help. By policy, a number of devel­ opments have occurred in the agricultural sector in recent years that should not be forgotten. I simply want to highlight some of them today. [Mr.

Appleby in the Chair] If we take a look at the economic situation concerned with agriculture in this province over the last year, just recently we were fortunate to have been issued the 1980- 81 annual report of the Agricultural Development Corpo­ ration. If you take a look at some of the highlights that occurred over the last fiscal year, the contribution to agriculture in this province is rather important and signif­ icant.

It's important for all members to appreciate, to recognize once again, that a considerable number of agri­ cultural producers in this province have been assisted in the fiscal year just mentioned. I'd like to point out that one of the very remarkable things that occurred in the recent federal budget was Canada-wide assistance to the Farm Credit Corporation of $50 million more than the amount of money that was to be available to Canadian agriculture. Not too many weeks ago, Mr. Whelan, the federal Minister of Agriculture, indicated that he would resign if there was no help forthcoming to Canada-wide agriculture.

Of course, agricultural producers across the country cheered wildly at the thought that Mr. Whelan would resign. To his self-preservation, his colleague the federal finance minister announced there would be some funds available to assist Canada-wide agriculture. In a great amount of publicity, we found that in fact the Farm Credit Corporation lending limits would be increased by the total sum of $50 million.

If you recognize that the average loan to agriculture is in the neighborhood of $200,000, take out a pencil, cross out the zeros, and finally come up with a figure, you realize that with a $200,000 Canada-wide loan, if we're lucky maybe 250 farm-producing families in this country can be helped by the new approaches of the federal budget on a Canadian national level.

On the same day the federal Minister of Agriculture made his remarkable statement that he would resign if there was no help forthcoming for Canadian agriculture, the interest rate followed by the Farm Credit Corporation moved from 12 or 13 per cent to 16.75 per cent. They jumped it, and that minister certainly was in a position to have done something about it. At almost the same time as he told all Canadians he would resign if no help was forthcoming, he saw a rise in interest rates through his own agency, the federal Department of Agriculture. I'm very, very skeptical as to the honesty of that type of approach.

Fortunately, the amount of help provided in Alberta to our agricultural producers is rather large, on a compara­ tive scale, to what's being offered by the federal govern­ ment. Fortunately for Alberta producers, that is availa­ ble.

On an overview, one might argue that this type of financial assistance should come primarily from a federal government and really a provincial government should not be in a position to provide massive amounts of assist­ ance, subsidies, or reduced interest rates to producers in one particular sector because what provinces should not do in this country is use their treasuries to see one province compete with another province. There are some negatives in the long term if that is to be continued.

If you look at the long-term ability of Alberta in many ways to provide low-cost money to some of its citizens, Alberta literally could blow a number of agricultural producers off the map in this country if it chose to use the weight of its Treasury in competition with the weight of the trea­ suries of other provinces. We simply can't do that. That would be un-Canadian, I think. In the long term, it would be unfortunate for the preservation of the Canadian unity that all of us treasure.

If we take a look at some of the approaches made by the agricultural corporation in Alberta over the 12 months from April 1, 1980, to March 31, 1981, some of the highlights need to be mentioned. I want to mention them, in recognition of the fact of this recent "major" announcement by the federal government of assisting 250 farmers Canada-wide. Mr. Speaker, it has to be noted that if you take a look at the total financial assistance in the form of direct loans and loan guarantees in that fiscal year I just mentioned, the amount was some $261.2 million. It was distributed in a number of ways.

On April 1, 1980, we announced that a beginning farmers program was going to be available to young farmers in the province of Alberta. The basic figures are that 1,007 beginning farmer loans were made available in that fiscal year, for young producers in this province, at a total cost of $145.3 million. There were some real advantages about moving in that direction.

All members will recall that in terms of assist­ ing young beginning farmers in this program, the basic philosophy of the Agricultural Development Corporation of being a lender of last resort was modified so as to allow loans to be made out with less of an emphasis on lender of last resort. It's also my understanding that, in addition to helping these 1,007 young producers, in one year the program saw a remarkable reduction in the average age of produc­ ing farmers in this province.

If my figures are correct, in that one year the average age of a farmer in this province was reduced by nearly 10 years because of this new initia­ tion in this new program. While previous to 1980 the average age of a producing farmer in the province was some 55 years, by the early part of 1981 that age level had been reduced to some 45 years. If we are looking at agriculture in the long term, we must look at seeing new people prepared to take the risk, spend the long hours, take the weather and market fluctuations, and commit themselves to agriculture 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Mr.

Speaker, if we look at the assistance provided by the Agricultural Development Corporation in the fiscal year I've already mentioned, it's also of interest that in addition to the 1,007 beginning farmer loans made, 292 direct farm loans were made at a total cost of $34.1 million. Twenty-five direct agribusiness loans were made, for a total cost of $3.8 million. Forty-one specific guaran­ teed farm loans were made, for $2.4 million, and 12 specific guaranteed agribusiness loans were made, for a total of $6.1 million.

In addition to that, 5,405 Alberta farm development loans, amounting to some $69.5 mil­ lion, were accomplished and accommodated. That's a remarkable record for one agency of one provincial gov­ ernment located in the country of Canada. It has to be repeated that no funds are available province-wide to help each individual in this province. But there is a very, very massive commitment through the Agricultural Development Corporation to attempt to help as many of our farmers from the total brunt of

November 26, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 1883 economic policies fostered upon them by a federal gov­ ernment which, unfortunately, all too often seems to have forgotten that there is a part of Canada known as the west, where agriculture is pretty important, has been very important in the past, and will continue to be very important in the future because of some of the policies of this provincial government. We have not accepted a responsibility for the high interest rates, but we have accepted a responsibility for attempting to mitigate some of that impact on some of our citizens in this province.

I don't know what will happen to the interest rate situation in the future. But one thing is clear: it would be very, very difficult for anybody to stand up on this particular day in November 1981 and very enthusiastically or positively say that if we look six months in the future we can see a reduction of the Canadian interest rate to 11 per cent, 10 per cent, or 12 per cent. It's impossible for me to look into the future and suggest that anything will happen other than that we will see a rise in the prime interest rate in this country.

I don't know how anybody who looks at the economic situation, who sees a federal government at a total operat­ ing and capital expenditure level in this fiscal year, the one just announced by the hon. Mr. MacEachen — a budget that will rise to some $74.5 billion, with a deficit of over $10 billion. That's not an accumulated deficit; that's a deficit for the fiscal year we're in.

In addition, that same government, which will spend $10.5 billion more than it will have funds coming in, will have to go again to the public market — the same market to which individuals across this country have to go to get consum­ er loans for a whole variety of situations — and will have to compete with the citizens of this country in the one market. There is no way that the Canadian interest rate can be reduced in that scenario. That's darned unfortunate. [Mr. Purdy in the Chair] So I repeat once again, not to be redundant, that there is need for a new policy with respect to Canadian interest rates.

That policy has to be a major commitment of the federal government, and it must be directed for the short term, the medium term, and the long term. There is no reason why Canadian interest rates have to track Ameri­ can interest rates. The federal government can reduce its own expenditure level by choice. It can do that in a variety of ways, and they've been well explained by members of this Assembly in days past, and certainly by Alberta MPs who are currently represented in the federal House of Commons.

