August 28, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 1355 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Thursday, August 28, 1986 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] MR. SPEAKER: Let us pray. O Lord, we give thanks for the bounty of our province: our land, our resources, and our people. We pledge ourselves to act as good stewards on behalf of all Albertans. Amen. head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 41 Appropriation (Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund, Capital Projects Division) Act, 1986-87 MR. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill 41, the Appropriation (Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund, Capital Projects Division) Act, 1986-87. This being a money Bill, Her Honour the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, having been informed of the contents of this Bill, recommends the same to the Assembly. Mr. Speaker, this Bill provides for the capital projects division appropriation of the Heritage Savings Trust Fund, which has been debated in this Assembly. [Leave granted; Bill 41 read a first time] Bill 43 Motor Vehicle Statutes Amendment Act, 1986 MR. ROSTAD: Mr.

Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill 43, the Motor Vehicle Statutes Amendment Act, 1986. This Act redefines mopeds and motorcycles to rationalize them with the Off-highway Vehicle Act. It introduces a charging

section for driving while suspended and a penalty therefor and rationalizes the penalty for driving while impaired or refusing to blow to six months rather than the discrepancy of six and three respectively. [Leave granted; Bill 43 read a First time] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MRS. CRIPPS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a communique from the Agriculture ministers' conference in Victoria. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS DR. WEST: Mr.

Speaker, today I'd like to introduce to you, and through you to the members of the Assembly, two gentlemen who serve the public in the county of Flagstaff in my constituency: Mr. Ken Eshpeter, reeve, and Mr. Glen Miller, chairman of the board of education. They're in the members' gallery. If they'd stand and receive the warm welcome of the House. MR. ROSTAD: Mr.

Speaker, I too would like to introduce to you, and through you to the Assembly, three members of municipal council from the county of Camrose: the reeve, Bob Prestage; the chairman of the board of education, Al Bishop; and the secretary-treasurer, Bill Gartner. If they would stand and receive the welcome usually accorded to visitors. MS BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce today two children who are visiting us from Calgary. Their names are Natasha and Zakary Pashak, children of the MLA for Calgary Forest Lawn.

I wonder if they would rise and receive the welcome of this Assembly. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Seat Belt Legislation MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the first question to the Premier. There is no question that mandatory seat belt laws save money and lives. A recent analysis of the Ontario experience, for example, shows that such laws result in reduction in death and injuries, a reduction of some 15 percent in the cost of doctors' fees, as well as a reduction of some 40 percent in the cost of treating accident victims.

My question to the Premier: as head of the government why has the Premier not directed that there be a special study of the costs Alberta has incurred as a result of not having such a law? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, there have been a variety of people attempting studies, many of which end up being indecisive. I think it may well be that wearing seat belts definitely may be safer and prevent injuries. Mandatory wearing of seat belts is still open to debate. MR. MARTIN: I'll have to try to figure out that answer, Mr. Speaker.

Is the Premier saying that if you wear it voluntarily, you will save money, but if you have wearing a seat belt mandatory, you won't? I'm just trying to get it clarified. MR. GETTY: I guess that's one of the reasons we have Hansard. He will just have to read it, Mr. Speaker. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, we'll try to take our answers from that. To move to the minister of transportation, I have here a 1976 study from the Journal of Trauma. What it basically says is that mandatory seat belt legislation protects the lives of other people in the car besides the occupants and especially children.

My question is: what role has this sort of infor­ mation played in the government's decision not to protect innocent Albertans with a mandatory seat belt law? MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker. I have some difficulty with the wording of the question. I just want to see if I follow it right: if I put my seat belt on, it protects those in the backseat? MR. MARTIN: It protects other individuals when you're not . . .

1356 ALBERTA HANSARD August 28, 1986 MR. ADAIR: When I'm not coming from behind? Or they are from behind? Mr. Speaker, it's going to take me a day or two to digest just exactly what that is. The seriousness of what we're talking about is, as the Premier said a moment ago, the difference between wearing seat belts and being told you have to, the mandatory aspect of it. Certainly today we will have the debate relative to private member's Bill 211.

As I've said on a number of occasions, outside the House, inside the House, at home, wherever the case may be, I await that debate with a great deal of interest, and I will publicly go on record again as saying where I'm coming from on behalf of the constituency that I represent, in which 62 percent of my constituents are against mandatory seat belts, but 100 percent are for seat belts. MR. MARTIN: It's nice to be able to skim out of it that way, Mr. Speaker. Let me direct the last question to the Premier.

For the information of the hon. member opposite, it seems to me that this issue has been debated for years and in particular was debated for hours in this Assembly on April 21 and November 24, 1983. My question to the Premier is: why does the Premier not show some political courage and leadership by directing that Bill 211 now be placed on the Order Paper as a government Bill? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, if it was debated in 1983, obviously the debaters didn't carry the weight of the House; they were unable to convince people to do it. That's what the Legislature is all about.

That's why one of the members has brought a private resolution. We're all interested in how that issue is debated in the House. It's the whole process of democracy and this Legislature working. MR. R. SPEAKER: To the hon. Premier. I raised this in an earlier question; it's relative to a free vote on the seat belt question.

Would the Premier consider giving notice this fall, say, in terms of a free vote resolution for the spring Legislature of 1987 so that members of the Legislature would have notice and as well have ample time to have community discussion with their constituents prior to that open debate occurring on the floor of the Legislature? Would that be one of the alternatives open to the Premier's policy determination? MR. GETTY: That would certainly be one of the alternatives open, Mr. Speaker. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, to the Premier.

I appreciate the Reps giving them a chance to get out, but I want to put a little more heat on that. Would the Premier be willing to announce to the House today, particularly in front of the House to his back bench and to his bench, that they are free to vote whatever way they please and that he will honour that? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I must say that if the hon. Member for Westlock-Sturgeon is going to put on some heat, I've been waiting for it and haven't noticed any. Nevertheless, it's up to the House whether this matter comes to a vote. MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon.

Minister of Labour. MR. SPEAKER: Is it on this issue? MR. GOGO: Not on this issue. Labour Legislative Review MR. MARTIN: I'll take over, but I'll ask it of the Premier. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a second question to the Premier. It has to do with government priorities, especially in spending. In making the decision to allow the Minister of Labour a blank-cheque budget for the law review and its excedents, which will apparently cost — we don't have a budget — over a quarter of a million dollars in nice round figures; it looks around there.

My question is: what comparison study was made of this expenditure versus the decision to save money by retesting Aids to Daily Living clients who require oxygen? MR. GETTY: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, all matters are judged on their own merits. Might I say that in our throne speech, long before the current disputes that are before us in labour matters, we had the plan to have a full review of our labour legislation. We have a chance to do that in the most comprehensive and current way possible to make sure that we get the best possible input in coming to new conclusions.

Since labour legislation can't be changed con­ stantly, I think it's extremely important that the people who are making recommendations to us obtain all the information possible and the best information possible and then present it to us with their recommendations. I don't accept the fact — people talking about $250,000 in a headline is a joke if you stick the word "may" in front of it. It may be a $100,000. What's the impact? You're just trying to give an impression that may be completely false.

I think we have a chance here to have some of the best people in this province travel and get the best information possible, bring it back to this province, and make recommendations. We should hardly be trying then to discredit those people before they even get started. [some applause] MR. MARTIN: Look at them pound. They've already lost credibility, Mr. Premier, and to go on a trip like this, it's lost more credibility. I was talking about government priorities, because the taxpayers are paying for it. To come back in another question. Perhaps the Premier doesn't want to answer.

The Solicitor General has adopted a policy of automatic release for the young offenders' facilities because they're overcrowded. My question is: did the Premier do any review of the need for money — say, a quarter of a million dollars — in this area before this money is spent on a world tour? MR. GETTY: I really answered that question with my first answer, Mr. Speaker. These matters are all judged on their own merits. MR. ROSTAD: To correct the record, the hon. Leader of the Opposition brought into the question the young offenders' centres and said that there's automatic release because of overcrowding.

I would ask that he withdraw that because it's totally in error. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, later on I'll show him the memos that we had from his department if he would like. My question to the Premier is simply this.

August 28, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 1357 SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw, withdraw. MR. MARTIN: May I continue now? MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the problem is that the inference was that it was an automatic release for all young offenders. The Solicitor General said that that generalization as a statement is not true. Therefore, if the generalization was made and you have information that some are, perhaps it would be better for you to withdraw the generalization and then we could proceed. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I have other information, so I won't; we can determine that later then.

They're a defensive lot today, aren't they? My question has to do with something that recently came up. The Unemployment Action Centre in Calgary has been operating a special youth employment program of particular use for young offenders. My understanding is that they requested $50,000 from the Solicitor General's department and were turned down. My question is: will the Premier be suggesting to these young people that they should perhaps apply for employment as support staff on the labour law committee's trips? MR. GETTY: Mr.

Speaker, again it's the same answer; that is, all of these matters are judged on their own merits. MR. MARTIN: Well, we're just trying to establish government priorities, and I guess we are. Mr. Speaker, on June 26 the Minister of Social Services indicated she would have to find money from another allocation before the government could fund a provincewide Zenith line for battered women. My question to the Premier: what consideration has the Premier given to cancelling this labour law committee's travel plans and instead directing the money to this Zenith line? MR. GETTY: Mr.

Speaker, any request of the government is dealt with seriously and judged on its own merits. Let me now say that the matter of the labour review panel, as I said earlier, is very important to all the people of Alberta, and we have the finest selection of individuals from this province on that review panel. We're extremely proud of the fact that they were willing to accept that. They face some considerable dedication of their time away from their homes, working with a heavy responsibility. We appreciate that.

We have three members representing organ­ ized labour, three members representing management, and three members of the general public: a very balanced and effective group. I come back and say that I think its regrettable that the NDP are aligning themselves with Mr. Werlin in trying to discredit this organization. They have asked, Mr. Speaker, for a labour review panel. It was already in the throne speech. It's been created: fine Albertans prepared to work for the good of all the people of the province.

They aren't caring about the working people of the province; they're just trying to discredit another group of Albertans. They should be ashamed of themselves for aligning themselves that way. MR. TAYLOR: Back to the original question. I feel a little sorry for the Premier having to face an opposition. [inter­ jections] It's feeding time; the seals are flapping their desks. I would like to ask the Premier if he has finally decided who the lucky travel agent will be that will look after this quarter of a million dollar windfall, or is he waiting for a new company to be set up by another defeated Tory? MR.

GETTY: Mr. Speaker, it's kind of a foolish question, but I think I'll respond to the first part. In thinking about an opposition and being on both sides of the House before, I've met a lot better oppositions. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary ques­ tion is to the Minister of Labour. In terms of the format being used by the committee, has the minister considered a subcommittee travelling to these various places rather than the whole committee? What type of prework is being done by the committee to prepare themselves before they go to these faraway places? DR. REID: Mr.

