July 8, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 399 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Tuesday, July 8, 1986 2:30 p.m. Date: 86/07/08 [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] MR. CHUMIR: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to request that the hon. minister of hospitals withdraw his statement in question period yesterday that I was entirely mistaken in my

preamble, in view of the fact that I have the documents in my hand showing that there has in fact been a delay in the proposed

schedule for designating hospitals. MR. M. MOORE: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I'd be more than happy to debate with the hon. member whether, in fact, he was entirely mistaken. I also have several documents in my hand that would indicate that he was mistaken and would be happy to provide them to the Legislature. MR. CHUMIR: Presumably we will debate in room 312 after the question period, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. I hope you both will enjoy coffee shortly after the afternoon proceeds from question period.

If we could continue with the business of the House, please. head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce in your gallery today the distinguished ambassador from Argentina to Canada, His Excellency and Mrs. Pulit. I would ask that they rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I had indicated that His Excellency's wife was present with him, and that was not the case.

I would, however, like to introduce another distinguished visitor in your gallery as well, the distinguished Member of Parliament for Athabasca, Jack Shields, who is chairman of the Alberta caucus of the Members of Parliament, all of whose members are of the same party. head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table the annual report of the Department of Municipal Affairs. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS DR. WEST: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce to you, and through you to the members of the Assembly, Mr.

Don Whittaker, chairman of the board of governors of Lakeland College, headquartered in Vermilion. The recent growth of this campus and college is a credit to Don's tremendous work as chairman and is much appreciated. I would ask Don, who is seated in the members' gallery, to stand and receive the warm welcome of this House. MISS McCOY: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me today to introduce to you, and through you to members of the Assembly, a person who has been important to me all of my life, my brother.

With him in the members' gallery you will see a vision of Alberta's great future, my niece Andrea McCoy and my nephew Darrin McCoy. I would ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. MR. HYLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce a constituent of mine to the Assembly, Cathy Kienzle from Bow Island, who is accompanied by her father, Allan Eng. It is a little difficult for me to introduce Mr. Eng, except that I ran against him in 1975 in the constituency of Cypress. I don't know if I scared him or what, but he moved to Edmonton after that and became president of the NDP.

If the Legislature would welcome Mr. Eng and his daughter Cathy. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Petrochemical Industry MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the first question to the Premier. It flows from yesterday, when he said that gas deregulation won't hurt our petrochemical industry because of our assured supply and proximity to feedstocks.

Could the Premier indicate why the government supports gas deregulation — that is, abolishing the Alberta border price — when it is clear that the cheaper transportation cost advantage of moving Alberta gas to Alberta's petro­ chemical plants would not compensate for the prohibitive cost of moving our processed product to central Canadian and American markets? MR. GETTY: As I said yesterday, there are two main advantages that the petrochemical industry has in Alberta.

One is that they are situated close to assured supply, supply that is assured through the Energy Resources Conservation Board and the industrial development permits. Secondly, I said it was because we had low price for the feedstock, natural gas, and that we would make sure that both of those conditions continued. Mr. Speaker, that is the policy of the government, and that will happen. MR. MARTIN: That's very nice, Mr. Speaker. I can't see how you can have it both ways, with deregulation and also the advantages.

But just to flow from that, under deregulation the provincial government would not be allowed to withhold gas feedstocks from any central Canadian buyer. My question is to the Premier: given that, what has led the Premier to conclude that our industry will have any particular advantage compared to the central Canadian industry? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Oppo­ sition is incorrect. We can withhold gas because we have in both our legislation and our leases the right to withhold gas, and we would do it if necessary.

As I said earlier in the House, though, it has always been our policy position that having first ensured that all foreseeable needs for

400 ALBERTA HANSARD July 8, 1986 Albertans are taken care of, we are then prepared to allow exports out of our province to other parts of Canada. Secondly, if all the foreseeable needs for Canadians are taken care of, we co-operate with the federal government and allow exports out of our country to other nations. That, through our legislation and our leases, will allow us to provide assured supply on a long-term basis to industries within this province. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. That has been the case.

But under deregulation gas producers can make their own arrangements with any company they want anywhere in Canada; that's my understanding. How can we still have those same controls the Premier is talking about under those circumstances? MR. GETTY: Because, Mr. Speaker, we must approve a gas removal permit from the province. That gas removal permit is within the control of the provincial government, having been approved by the ERCB. They cannot even allow it; they must recommend it to the cabinet, and the cabinet must then approve it.