Secondly, by cutting and curbing its own expenditure level, the federal government can also recognize that we could be hurt in the short term. But in the longer term, it would work to the benefit of Canada if we created our own interest rate policy and if we followed a mechanism of, one, determining what the rate of inflation is and, two, determining — well, let's try a subjective mechanism of adding several points to whatever that prime interest rate is and say, this is a made-in-Canada interest rate. We can move on that particular item, and we can do that in the short term.

Sure, there'll be some howls, some panic, and some people saying Canadian dollars will flow out of the country and the Canadian dollar will actually reduce itself in value compared to the American dollar. While there is a risk factor to that, there are also longer term benefits because it will allow Canadian exports to im­ prove. Our products will be more competitive on a worldwide basis. Mr. Speaker, last of all, the federal government has to recognize that the prime concern, the priority issue, in the country of Canada is an economic one. We have just concluded a remarkable debate on the constitution.

For­ tunately, a positive consensus was reached in this coun­ try, and now we can look to the future with a new constitution behind us. In the last several months, we concluded an energy agreement. Fortunately, for the ben­ efit of all Canadians and all Albertans, there is going to be stability in that particular area, at least through to the end of 1986.

On that basis of consensus, positive improvement, it's now time for the federal government to say, let's now address ourselves to the economic situation of this coun­ try; let's find new directions which will be of benefit to the millions of men, women, and children in this country, and which basically will have one objective in mind: to improve the amount of disposable income each Canadian citizen will have at the end of every month. The objective should not be to rob Canadians of increasing amounts of dollars.

In consultation with all provincial governments, the federal government must come out and dramatically say: look, we believe in Canadians, and we believe Cana­ dians should be making their own economic decisions to a greater degree than they are now; we do not believe government should make an increasing number of eco­ nomic decisions on behalf of citizens, and basically the only way we can do that is to allow each and every Canadian, at the end of each and every month, to see the amount of his disposable income increased.

That can only occur through reducing and slashing taxes and federal government expenditures in a number of areas. I think Canadians believe they are competent people; I think Canadians know they are competent people. Cana­ dians want to make their own economic decisions.

They don't want to look forever at big brother government that says, don't worry about it; just give us 2 or 3 percentage points more, and let us tax you more for gas and fuel: let us do all those things for you because at the end of the year we'll create all these positive programs, reshuffle the money, make you become more and more dependent on big brother government, and in essence you'll be happier because you'll have fewer worries.

We need to establish confidence in Canada in the next very short term, basically to let Canadians know that in 1990 or 2000 people in this country are responsible; Canadians can make decisions for themselves, and they want to see less government. Mr. Speaker, it's unfortu­ nate that we're really only two years away from that famous year made public in the late 1940s by an English writer named George Orwell. Of course, that year is 1984.

I fear that unless there is change at the national level, unfortunately we will become increasingly close to the concepts outlined in that book when we finally arrive at the year 1984. That would be wrong, remarkably wrong. It would be economically disturbing. Unfortunately, Canada would go down the road of state socialism on which the world's foremost democracy, the United King­ dom, has now found itself. Thank you. MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to comment with regard to this motion by the Member for Bow Valley.

I've known the member for six years, and I've known him to be a very sincere man who always has the interests of his constituents at heart. He may just view my comments today as being somewhat at opposite ends to

1884 ALBERTA HANSARD November 26, 1981 how I perceive him in his role as a member of the Assembly looking after the interests of those constituents. Looking at the Order Paper, I have some difficulty recognizing that the Member for Spirit River-Fairview, a man who we all know is in many ways a champion of the Albertan, is not here today. I really don't understand why, because I generally look forward with interest to the comments he makes on how this government should conduct its affairs.

I listened with interest to the Member for Barrhead spelling out in great detail what the gov­ ernment of Canada should be doing to Canada. I have enough trouble doing my job here, so I really am not in a position to attempt to tell the government of Canada what it should or shouldn't do. Like others, I participate by electing people to go there to do that job.

I'd like to restrict my comments today to those areas that involve my area of responsibility as a member of this Assembly, and speak to the motion from the point of view of the words: . . . the government to accept responsibility to pro­ vide additional protection for Albertans from into­ lerably high interest rates so that Albertans can con­ tinue to afford housing, farmers can continue to farm, and businessmen can continue to conduct business. The operative words are "accept responsibility". That's the

part I have difficulty with, Mr. Speaker. When things don't go right, it's so often the case to point the finger and blame somebody else, as does the Member for Spirit River-Fairview, all the time ignoring that every time he points his finger at anybody, three fingers are pointed back at him. I think that's important to remember when we start getting on our high horses and blaming govern­ ment at any level for not carrying out its responsibility. It's like a fellow named Joe — I think I heard this before from somebody in this House — who had 11 children and was having great difficulty.

He said to himself: on two jobs a day I can't possibly manage any more than 11 children; if anything happens and we have another one, I'll just have to end it all. Sure enough, he was greeted one evening by the news from his wife that indeed there was going to be good news in about eight months. He was somewhat distraught, went in the woods, stood on a box, threw a rope over the tree branch, and put it around his head. He was just about to step off the box when a little voice in his head said, Joe, are you hanging the right man?

I've often wondered about that, because for some reason here we are today thinking we as citizens of this great province of Alberta can turn around and accept no responsibility for this situation we are in. What is the responsibility of government? I always understood that the responsibility of government was to function economically in those areas where it was not economically feasible, possible, or practicable for the pri­ vate sector to function. I am referring to such matters as building highways, defending the country, perhaps mail­ ing letters: those kinds of things.

More important, what is the responsibility of the citi­ zen? Surely we as members of the Assembly are wise enough to know that you can't take more out of a system than you put in. Yet day after day, we attempt to do that very thing. The Member for Barrhead talked about the great role ADC is doing. I think they've now lent $0.75 billion. Surely it's recognized that young farmers cannot be expected to get into farming without borrowing money. That's a given.

The Alberta Opportunity Com­ pany: no question that each year we in this House subsi­ dize the interest rate by $5 million, $6 million, $7 million, or $8 million, to allow businessmen who have the exper­ tise, knowledge, and courage to risk their life savings to go into a venture. I think we take a lot of chances. I question whether we should be going much further, though. What's the responsibility of the consumer? No one wants to talk about him or her. There seems to be that psychology that if I don't have it today, it's going to be higher tomorrow; so I'd better buy it today.

No question about whether I'm able to buy it today. I know most members of this Assembly have spouses. Many of them shop at Sears, Eaton's, or Woodwards. I've been married for 30 years, and for 31 years my wife has had a Sears credit card on the layaway plan — pay so much every month. I wonder how many members of this Assembly today are aware that those good people — and they are good people — charge 28.4 per cent interest. That means that of every $100 you buy, $28.40 is interest. Do I hear anybody complaining to Sears or Eaton's?