Speaker, consideration has been giving to dividing up the committee, but in view of the nature of the people who are on the committee and the responsibility they have, it was felt that having subgroups of the committee report to the rest of the committee would inevitably start a sort of secondhand process; we didn't want to do that. Consideration was given to the matter, however, and the decision was not to do it. Perhaps while I'm on my feet, Mr. Speaker, this would be a suitable time to inform the Assembly that yesterday afternoon I received information by telephone directly from Mr.

Jack Murray that he was resigning from the committee. He has been replaced by Mr. Joe Berlando of the Alberta Teachers' Association. MR. STEWART: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Minister of Labour. Will the agenda of the review com­ mittee's work, including its itinerary, be determined by the minister's department, by the minister as chairman, or by the committee itself? DR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I'm attempted to adopt the Pre­ mier's technique and say: yes. yes, and yes. But perhaps I should explain a bit more thoroughly than that.

The situation is that for some weeks the department has been doing much work preparing briefing material. Indeed, I went over the material myself. Some of that material was passed on to members of the committee at the meeting on Tuesday afternoon. They are now studying that material. Some decisions were made by myself, and other decisions have been and will be made by the committee. In other words, we are attempting with reasonable haste, which I think is the term I used before, to make a full review of our own and other labour legislation.

Various decisions are being made by various people in order to expedite that process. Psychiatric Care of Children MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, the question is to the Minister of Community and Occupational Health. The approach taken by the provincial government in the provision of psychiatric services to adolescents is clearly one of crisis intervention rather than prevention. MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, please. Yesterday this topic was discussed not once but twice. The Chair awaits careful

1358 ALBERTA HANSARD August 28, 1986 framing of the question, that we're not reverting to the same questions being asked time and time again. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, it has been carefully thought out. There was a series of three questions, and they cover different areas. This is in the community health field. As I mentioned, clearly the government's is one of crisis intervention rather than prevention. They key word is "pre­ vention." We see evidence of this lack of preventive focus and the increasing numbers of adolescents all the time in Alberta psychiatric hospitals, as we raised yesterday.

Does the minister have any plans to implement a provincewide media campaign aimed at educating parents and adolescents on adolescent mental health as AADAC has so successfully done with their teenage alcohol abuse campaign? MR. DINNING: Mr. Speaker, I had the good fortune to read yesterday's transcript of the exchange of questions between the hon. member and two ministers on this side of the House.

I appreciate the representation by the hon. member, but I would like to reinforce what my colleagues said: if the member has any cases where he has some particular concerns, we on this side would certainly welcome that information. More importantly, Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House believe our job is never done and that more can be done. We are working on psychiatric services for children in this province. A number of government departments are in the process of working on that very important initiative now.

We'll be going out to the people of Alberta on a consultative basis, and that group will be reporting back to us and providing advice as to future directions in the provision of psychiatric care for all children in Alberta. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, that's not quite what I'm on. I'm on the question of a public knowledge campaign. What is the minister doing to improve public knowledge of and accessibility to mental health support services in order that more adolescents receive the help they need before they develop serious problems? MR. DINNING: Mr.

Speaker, the member has a very good point in, that prevention before the treatment is required, focussing on the family, is clearly so very, very important. I think Alberta is well served by the 56 regional mental health clinics throughout this province, plus some 48 trav­ elling mental health clinics that do a circuit throughout the province. At least 104 communities in this province are served on a regular basis by the Alberta mental health services within the Department of Community and Occu­ pational Health. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, to the minister.

Obviously something is not working out right if there are 56 clinics and cases are still increasing. Would this government allocate funds for much-needed research into the cause and prevention of child and adolescent mental health problems in order that services can be designed to address the problem more effectively before the case has developed, not after? MR. DINNING: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that if the hon. member has cases or incidents he'd like to bring to our attention that are not being addressed, I welcome that, as do all of my colleagues.

I think it's important and incumbent upon the hon. member to do just that instead of waving some mythical white flag of alarm that we're not able to deal with because it's a blank white flag. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, if there are any blanks here, I think it might be in the minister's thinking on the project. The point is that what we're trying to get across here is the identification. I don't think we can depend on 80-some MLAs to go around and identify ahead of time.

What I want to get across is: is the government taking the initiative of utilizing after school care or day care facilities as potential vehicles for early identification of psychiatric disorders in children, rather than waiting for an MLA to come and tell you? MR. DINNING: Mr.

Speaker, I guess I could rhyme off all the centres — including 56 mental health clinics, 48 travelling clinics, 27 health units and a multiple number of subunits, family and community support services, day care centres, and after school care centres — where professionals are at work on a day-to-day basis identifying any problems that come up and reporting them to the school system, doctors, hospitals, and Alberta mental health services. Mr. Speaker, those people are out there.

They are responsible nurses, physicians, and other specialists who are trained in their fields and are identifying these problems and finding solutions for them. MS LAING: Mr. Speaker, to the minister. Has he determined if there are blanket programs to ensure that all school teachers and counsellors are cognizant of the indicators of child sexual and physical abuse and violence in the family so that they can in fact report and deal with those problems? MR. DINNING: Mr.

Speaker, there is no doubt about the fact that the matter which the member raises on a regular basis is of very serious concern to this government, and whether it is the Minister of Education and her officials or any number of other ministries in this government, it is our attempt to raise the understanding of the very serious nature of the problem she is addressing.

Through the Department of Community and Occupational Health — that's the one I can best speak on — the 27 health units, the various subunits around this province, and the regional mental health clinics are making people in those communities and those schools understand just how serious a problem this can be and are doing their very best to identify the problems and act on those problems as soon as they've found them. Gleichen Industrial Waste MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of the Environment.

In discussions with the mayor of Gleichen she indicated that environmental officials have reviewed the waste in the town. Could the minister report at this time what was found and whether a report has been filed with his office? MR. KOWALSKI: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can report that I have received a report from officials from Alberta Envi­ ronment who visited Gleichen yesterday. Essentially a variety of materials were found. The majority of the drums contained solidified glue, similar to contact cement.

One part drum contained linseed oil, one drum contained emulsified roofing tar, two drums contained chemical toluene — I have to understand how to pronounce some of these words — and

August 28, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 1359 about 30 drums contained Piccovar AP 25, which is an alkali aromatic thermosetting resin. Three large tanks were set at ground level in a pit; two of them contained toluene. The conclusion given to me is the only dangerous goods identified on site were toluene. Due to the relatively good condition of the drums and tanks there is no imminent danger to the environment. There is no sign that any of the drums were leaking. I've instructed Environment officials to gather up the drums containing toluene and have them stored in an appro­ priate site in the province of Alberta.

Despite the fact that I'm not sure I have the authority to do that, I've said that it take place. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. Could the minister indicate what research or investigations are going on in other centres of Alberta to locate waste disposal sites or businesses, either active or inactive, that could contain hazardous wastes that are not documented at the present time? MR. KOWALSKI: Mr.

Speaker, members will recognize that if we go back a number of weeks here in the Legislature, some drums containing industrial waste were located at Dow Chemical in Fort Saskatchewan, and I indicated at that time that the government would be initiating a multiphase pro­ gram. The government will be initiating such a multiphase program. Around about the first week of October, if planning goes okay, we'll have a public information campaign in the province of Alberta with respect to a program called HELP, which will address itself to that kind of situation.

In addition to that, correspondence will be addressed to all municipalities in the province of Alberta asking them to search their own records for any kind of storage dump containing any kind of waste that may have occurred in the province of Alberta prior to 1973, when legislation came in requiring these types of materials to be stored and identified. The situation in Gleichen is a very strange situation.

In the last several days the research that I've had undertaken with respect to this matter indicates that on October 16, 1985, the town of Gleichen sent a letter to Taylor West Industries, which is the owner of the property, advising that Taylor West Industries should undertake a cleanup within 30 days of receiving that letter dated October 16, 1985. The town also says that If this condition is not remedied within the specified time council may act without further notice and shall remedy the condition as directed and apply the costs to the tax roll.

That is certainly a legal provision applied to any municipality in the province of Alberta if they are concerned about an abandoned site within their municipal jurisdiction. I asked the mayor when I contacted her on Tuesday last if Taylor West was in arrears in terms of their property taxes, and the mayor said that she didn't know. We undertook further investigation yesterday morning and determined that Taylor West had not paid property tax for . . . MR. SPEAKER: The Chair thanks the hon. minister.

The Chair has undertaken further investigation of its own and discovered that all further supplementaries have now been answered. Chiropractic Profession MR. GOGO: I have a question to the hon. Minister of Labour in his capacity as minister responsible for professions and occupations. Mr. Speaker, it relates to Bill 47. In view of the fact that some 240,000 Albertans utilized the services of chiropractors last year, why is the minister restricting the practice of chiropractors? DR. REID: Mr.

Speaker, I think that perhaps I should first explain that Bill 47 will amend the as yet unproclaimed Chiropractic Profession Act of 1984. In that Act, without getting into debate on the Bill, there was developed a definition of chiropractic which has caused considerable difficulty to chiropractors and to myself. Since that Bill was passed by the Legislature, the chiropractors themselves have realized a difficulty with double registration.

There is certainly no attempt to restrict the practice of chiropractors except to prevent them from practising as naturopaths as well since the disciplinary function would be complicated by the ability of the individual who was double registered to skip from one profession to the other to avoid disciplinary proceedings. MR. GOGO: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Why then is the minister restricting or stopping the use of X- ray equipment by chiropractors? DR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I think there's some misunder­ standing there.

I mentioned the definition of chiropractic, and in the definition that exists in the unproclaimed 1984 Act, there is reference to X rays and other modalities of treatment and investigation or something like that. That's the phrase that has been removed, but the removal of it does not prevent chiropractors from using X rays. It was the difficulty of defining in regulation, in view of improve­ ments in X-ray equipment and techniques, as was required in the 1984 statue, but in no way will this prevent chi­ ropractors from using X-ray equipment as they have tra­ ditionally done and as they continue to do. MR.

GOGO: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary that would put this member at ease. Has the hon. minister met with the Alberta Chiropractic Association, which represents some 310 members, prior to these proposed changes in legislation coming in? DR. REID: Mr. Speaker, let me reassure the House that there have been many meetings between myself and the executive of the Alberta Chiropractic Association and between my officials and their executive as well, and all of these changes were indeed initiated to a large extent by the association and have their approval. Gleichen Industrial Waste (continued) MR. YOUNIE: Mr.

Speaker, I wish to question the matter of Gleichen and would state from the outset that I feel I'm going into new areas that as yet haven't been dealt with. The questions have been framed very carefully. In fact you will note that one was scratched out and changed because it would have been redundant.

I would like to ask the minister if in the list of finds that he went through — considering that the owner stated there was trichloroethane on the site as well and that he still had use for it, did the minister or his people find any drums or containers the contents of which were not identified, and will there be more sophisticated testing required to identify them? MR. KOWALSKI: Yes and yes, Mr. Speaker.