I can remember the years 1971, '72, '73, and '74, when we refused to allow additional gas to leave the province until we felt we were getting adequate prices for it. In those days that pressure paid off. We did get adequate prices, at which time we then allowed it to be removed. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question. I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that that happened in a regulated market.

But the question to the Premier: has the Premier consulted with gas producers to see what plans are in place to dump deregulated gas with large buyers in central Canada and whether or not that will in fact give an extra price advantage to the central Canadian industry? MR. GETTY: First, Mr. Speaker, the original statement of the Leader of the Opposition was not correct in this third supplementary. That was not in a period of regulated prices. It was a period before we brought in gas regulation. It was a period in which we had recommendations from the conservation board that we had gas that was surplus.

We refused to allow that gas to leave the province until we received prices for it that we felt were fair value. It had nothing to do with price regulation. It was our belief that you are wasting a resource when you sell it below value. As far as whether companies in eastern Canada will have an ability to outcompete companies in Alberta, we say no, they will not. MR. TAYLOR: Supplemental, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier.

Am I to understand the Premier to say that he is going to use the fact that the gas companies have to have a surplus before it can be exported, to force down the price so that the gas companies, in order to get a market, have to supply the petrochemical industry? MR. GETTY: That's not necessarily at all what I was saying. The Member for Westlock-Sturgeon should know, Mr. Speaker, that there has not been within the province a fixed price for gas. We did not pass any legislation that provided for fixing prices for gas within Alberta.

There was an anomaly in the original arrangement struck with the petrochemical industry when they were starting up in this province, but they had to buy from shippers who had already paid a regulated price. Therefore, they were forced to pay the regulated price. That is being changed. Some time ago — I wasn't here in the House — the government moved to assist the petrochemical industry on a short-term basis to allow a subsidy that would allow them to actually get their supplies at market price.

In the future they will be able to get them at market price, and I believe that in Alberta we will have the lowest prices as input for petrochemical industries anywhere in Canada. U.S. Bomber Testing MR. MARTIN: I would like to direct the second question to the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs. Mr. Speaker, information has come to light today indi­ cating that the Canadian government has agreed to allow the United States Air Force to do low-level flight testing of heavy bombers and fighter bombers over northern Alberta next year.

Has the Alberta government been consulted by the federal government on this matter, and if so, what is the position of the Alberta government on this low-level testing? MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition and I have both read the same story in the Calgary Herald. I have requested the information from the Department of National Defence relative to the decision which has been taken. I point out to the Assembly that national defence is a federal matter.

But in the case of any testing of a major nature which takes place in Canada, the federal government has consulted with the provinces directly involved. We will, as we have in the past, be assured that the federal government in maintaining its obligations under either NATO or NORAD will advise the province relative to the time, place, and nature of military testing which may take place in this province. We have always received assurances that all precautionary measures are taken. We have always in the past received reports on the events as they have transpired. I expect that will be the case in the future.

I would point out as well that it is anticipated that these tests will take place at some considerable time in the future. We expect that the Department of National Defence will co-operate once again with our government in a thorough and effective manner. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question. I wasn't sure whether they'd been consulted or not by that answer. But apparently, northern Albertans are again going to be used as guinea pigs by the United States Air Force. My question is simple: is the leader of the Alberta government — why are we prepared to support this type of testing over our borders? MR.

HORSMAN: The hon. Leader of the Opposition's indignation level seems to be rising, but the fact of the matter is that it is a federal issue. The Department of National Defence is responsible for the defence of Canada. We have an agreement which was signed by the government of Canada under the then-leadership of Prime Minister Trudeau, the most recent renewal, I understand, of the NATO agreement. We respect the federal government's responsibility in that regard. I go on to point out that there are many examples of testing of weapons within Canada. In Alberta the British army training unit tests tanks.

Thousands of British troops

July 8, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 401 are flown into Alberta every year by the Royal Air Force. Thousands of German troops are flow into Manitoba every year to test weapons there, and I do not recall ever hearing the government of Manitoba object to that particular training exercise. We've been urged always to follow that example by the opposition, Mr. Speaker, and we will do that in this particular case. MR. MARTIN: The traditional red herring, Mr. Speaker. Surely even this minister would recognize that there is a difference between bringing people in in trucks and having B-52 bombers flying at low levels.