By gosh, you just raise things one little bit around government, and you get marches on the Legislature, people writing letters, and all kinds of people, including members of this Assembly, saying that government should accept respon­ sibility. Well, I have some trouble with that, and I hope other members do as well. Let's just look at the facts, and I don't want to confuse anybody with them. When I mention these things, I'm sure I'm going to hear from somebody saying, don't confuse me with the facts, Gogo. A million people in Alberta are working. How tough can times get? We have almost two million cars.

We've been psyched up not to use rapid transit, not to use public facilities. We're all psyched up that we have to use a car. Fair enough. We have 0.25 million recreational trailers; one of every four working Albertans owns a recreational trailer. We must have it tough. I just hope to gosh they all don't get on the road at the same time. We'll hear people say, they bought them on time when rates weren't so high. Now that rates are high we should blame Ottawa or somebody, or get this Assembly all riled up to find subsidies to bail these people out. I have great trouble with that.

I don't know whether it can be proven; I've asked somebody to find out. But I've been told that a major chain store — I don't have to mention its name — sells 65 per cent of all the groceries in this province, plus anti­ freeze, cement blocks, and all those other things that have suddenly become part of food. People cry about the cost of food because they come out of that store, known as a food store, with everything else in there. The third largest item they sell in that place is pet food. You and I know they only sell it because they make a buck, because people buy it. We complain about the cost of living.

Those who have the nerve to listen to CBC — it's not the most popular thing around here to admit that. With grain prices, cattle prices, and so on, there's no argument that the producers of the province are not getting a fair deal. On the other hand, prices were never higher. People still have too much month left at the end of their money. They have to blame somebody because they won't blame themselves. They look to government and say, will you bail me out? Is housing expensive? I hear it day after day. House prices in Alberta are three to five times annual income.

I bought my first house in I960, and it was three times annual income. So, are house prices high today? I'll get to affordability and interest rates in a moment. Yet are they really high? How often do we blame people in Alberta, whoever people in Alberta are, for excessive house prices.

November 26, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 1885 Members of this Assembly are well aware that a variety of regulations and endorsation of policies allows Edmon­ ton to have 125 planners when Houston, Texas, has three to develop plans that end up costing horrendous amounts of money, which translated has to end up coming out of the consumer's pocket. I think we're well aware of that. Based on that, we know rents where I come from are going to have to double in the next 18 months or two years; no question. Some builders have now become like farmers. They're tired of going broke, so they're not building anymore.

That's reality. I simply suggest that Albertans — our constituents, our consumers — are going to have to be prepared to set some priorities in life. Not long ago, I read a study by the senate of the U of A that said 80 per cent of all rural Alberta children didn't have adequate dental care. I thought, aren't they stupid out there. Then I talked to my own dentist in Lethbridge, Alberta. Sixty-five per cent of Lethbridge children need dental care. Why? Is it because there aren't enough dentists? No.

By the time people get to the end of what they want to spend their money on, if their kids don't have a toothache, the teeth don't get looked at. Surely, a lot of this has to do with our respon­ sibilities as parents and as citizens, to accept some re­ sponsibility for our destiny. You all know that I have great difficulty accepting in principle the fact that we're going to bail anybody out in the form of a subsidy, particularly if it's a rancher who owns $2 million worth of land, using the argument that we want the industry to survive.

I've said before that I'm more than prepared to assist there, on the same basis as everything else. If there's personal hardship, show me your income tax return and I will consider it the same as I do for housing programs, this program, that program. Okay, that's not proper; it's not agreed to. Fine. But that's how I feel. One of the few liberties you have under this dome, under The Legislative Assembly Act, is that you can't be arrested for saying what you think. I think that's important. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to comment a bit on interest rates.

I don't profess to be an expert, but time after time I hear people saying the federal government should do this or that. By the end of this debate, I hope I'll be better informed in that area after I make these comments. I understand that by statute, the government of Canada expends 85 per cent of its revenue on mandatory pro­ grams. The Member for Barrhead had a good point: cut taxes. That's a great idea. Where do we start? The $4 billion unemployment insurance: is that a good place to start? Or would you rather take the $4.5 billion old age pension? You're over 50 yourself; you mean the child allowance.

You'd like that to go. Where does the gov­ ernment of Canada cut? I don't know, but I think that's their job. Why are they following the policy they are, which I personally believe is wrong. But does it hurt to try to understand why? On the one hand we have people — he's not in the House now, but his federal counterpart even talks about exchange controls. I was in Sri Lanka this year when interest rates in Canada were 13 per cent. In Sri Lanka they were 28 per cent. There had to be a fly in the ointment. What was it?

There was no fly in the ointment except this: once you put your money in that country you couldn't get it out. It's fair to talk about keeping low interest rates in Canada by putting in exchange controls, thereby limiting the export of capital. What happens? Surely there are enough examples around to tell us what happens when you put in exchange controls. If you don't think an 84-cent dollar is serious, try a 54-cent dollar. The value of your dollar is always relative to something; it's relative to the confidence other countries have. People should think very carefully about that kind of talk.

Further to that argument, obviously you are going to get: yes, but the lower dollar makes what you have to sell so much more attractive to other people outside your country. That's true. But what do we sell outside our country? The Ontario manufacturing sector is now at capacity. There's a 20-cent bargain for outside Canada purchasers to buy our stuff, and it's no good now because it's not cheap enough. With the exception of one or two in southeastern Ontario where the reality has set in — they've said, I'll pay $100,000 for a combine but no more; even if you put five wheels on it, I won't pay more.

Here in Canada, we have no option unless we're pre­ pared to take a realistic reduction, by probably 25 per cent, on the demands we put on our municipal, provincial and federal governments. In other words, we either in­ crease productivity, put more into the system than we take out, or we take less out. I don't have the latest figures here, but I understand we still import over 400,000 barrels of oil a day in this country to keep the machines going. We set policies in Alberta. We say that after next year, Edmonton can't use natural gas for power; you have to use coal. That has become a policy in this province.

Yet I'm sure all members know that 95 per cent of the generation of electricity for the whole of the maritimes is oil. What kind of oil? Fifty dollar oil and forty-four dollar oil. It doesn't need any great imagination to recog­ nize that if you're going to pay that kind of money to bring the stuff in, you're going to have to sell something just as expensive going out of the country or you have the balance of payments deficit the hon. Member for Barr­ head was talking about.

I don't pretend to know the answer, but I'll say this: if we as leaders in the province, as good citizens, begin to practise within our own lives some of those very things that will increase our standard of living without further outlays, i.e. don't be afraid to get our hands dirty by having a garden to raise a few vegetables — that used to be an honorable thing to do. Twenty-five years ago, an honorable person was a square shooter. Today, he's an oddball. That's how times have changed. The rate of savings in Canada is now 10 per cent.

Why is it 10 per cent when Japan is 22 per cent and West Germany is 15 per cent? Obviously, it's because people have lost confidence. Why should I save today? It's not going to be worth anything tomorrow. That's a psycho­ logical thing, an attitudinal thing. How do we change it? I think we have to change it by example.

I can't think of a better example or a better place to start than in the province of Alberta, by encouraging the citizens of Alber­ ta to be responsible for themselves, to exercise some degree of financial and fiscal responsibility, and to impart that kind of financial responsibility to their children. Although we number only about 10 per cent of Canada's people, surely we've been the focal point for some time now in Canada. Many people are looking at us.