1360 ALBERTA HANSARD August 28, 1986 MR. YOUNIE: Thank you. I'm not used to answers quite that brief. I hardly got to sit down. What steps has the minister taken to improve procedures and communication in his department, given that there seems to have been a three-month lapse between the first visit and his notification of the problem? MR. KOWALSKI: Mr. Speaker, I think I've already referred to the action that I said I would undertake on Monday of this week if it was determined that there was some failure on behalf of anyone in the Department of the Environment.

But in reading the report that was written to file as a result of the investigation that took place in May of 1986, the information conveyed to the town of Gleichen was that there were provisions in place for the town to in fact undertake final conclusion of this. It's regrettable indeed that an individual associated with Alberta Environment did not pur­ sue this matter any further with senior officials, his superiors in the department, and eventually have the matter brought to my attention; that certainly will be corrected.

But there was an interesting statement made in the investigation that took place on May 28 when a statement was made to Mr. S. Holt: No substance was found to be leaking or blowing from any of the drums. I believe this is a local dispute which we need not be involved in. (Mr. Holt stated that the Mayor doesn't want to be the "heavy" in solving this matter.) A suggestion was made that the town could resolve it. MR. YOUNIE: Thank you. I'll look forward to checking into that myself.

I was interested that the minister seemed comforted that grass was growing around the drums and that this indicated everything was safe. I'm wondering if the minister is going to undertake a study to inform himself of the difference between substances that are harmful to grass and those that give off fumes that could be deadly to humans? MR. KOWALSKI: I think, Mr.

Speaker, what's really important is that when I was asked outside the House yesterday for a preliminary comment with respect to this particular matter, I said that I had only had at that point in time a preliminary assessment with respect to grass, and I indicated yesterday that further investigations would take place. Today when I was asked by the Member for Little Bow whether or not we had anything further to offer, I provided him with the specifics that I had. Just a few minutes ago the Member for Edmonton Glengarry indicated to me, "Would further tests be undertaken?" and I responded yes.

One indication in terms of the impression the member tried to convey in terms of the public news media earlier in the week that there was something really terrible going on here is that if the environment close to drums or pits or whatever the heck they are is sterile and no growth occurs, that allows one to conclude that something may be amiss. But if there appears to be health in the environment surrounding drums in question, one should with common sense be able to make the suggestion that it would appear that not all has gone awry and astray. It was in that light that the comment was made by myself MR.

YOUNIE: Thank you. There are still two problem spots on the site that I'm concerned about and that haven't been mentioned, and that is two completely buried, under­ ground tanks facing Main Street on the site. I'm wondering if those were opened and the contents tested, considering they are very large tanks and could be dangerous. MR. KOWALSKI: I think I responded to that in the first question the hon. member raised. When he asked if any further testing was going to take place, I said yes. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister.

Approximately just over a year ago the owner of Taylor West Industries lost his three sons in one of the containers on site. Could the minister assure the House that those containers will be either locked securely or removed from the site as quickly as possible? MR. KOWALSKI: It's my understanding that the three deaths occurred in 1981, Mr. Speaker, not 1985. It's my understanding that as a result of the reports of the medical examiner, the public enquiry that took place in 1981, that action has occurred, but I will do a double and triple check to ensure that it has in fact happened. Battered Women MR.

MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Social Services. The problem of battered women, which affects about 55,000 Alberta women, must be addressed through a public awareness campaign. A life-style media campaign like that done by the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission was recommended in 1984 by the federal/ provincial working group on wife battering and again in 1985 by this government's own special report on family violence. The government has been thinking about this for a long time. When are we going to see a provincewide, AADAC-style media campaign on wife battering? MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, the whole area of family violence — and I think it should be discussed as a whole — is a very important matter to continually have before us. While we've launched a fair number of programs, obviously they haven't met with the kind of success we would like to see. The hon. Minister of Education is not in her chair at this time, but as a result of some of the recommendations the hon. member has mentioned, through the federal group, I know that education was a very important component. To that end, there's been a life-style course piloted, others proposed, and so on.

So certainly the schools have a fairly important role to play in the lives of young people as they form their attitudes about their future life. I would say that the hon. member should also be aware of the major booklet that we produced that spoke to family violence, which we hope will be shared with communities right across the province in order that people will become more aware. MR. MITCHELL: Thank you. Could I pursue this question beyond the Department of Education, specifically with respect to what Social Services is doing?

Is this package entitled family violence prevention, which includes a number of pamphlets on the area of family violence, all the minister herself is doing by way of a public awareness campaign outside the schools for the public in general? MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr. Speaker, in more of a treatment sense and particularly with the type of workshops that seem to be needed in various communities, which communities

August 28, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 1361 themselves organize, we would supply speakers and infor­ mation for those that are interested and believe they have a problem of such a magnitude that it has to be addressed en masse in a community. Certainly where we are called upon — we haven't launched a provincewide media cam­ paign, as the hon. member has raised, but we certainly respond to requests where they evolve. MR. MITCHELL: How effective can that approach to this kind of problem be? How effective can these kinds of pamphlets be when they're only given to people who request them?

Surely the minister isn't expecting that a wife batterer will actually make the effort to pick up these pamphlets, read them, and then stop battering his wife? MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr. Speaker, obviously I find this topic to be a very difficult one. All of us in this Legislature and Albertans as a whole, as I have spoken to them and they have communicated with me, also find the area very difficult, and they're very concerned about it. This concern radiates through various communities, and I've indicated that I've had a fair amount of contact.

There's one other thought that also radiates through those communities, and that is that the people in this Legislature and the MLAs, as they go through their constituencies, cannot be entirely responsible nor can they hold themselves up to be the saviours of the families in this province. So I say to the hon. member: all of us must try very, very hard with the resources we have to implore our communities and citizens to contend and come face to face and try to deal with this problem wherever it arises. MR.

MITCHELL: The government tried very hard with respect to alcohol and drug abuse, and it's to be congratulated for its AADAC campaign. That kind of campaign is more than appropriate for this area. Will the minister confirm that funds are being allocated in the 1987 budgetary process, which is taking place at this time, or are we going to miss this opportunity as well to provide funds for this important media campaign in this very vital area? MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, in my view and in the view of many others, what we're really talking about here is reinforcement of more positive life-styles right across the province. Again, I would say, and hopefully the hon. member will concur, that this is an area where education helps a lot. It's the type of thing that can be discussed within the classroom, with information going to young people who have it for their consideration in determining what type of future they will have and their conduct in the future.

I would also remind the hon. member that yesterday, I believe, in response to one of his colleague's questions I spoke about having put aside funds in the Calgary region that deal with the whole area of child abuse, which is again part of the family violence syndrome. We're very much looking forward to the proposal that will come out of some $600,000 that we will allocate for suggestions that can help to deal with this area. MS BARRETT: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The time for question period has expired. Might we complete this one set of questions? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR.

SPEAKER: Opposed? Carried. MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, if I might supplement the answers given by my hon. colleague. I should mention to the House that this topic has been discussed at length by our government as part of the intergovernmental working group on family violence, the report of which was tabled in the Legislature some time ago. Since that point there have been a number of additional steps taken, particularly within the Department of Education, the results of which have been just recently relayed to me.

The report is rep­ resentative of a concerted effort from across all of the departments of government, as the hon. Minister of Social Services indicated. The programming we're involved with in the Department of Education is a major part of that instance. We're assessing the public campaign in concert with options and programs of that sort initiated by other governments. We hope that as part of overall plan, combined with those that we've already initiated, it will be considered.

I might say, incidentally, that I think any of the governments involved in that program would indicate that Alberta has done as much if not more than most provinces in the country, and we look forward to doing even more in terms of dealing with this very crucial problem. MS BARRETT: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Social Services would assure the members of the Assembly that she would personally undertake to gather studies to indicate the extent of wife battering in the province, bring them personally to the Premier, and discuss them with him, so he can understand that in fact there is a high priority for this and not just for globe-trotting on labour legislation reviews. MR. MUSGREAVE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I don't know whether I should address this to the Minister of Social Services or to the Attorney General, but I would like to know if the minister is pursuing with vigour those cases where people have been accused of wife battering and is laying charges to ensure that in cases where there is a strong indication of this taking place, proper legal action is being taken. MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague will probably want to supplement the answer.

In terms of my own experience and the responsibility that our department has, when information comes into our hands that appears that there would be some criminal element to it in terms of possible charges, that information has to be relayed immediately to the proper authorities to be dealt with. MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could supplement the answer. Members who are new to the Assembly may not be aware that as a matter of policy my predecessor directed police forces throughout the province to lay charges in cases of wife battering.

If my memory serves me correctly, that was within the last two to three years. Members will be aware that it had been a situation where after reflection or due to pressure the victim often refused to proceed with the evidence necessary to carry out successful convictions. That is an important step forward. I think that some review would be useful to indicate whether or not there have been increased successful charges. I would undertake to the Assembly to try to find that information for hon. members, because I think it is an important issue facing Albertans.

1362 ALBERTA HANSARD August 28, 1986 ORDERS OF THE DAY head: MOTIONS FOR RETURNS MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, today I would move that motions for returns 158, 163, and 165 stand and retain their places on the Order Paper. [Motion carried] head: WRITTEN QUESTIONS 169. Mr. Ewasiuk asked the following question:

(1) In each case where the government, any of its depart­ ments or agencies, or the Crown in right of Alberta has leased office space from any other person, where such lease or successor agreement was in effect at April 1, 1986, what were the terms of that lease, including but not limited to (

a) the square metreage of the space covered by the lease and its address, (

b) the term of the lease, (

c) the period of term during which the lease and its predecessor agreements had been in effect, (

d) the cost per square metre to the lessee at April 1, 1986, (

e) the monthly charges to the lessee arising from the lease agreement as at April 1, 1986, (0 the identity of the lessor, (

g) the identity of the lessee, (

h) the purpose for which the space had been leased, and was the office space occupied by the lessee at April 1, 1986?

(2) Noted separately in each instance for the city of Edmonton, the city of Calgary, and Alberta excluding the cities of Edmonton and Calgary, with regard to office space leased by the government, any of its departments or agencies, or the Crown in right of Alberta, at April 1, 1986, what was fa) the total amount of space leased or rented and occupied by the lessee, (

b) the total amount of space leased or rented and unoccupied by the lessee, and (

c) the total charges, including but not limited to leasing, renting, and utility charges, payable by the lessee pursuant to the leasing of office space? MR. ISLEY: Mr. Speaker, the government is not prepared to accept Question 169. The reasons for rejection are as follows. We as government are involved in hundreds of lease agreements with private-sector landlords. For years we have been competing in the marketplace with other users and like most other parties have followed the policy of treating lease agreements and lease rates as commercially confidential.