I'm sure he's aware of that. But to come back to his responsibility here, my question is: what assurance has the government received that these huge planes will in no way endanger public safety or the environment in northern Alberta? MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. Leader of the Opposition prefaced his remarks with a comment about bringing people into Canada in trucks, I would remind the hon. member that the testing that is done is with live weapons in Manitoba and in Alberta.

In the case that has been mentioned, I should point out as well that the Strategic Air Command has been flying over Alberta and other parts of Canada for many years. That will be the case in the future, and I for one am grateful that we have the United States of America to defend us. I welcome as well the participation of the British army and the Federal Republic of Germany in their defence efforts to protect Canada, since in many ways we are unable to protect ourselves, thanks to the attitude of some people in this country. MR. MARTIN: Mr.

Speaker, I almost expected him to start singing the national anthem of the United States as he was going through. My question is this, though: apparently a United States Air Force document requests a Canadian study on the potential environmental impacts of low level flights. Clearly they see some problem for environmental problems. Is the Alberta government concerned about these same problems, seeing that the testing will be over Alberta, or is the government content to continue to let Albertans be used as guinea pigs? MR. HORSMAN: As was the case with the issue of cruise missile testing, Mr.

Speaker, environmental impact studies were requested and obtained and made public, and I expect that the same procedures will apply in this particular case. We will certainly ask that of the Department of National Defence, and the new minister, Mr. Beatty, no doubt will reply in due course. In any event, I would rather sing the The Star-Spangled Banner than the Internationale. MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the party opposite's chief plumber.

I would like to ask him if the assurances for the safety of northern Albertans he has received are the same assurances he received before the last two crashes of the cruise missile? MR. HORSMAN: In neither case was any property damage done either to the property of Alberta . . . [interjections]. They can dish it out, but they can't take it. That's very interesting. I'm very interested to see such thin-skinned members. The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker. Premiers' Conference MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask a question through you to the hon. Premier.

In view of the tremendous loss of jobs in our oil industry and a possible near collapse of grain prices, as chairman of this year's premiers' con­ ference scheduled here for August 11 and 12, will the Premier reveal to the members of the Legislature what items he has put on the agenda which address Alberta's economic concerns? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the conference it is important that I go through the process of speaking to each of the various governments coming and make sure their needs and wishes are incorporated into the agenda and then work that in with Alberta's.

I believe we will shortly be able to table for the members of the Legislature the agenda for that conference. Hopefully they will agree with me that the agenda allows the opportunity to discuss all of the matters he raised. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, to the Premier. That is good news indeed, but can he promise that among the items they list will be energy, agriculture, and free trade: three items that are very crucial for Alberta? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I would give the assurance that the agenda will be styled in a way that will allow full discussion of all of those matters. MR. TAYLOR: Mr.

Speaker, can the Premier assure the Legislature that he will not allow the constitutional concerns, as is rumoured now, to dominate the conference at the expense of western economic concerns? MR. GETTY: Yes, Mr. Speaker. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, to the Premier. Will the federal/provincial system of equalization grants, whereby Alberta now doesn't receive one penny, be on the agenda? MR. GETTY: As I said earlier, it would not be in a specific notation, but the agenda will be styled in a way which will allow the discussion of those matters. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Premier.

I asked the question on the business transfer tax, and the Premier indicated that that would be a topic for discussion. Can the Premier assure us that when we're looking at taxation, one of the main topics will be the business transfer tax? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I don't recall making the commitment that it would be on the agenda. It may be raised within the broad agenda items which we will be discussing. I'm not sure if the hon. member was in the House when the Provincial Treasurer dealt with this matter in a little more detail.

He mentioned that it had been raised with him in a meeting of provincial treasurers and the Minister of Finance, and that a paper would be distributed throughout Canada later this year giving the details of the federal government's thinking with regard to that tax. How­ ever, it will not be a specific item on our agenda, but the agenda is being prepared in a way that would allow the ability to raise that matter. MR. MARTIN: Dealing with free trade, Mr. Speaker, will there be a preliminary report — I know it's to come later

402 ALBERTA HANSARD July 8, 1986 — some idea from Mr. Reisman about what's been put on the table in terms of his talks, the free trade talks? MR. GETTY: I would not expect that from Mr. Reisman, Mr. Speaker, because this is not a federal/provincial meeting. This is just the 10 premiers' meeting, and while trade will be one of the matters on the agenda, I do not anticipate that we'd invite Mr. Reisman to this one. Toxic Waste Disposal Plant MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of the Environment.