If we set that example for other Canadians to follow, for other Canadians not to have those high expectations, in the long run all Canada, certainly all Alberta, will be better off. Thanks very much. MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, initially I had looked forward with no hesitation to joining this debate this

1886 ALBERTA HANSARD November 26, 1981 afternoon, but after having heard the very eloquent words of the Member for Lethbridge West I must admit I now approach it with some degree of trepidation. His remarks were volcanic, inspirational and, in very large measure, accurate when he spoke of the need for individual respon­ sibility and emphasized the importance of trying to re­ duce the expectations of citizens if we are really going to win the battle against inflation. [Mr.

Appleby in the Chair] I won't seek to embellish the particular tack the hon. member took, because I don't think I could improve upon it in any manner whatsoever. But I want to say a few words, perhaps of a somewhat more general nature, about Motion No. 217. I think the motion is clearly appropriate to be in front of persons involved in govern­ ment office, because it's an issue very much in the minds of our constituents.

The fact is that regardless of where the fault lies, if we can single out one body that's respon­ sible, very often the constituents don't look at it in such a narrow way but simply recognize that there is a problem and, rightly or wrongly, look to government to provide some measures to ameliorate the situation or eliminate the problem if possible. As we all recognize, interest rates have declined rather dramatically in the last number of weeks. I think the extent to which they have dropped comes as a surprise to many so-called experts in the field as well as the man on the street.

It's been a very welcome surprise, but I wouldn't for a moment suggest that the situation is no longer of concern. When I'm not in this Assembly or trying to carry out my responsibilities in my constituency as a member of the Legislative Assembly, I earn a little extra income as a real estate lawyer in the city of Calgary. I think I should pass on to members of the Assembly the perspective I get from my clients endeavoring to buy homes. Rather than being faced, as they were a couple of months ago, with rates in the 22 to 25 per cent range for a first mortgage, there has been a dramatic decline.

Today, I think you could find a first mortgage at a rate of approximately 17 to 17.25 per cent. What's really quite frightening is that by comparison to what we've been faced with in the last number of months, it looks pretty good. However, the fact is that the high level of interest rates, as they affect mortgages and the accessibility of mortgages, is a real impediment to Albertans being able to purchase a home and, in that regard, is entirely unsatisfactory. The hon. Member for Lethbridge West spoke at some length on the question of responsibility and who should accept it.

I think he properly addressed that question inasmuch as the resolution urges this government to accept that responsibility. The point was made most ef­ fectively that if there is responsibility — and surely there is on a disease as serious and as set into our society as inflation — a high measure of responsibility has to be accepted by us as individual citizens of this province and country. The fact is that we do like to enjoy the good life, if you will, and have all the amenities that are viewed nowadays more as necessities than luxuries. But, as I said, I don't intend to dwell on that aspect of the issue.

I want to talk more in the context of the various levels of government. While it's fine to say there is a question of individual responsibility, the reality is that we as members of government, whether at the municipal, provincial, or federal level, are expected to and must respond to the various serious situations our constituents are confronted with and, undeniably, high interest rates are uppermost in many citizens' minds at this time. As mentioned by the Member for Barrhead, interest rates in this country are in no way set by a provincial government. In fact, they are set each Thursday by the Bank of Canada.

In a sense, there is an involvement on the part of the government of Canada. I note with some curiosity the fact that as American interest rates were rising some months ago, there was rather a lock-step approach on the part of the Bank of Canada to quickly meet those increases. Particularly troubling right now is that as those rates decline, we hear that the Bank of Canada is intervening to slow down the level of the drop of interest rates. It's suggested that to the extent that is happening, it's to give more moderation, if you will, to the zigs and zags of interest rates.

However, I just fail to understand why the anxiety is there to do it while they're on the way down but not while they're on the way up. Be that as it may, there can be no argument about the fact that if we're looking at government and talking about governmental responsibility for interest rates, we must look at the government in Ottawa because that is a prime area of their jurisdiction. The federal government would suggest that to the extent we have high and unacceptable interest rates, they are compelled to accept those rates because of the level of interest rates in our neighbor to the south, the United States.

Related to that, it's argued by federal government officials that high interest rates are crucial in the fight to beat inflation and knock it to the ground. It's been said before in this House, and I would endorse the position, that positive economic measures can be taken by the federal government to reduce that lock- step link with the United States insofar as interest rates are concerned. The outstanding example of that is of course in the export field as it relates to natural gas.

It was mentioned earlier that our manufacturing sector, par­ ticularly in central Canada, is operating at full capacity, which in a sense is a rather sad testimony to the state of mechanization of this country and the modernization of our industry. But that certainly isn't the case insofar as the natural gas field is concerned. In the last number of months, there have been some very disconcerting federal pronouncements from the Na­ tional Energy Board in terms of expanded export for natural gas, the so-called deliverability test, which has been criticized on many occasions and justifiably so.

It's certainly the hope of this hon. member that at the next hearings of the National Energy Board, we're going to see an awakening, if you will. I sense from some recent media attention that that may occur — I underline "may" — and that we may see expansion of the export of natural gas, which we have in tremendous surplus in this prov­ ince, in British Columbia, and to a lesser extent in other areas of the country.

There's no denying that if this country were able to improve its balance of trade — and that's one area where we could do it very easily and with absolutely no danger to domestic supply — it would give us some assistance in trying to free ourselves from the financial constraints imposed through interest rates of the United States. But I'm not going to try to suggest to hon. members that we as a country can operate as an island unto ourselves. It's not true. I believe we are impacted by international affairs. That brings me to my perspective of the real problem with interest rates in Canada.

As much as anything else, it really relates to the significant deterioration in the level of confidence in the Canadian economy by the international community. Perhaps the best evidence of that reality is

November 26, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 1887 the fact that in the last number of months Canadian interest rates have not only been marching lock-step with American rates, they have been higher. With the devalued dollar, Canadians have been expected to accept interest rates that are markedly higher than those paid by citizens of the United States. They've been higher because the government, through the Bank of Canada, has been concerned that if such were not the case, the value of the Canadian dollar would deteriorate even further.

I suppose the real question is: do high interest rates work in fighting the battle against inflation? For some time, it has been the opinion of this hon. member that the strategy is of some dubious value. The strategy is suspect.

In fact, there have been some recent pronouncements by a no less distinguished body than the Economic Council of Canada that the high level of interest rates have not curbed demand nearly to the extent anticipated, and that the net effect of high interest rates, and these are the words of the Economic Council of Canada might be, in the medium run, rather than to reduce inflation, to increase inflation. That's a very, very troubling statement to be made by so distinguished a body. But when one examines the state­ ment, one recognizes some considerable truth in it.

The fact of the matter is that in certain instances, individual Canadians are unable to avoid borrowing money. The small business man who needs a line of credit to carry on his day to day business activities, order his stock for inventory, and operate with an accounts, receivable ar­ rangement, which is the norm in the business community, simply must have access to borrowed moneys to carry on his affairs. The individual home-owner has no choice about whether to borrow money to buy a home.