If the hon. member is interested in information such as the total amount of lease space, average lease rates, and total lease costs, I am prepared to provide that type of information. On the other hand, if the hon. member has concerns with respect to a specific lease agreement, subject to receiving concurrence from the landlord, I may be prepared to release that type of specific information. How­ ever, we cannot accept the question in its present form. head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 220. Moved by Mr. Musgreave:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the governments of Alberta and Canada to consider an enterprise allowance scheme which would help unemployed people start businesses of their own by providing, for those people unemployed for at least three months who are drawing unemployment insurance benefits, the following: (1) financial operating assistance for one year; (2) an instructional period of two months in business procedures, to culminate in the creation of a business development plan; and (3) start-up capital to a maximum of $10,000, to be matched by the applicant. MR. MUSGREAVE: Mr.

Speaker, one of the most crushing facts of life in Canada today is that over a million people are unemployed, and many of them are young people. Sadly, many of them feel that the 90 percent of us who are working do not care. As a nation we should hang our heads in shame at this waste of human potential. We all know that a day in idleness cannot be recovered; it is gone forever. MR. SPEAKER: Order. Perhaps members of the Assembly moving about might do it a bit more quietly so that other members could pay closer attention to the speaker, please. MR. MUSGREAVE: Mr.

Speaker, we are all aware of the ongoing tragedy of unemployment: the loss of self respect, the rise in family violence, alcoholism and drug abuse, and in many cases various stages of mental illness. The purpose of Motion 220 is to try to make some new strategy to reduce unemployment. I appreciate the debate to and fro over the PGRT, the idea of loans to the oil industry, or a North American floor price for oil. I also appreciate the many joint programs between the provincial and federal governments, everything from our medicare program, the training of citizens, edu­ cation, agriculture: the list is endless.

These programs involve millions and in some cases billions of dollars. In my view, there's hope that a joint program using UIC benefits and provincial help can be developed. Other than small business organizations, the small business community has no forceful group of people to speak on their behalf I'd like to make a comparison between the business community and agriculture. In our federal and provincial jurisdictions there have historically been many varied programs to assist the agricultural community. There have been cabinet posts in all provincial and federal governments since the time of Confederation.

Politically the rural areas have had the strength to carry out programs of aid to farmers. Just to name a few, we have veterinarian schools, research centres, marketing agencies, transportation facilities, and aids to market products internationally. But as Professor Gilson said in a speech last year: the majority of Canadian farmers are still financially solvent even if the profit margin is small and uncertain. The net income margin in agriculture has fallen but farmers continue to produce and hundreds of thousands of people continue to be employed in the farm supply and processing industries of our country.

Here in Alberta right now our farmers are expecting a bumper crop even though anticipated prices are very low. Costs in some areas have also declined. To further help

August 28, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 1363 the farm community we have now introduced the farm credit stabilization program, which has reduced the cost of money for $200,000 to 9 percent for each family farm. This will certainly be a positive step for the farm economy. [Mr. Gogo in the Chair] What many do not remember is that much of the farmland was obtained under land grants or homestead programs. Thus the initial capital which is basic to the farm community came from the community. To make it productive, though, the hard work of many of our pioneers was necessary.

Many lost their lands for taxes, and here is where some current owners took a chance and bought land. Many veterans were also helped with land purchases after the war. The benefit of years of struggle are now being passed on to the farm descendants. The actual percentage of people on the land as part of the total population is declining. In my view, those remaining are in a much better position economically than the young people in our cities. Why is this? It's because they have a capital base.

This is what I urge you to consider today: first of all, the creation of a capital base; secondly, the necessary training; and thirdly, the necessary planning. I would challenge any of my colleagues to refute my suggestion today that you won't find any farmers in Alberta lining up at food banks asking for food. In Calgary in May of this year, the number of people drawing unemployment insurance was 24 percent higher than a year ago. Every day there are reports from my city of people losing their jobs, and many are leaving the province to seek jobs elsewhere.

So I think there is no question that there is a need, but how do we solve the dilemma of creating jobs? Many of our programs have provided a variety of ways of assistance, but in my view too many of these are aimed at developing employees who must depend on someone else to provide the jobs. I would suggest that we should be developing people who will take the risk that many farmers did and create jobs. Our province has more than doubled in popu­ lation in the last 20 years, and much of this growth is made up of young people.

While many have found jobs, the rate of job creation is less than the numbers coming onto the market, thus we have our rising or continuing high unemployment rates. In July of this year the total cost of UIC benefits paid to Albertans amounted to $816 million. The tragedy of such large amounts is that $816 million is paid out of the Treasury instead of helping people to work and to create our country's wealth and add to the Treasury. There is no question that there are many reasons why Alberta is a good place to do business.

Personal and corporate tax rates are the lowest in Canada, and the average take- home pay is the highest in Canada. In my view, there is potential for many new businesses. I appreciate that much has already been done, and there are many and varied ways in which this government has helped our private sector create jobs. For example, the Alberta Manpower budget for 1986-87 for financial instruction and counselling services is $214 million. The small business division of Economic Development will receive $4.3 million this year for similar services.

This summer Alberta Manpower, the private sector, the federal government, and the YMCA of Edmonton devel­ oped a youth entrepreneur program that involves $125,000 in funding by the department. Also under way with the support of the department is a 12-week entrepreneurial training program at the Northern Alberta Institute of Tech­ nology. Once students participate, they can no longer draw UIC benefits.

The idea for this entrepreneurial program was first given to me by a member of the Organization for Economic Co­ operation and Development, better known as OECD, while he was in Alberta two years ago doing a study on the research that was carried out in the western provinces. He mentioned to me a program that had been working in Europe, and we all know of the high unemployment in the European countries. When the Hon. Boomer Adair was Minister of Tourism and Small Business, he also encouraged me to discuss this program with Mr.

Phil Shragg, who was then the executive director of the small business assistance program. This gentleman was of great assistance in outlining the benefits and merits of the particular proposal. Similarly, I had some useful follow-up discussions with the Hon. Ernie Isley when he was Minister of Manpower and with Mr. Barry Day of his department. Because of several events in the government — change of leadership, an election, and pressing problems in the oil industry — this concept has not reached a point where a decision can be made, but I am informed that it has received considerable study in the government.

To have this idea adopted as a pilot venture would in my view be worthy and desirable. Whether or not this motion is passed, Mr. Speaker, is not nearly as important as hearing from members of the House to see if they agree that there is a way to reduce our unemployment rolls. I hope that our ministers of Eco­ nomic Development and Manpower will give careful thought to the debate on this motion. Some people may say that there are ample agencies to loan money to young people wishing to start a business.

What I am suggesting is a co­ operative idea between the unemployed and the governments of Canada and Alberta whereby we will encourage young people to take a risk and get into business for themselves. Besides a sense of self-worth to replace existing despair, I am sure that the feeling of achievement will more than make up for the long hours of study and work necessary to develop a successful business venture. Whether it is a loan or a grant or a combination of sweat equity and personal contribution is not important. We give incentive grants to the oil industry if they spend funds on certain programs.

This suggestion of mine to launch a small business is very modest compared to other ventures of various government agencies to stimulate the private sector. I'd like to briefly discuss and review the success of this program elsewhere. In Great Britain an enterprise allowance scheme for unemployed people was started in 1982. Over 110,000 people entered the program and about 75 percent of the businesses started are still operating. This program was copied by Great Britain from socialistic France, of all places, where they started a similar program in 1980.

Under the French program unemployment compensation of up to six months was available to make a lump sum investment. Three years after the program started — that is, in 1983 — 75,000 people had taken advantage of this program, with a 70 percent survival rate. Half of the 70 percent advised that they would not have started the business without financial help. There are many areas of concern or weakness in such a program, but I am sure my colleagues will deal with those. The advantages, though, I would like to list for my colleagues. First of all, it is one of the cheapest ways we know to create jobs.

Secondly, it helps people develop business skills they never realized they had. Once having

1364 ALBERTA HANSARD August 28, 1986 tasted the freedom and responsibility, they never again will want to work for someone else. Many who will be successful will expand and create jobs. It works well for those who have trouble finding work because of colour, education, skills, or language difficulties. I remember my days in the construction industry in Hull and Ottawa after the war. The entrepreneurs in home construction were mainly young French Canadians, many of them from rural areas of Quebec with limited education. The majority of them spoke very poor English.

But they had a desire and a free spirit, and as a result many of them did very well. The important thing, though, was that they had not been conditioned to work for someone else. I urge support of this concept by government. We need some ideas that are new to our province but have worked elsewhere if we are to care for the 10 percent of our population denied the opportunity to participate in the good life of Alberta and Canada. MR. SIGURDSON: Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon.

Member for Calgary McKnight lives in the constituency of Calgary Forest Lawn, and I wonder if during the campaign he didn't receive a little information from the New Dem­ ocratic Party, because we proposed something along this line as well. We won't take the credit for this, because as I say, there are a few discrepancies, and I'll get to those in a little bit. Mr. Speaker, what we had proposed . . . [interjection] Sorry, Greg. We'll work on it for next year as well; don't worry. To get back to the program we had proposed, it was based along the lines of a program in Manitoba which has had a good deal of success.

We had called the program in Alberta YouthStart, and it was formed on the program that has gone on in Manitoba. For those unemployed folk — not necessarily unemployed but young people who want to get started in a business venture who may not have any working capital whatsoever but don't like the idea of having to maintain a residence with their parents because they're at an age when they'd like to get away and they can't find work — the YouthStart program that we propose may allow them to set up a venture so they can go out and become productive members of society.

The program in Manitoba that we used as a model has a start-up grant of up to $4,000 per applicant and in a partnership would go as high as $8,000. In Manitoba in the first year of the program they had some 71 successful applicants. Thirty-six of those were in the service industry, 33 were in sales companies, and two were in manufacturing. Along with the proposed motion, this program, too, would ensure that there were necessary courses and consultants provided to these people that were starting up the program. What effect has that had?

Surely we can't take this program alone and look at the kind of effect it has . . . MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. I hate to interrupt the hon. member. I may be the Chairman of Committees, but we're not in committee. Would the House remember that the hon. member is speaking. MR. SIGURDSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman — or Mr. Speaker. I do apologize. Certainly this one program hasn't created or made the real change in unemployment that we experience in Alberta as compared to Manitoba, but let's look at the difference in figures between the two provinces.

In Manitoba for June 1986 there were 14,000 young people between the ages of 15 and 24 years unemployed. In Alberta there were some 45,000 people unemployed. That's 10.7 percent for the province of Manitoba and 14.8 percent here. What we should also be looking at is having other programs that would assist in the experience that young people require, a program much the same as the federal program of Katimavik.

The reason I suggest that is that that program is not a job-creation program; it's a program that allows for experience to be gained across the country or, if we were to set up such a project in our province, across our province. From that program, Katimavik Canada, a 1985 study showed that 59.8 percent of those who had participated in the program had employment, 27 percent were in school or university, and only 6.7 percent were unemployed. So surely there is experience to be gained in the volunteer world that can be taken to the business world. I have a couple of problems with the motion.

I had in my office the other day a constituent who was trying to set up a small business and needed some capital to try and get a prototype under way. He would perhaps qualify for the program were the government to adopt this motion and set up a program like this. I say "perhaps" since he would qualify because he has been unemployed for more than three months and is receiving unemployment insurance benefits; he wouldn't qualify because he hasn't got the money to match the program. The problem with this motion is that you have to match up to $10,000.