I'd like to ask whether the minister or the Alberta Special Waste Management Cor­ poration in discussions with Bow Valley Resources have determined the economic rates to be charged by the Swan Hills plant for the disposal of various wastes? MR. KOWALSKI: Mr. Speaker, the principles for a pro­ posed agreement that were made public in March 1986 talked about several types of rates that would be incorporated into the whole structure. One of the difficulties that exists right now is an attempt to quantify the amount of waste that would find its home in Swan Hills.

The hon. member realizes that one of the provisions that exists under the objectives of the Alberta Special Waste Management Cor­ poration will allow a generator of waste to neutralize waste on site. We have no idea at this point in time exactly how many firms in the province of Alberta might take that initiative, as opposed to how many firms in total would want to send the waste to Swan Hills for neutralization. Until we get a handle on that, it would be difficult to really determine what the cost factor would be for a pound or a tonne or whatever amount of waste that would be going there. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. The minister in his response the other day indicated that all that was necessary to finalize the agreement was dotting the i's and crossing the t's. My question to the minister is: under those circumstances how can an agreement be finalized when the rates to be charged and the guarantee of rate of return to the company can't be determined at this time? MR. KOWALSKI: Mr. Speaker, the questions raised today had to do with the rates that would be charged in terms of the transportation of waste.

The discussion we had several days ago had to deal with the rate of return from the investment with respect to the plant. They're two separate items. MR. R. SPEAKER: A supplementary question to the min­ ister, Mr. Speaker, in light of what he just said. Can the minister indicate when the final agreement may be signed? Are we closer to that agreement at this time, or is that sometime later into the fall? I ask the question in light of the fact that the proposed opening date of the plant was in 1986. MR. KOWALSKI: I'm not aware, Mr. Speaker, that the proposed opening date of the plant was ever in 1986.

I participated in the announcement several years ago with the then-Minister of the Environment, and the time and date we always used was 1987. But in terms of dealing with the agreement that is currently being reviewed by myself, as each day goes on I get closer to feeling more comfortable with my understanding and knowledge of it, and I would certainly hope that given the next several months, by the conclusion of this session we will have it wrapped up. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, but I understand that it should be given by your leader.

Does he wish to . . . I recognize the member for Edmonton Meadowlark. MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, it's clear that the economics of the Swan Hills waste management plant could involve importing dangerous goods, hazardous wastes, from across this country into this province. The minister several weeks ago in the House said that he had put a moratorium on that. Could you please assure the House that "moratorium" means "never"? MR. KOWALSKI: Mr. Speaker, there is a moratorium currently in place with respect to the importation of special wastes from other jurisdictions in the province of Alberta.

"Never" is one of those words that is rather finite. I have no idea what government there may be in the province of Alberta in the year 2030 or 2040 or 2050, and I certainly could not make a commitment in 1986 for the type of government or the direction it would want to provide to the people of Alberta at that time. MR.

YOUNIE: In view of the present economically non­ viable position just outlined, can the minister guarantee that Alberta will never become, in our desire to make it viable, the site of environmentally unsound businesses and that his government will never consider the importing of wastes from other provinces? MR. KOWALSKI: To the latter part of the question: that's certainly our intent, Mr. Speaker.

I think it's important in responding to the Member for Edmonton Glengarry that he should appreciate that the commitment of the government that I am a member of is to improving and cleaning up the environment in the province of Alberta. Should it be necessary for us to take steps and initiatives to in fact subsidize the transportation of those deplorable wastes that are located in some parts of Alberta to Swan Hills, it may be necessary for us to do that. If the hon. member would then argue that that would make the plant uneconomic, I would suggest to him that we're on the basis of an excellent debate.

Our objective, our purpose for being, is to improve the quality of the environment in this province, and we are determined to do that. Meat Packers' Strikes MR. FISCHER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Attorney General. In regard to the labour disputes at Fletcher's and Gainers and the violence along the picket lines, I and the constituency of Wainwright are deeply concerned with the safety of the public on both sides of this dispute. Could the minister advise if there have been any criminal charges laid? MR. HORSMAN: Mr.