Three or five years ago, they may have taken out a mortgage loan at a time when interest rates were markedly lower, and done so on what was viewed at that time as a very prudent basis, having carefully examined the extent of their financial commitments and, on the basis of a small "c" conservative evaluation of their financial expectations over the next years, gone out and borrowed that money.

They recognized it wouldn't be paid off in five years but that a mortgage is normally a loan for 20 or 25 years and that they would be faced with renewal of that loan five years down the road, but never dreaming — and I don't think we could realistically expect them to have imagined that rates would skyrocket the way they have. The same is true of the small business man who made what was in fact a very prudent business decision, estab­ lished a moderate line of credit with the lending institu­ tion, and never dreamed that interest rates would hit the ceiling as they have in the last number of months.

But having made those decisions, in a sense they are now irreversible. I suppose they're not irreversible if the home­ owner wants to surrender their home, sell it, and move to rented accommodation if they can find it in the province of Alberta, particularly in either Calgary or Edmonton. I suppose it's not an irreversible decision for the small business man if he wants to close the doors and look for employment with another company. But I don't think it's reasonable to expect Canadians in either situation to adopt those courses of action. The same is true of the farmer.

So to some extent, I must take modest issue with some statements by the hon. Member for Lethbridge West, because I think government has a responsibility to try to assist Albertans who have made reasonable business deci­ sions. The fact is that this government has done a great deal in that regard. I intend to deal with that in a moment if time permits. I also mention that it's not only such a body as the Economic Council of Canada which has expressed real reservations about the merits of fighting inflation through high interest rates, but one of the key spokesmen for businessmen in Canada, Mr.

John Bul­ lock, president of the Canadian Federation of Independ­ ent Business, has expressed the very same kind of reserva­ tion. I submit to hon. members that the argument ad­ vanced by both organizations and by many other Cana­ dians warrants some real consideration.

In the face of all these excruciating interest rates — whether they be mortgage loans, commercial loans, or consumer credit loans which are already in place and fluctuate with changing interest rates — there had been some hope on the part of this hon. member that the federal budget recently brought down would provide for the country the kind of economic direction that I believe has been lacking for the last period of time.

It was hoped the budget would be cognizant of the situation of indi­ vidual Canadians and would adopt measures designed to stimulate the economy, to get the economy going, to deal with the high level of unemployment in other areas of this country. So it was with a great sense of disappointment that I heard the budget and read statements about the contents of that budget. Recently, I had the opportunity to obtain a review of the impact of the federal budget by one of the major financial houses that operates in this country.

It's fair to say that the norm in the industry is to speak in somewhat measured tones about a budget. But when I examined the contents, I was somewhat taken aback, but not surprised, by the kinds of statements that were made about that budget, its implications, and the implications for interest rates in this country; statements like: "The Department of Finance . . . has dealt a stinging blow to . . . the economy". I should give hon. members the bene­ fit of the authorship of this report; it was the Pitfield MacKay Ross organization.

Talking about an economic overview of the country: In a single stroke the Minister has delivered a body blow to both the economy and the capital markets. The Minister seriously proposes a major reduction . . . in the midst of a full-scale recession. The attempt will definitely fail and almost certainly on a grand scale. Now those are pretty stinging words from a very estab­ lished financial institution.

The fact of the matter is that as much as we were all hoping the budget would provide some direction and some real indication that the federal government has fin­ ally come to grips with the economic realities that face this country, it's simply not there. It would appear that Canada is going to remain adrift nationally in terms of economic policy. To the extent that interest rates have ameliorated in recent months, it's only because that has happened in the United States.

If there is a significant increase in the United States' rates in the months to come, we're going to be faced with exactly the same kind of situation in Canada that we faced in the last couple of months. I suggested earlier that like it or not, we in Alberta are affected by the implications of the federal policy or lack of federal policy. I'm not going to take time to recite the various kinds of programs already in place by this gov­ ernment, in particular in the areas of housing, farming, and small business, because I think they're reasonably well known.

But it is fair to say that there has been a massive involvement of government and, in the minds of

1888 ALBERTA HANSARD November 26, 1981 some, much too great an involvement; for example, in the area of housing, where we have some $1.7 billion from the heritage fund dedicated to housing programs for Albertans. I simply suggest to hon. members that in the past there has been a great deal of action by the government to assist those looking for affordable housing, to assist farmers, from the beginning farmers programs through the Agricultural Development Corporation and the many programs that operate through that regime, and to some extent the businessman.

But I want to be candid with the House and suggest that if we don't see some dramatic movement away from that budget proposal, if we don't see some real economic direction provided on a national level by the federal government, like it or not the pres­ sures on this government in the housing field and in all other aspects of the economic life of this province are going to increase. Those pressures are going to be there, perhaps more on this provincial government than others because of the perception in the minds of many Albertans that we are a province and a government of infinite wealth.

We as members of this Assembly recognize that isn't so, that there are extremely finite limits to the amount of financial resources we have available to us. I think we all have to do a better job of communicating to our individual con­ stituents the financial situation we face as a government and as a province. The fact of the matter is that while the Heritage Savings Trust Fund is inevitably a focal point of attention and the first area where the finger is pointed when people are looking for more money from govern­ ment, we in this Assembly know that the bulk of those funds in the heritage fund are committed.

As I mentioned a moment ago, we have some $1.7 billion in the housing field. We have commitments in Kananaskis park and Fish Creek park, and the list goes on and on to the extent that there really is about $1.5 billion of readily accessible dollars, those being invested in more short-term securities. I suggest to hon. members that with the tremendous economic uncertainty our country faces in light of the financial programs, such as they are, of the federal gov­ ernment, the interest rate situation is unlikely to depart as a major concern of Albertans.

We're going to have to remain sensitive to those areas where we particularly need to provide assistance to Albertans. We're going to have to give Albertans a clear understanding of our financial constraints and make it clear that while the Heritage Savings Trust Fund is a tremendous opportunity for this province in the long term, it isn't a pot of gold we can be constantly dipping into to alleviate any short-term diffi­ culties.

The fact of the matter is that those dollars are largely committed to very worth-while projects and in­ vestment opportunities for Albertans, and that there is a limit to the amount that government can take on and remain financially responsible. I close by saying that I remain confident this govern­ ment will continue to be sensitive to the needs of Alber­ tans, that we will be responsive in those situations where assistance must be given. I remain confident that we will continue to work hard at communicating to Albertans exactly what is being done by this government on behalf of all Albertans.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. MR. BORSTAD: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to join in Motion 217 this afternoon, although I have only about three minutes left. I don't know whether you will let me run out my time or whether I should sit down now. Even with the boom this province has been going through in the last few years, high interest rates have had an effect on many of our small business men, farmers, and home-owners alike. We have just seen a federal budget come down that, in my view, did not seem to put out much assistance in reducing those interest rates.

As we know, the federal government can use its initiatives to develop programs to stimulate the economy and to affect interest rates. So it seems to me that this motion should be directed more at the federal government than the provincial government. I'm going to take a different tack from the Member for Lethbridge West. He figured we should be tracking U.S. interest rates, but in my view we shouldn't. It seems to me we should be moving away from tracking those rates. If this were done, I believe we could see businessmen gain confidence again.