The applicant has to match that so that money will be matched by the government. That is the problem with the motion. Too many people, especially after they've been unemployed for three months and their incomes have been greatly reduced, start to turn to their savings accounts and draw on those savings accounts to pay the rent, to pay for the food and, if they're married, to pay for the clothes of children that are growing, and that money is soon drained.

So when they come up with an idea that would get them out of the rut of unemployment, all of a sudden they find that their money, the capital that is necessary for this motion, isn't there. It's gone. They've used it. Instead of having a program that would be available to assist unemployed people, I think this would be just another program on paper, and I wouldn't want to see that. I think the intent of the motion is good.

But to include in that that they have to be unemployed for three months and that they have to put up a matching amount, although it doesn't specify when that amount would have to go in — perhaps we could look at the applicant having to match it after a period of time, or after a period of successful operation money would have to come back. I am concerned about the immediate matching by the applicant for the start-up capital. With that I'll conclude my remarks. MRS. KOPER: Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased that the hon.

Member for Calgary McKnight has introduced this motion, because I think the unemployment situation in our province and in our country needs a new approach. The statistics that the hon. member brought forth are alarming and a constant reminder to us that we must start looking at things with new eyes — take a new look at employment in our province and country. Alberta's economy still creates as many jobs for its population as any other province, as is proven by having the highest employment to population ratio in all of Canada.

However, the province's job demands are such that our unemployment rate continues to grow, just as our population

August 28, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 1365 has grown by 26,000 over last year, as statistics have recently proven. So this problem is with us. The hon. Member for Calgary McKnight also mentioned that the Alberta government has striven to make Alberta an attractive place for carrying on a business. Our personal and corporate tax rates are among the lowest in Canada, and there are a wide range of services given directly to the unemployed. These include financial, instructional, and counselling services administered by Alberta Manpower.

If you take a look at programs specifically targeted toward the unemployed, the federal government offers many pro­ grams under the Employment and Immigration Commission jointly with our province: the Canada mobility program, Challenge '86, community futures program, foreign entre­ preneurs, CEIC job development program, job entry pro­ gram, national institutional training program, the outreach program, skill investment program, skill shortages program, and work sharing program. Mr. Speaker, in addition to that there are provincial programs offered for businessmen, the unemployed that wish to be upgraded.

In addition, the Alberta government has many programs aimed specifically toward financial and instructional assistance for businesses, and I could name them. Under Alberta Agriculture we have the business analysis branch, which provides consulting, and the product process development

section of Alberta Agriculture that has put many small businesses into the world market. One, for example, is in my constituency. It's an ice cream parlour that has taken the idea of making a very low calorie dessert that is cold and tastes a bit like ice cream. He has worked with Alberta Agriculture and developed a product called Toffait that is now marketed in New Zealand and Australia. Alberta Consumer and Corporate Affairs provides exten­ sive services for the unemployed, counselling services that will help them to get back into the work force.

The Alberta Department of Economic Development and Trade, of course, has programs for funding: the AOC; the SBECs, the small business program that we were promised in our throne speech. We have all sorts of services such as small business tips, starting a business in Alberta, and strategic planning. All of these consulting services are available. But all of it goes for nought if the person starting to create the job does not have the proper tools, Mr. Speaker. Private-sector job creation via subsidies is an incentive policy.

Whether or not private employers react positively to these incentive policies depends on a variety of other circumstances, including general and firm, specific demands. On the other hand, while public-sector programs don't depend on such market reactions, there is still a greater risk of make-work arrangements that are not fulfilling to the individual and perhaps do not prepare him or serve a need in our community. If public job creation is to play a significant role in dealing with the structural element of unemployment in the mediate term, I believe it needs a well defined, long-term role.

I see this motion as very, very important in that regard. As the hon. Member for Calgary McKnight has men­ tioned, this enterprise allowance scheme was first established in Great Britain in 1982 for unemployed people. Prior to that there was a 16-week British program at the University of Manchester, and I'm sure all hon. members have a vision of the kind of city Manchester is. It required participants to spend the first month in residence at the university, and participant selection from quite a large pool of applicants was based upon judgment of each applicant's potential to succeed. Therefore, Mr.

Speaker, I think we should very carefully consider under the first part of this motion the nature of each applicant and the characteristics of entre- preneurship that are so important to the success of this project. After running this program in Britain seven times, Manchester undertook to measure its success, and it was really exciting, Mr. Speaker. Seventy-six percent of the participants completing the program initiated a business. That is quite a feat. One year after completion the average employment level was eight people per new firm created.

About the same time an Irish program involved about 830 young people under 25 years of age, Mr. Speaker, and 67 percent of these people subsequently became self-employed. The parent program has processed over 1,600 people, mostly over 25 years of age, since 1978 and has seen 42 percent of the graduates become self-employed. As of the most recent measurement, the average business employed 4.6 persons per start-up, per initial investment. Mr. Speaker, the Member for Calgary McKnight brought out that advantage.

This scheme is one of the most cost- effective ways of creating new jobs through the small business sector. The statistics prove that in Britain jobs cost an average of $3,000 each compared to the estimate of $20,000 per person in governmental support given to job creation here in Canada. Mr. Speaker, this creates a group of people who, if really successful, gain confidence in their own business abilities and inspire others to discover the benefits of self- employment instead of the defeat of unemployment. Their life-style changes and so does ours.

These people will expand and create further jobs as their entrepreneurial ventures take root and succeed. Mr. Speaker, I believe this approach will work very well for many disadvantaged and minority groups who have difficulty getting into the labour force. There's an old Greek saying something like this: "Where the rewards for valour are greatest, there you will find the most valiant." I think the same can be said of the development of entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship.

We have proven that entrepreneurship is not only indigenous to Alberta but can and is being cultivated through many of the activities of our government and the people in Alberta. It must start with creativity, imagination, intelligence, perseverance, focus, determination, and self-motivation. It can be taught. With that you can teach the good managerial, financial, technical, and inter­ personal skills that are needed to make a successful business start. Mr. Speaker, in Calgary quite a bit has been done with the transfer of technology. An

article was brought to my attention a short while ago that talks about innovation and technology and has a few steps in what to do with an innovation. I feel sure it would be of interest to the hon. Member for Edmonton Belmont. One of the places you can go is the Canadian innovation centre at the University of Waterloo in Ontario. They ask a fee so they can provide an overview of the innovation or the project's feasibility. You can go to the Alberta Research Council in Edmonton, where they'll assist in the development of the commercial­ ization of products and transfer of technology.

The electronic products testing centre is an immensely successful place. You can go to Vencap Equities to look at venture capital for those concepts showing a big business potential. You can go to the industrial and regional development program, or you can try the entrepreneurship program at the University of Calgary called New Venture Development. It offers assistance with planning and marketing feasibility by taking

1366 ALBERTA HANSARD August 28, 1986 students, many of them in the work force and studying part-time. This course seeks to marry theory and practice by students actually working with small businesspeople, inventors, and innovators, developing ways and means to extend both the expertise, of the students and the success of the companies. The program is rooted in the idea that one of the best ways to teach anything is to do it. By linking together the downtown communities and businesses with the actual work of the students, there have been many, many instances of success.

A pilot study in 1984 of MBAs from the University of Calgary revealed that eight out of 10 MBAs graduating with three or more courses in entrepreneurship had businesses under way and the remaining two were planning on start­ up businesses in the not-too-distant future. Mr. Speaker, the spin-offs from this kind of activity are immense. I think we really must examine this idea very seriously, because it can work for us. It can be an exciting new and bold step into the future. We want to diversify. We find it necessary to take a more creative look at small businesses.

We have been conditioned to believe we must work for someone else. By programs such as the Member for Calgary McKnight has suggested, there will now be an opportunity to identify business opportunities and potential in people and to help them to get organized. If they lack confidence in starting a business, there is a way to teach them, and there is a way to develop and grow. Mr. Speaker, I believe a few items need consideration before we start this. Regardless of what the opposition member for Edmonton Belmont has suggested, I know that the government of Alberta has been working on this idea for three years.

Entrepreneurship has been extremely impor­ tant. It has made a partnership of the departments of Manpower, Economic Development, and Advanced Edu­ cation. They have worked together to create a climate where entrepreneurs are recognized and assisted. Mr. Speaker, in considering this motion, I think we must look at the needs of the local community, where job creation is needed. We must look at the availability of appropriate candidates, because entrepreneurs are special; I've listed a few of the characteristics.

We must look at the costs of the effective design of the program and at the community payoffs and the kind of spin-off resulting from this project work. Mr. Speaker, there is a model in existence right now at the University of Calgary under New Venture Devel­ opment. If I may close by talking about the symbol of their program, it's an open hand with a butterfly. It suggests to me the very delicate nature of starting a new venture, launching a new career, and getting an entrepreneur out into the work force so that he can create jobs and improve and maintain the quality of life that we have here in Alberta. Mr.

Speaker, I very much support this motion and feel it should be considered. There may be some problems that need adjustment, but I think there is good direction here. I hope all hon. members will support this. MRS. HEWES: Mr. Speaker, just a few comments on this motion. I too would like to applaud the hon. Member for Calgary McKnight for introducing it. As other members have indicated, I believe a number of the programs we've developed in this province to deal with unemployment have been very costly, and in some cases the figures don't appear to justify the investments.

I think it's time for a much more creative approach. We need new ideas, new options, and new alternatives, and I believe this one has some important elements in it. Mr. Speaker, the problem of unemployment is exacerbated and also accompanied by an increase in a rather new phenomenon; that is, underemployment, where we see people who have been educated in a chosen trade, skill, or profession unable to make use of their educational capacity and seriously underemployed, although managing to keep a job. Those circumstances create many, many hardships both to the individual and to the economy in the community. [Mr.

Musgreave in the Chair] Mr. Speaker, just an aside. I believe the small businesses we see being developed in this province and elsewhere are the driving force in the economy. It's always pleasing to me to read the new research which shows that in recent years most small businesses have been started by women, that women are the ones who are initiating and the creative thinkers in beginning and getting operational small business. Further, the research tells us that the vast majority of those small businesses that succeed are in fact owned and operated by women.

Women are more successful in not only getting them started but making successes of the business. That's a source of some comfort to those of us of that gender. Mr. Speaker, having acknowledged that, I would like to comment on a couple of problems I see here, recognizing that the hon. Member for Calgary McKnight has presented us with an outline and there will of course be some things to be worked out in any program. I think the idea embodied in item (3), "start-up capital to a maximum of $10,000, to be matched . . ." is not an unusual one and not wrong in many ways.

Certainly an investment on the part of the individual is a good idea, because there is a commitment on the part of that person. However, I believe this could have a very serious negative effect and might in fact not allow the program to work at all. Unfortunately, the individuals who wish to get into this kind of business, who have very creative and innovative ideas, often have very little in the way of security or collateral and are not in a position to go out and get a bank loan or dispose of assets which they don't have in order to match the amount required.