Speaker, there have been a number of criminal charges laid in connection with both disputes mentioned in the question. I think it important, though, to

July 8, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 403 point out that the number of criminal charges that have been laid is relatively small compared to those complaints that have been laid against individuals for breach of the civil injunction against picketing. I think it useful to point out that fewer than 10 percent of the total number of complaints are in fact of a criminal nature, judged by the police authorities as being violations of the Criminal Code of Canada.

I think in the case of Fletcher's there were only six criminal charges laid, and as members are no doubt aware, 127 civil complaints under the injunction were dealt with in the Court of Queen's Bench yesterday. I think just over 400 offences of the injunction have been complained about by Gainers. Of those none have yet been adjudicated by the courts, and only 30 are repeat offenders, in the view of the owner of the property. So yes, criminal charges have been laid, but in the total context of the number of complaints they are relatively few in number. MR. FISCHER: A supplementary then.

Have many repeat offenders been charged with a criminal offence? MR. HORSMAN: With respect to the criminal offences, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware — and I can take that question on notice — of people being charged repeatedly with criminal offences, although there may be some individuals who as a result of their conduct may have been charged with more than one offence arising from the same occurrence. But I repeat that it is important to make the very real distinction between a charge under the Criminal Code and a complaint made as a result of an alleged violation of a civil injunction.

In that respect, as I have indicated, the number of criminal offences are few. MR. MARTIN: To get to the real problems of this dispute, the Premier said that he is reviewing the labour laws. We were told that at the start of the session. Could he update us now and tell us if this has gone any further? When might we expect some approach to reviewing the labour laws? MR. GETTY: Shortly, Mr. Speaker. Mental Health Care REV. ROBERTS: Mr.

Speaker, I would first like to con­ gratulate the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care for his announcement last Friday to finally begin the redevel- opments of the Alberta Hospital, Ponoka. But such announce­ ments alone continue a disturbing trend that far more health care dollars are spent on institutions than on community- based hospitals and care. Given this imbalance in the amounts of spending, is the minister carefully consulting with the Minister of Community and Occupational Health to provide comprehensive mental health care in this province? MR. M. MOORE: Mr.

Speaker, it's always a challenge for our society to provide the kind of health care for mental patients that the hon. member suggests. As I said yesterday in the question period, there needs to be a good balance between institutional care, between the involuntary patients in places like Ponoka and the Alberta Hospital here in Edmonton, and in community-based hospitals, in treatment in their own communities.

So I have no argument whatsoever with the hon. member's suggestion that our society, our community, our government ought to continue moving in the direction that has been pointed out by my predecessor and by others in the field of mental health, toward com­ munity-based services treating people in their homes with their friends and families. That's by far the best route to go. REV.

ROBERTS: Given that, however, currently in the province there is nearly a 50 percent rate of rehospitalization of mental health patients, what more specific programs can the government be doing to alleviate this high rate of rehospitalization? MR. M. MOORE: The hon. minister responsible for com­ munity health may wish to supplement my answer, but I believe we have been moving in a very positive way in terms of providing health care in this province to mentally ill people, which will see that rate reduced substantially.

When I was in Ponoka last Friday, I was given to understand by the executive director of that hospital and his staff that the length of time that people are hospitalized at the hospital has decreased dramatically over the past few years. Also, the incidence of people returning to be hospitalized a second time has decreased, so I think we're making good progress. It may be that there's other information that the hon. minister responsible for community health could provide. MR. DINNING: Mr.

Speaker, amongst the various services mental health patients are treated to in this province, whether through hospitals, extended care centres, community or community outreach programs, we are attempting, as the minister has suggested, to deliver a comprehensive system of mental health care. As the minister has mentioned and as statistics show, we are one of the leaders in this country in that field. The commitment is there, and we will continue to deliver that, continue to do our very best to upgrade that. That's the commitment we can make. REV. ROBERTS: Let's get specific, Mr.

Minister of Com­ munity and Occupational Health. What specific programs have you got in place to address the glaring lack of adequate housing for ex-psychiatric patients who are otherwise dumped downtown around Boyle Street? What are you doing about housing for them? MR. DINNING: Mr. Speaker, following a carefully planned discharge from all of our institutions, those people are returned to the community where they are most comfortable. They're in the familiar and comfortable surroundings, hope­ fully, of their own homes, and that is where those kinds of activities take place.