We would find investments being made in housing and many other areas of our economy. I think we should promote more gas sales to the U.S. If we were not tracking those interest rates, I think that would have some effect. It would also reduce our balance of pay­ ments and affect our economy considerably. [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] For anyone to say this province has not been doing anything is totally wrong. We only have to look at what the government has done in the last couple of years in housing alone.

The provincial government's involvement has increased to a record amount, I think unprecedented in any country in the world today. The provincial gov­ ernment totally assisted and financed some 6,000 housing starts in 1979, some 15,000 in 1980, and 18,000 in 1981. I believe this government has stepped into the breach to assist our citizens through the many programs developed to assist home-owners, farmers, and businessmen.

Also, this government has been calling for a federal/provincial conference on the economy where our economic prob­ lems could be discussed and programs could be developed to stimulate the economy, thereby affecting interest rates and reducing inflation. But no, we see the federal gov­ ernment does not seem to be interested in its people who are losing their homes, farmers who are caught in the squeeze of high interest rates, inflation, and input costs, and businessmen who are losing their businesses and going into bankruptcy almost daily.

I only have to look at my constituency to see the financial difficulties many people are in, the number of bankruptcies that have taken place in the last six months, partly because of the oil slowdown but mostly because of high interest rates. Plumbing shops, trucking companies, you name it: they're all in problems brought on by the economic policies of our federal government. There's no business confidence in this country right now. I believe it's at the lowest it has been since the '30s.

At a recent conference I was at, I discussed interest rates with members from other countries, and their inter­ est rates are 8 to 11 per cent as a high. So tracking the U.S. interest rates does not make much sense to me when other countries can use lower interest rates and establish their own rates. Sure we . . . MR. SPEAKER: I regret interrupting the hon. member, but pursuant to Standing Orders we are now obliged to proceed to another order of business. I believe that puts us into discussion of private members' public bills.

November 26, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 1889 head: PUBLIC BILLS AND ORDERS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Second Reading) Bill 201 The Freedom of Information Act [Adjourned debate April 9: Dr. Paproski] DR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker, hon. members of the Assembly will remember that on April 9, 1981, this Bill came up for debate for the first time. I want to make it clear that I am sure no one in this Assembly, government or opposition members, would oppose increased informa­ tion flow on an ongoing basis to our citizens. I think this goes without saying.

I'm sure we would also all agree that we want to improve that flow of information on an ongoing basis and do everything possible to improve that information flow. But at this time, I can't see the need for Bill 201, brought in by the hon. Member for Clover Bar. I'll show there is ample opportunity for citizens and opposition members to gain the information they require, and they should know that. In my opinion, Bill 201, the so-called Freedom of Information Act, is a misnomer because it will inhibit the flow of information. As a matter of fact, I believe it will stifle the flow of informa­ tion to our citizens.

Mr. Speaker, you and hon. members will recall that I indicated I was concerned that the hon. member who brought in this Bill was referring to British Columbia, the federal government, and municipal governments. Because I've responded every time he has brought in a Bill similar to this, I remember that on previous occasions he brought in the United States government, Sweden, and so forth. I suggested then, and I suggest now, that that is not rele­ vant to the province of Alberta. We in Alberta have our rules. We have our ways of doing things, and I think they're satisfactory.

Citizens will express that from time to time or every time there is an election. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member brought no specific example of where information is not available. He indi­ cated he couldn't get information on PWA when he knew very well that PWA is at arm's length from the govern­ ment. Every shareholder can get that information as he sees fit, but not government, unless he's suggesting, repre­ senting a free enterprise party, that we should interfere with free enterprise. I don't think he meant that.

He also knows, and I indicated then, that MLAs have not been denied information except when the information is of a confidential nature, in courts, or the rules and laws of the province of Alberta do not allow it. I know that the hon. opposition members, and specifically the opposition member who brought in this Bill, have difficulty with that. But there are rules and laws in this province and in this Legislature, and those have to be abided with. If they'd like to change them, I suggest they make that attempt.

So The Freedom of Information Act, the statement of freedom of information, or the right of public informa­ tion concerning public business are very laudable titles and very important, as I said before. Who would object to that? Nobody here objects to that. But our actions are not behind closed doors, unless the hon. opposition member indicates to us that these policies that MLAs plan, think about, articulate, and discuss on the streets, in apartments, and at conferences, should be disclosed in advance of a policy, program, or legislation actually being brought here.

I'm suggesting that's what he's after; in other words, information before it's formulated into policies, programs, or legislation. I think that would be wrong and confusing. Mr. Speaker, the classical example is of course the Heritage Savings Trust Fund. That fund of some $9 bil­ lion, a very important fund for all Albertans for the security of future generations, was widely debated prior to the 1975 election, after two years, and then again in 1979, when the citizens of Alberta knew that that was a major issue in both those elections. We know the results of that election, and that's why we are here. Mr.

Speaker, to make reference to that fund, because it's such a topical item — we've been debating it in the Legislature for the past three or four weeks regarding capital projects. We know that fund has annual reports and quarterly reports. There is a special select committee of the Legislature that deals with the Heritage Saving Trust Fund, and opposition members are on it. The hon. Member for Calgary Buffalo has raised questions over and over again in that special select committee, which is held in public. Ministers are called to react and respond to the questions which are dissecting the programs.

They're asking questions and probing. Their queries are always made in public and accountable in a public way. What happens after that? They come back to the session, to this committee if you wish, to the Legislative Assem­ bly, to this Chamber, and again the opposition members and all members are entitled to ask questions in a very, very specific and detailed way, and again in the public domain. When I was here in the evening a few weeks ago, listening to some of the questions, the hon.

Member for Calgary Buffalo — I'm sorry he is not here; I know he has a good reason for being away because we all do from time to time — asked the question on AOSTRA. He made the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources repeat every research program that was funded when in fact the citizens out there know in a humble way that that is public information. He made that minister read every­ thing and really waste the time of this House when in fact he could have gotten that information by going directly to the department and requesting it. I think that's a shame and a sham. Is that what we're after? MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. I suggest that the hon. member concentrate and confine his remarks to the topic under discussion. DR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker, I respect that in a most sincere way, but I feel very strongly that that is the essence of the topic when we have a Bill indicating that more freedom of information must flow to the citizens, and when I see over and over again that that information is flowing. I was trying to demonstrate that.

In either case, I'll swing around and say this: the class­ ical example for the past three or four weeks that infor­ mation is flowing is via the Heritage Savings Trust Fund capital projects, where detailed information is provided by the minister after repetitive questions on a detailed basis. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that is freedom of informa­ tion at a high. Again we have to cite the example that they wanted to know what happened to a so-called $60 million loss. It's an example where freedom of information is available. The question was well put. There's no criticism of the question.

Even if it's repetitive, minutiae, and insignifi­ cant, I respect that. But the independent Auditor General

1890 ALBERTA HANSARD November 2, 1981 has stated and confirmed that no dollars were lost. An independent auditor: the citizens out there understand that that is almost the same as a judge. It's an independ­ ent auditor respected by all citizens and the opposition members. The independent auditor also stated that no fraud or collusion was evident. Again, he stated that. The annual report by the independent auditor stated that all previous concerns only were corrected. This should nulli­ fy any question or concern.