I believe that could have some serious negative consequences. Frequently these people have used up all their resources, in some cases trying to get into business, and would not be in a position to access a program if this kind of requirement and constraint were placed upon it. Mr. Speaker, I would like to see a different approach taken there or some adjustment made to that, where the matching process could be phased in as cash flow was available or where it was

part loan and

part capital, the loan repayable over time as cash flow is established. I think the concept is a good one, but if this is how it's to be done, matched at the outset by the applicant, it might be quite negative. Mr. Speaker, the other one I want to comment on is item (2), the instructional period. Sorry I got them back­ wards. Again, a good idea, but in my view it doesn't go far enough. During the campaign our party as well had some things to say about Albertans' entrepreneurial spirit and the need to give some support to start-up systems for small business.

We call it a small business incubator, and I think this program has some of those same elements in it. However, they aren't fleshed out far enough to suit me. I believe,

August 28, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 1367 Mr. Speaker, that consultant services should be available to these enterprising businesses on a more ongoing basis. In my view, all too often successful beginnings are just that: beginnings. Business failure can occur because the owner didn't have any continuing consultant service available to aid in decision-making on expansion, undertaking new product lines, and so on. I feel very strongly that the incubator idea, which provides continuous support until the business itself has achieved stability, is one of the items that should certainly be built in and could well be built in to

section 2 of the motion put forward here. With those few comments which I hope will be taken into consideration, Mr. Speaker, I think the motion has some excellent elements in it. MR. DOWNEY: I rise to speak in favour of this motion because it describes in general terms the direction that this government should be taking in alleviating the economic and social concerns that we have with high unemployment and a faltering economy.

Although I have some specific reservations about the motion as it stands on the Order Paper — and some of these have been mentioned — I believe these can be worked out before the concept is patterned into legislation. I believe our priority today should be to proceed with the concept in order to develop it into an innovative and practical solution. Economic diversification in this province is a priority. I believe all parties will concede that. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we have an untapped resource in the anonymous unem­ ployed. There are people out there who have been partially defeated by the system.

They have been beaten down but not out. They are looking for an opportunity close to home but have been led to believe that all the opportunities are in the larger centres. Nothing could be further from the truth. Opportunities abound in rural and smaller urban centres. Many residents are starved for service. Modern mobility and travel being what they are, most people have experienced at one time or another superior service, whether it be a bellman at a good hotel, an exceptional dinner service, a multitude of variety in shopping, or a midnight pizza.

These people will pay for a service like that closer to home, but it's not available. The socialists have succeeded in creating an atmosphere of "work at your trade." If there are no jobs or if a labour dispute develops, the government will take care of you. This social safety net must be made leakproof. It is time for this Conservative government to stand up and say, "Here is an opportunity for a worker to make his own way." It is not unlike the incentives that were offered to pioneers in this country when it was settled.

As the mover of this motion alluded to, 160 acres were made available for a $10 registration fee to those who were willing to prove it up in a specified length of time. There should be no gifts from government other than a new sense of direction, a visible horizon for the recently dispossessed or the UIC recipient. Assistance could be offered in lump sum payments of UIC as per the French example or limited interest-free money. No gifts, Mr. Speaker, but let us motivate and inspire a new direction. Mr. Speaker, I believe there is widespread support for a program of this type.

A couple of years ago the policy committee from the Wetaskiwin-Leduc constituency pre­ sented a similar proposal to the Department of Manpower. I believe support of this nature exists throughout the prov­ ince. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the pioneering spirit in Alberta is alive but not well. It flickers as a candle in a draft. The wick is dampened and struggles to hold the feeble flame. We can shelter the flame. We can dry the wick, and we can fire the flame with natural gas. The wax candle will become a Bunsen burner, and the Bunsen burner could ignite flares all over the province.

The flares would light the way to new prosperity. I say, "Let's carry the idea embodied in this motion forward." Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. PIQUETTE: I rise to support the Bill put forward by the Member for Calgary McKnight and to offer some suggestions. I would also like to respond to one of the ideas that the Liberals also took from us, from our election campaign platform: the business incubator program that we had submitted. It was kind of funny that all of a sudden during the middle of the campaign we saw that the Liberal platform so closely resembled the New Democrat platform.

Now I can see that the Conservatives were also looking at the ideas proposed by the social democrats in other parts of Canada like Manitoba, where their youth incubator program has been very successful and has gotten a lot of young people working at their own initiative. When we start looking at the social cost of welfare and unemployment, I believe the current statistics indicate that it costs over $20,000 a year to keep somebody on welfare without looking at the whole structural, social, and emotional costs that are incurred.

This government is making a very heavy investment in terms of keeping people on welfare and unemployment insurance. With this Bill, I think for the first time I am hearing something from the Conservative side, which very often misinterprets what "socialism" means. Basically, the social democratic parties have always worked toward full employ­ ment as opposed to the capitalistic governments which seem to believe that unemployment is good because it keeps wages down. We've heard that from a lot of Conservative members in the past.

Our party policy basically respects human dignity, and human dignity dictates that we respect the right of productivity of people and that we strive to have social and economic programs where the individual is able to realize himself to the fullest potential. The idea of making sure that we invest money wisely in a job creation program is at least addressed seriously by this Bill. It would only be improved by helping people who do get into business to get the expertise and counselling to make sure they don't make very silly mistakes.

Very often when people get into small business, they fail to do little feasibility studies, they fail to research their market, and they fail to even understand the proper accounting and bookkeeping procedures. It's all very nice to invest money, but we have to make sure it's a wise investment. It could simply be open to people who apply for a $10,000 grant and perhaps match it to some extent, but they're perhaps going to take your money and run.

Unless we address the very serious aspects of making sure of the success ratios of these grants and that they're wisely invested, they could be open to a rip-off by people who get involved with this kind of misuse of government money. A Bill like this should also come out with the programs to support a small business venture loan program to business people, people who are on welfare or unemployed and who wish to start their own jobs. The business incubator program that the New Democrats have proposed addresses that.

The money would be made available through Treasury Branches and credit unions, and attached to these credit unions and

1368 ALBERTA HANSARD August 28, 1986 Treasury Branches would be the business expertise these people who are looking to start up new businesses would need so that they would not be completely naked when they get out there in the business world, that they would have a fair chance of being successful. Presently small business suffers a success ratio of only 15 percent; only 15 percent of our small businesses that start up survive the first five years. If this program we're proposing here has that same kind of success ratio, that is a very poor investment of our taxpayers' money.

The Manitoba youth incubator program has a success ratio of 65 percent; only 35 percent fail. That is the difference when you have a program that is thought out and imple­ mented by a New Democratic government, as opposed to a Conservative or Liberal government, which very often, again, takes a good idea except doesn't work out the details to make sure that the program will work. Thank you very much. MR. BRADLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I hadn't intended to speak to this motion proposed by my hon. colleague, but I would like to set the record straight and commend my hon. colleague for bringing this motion to the Legislature. To set the record straight for the members in the New Dem­ ocratic Party opposite, the hon. Member for Calgary McKnight brought forward this idea in the 1985 session. It was on the Order Paper. So their allusions that somehow the Con­ servatives are adopting their ideas in the last election cam­ paign are not accurate.

Just one further comment I'd like to make is that I understand their leader at that time was less than impressed with the idea put forward by my hon. colleague. MR. NELSON: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to stand in my place and speak to the motion. Although I recognize the sincerity of the hon. Member for Calgary McKnight in placing this on the Order Paper, I have some difficulty in supporting its concept. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of areas in the program I guess we could talk about.

Of course, it's always useful to discuss those areas of concern, and certainly when people are out of work and concerned about their families and their well-being, I know we all share that concern. Over the years I know that the government of the province has done everything in its ability to make life much easier for many of these folks who have reached some difficulties. Presently there are umpteen dozen programs available through federal and provincial make-work things. Certainly there are moneys available for people to go out in the business community.

As a businessperson, I'll be darned if I want my tax dollars to be taken from me continually to be placed into a competitor's pocket to allow him to compete with me with my money. Basically, that's what this says. Now, what is free enterprise? You know, there is this view by many — and let's face it, the country was built on the initiative of pioneers, and many of them, new to this land, brought hard work, good minds, and didn't ask for social handouts by a bunch of communal-thinking com­ mies or whatever you want to call them. Let's deal with these types of issues.

The programs that are available in the province today — although I have some difficulty with one or two of them personally, such as the Alberta Oppor­ tunity Company. We have the Treasury Branches. We have the Alberta Research Council which has moneys available to people to go out and assist in research activities. Technology, Research and Telecommunications: another activity for people with technology to be developed. Vencap, of course, is a joke. We have the SBEC program, which is there to help small business. The small business term assistance fund will be coming into being shortly, I expect.

The feds have programs. They have guaranteed bank loan programs of 1 percent over prime interest rates, business development centres. And you know, Mr. Speaker, the list goes on and on and on. There are programs there and people to assist those who require assistance, to direct them to the right program that may give them that opportunity. Mr. Speaker, we've had two decades of extremely rapid growth in Alberta. At times there was very little or no unemployment.

We all know that that type of growth, no matter where it may occur, whether in Canada, Alberta, Australia, or wherever, cannot continue at the same level it was in the '70s and early '80s. I can recall many years ago in Australia where there was less than 1 percent unemployment. Then they elected a Labour government, and look what's happened down there. Let's read the facts: 12 to 14 percent unemployment, total labour unrest, caused by a labour organization. The Prime Minister now, of course, was the leader of the Australian Labour Party. [Mr.

Speaker in the Chair] Now we have our socialists over here who just love to shoot holes in the private sector, free enterprisers who don't want a heck of a lot to do with government totally. Yet we are continually determined to remove the initiatives of some of these people. MR. SPEAKER: I hesitate to interrupt, but the time for consideration of this item of business has concluded. head: PUBLIC BILLS AND ORDERS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Second Reading) Bill 211 Seat Belt Act DR. CASSIN: Mr.

Speaker, I rise to move second reading of Bill 211, asking for legislation on mandatory seat belt use in this province. This Bill would amend the Highway Traffic Act, amending

chapter H-7 of the Revised Statutes of Alberta 1980. Mr. Speaker, approximately 30 years ago, in 1956, the automobile industry introduced seat belts as an option. In 1964 they were standard equipment on all North American cars.

As a physician practising for a good number of years in many emergency departments in this country and expe­ riencing firsthand the carnage that takes place on the high­ ways of this nation and being in a position to compare the injuries of those individuals who were in motor vehicle accidents and wore seat belts and those who did not, I found it difficult to comprehend why one would not wear a seat belt. This is particularly true of the improved shoulder/ lap seat belt combination.