When a patient leaves a health facility — whether it's Alberta Hospital. Ponoka or Alberta Hospital, Edmonton, or any other facility — the services that that patient wishes to take up are of his or her own choosing. It then becomes the right of the patient to decide the kind of care he wants. Whether they return to other places is an option to them, but the services are there within the community for them. REV. ROBERTS: Certainly the state of the art in the whole area was the review of the Mental Health Act by the Drewry commission.

When is the minister who is responsible finally going to bring forward some legislation based on the rec­ ommendations of Drewry to amend the Mental Health Act as it should be amended? MR. M. MOORE: First of all, Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal that can and has been done with respect to new

404 ALBERTA HANSARD July 8, 1986 directions in mental health care arising from the Drewry report that doesn't require legislation. In fact, most of the recommendations with respect to the care of mentally ill do not necessarily require legislation. I should say that we presently are considering a draft Bill with respect to a new Mental Health Act. It's my hope, depending on how long this session lasts, that we might table it during the course of this session or perhaps this fall at least.

It would be our intention to have public discussions on the Bill after it has received first reading and probably pass it at another session of the Legislature. I personally don't believe that it's so urgent to have a new Mental Health Act in Alberta that we ought to proceed with it without everyone's having an opportunity to pass judgment on the contents of what we propose. I would hope to have that here either some time during this session or during the fall session of the Legislature. MR. HYLAND: Mr.

Speaker, could the minister of com­ munity health inform the House of the number of group homes involved in providing service to patients released from any of the facilities that handle people with mental health problems? In addition, could the minister also inform the House how many applications are before the department by either individuals or community-based groups asking to provide additional services? MR. TAYLOR: Surprise, surprise. MR. DINNING: Are you surprised? I'd have to take the latter part of the question as notice, Mr.

Speaker, but I can tell hon. members that there is any number of facilities in addition to Alberta Hospital, Edmonton and Ponoka. We have in this province in Camrose, Claresholm, and Raymond some 550 beds, facilities for 550 patients that are in need of those services. As well, through some number of programs we provide over 600 residential spaces and some 500 day program spaces for those patients in need of the service. As for the second part of the question, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take that as notice. MR. CHUMIR: This will be easy, Mr. Speaker, after that hot potato.

To either of the ministers: does the government have any concrete plans to improve the treatment of the mentally ill in community facilities, or are they going to leave the

schedule to local institutions, as they apparently plan to do in the case of hospitals' making the decisions with respect to treatment of those who are involuntarily committed? MR. M. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not have a copy — I guess he does have a copy; maybe he hasn't referred to it — of what has now been approved as a policy with respect to the designation of active treatment hospitals throughout this province for the treatment of invol­ untary patients.

I should add that there is a good number of hospitals in our province that have been for some time treating voluntary patients in the field of mental health and doing a very adequate job and have psychiatric wards and services and personnel that are doing that. While I'm on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I could clear up the mystery surrounding the hon. member's confusion about the policy with respect to the designation of certain hospitals, by simply saying this. I will provide copies of it for the Assembly later on.

About April 1985 a draft policy with respect to the designation of active treatment in hospital facilities in Alberta was released by the department for discussion purposes. It had certain schedules outlined in it with respect to the designation of hospitals. Hospitals and health care professionals were asked to comment upon that draft policy. They did so over the course of the next several months, and that finally resulted in a revised draft that was forwarded to my predecessor, the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care, and approved as government policy earlier this year.

The results of the review were a substantial number of changes from the original draft until the final policy was approved by the minister. In

summary, Mr. Speaker, there has been no change whatever in the government's time line with respect to the designation of active treatment hospitals for the reception of involuntary patients. The member happened to have in his possession a draft policy statement that didn't have attached to it a letter clearly indicating that it was a draft, which went to all health care institutions involved. MR. SPEAKER: The Chair understands that this information is going to be tabled with the House. MR. MARTIN: On a point of order, we are having dis­ cussions about precisely this matter.

I resent it when the minister tries to get it in at the end of the question over something we've been trying to work out among House leaders. MR. SPEAKER: The Chair concurs. MRS. HEWES: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care on the same subject. Will the minister be acting on the recommendation of the Drewry report to provide both legal and non-legal advocacy services for involuntary mental patients? MR. M. MOORE: Mr.