Every significant performance of the portfolio looks at an overall yield rather than a yield on a day to day basis. There was a $60 million loss as a result of securities, as the hon. member would sell tomorrow if it were at a low interest rate, and convert it to a higher interest rate yielding security. Every citizen knows that. They did that, and the total gain was some $1.5 billion. So you lose some and you gain more. The total yield is the important thing. Mr.

Speaker, I don't believe the citizens of Alberta will be duped or fooled by that kind of questioning, although on first blush if you repeat $60 million loss and not look at the whole portfolio, I suggest that some citizens may be fooled. What are we saying here? In addition to that Heritage Savings Trust Fund, we have ample opportunity to ques­ tion hon. members here in budget debate. Budget expend­ itures last spring: estimate after estimate, dollar after dollar was questioned by the opposition and government members to ensure that those dollars were properly and appropriately spent.

So I'm saying that there are many examples of free flow of information, not hidden, and available throughout. Mr. Speaker, I also indicated previously that in this House we have motions for returns, which are debatable motions. Ninety-five per cent of them are agreed on. We debate them, and the information flows completely. The minister is than obliged to give the information. In pre­ vious years, I've seen carts full of information come forward showing the hon. questioner that the information is available. We have Public Accounts, chaired by an opposition member.

Public Accounts is chaired by an opposition member, and the committee is made up of both opposition and government members. Ministers are called for past years' performances, and queried on a small amount, if necessary. We have MLAs available on a day to day basis to all citizens to ask those questions. I challenge any MLA here to say that he does not receive the information required within the law. I underline "within the law", because from time to time opposition members say we must change the law. That's a different story. If you want to change the rules of the proceedings, I suggest that we have to try that.

If they fail, we have to do it within those proceedings. We have the question period, Mr. Speaker, which is written and oral. I hope the public noticed today and in the past two or three days that the opposition members don't even have any questions. What are they trying to prove? Are they suggesting that the business of govern­ ment is all over with? I think it's a shame. Walter, it's a shame. I don't care how you read it. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Possibly the hon. mem­ ber could lapse into ordinary parliamentary language. DR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker, I have difficulty at times, because I've known the hon.

Member for Clover Bar so well for so many years. We practised together in Fort Saskatchewan. Respectfully, I'll continue that way. He'll understand that. We have Hansard, we have television, and we have our MLAs working on a day to day basis. Let me zero in on the very guts — excuse me, Mr. Speaker, that's not parliamentary — the very essence of the Bill. Is that okay. Mr. Speaker? MR. SPEAKER: There's nothing wrong with "guts". DR. PAPROSKI: Good. The very so-called guts of the Bill, because I have difficulty finding that.

In my opinion, in a most serious way this Bill has oversights, inconsisten­ cies, and ambiguities that are just beyond me. The reason I'm saying "beyond me" is that the hon. member, in a most respectful way, has repeatedly brought in such a Bill, at least five times. Is that correct, hon. member? Approx­ imately five times. And here we have a Bill that's going to stifle and inhibit the flow of information. I'm amazed that he hasn't used his research dollars to bring in something a little better. Let me take

Section 5. I hope the hon. member is reading. It says: A request for access to a record . . . shall provide sufficient detail to enable an experienced employee of [a government] institution to identify the record. Mr. Speaker, what is "sufficient detail"? Is it a title? How much detail? It doesn't say. Immediate confusion, Mr. Speaker. These boards, commissions, and agencies are used to responding, but they can't respond if they don't give a proper title, or is a title enough? What if it's a similar title to another Bill or other information?

What happens when the requester does not provide sufficient detail himself? In fact, in this Act there is no requirement whatsoever on the institution head to respond. Confused, and what a shame, Mr. Speaker. The poor person will not get the information. It's also worth noting that the institution, meaning the government institution, is under no obligation to forward a request that has been directed to the wrong institution. In other words, if I made a mistake and requested the information, he has no obliga­ tion. He can say, I haven't got it, period. That's the end of it. Well, Mr.

Speaker, our citizens deserve a little more than that. Let's go to

Section 9(2). It provides that when any government institution refuses access, the institution is not required to indicate whether a record requested under this Act exists. Mr. Speaker, I have difficulty with that. The requester, meaning the person who requests the in­ formation, having been denied access, will have no idea whether that record exists. Again, I think it's a sham. Mr. Speaker, another point, and I'm not covering all of them. Believe me, I can go

section by

section and find loopholes. The hon. member should bow his head. Re­ garding the appeal to the court, it introduces an erosion of our ministerial and constitutional responsibility. We just went through that whole process of constitutional debate. He's saying the courts should make the decision — I respect the courts; maybe they could make the decision in this case — but worse than that, the individual doesn't appear to have any appeal. Not being a lawyer, and I know the hon. member has been in the Legislature longer than I have, the appeal process is a natural course.

Not only does the individual who's requesting the infor­ mation not have an appeal, but the government doesn't have an appeal if they can't possibly see how they could give it. Mr. Speaker, there we have some of the examples. I'm sure other hon. members will give more examples. Sec­ tion 1:

November 26, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 1891 . . . this Act is to extend the present laws of Alberta to provide a right of access to information . . . That's what it says, Mr. Speaker. Well, we have the question period, parliamentary committees, accountabili­ ty to the executive ministers, the Public Accounts Com­ mittee, motions for returns, the Ombudsman, MLAs, and so forth.

Section 4(1) says: The designated Minister shall cause to be pub­ lished, on a periodic basis [reports]. Mr. Speaker, government organization reports are up­ dated yearly. An inventory of agencies and boards is now filed. Annual reports are filed. I really don't know what he wants. This Act has done nothing fresh, nothing new. If it did, I'd feel a little better about it. I might want to make some positive comments. Except for the title, which we already have in the province of Alberta, in my opinion it's a Bill which, if it became

an Act, would not guarantee a flow of information but would add another layer of bureaucracy, a bad layer — not that bureaucracy is bad, but a bad layer with respect to this Bill. The cost and the stifling is just not worth it. It adds nothing. What they have to do is check the Act, the regulations, watch their step. They cannot write anything down because it might become public. It removes flexibility. It forces citizens into the court. Worse than that, Mr. Speaker, it removes the responsibility of elected representatives and government members.

Having served since 1971, I for one will not abrogate that responsibility lightly. Mr. Speaker, by and large the public service has done a good job. If we brought in this kind of Act, their ideas and suggestions would be stifled. They'd be fearful to write anything done or file it away because that might be a record that might go into the public domain before it became a policy or a program. I would be very nervous about that. In concluding, the hon. Member for Clover Bar is to be congratulated for his information Bill by way of a title. I know his desire is sincere, but he has missed the target, Mr. Speaker.

I think we should re-examine and update our guidelines on an ongoing basis. We should assure that the method for citizens to obtain information is clearer. Maybe it's not clear enough. If it's not clear enough, we should zero in on that and correct those deficiencies, maybe with a central office of information for the province of Alberta and have responsible people respond in every case if that information is not provided, and why it's not. We should clearly restate our position to the public, and make sure they understand why that information is not available.