When seat belts were first introduced, they were primarily for the purpose of preventing someone from being ejected from an automobile. A recent study released in July of this year indicated that although they achieve that purpose, there may in fact be a danger of wearing a seat belt, particularly

August 28, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 1369 a lap seat belt in the backseat because of injuries that are caused. I must state, however, that some 26 head-on col­ lisions are included in this study and this is an insufficient number. The study also indicates that seat belts, particularly the three-point seat belt that protects the torso, are still the most effective way of reducing the carnage on the highways of this nation. Mr. Speaker, this Bill has been before this Assembly in the past, put forward by hon. members with strong convictions and perhaps personal experiences that compelled them to bring forward this Bill.

These people recognized that public education and common sense are not sufficient to address this problem. I must, however, compliment their efforts, including the efforts of organizations such as Trans­ port Canada and our own Alberta transportation system for the educational programs that they put in place. There has in fact been a substantial improvement in the utilization of seat belts in this province over the last five years, from 11.5 percent in 1980 to 22.8 percent in 1985. This is, however, the second worst in this country.

In Canada in those provinces that utilize seat belts, the utilization is some 62 percent. Mr. Speaker, in reviewing the literature and the pres­ entations that were made before supporting and objecting to this Bill, it's obvious there's not a question of effec­ tiveness. The question is ideology. Many people feel that it's just another example of government intervention in their civil rights. We may be accused of paternalism in a derog­ atory manner by our citizens. There are occasions, however, when paternalism is in the best interests of all and not contrary to democratic principles.

It is difficult to believe, Mr. Speaker, that in the 20th century we allow thousands of people to die and tens of thousands more to be injured because of ideology. Driving is not a right. It's a privilege. We are licensed for that privilege. We must pass certain tests. We must abide by the laws of the road, whether that be wearing a helmet if you ride a motorcycle, wearing glasses if you have impaired vision, stopping for red lights, yielding to oncoming traffic, driving on the right side of the road, or not driving while intoxicated.

Are these laws examples of undue government interference, or are they the necessary rules of a civilized society? Should the licence read, "Invalid unless seat belt is worn"? In a recent court case in the province of Quebec a panel of three judges of the Quebec Court of Appeal ruled unanimously that the provincial seat belt law does not contravene the driver's constitutional right. They ruled that seat belts qualify as a reasonable limitation within a free and democratic society. It has also been found, Mr. Speaker, that the majority of people are not against seat belts.

It's just that most of us find them inconvenient, obtrusive, and a nuisance. And they are. A recent survey, however, by the city of Calgary's police department during one of their check stops found that out of 2,498 vehicles that were stopped, 69.5 percent of those people indicated that they would be in favour of mandatory seat belt legislation in this province. Mr. Speaker, the majority of us don't like to think about safety because in so doing we think about an accident. The majority of us have the feeling that it will happen to perhaps our neighbour but it's never going to happen to me.

In this province in 1984 there were 376 people killed in traffic accidents; 354 of those were not buckled up, and it's estimated that 234 could have been saved. I would estimate that none of these people thought they were going to be in an accident. I also suggest that if they knew they were going to be angels in 1986 and in an accident when this Bill was introduced in the 1980s, that their name was on that list, they'd be pounding at this door, asking for this province to bring in the legislation to look after those who are still to be killed on the highways of this province. Mr.

Speaker, the support for seat belt legislation does not come just from a few overzealous members of this province; it's supported by large numbers of citizens and responsible organizations who have taken a public position on this issue.

I'd like to name a few: the Alberta Medical Association, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the Alberta Motor Association, the Motor Dealers' Association, the Alberta Hospital Association, the Alberta Public Health Association, the Alberta Association of Registered Nurses, the Health Unit Association of Alberta, the Alberta coalition for child transportation safety, the Alberta Safety Council, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the police departments in the cities of Calgary and Edmonton, the Consumers' Association of Canada, Alberta division, the Insurance Bro­ kers' of Alberta, the north Calgary Jaycees, the Cochrane health unit, The Family Health Magazine, as well as a number of the newspapers and journals of this province.

I've also received a number of calls from individuals, people like Ken Read, who represented this country as a downhill ski racer and presently plays a very active role with CODA. During this time I've only had two letters and one call from individuals opposed to this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to point out that in the province of Nova Scotia, which brought in the legislation in 1985, utilization in that province jumped from 20.2 to 80.8 within one year. In the urban area it had jumped to 94.9 percent.

I must also point out that when legislation has been brought in in the past, usually there is a peak and then it drops off. We have a present average of 62 percent across the country. But I should also point out that there was an increase in utilization in all provinces last year with the exceptions of the provinces of Saskatchewan and British Columbia. It must be further recognized that if this program is to be successful, it will only be successful if selective traffic programs are in place. Mr.

Speaker, in support of our argument for the use of mandatory seat belts in this province, we have to look at the example of the legislation when it came into effect in other provinces. In Ontario in 1975 prior to the intro­ duction of legislation, 1,314 people were killed on their highways. In 1985, ten years later, there were 800. At the same time there were 25 percent more accidents. In the province of Saskatchewan prior to the introduction of seat belt legislation in 1977, there were 129 deaths compared with 24 in '85. Mr. Speaker, this is only part of the story.

It is estimated that in Ontario buckling up saves the province approximately $2.5 million annually in hospital costs, another $20 million in lost time and productivity, and somewhere between $40 million and $45 million in indirect social and other costs. It's estimated that the lack of seat belt legislation in this province costs us approximately $10 million a year in medical and hospital costs. Can we as a reasonable and responsible government continue the wastage of lives and services and dollars when the alternative is so readily available?

One has to conclude that mandatory seat belt legislation is the most efficient, instantaneous, and least-cost method of increasing seat belt usage in any jurisdiction. Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested in the past that seat belt legislation be limited to those 18 years and younger.

1370 ALBERTA HANSARD August 28, 1986 I have a great deal of difficulty with this. One has to recognize that the poorest utilization of seat belts is in the ages five to 24, where it varies between 7.3 and 12.3 percent. But the critical thing is that the most common cause of death in young people between the ages of 18 and 25 is motor vehicle accidents. The most common cause of deaths in this country in males under 40 and women under 30 is motor vehicle accidents. I appreciate that other factors are involved. It may be inexperience, poor judgment, and alcohol.

But I have to say that in those cases, if those people were buckled up and if they buckled up because of habit or because they felt they might be fined, the number of lives we would salvage would be greatest in this particular group of people. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to bring the point home that approximately three weeks ago in the southern part of this province a young couple, a husband and wife in their late teens with a young child, age one, complied with the legislation that this province brought in the previous year. Mom and dad were both killed; the baby survived.

I really have to ask whether if we had legislation at this time, that couple would be with us today and able to take on the responsibility of looking after their orphaned child. Some five weeks ago a neighbour's friend, who talked to me in the backyard when I was home, said: "You know, I'm glad you're doing something about this. My friends coming back from British Columbia crossed the border and the 12-year-old said, 'Isn't it great to be back to Alberta and get rid of this darned old seat belt?'" At Canmore the family car was in an accident.

The 12-year-old was thrown from the car and two weeks later is still in the intensive care unit at the Foothills hospital. There is a myth out there that people will be saved when thrown from their cars. The chance of being killed when being ejected or thrown from a car is 25 times higher than if you stay within the protective framework of that car. I'd also note that the majority of accidents occur within 40 kilometres of one's home and at speeds of less than 70 kilometres an hour. Of the serious accidents, 85 percent involve drivers with good records.

Human error is at fault in 90 percent of these accidents, and you may not necessarily be the cause of the accident. Mr. Speaker, five days from now we will be celebrating the last long weekend of our summer. We will have Albertans returning home from their cottages or from the lake, towing their boats or their trailers; a car full of clothing and tired, irritable parents and children. There will be accidents unfor­ tunately.

I'd like to think that if any message should go forth from this Assembly today, the message should be that this province once and for all is going to take a responsible and reasonable position and bring in mandatory legislation to this province. Let's take a note and let's buckle up. If we save just one life five days from now, this afternoon and this exercise will be all worth while. I thank you. MR. ALGER: Mr. Speaker, buckle up indeed. Don't be caught dead sitting on your seat belts. Survivors wear seat belts. Mr.

Speaker, I too rise to address this subject of concern to many Albertans, the question of mandatory seat belt legislation. Like others I get upset every time government interferes in the rights of individuals, and being a free enterpriser I am against most legislation that interferes with these rights. Most members have been inundated with phone calls and letters from those against the wearing of seat belts.

But I was elected to serve the interests of the majority of the citizens of Highwood, and I'll give you my written guarantee that I've had far more calls indicating they are in favour of seat belt legislation than against it. Therefore, I speak for it. In my opinion, the government should take the initiative to enact seat belt legislation, legislation that would not only benefit citizens through significant cost savings but potentially save most of their lives. A Transport Canada survey shows that up to 69 percent of Albertans favour seat belt legislation.

Accident investigators believe that approximately a third of Albertans killed in traffic accidents each year would've survived had they been wearing their seat belts. The savings from hospital costs alone run into millions of dollars. When you connect the savings with hospitals as well as lawyer costs and rehabilitative costs, it gets into the hundreds of millions of dollars for Albertans every year, Mr. Speaker. I suggest before this body of hon. members that this legislation should not be enacted by a free vote.

The government of Alberta should take the bull by the horns and adopt the private member's Bill of Calgary North West MLA Dr. Stan Cassin. Since a number of members favour the Bill, it could conceivably be passed quickly and could be saving the lives of Albertans this year. It grieves me that such lifesaving legislation is coming too late for many Albertans. Please don't make it too late for any more. When polio was killing people years ago, no one thought their rights were being infringed on when a cure was found and they were asked to take the vaccine.

But when it has been proven that seat belts save lives, they get upset about their rights. Mr. Speaker, we were elected to look after the well- being of the citizens of Alberta. No reasonable person would argue that seat belts do not save lives. John Stuart Mill once wrote: human beings owe to each other help to distinguish the better from the worse and encouragement to choose the former and avoid the latter. I can only hope that the wisdom of the Legislature will prevail and this Bill will be passed quickly. MR. PIQUETTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on behalf of seat belt legislation, Bill 211.

Since I have been named transportation critic for the Official Opposition, I have studied for many long hours reviewing both sides of the argument. Statistics in all parts of the world, not just here in Canada, point to the single conclusion: the right to choose not to use occupant restraint systems has too high a price. However, Albertans continue to ignore lifesaving, injury- preventing benefits of seat belts. Only 13.5 percent of people involved in collisions in 1984 were buckled up.

This is particularly disturbing in light of the strong evidence to show that seat belts triple a person's chance of survival in a collision. A person is also one and a half times less likely to be injured when wearing a seat belt. When we put all this information together, we have only one choice. Some argue that an educational campaign to convince occupants of a vehicle to buckle up is as effective as legislation and that is the way to go.