Speaker, that's a matter that I would be fully prepared to discuss when we've had an opportunity to complete our review of the draft of the Mental Health Act and table it in the Legislature. I think that's an important part of the whole question of how we handle involuntary patients, but I would prefer to, first of all, make our government's position known on that through the tabling of a new Mental Health Act. MRS. HEWES: Mr. Speaker, I suggest it needn't wait for that, and it's pretty important to do now. A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the minister of occu­ pational health.

Children's welfare is now in the jurisdiction of Social Services, and mental health is in your jurisdiction, I understand, Mr. Minister. I would like to know from you if it includes mental health treatment and care of children and what steps you will take to ensure that children who are in a child welfare jurisdiction have access to mental health services. MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I believe it to be more appropriate for this minister to answer the question, because the Child Welfare Act is under the Department of Social Services and that includes looking after the mental health areas as may be appropriate for children who are in our care. There will be a working relationship with the Depart­ ment of Community and Occupational Health, that the other hon. minister is responsible for. The number of beds we will require, possibly in insti­ tutions or homes operated by the other department, will

July 8, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 405 probably be looked after on a contract basis, with a certain amount of expertise provided by the other department. Those types of negotiations will go on and will be handled in the best interests of the children, depending what part of the province we're speaking of. MRS. HEWES: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Social Services. Do I understand then that all children's mental health services will remain in your jurisdiction? MRS. OSTERMAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in terms of respon­ sibility. MRS. HEWES: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary to the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care.

Will the minister be recommending to the Legislature that the Ombudsman's jurisdiction be extended to include all institutions designated now or in the future to treat involuntary mental patients? MR. M. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, that again is a subject that's presently under discussion, and the hon. member would have to await our completion of the review of a new Mental Health Act and the tabling of that in the Legislature. Securities Commission MR. McEACHERN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

The Alberta Securities Commission has granted yet another extension to North West Trust and Heritage Savings Trust to file their financial statements. Could the minister confirm that this will be absolutely the final extension to be granted? MISS McCOY: Mr. Speaker, I had occasion on an earlier day to speak about the jurisdiction of the Alberta Securities Commission. Let me reiterate that it is a quasi-judicial, independent tribunal which deals with matters that are brought before it on a case-by-case basis. The member opposite is misleading the Assembly by the very nature of his question. MR.

McEACHERN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Surely the minister needs to take some responsibility for the Secu­ rities Commission. Would the minister at least indicate what possible reasons there are for these extensions, because it is creating quite a lot of concern in the community? MISS McCOY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer the member opposite to the public record, which is to say, a decision of the Securities Commission. MR. McEACHERN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. If the Consumer and Corporate Affairs Minister . . . MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me.

The Chair reminds the hon. member that indeed we have enough references here about semi-judicial boards that the member is in some danger. The Chair would recognize another supplementary on this issue, but it must be carefully crafted. MR. MARTIN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, that Securities Commission — we've had much debate with the previous minister. It clearly falls under her jurisdiction. Whether she uses it as a quasi-legal thing or not, it's still responsible to that minister. MR. SPEAKER: On the point of order, the Chair will take it under consideration.

The Chair would remind the member who raised the point of order that this is the 21st Legislature not the 20th. But I will take it under consideration. MR. McEACHERN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. It is in a slightly different line. If this minister can't answer the question, perhaps the Treasurer would like to try this one. MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps you could ask the question. MR. McEACHERN: Yes. Can the minister indicate what financial commitments the Alberta government or the Treas­ ury Branches have to North West Trust beyond the Treasury Branch's guarantee of $85 million in shares? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Speaker, the matter of commercial agreements between any private corporation or public cor­ poration trading in the Treasury Branches is a matter of private information, and I'm not about to reveal the com­ mercial transactions which take place between the Treasury Branches and any corporation in Alberta. MR. McEACHERN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. So we will take it that the total commitment of the government is $85 million. After all, it is taxpayers' dollars and the taxpayers should know how much the commitment is. MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, hon. member.

Again I ask you that when we come to supplementary questions, it's one question. It has no

preamble. It's the main question that carries the

preamble of one or two or three carefully crafted sentences with comment. But when we get to the supplementaries, it's the bare bones question, please. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if I may. You allowed the minister to sneak around in answer to the hon. member's question over here, and there was no intervention by the Chair. One extra

preamble on the opposition side and you're interjecting. I think there has to be fairness here. MR. SPEAKER: With due respect to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, if you care to check Hansard, you'll see that that is skewing a little bit what indeed happened this afternoon. I would think that the hon. member would also take into consideration that the Chair made the request of the minister to file the documents. When the hon. Leader of the Opposition then also made a similar comment, the Chair said, "I concur" with the comments made by your side. That's an entirely differently thing than what you have just said.