No one can force feed the opposition to get the infor­ mation. We've provided dollars; they have their own ini­ tiative. They have research staff and dollars over and above any government member on this side, Mr. Speaker. We know that, and they know that. I suggest that citizens don't want to be force fed public information. What is required is an ongoing appraisal of the situation, careful thought that communication by government, the media, citizens at large, is direct via MLAs, reports, public hearings, and visits to our government offices, that when legislation is brought forward it is

preambled, or a public statement is made of what it is all about. Via Hansard, radio, TV, cabinet tours, schools, and our libraries, we are doing that. We want to maintain an informed public via these channels and the media. We should continue to augment these avenues, not merely by a restrictive or threatening Act where courts are involved, but by existing avenues for information. I sincerely believe that informa­ tion is democracy. Thank you. MR. PAYNE: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my speech on a similar Bill a year ago, I expressed difficulty regard­ ing the freedom of information Bill's deja vu element.

On that occasion, as there appears to be on this occasion, there was a certain repetitive quality to the arguments advanced for and against this type of legislation. Despite that deja vu element, I still welcome yet another opportu­ nity to comment on what I regard as the serious defects of this Bill. At the outset, once again I would like to clearly indi­ cate my unequivocal support and belief in the general principle of the public's right to government information. It goes without saying that such a right is fundamental to the democratic process.

In essence, what we're debating today is the day to day conflict between the democratic ideal of freely flowing information and the practical con­ siderations of running a government. There is a need to strike a balance between the public's right to know and the government's ability to function effectively. In my view, Bill 201 fails to strike that balance. Therefore, I find I can't support it. In our past debates on this type of legislation, I and others have raised a number of arguments.

I would like to briefly summarize six of those that I think bear on Bill 201, which I admit is a vastly improved edition over its predecessors. First, I'd like to make the point that it is not a public issue. Even with the recent publicity given to the debates in the House and opposition comments out­ side the House with respect to what they regard as a seriously diminished flow or availability of information, I have had little or no comment from constituents or public groups by phone, correspondence, or any means. In say­ ing that, Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to make the point that my constituents in Calgary Fish Creek are much interested in government. They are rarely reluctant to discuss their reservations or concerns with me with respect to govern­ ment actions, procedures, or intended legislation. This afternoon the hon. Member for Edmonton Kingsway, in his typically effective way, reviewed a number of defective sections in the Bill, thereby freeing me from the need to do so. But I would like to make an observation with respect to

Section 23. This

section pro­ vides that an application for a court order granting access to records may be denied if "the complaint is trivial, frivolous, or vexatious . . .". Mr. Speaker, I have some difficulty establishing in my own mind what the criteria would be that would enable officials to determine just what is trivial, frivolous, or vexatious? In my view, that is a very difficult objective judgment to make, except per­ haps for the hon.

Member for Clover Bar, who is spon­ soring this legislation and who has demonstrated on occasion, with regret, that some of his questions are clear­ ly trivial, frivolous, vexatious, or perhaps all three. A third reservation I have with respect to this legisla­ tion concerns the bureaucratic growth and rapidly escalat­ ing costs that have been the experience of other western jurisdictions that have attempted to develop and imple­ ment this type of legislation. I am certainly not the first to observe that United States citizens appear to be poorly served by the freedom of information Act.

Within the terms of that legislation, costs of compliance have soared far beyond any level anticipated by the legislation's spon­ sors back in 1966. To give hon. members here today one dramatic illustration of that difficulty, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as a result of this legislation in the

1892 ALBERTA HANSARD November 26, 1981 United States, created its own freedom of information unit. In 1974, the freedom of information unit in the FBI had a total staff complement of eight. I remind hon. members that the function of the freedom of information unit was simply to deal with requests for information arising from this legislation. Five years later, in 1979, the freedom of information unit within the FBI had a total staff complement of 305.

I do not know what the staff complement of that unit would be today, in 1981, but I am reasonably sure that that staff complement is even larger, despite the staffing implications of 'reaganomics'. Mr. Speaker, my fourth difficulty is that such growth and cost could perhaps be justified if a good cross-section of American citizens were being served by that legislation and its implementation. But what has been the ex­ perience? The New York Times has reported that more than 60 per cent of the requests for government informa­ tion are not filed by aggrieved citizens or by public inter­ est advocates.

Sixty per cent of those are filed by busi­ nessmen, government lobbyists, and their lawyers, many of whom are seeking otherwise secret information with respect to their competition. Fifth, Mr. Speaker, my basic objection to removing decision-making from elected representatives to the ap­ pointed judiciary, is an objection I've had through our constitutional debates and discussions, and on other oc­ casions.

This concept of removing decision-making from those who are elected by and who speak for their elector­ ate, removing that to the appointed judiciary is a concept totally alien to the administration of government as it has been developed in Canada. Now, just a comment about our overloaded courts. I have an objection to the legalistic approach to the release of government information, a legalistic approach that is demonstrated on virtually every page of Bill 201.

Once again, may I quote the United States Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger in this regard: . . . the harsh truth is that if we do not devise substitutes for the courtroom processes, and we do not do it rather quickly, we may well be on our way to a society overrun by hordes of lawyers hungry as locusts competing with each other and, brigades of judges in numbers never before contemplated. On a previous occasion in this Assembly, Mr. Speaker, I indicated my reservations with respect to freedom of in­ formation legislation insofar as senior civil servant inti­ midation is concerned.

As many members are aware, ear­ lier in my career I spent several years as a senior civil servant in Alberta. In that capacity, from time to time I was requested to provide to a member of Executive Council my analysis of a matter before the government, and my recommendations for possible courses of action. Had there been in existence at that time a legislated possibility that such advisory communications could be subject to subsequent public release, I would have written them somewhat differently.

It would not have been a question of compromising my integrity, rather there sim­ ply would have been a constraint on candor to avoid the risk of professional embarrassment such as might occur with a comment or an action alternative taken out of context. In my view, such constraint would not have served the public interest very well, for it would have denied to the decision-making process of government advice that otherwise would have been more comprehen­ sive, hence more useful. Mr. Speaker, in previous sessions, the hon. Member for Clover Bar has resorted to poetry to make a point in debate.

On this occasion, perhaps it would be appropriate if I were to conclude and reciprocate on a poetic note: Walter, Walter, quite contrary How does your information flow? In fits and starts and brash retorts One more Socred horn to blow. Walter, Walter quite determined; There's little need to cheer; Your Bill has come and won't go far For once again the Buck stops here. DR. REID: Not being a poet, Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to try to compete with that last insert into the record. This is the first time I have addressed this issue of freedom of information. I know it's a perennial plant, not an annual one.

Looking back at previous Bills, it has grown over the years. It would appear that the hon. gentleman who proposes it on an almost annual basis is learning from the experience. I have not previously ad­ dressed this subject because in private life, before coming into the Legislature, I never felt there was a lack of information or that I was deprived of any information I wanted from the government. Since I came into the Legis­ lative Assembly, I have found the same. I looked at the phrase "freedom of information". It's somewhat like that other phrase, "affirmative action".

It means as many things to different people as there are people looking at the phrase. One has to look at t