However, educational programs have been carried out in a number of provinces including Alberta and in Great Britain, the United States, and European countries prior to their introduction of seat belt legislation. These have cost many millions of dollars, yet studies indicate that this has had little or no measurable effect on seat belt use levels in those countries. Only seat belt legislation has proven successful in dramatically chang­

August 28, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 1371 ing people's attitudes. These have all been pointed out in statistics indicated by Dr. Cassin. Others argue that seat belt legislation infringes on indi­ vidual rights. That argument could be used to contradict enactment of any legislation that we have in the province of Alberta. Today we have laws that protect individuals from excessive speed.

Are we going to strike down speed limits in towns, cities, school zones, and highways because these laws that protect the individual as well as the public infringe on the individual's right to press as far down on the accelerator as he wants to? That argument is completely illogical. Vehicles are dangerous instruments in the hands of people, and failure to wear a seat belt directly endangers their lives as well as others. A person's failure to wear a belt endangers others in two ways.

There have been cases where an evasive man­ oeuvre or a minor collision occurred and the driver was thrown out from behind the wheel. The vehicle then con­ tinued without driver and was subsequently involved in a serious secondary collision. Seat belts may well have pre­ vented the second, more severe accident. A study of 1,355 injury accident cases indicated that 28 percent of the drivers in the sample who were wearing seat belts were involved in multiple-impact accidents,

whereas 36 percent of the drivers in the sample who were not wearing seat belts were involved in multiple-impact acci­ dents; that is, for all drivers wearing seat belts, 8 percent of the injury collisions would not have resulted in multiple impact, and in the overall picture secondary collisions would have dropped by 22 percent. Passengers without safety belts, even in relatively slow- speed collisions, 15 miles an hour, become uncontrolled projectiles in the car interior.

Drivers and frontseat pas­ sengers are especially prone to serious and often fatal neck, spine, and internal crushing injuries caused by being struck by a flying rearseat passenger. In side collisions or rollovers unbelted riders not only injure themselves by impacting the vehicle interior but cause serious and often fatal injuries to their fellow passengers by striking them or crushing them against the sides, floor, roof, seat, and dash assemblies of the vehicle. Therefore, to say that seat belt legislation only infringes on individual rights is incorrect.

Not wearing belts directly endangers the lives of people who are in other vehicles and in the same vehicle as the driver. Mr. Speaker, the question of seat belt legislation has been before the people of this province and before their government for years. All conceivable arguments have been advanced and readvanced. I was checking Hansards, for example, for the other debates that have taken place here in the Alberta Legislature. I guess I could spend half an hour throwing out my own group of statistics, but they have all been said before. Every possible angle of the issue has been explored in depth.

The time has come for a decision by this Legislative Assembly. I do not believe there is a single member in this Assembly whose position on this matter is not well formulated today. I believe it would be little less than criminal if the motion for second reading of this Bill were talked out and the Bill did not come to a vote today. It's time for a vote. All members of our caucus are in favour of seat belt legislation. How about you? Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move that the question be put now. MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, there is no discussion with regard to a motion to put the question.

All those in favour of putting the question at this moment, please say aye. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. MR. SPEAKER: Opposed, please say no. SOME HON. MEMBERS: No. MR. SPEAKER; The motion is defeated. MR. STEVENS: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to be able to support Bill 211, proposed by my colleague for Calgary North West, calling for legislation for seat belt use in our province. I supported a similar motion, a private member's Bill brought to us by the former Member for Stony Plain. Such legislation is long overdue in our province. We are now out of step with nine other provinces.

Even Prince Edward Island has legislation; it has simply not yet been proclaimed. Our child restraint legislation, which requires children to be restrained in appropriate car seats or belts, applies only to children born after December 31, 1984, and only until they're five years of age or 40 pounds. It is not only discriminatory; it does not, as the Member for Calgary North West stated, go far enough. What a poor example we have set for other children. We have simply said, "Do as I say and not as I do." What a tragic waste we have for young people.

If one reads the Community and Occupational Health minister's statistics of deaths in this province from various causes — male, female, all of the age groups — and when one calculates the wasted lives and the number of years, there is no greater waste than the loss in motor vehicle accidents for young Albertans in numbers of years times numbers of deaths. It exceeds every other kind of death.

I spoke in this Assembly on April 21, 1983, and I won't repeat those remarks except to say that I support the principle that laws must be enacted where the public good is greater than any individual hardship imposed by those laws. Government has a responsibility to intervene where an individual's actions interfere or harm others or the rest of society. Members, I agree with the Member for Athabasca- Lac La Biche, and I am glad that he has given his views today, too, and the Member for Highwood.

The failure to wear a seat belt does and can and will cause not only direct physical but financial and emotional harm to others — not only to himself or herself but to others. How long can Albertans afford this needless, meaningless waste in terms of lives lost, serious injuries, crippling and disabling injuries, lost income, lost productivity, and so on? What are the kinds of odds? You know, members of this Assembly sometimes talk about odds. What are the odds that we face in Alberta? If you don't wear a seat belt, your odds are 3 to 1 that you'll be killed if you're in an accident.

Or they're 2 to 1 that you'll be seriously injured in a collision, again if you don't wear a seat belt. I said recently, Mr. Speaker, that I thought we should consider positive life-styles with respect to health care premiums. Another aspect of this whole debate may very well be our insurance premiums and our motor vehicle premiums, and we should consider and find some way to encourage people if we fail to take this important act today. In our lifetimes each of us in this room, each of us in the galleries, everyone in this province, has a 50 percent chance of being in a serious car accident.

In Canada one out of every 10 people faces an accident in an automobile in the next 10 years. It is estimated that the cost in terms of dollars alone, and that shouldn't be the basis for our argument, in 1983 in Alberta — not just for medical costs

1372 ALBERTA HANSARD August 28, 1986 but for legal costs, police costs, enforcement, social costs, rehabilitation costs, all of those costs — amounted to three- quarters of a billion dollars. Seat belts can reduce a one- half million dollar death loss or a one-third million dollar tragic, seriously crippling accident — just one — to a $4,000 moderate injury cost and a $1,500 property damage loss. Fortunately, Mr. Speaker and friends, the members of the public of Alberta are ahead of our legislators — not enough perhaps, but it's growing.

The list of organizations and individuals grows daily and weekly throughout our province. All want to see this government enact mandatory seat belt legislation. As the Member for Calgary North West said, while the rate of our usage has doubled in five years from a dismal 12 percent to this incredible 24 percent, where there is mandatory legislation in Canada, it's three times that rate, because we are law-abiding citizens in the main.

We respect the law, and mandatory legislation such as Bill 211, with its exceptions and its exemptions — it's been very well thought out by the member — would triple the rate of seat belt usage in Alberta, reduce the needless death toll and the seriousness of injuries, and bring Albertans into the mainstream of public safety legislation. I'd like to remind members of one statistic; it's a very grim statistic, one we should not be proud of.

As we leave this Assembly this long weekend and drive to our consti­ tuencies, one out of every 20 vehicles you encounter this Friday or Saturday night will be driven by a drunk, an impaired driver. One out of every 20 vehicles that you pass or that pass you on our highways on a Friday or Saturday evening, 5 percent of those vehicles, will have drunks at the wheel. Well, they've had too many belts; they've broken the law. We've got lots of laws, and our laws won't stop them.

But the right kind of belt, a mandatory seat belt law, will encourage every person on the road to wear a belt and give us a chance for survival. Mr. Speaker, a Red Deer citizen wrote to me and said: To say Albertans have the right to decide whether to wear their seat belts or not, is like saying they have the right to go around accidentally shooting each other. Mr. Speaker, representation. Each of us has that respon­ sibility. Representation is not lying about in fields waiting for the sheep to decide where they are going and then racing ahead of the flock.

It requires courage, it requires commitment, it sometimes requires standing alone and taking a position based on evidence, based on research that not all citizens have access to. It means saying "Come on" and not "Go on." And so I say to my team and to all in this Assembly: come on team, let us take this step and show that we are indeed concerned. This private member's Bill deserves to be a government Bill and endorsed by all members of this Assembly. MR. CHUMIR: Mr. Speaker, to date I've been the only man in the regiment out of step in the Liberal caucus. The view I have expressed publicly is that of indecision.

I have now reached the decision to support the Bill and seat belt legislation, as do all members of the Liberal caucus, I am authorized to say. My problem has never been one with respect to the merits and value of seat belts. I'm convinced that they save lives and reduce injuries. I have worn a seat belt without deviation for many, many years, and no one sits in my vehicle without wearing one.

I understand that sometimes it's suggested that wearing seat belts may in fact cause harm: however, I'm convinced that these situations are remote and that the odds are overwhelmingly in favour of greater safety if they're worn. The problems I've had to date then are ones of principle. Unfortunately, time doesn't allow a very thorough analysis of the important principles involved in this issue, and while I propose to raise and discuss them briefly, I don't consider the discussion to be definitive but rather to be merely a guide.

The concern I have is to see that as a community, when we analyze these issues, we avoid accepting philo­ sophical principles which justify unlimited invasions of indi­ vidual freedom and autonomy by the state. As was noted by an earlier speaker, the classic statement on the role of the state by John Stuart Mill in his book On Liberty was that the only justification for the state to limit individual freedom was to prevent harm to others and that the justi­ fication of the safety or good of the individual himself was not sufficient.

I've heard several speakers refer to the fact that there is a danger of hurtling bodies in a vehicle harming others and thereby attempting to use the harm rationale as a basis for supporting this legislation. I can't accept that, unfor­ tunately, because I don't believe it's at the heart of the issue. That is very, very remote, and if we're going to find that as the basis in this instance, then we'll find virtually no situation with any kind of conduct in which we can't stretch the situation to justify that form of inter­ ference. So while Mr.

Mill's principle is a laudable basis for maximizing human freedom, in practice it raises some serious difficulties of application. I would just like to raise, for example, by way of conundrum the issue of heroin. Do we make it unlawful to use heroin? On one level this is a matter which concerns the individual only, in theory. On another level, however, the effects of widespread heroin use affect the whole community negatively, and this is an argument which is used to justify intervention of the state to prohibit its use.

So it's a matter of difficulty and dispute in order to determine the degree and kind of effects upon the community which should justify restraints upon individual freedom. My concern is that there can clearly be a significant danger to personal freedoms if we expand the realm of the state too broadly and on an unprincipled basis.

So a point that I would like to urge most strongly upon this House and upon those members of the public who analyze the issue is that the commonly heard justification that the state has a sufficient interest in requiring seat belt use because we pay the medical costs through medicare — my suggestion is that is inadequate in itself as a justification and should not be used.

If this were to be sufficient justification without more, we could very easily find ourselves banning or interfering with any activity which involves harm to one's health or danger of accident; for example, smoking, drinking, mountain climbing, hang gliding, rugby — heaven forbid — and many other activities, all on the basis of medical cost borne in the community.

So I find it very difficult to accept that the community should have any greater interest in the seat belt issue merely because we have a medicare scheme than if we were in the premedicare era in which each person generally looked after his or her own health care. If this were justification, we would thereby justify limiting individual freedoms merely because we had enacted a compulsory medicare system about which each individual had no choice. So I prefer, without setting any broad rules in the limited time available here, to support seat belt l