If the House would like me to jump in much more rapidly, I'll do it to everyone starting tomorrow. It will also include the Leader of the Opposition. MR. McEACHERN: What evidence does the minister have that the commitment of taxpayers' moneys involved with North West Trust and Heritage trust will not end up following the route of the millions of dollars that were given away in the failed bailout of the Canadian Commercial Bank? MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, if you're going to start jumping in, could you please start after this question.

Since the minister is not responsible, as she has estab­ lished, for the brokerage industry in this province, could

406 ALBERTA HANSARD July 8, 1986 she please tell the House who is responsible for the brokerage industry policy and its role in the co-ordinated financial strategy for this province? MISS McCOY: Mr. Speaker, again the members opposite are not understanding the nature of the legislation that has been set up in this province and is working very well. Again I refer them to the Statutes of Alberta. MR. SPEAKER: Might we revert briefly to the introduction of guests? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS (reversion) MR.

ALGER: Seated in the members' gallery are two young women that literally control and rule my life. I'm proud to introduce to you and to all members of the Assembly my constituency secretary, Lottie Germaniuk, and my Edmonton secretary, Barbara Jones. I'd better hurry up. They're leaving to beat the dickens. I would ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of the House. ORDERS OF THE DAY head: WRITTEN QUESTIONS 148. Mr. McEachern asked the government the following question:

(1) What were both the original estimated cost and the estimated cost to completion of every capital project receiving funding from the capital projects division of the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund at March 31, 1986?

(2) What were the actual operating costs to March 31, 1986, of every capital project funded by the capital projects division of the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund?

(3) What were the estimated annual operating costs for 1984-85 and 1985-86 for every capital project funded by the capital projects division of the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund? MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, with regard to Question 148, I wish to advise that the government is not prepared to accept the question. I would point out, however, that it would be useful if the hon. Member for Edmonton Kingsway were to resubmit the question by way of a notice of motion for a return.

The Provincial Treasurer would be pleased to assist in providing some suggestions on how to provide the information and is prepared to do so and to be very helpful in the process. head: MOTIONS FOR RETURNS 145. Mr. Hawkesworth moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: A list of all grants or certificates of corporate investment — as those terms are meant in

part 4 of the Small Business Equity Corporations Act,

chapter S-13.5, Statutes of Alberta 1984 — approved under the small business equity program from the program's inception to March 31, 1986, itemizing for each grant or certificate of corporate investment, where known: (1) the name or names of the person or persons to whom the grant or certificate of corporate investment was issued; (2) the nature of the business in respect of which the grant or certificate of corporate investment was issued; (3) the amount of the grant or certificate of corporate investment; and (4) the date on which the grant or certificate of corporate investment was issued. MR.

HAWKESWORTH: Mr. Speaker, is it an appropriate time to open debate and make a few comments as to the purpose for putting this motion on the Order Paper? MR. SPEAKER: Just the motion, I think. Thank you. MR. SHABEN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to propose an amend­ ment to Motion for a Return 145 as follows. I believe copies of the amendment have been circulated to all members of the Assembly. I'd like to propose that we strike out clause (1) and substitute for clause (1) "the names of all registered small business equity corporations" and also strike out clause (2). Mr.

Speaker, the amended motion for a return would then provide members of the Assembly with extensive information with respect to the small business equity cor­ porations but would be consistent in terms of the policy of the government to retain confidentiality of commercial trans­ actions. Therefore, I would urge all members to support the amended motion. MR. SPEAKER: The Chair requests the indulgence of the House. I've had supplementary information given to me. I was wrong when I spoke earlier to the mover. He indeed can speak to his motion prior to the amendments being made.

If there are comments the mover would like to make in that respect, then we may then come back to the minister. HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. HAWKESWORTH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As members who have been here previously know, this motion was made at a previous Legislature. In order to accommodate some of the objections raised at that time, a slightly reworded motion has been put forward on the Order Paper.

I would like to say, however, that because of a lot of public interest in the whole matter of small business and the equity corporations and how this public support for this program is being used, this information would be very important in order to help us in the Legislature on both sides of the House to review this particular program. Because after all, our most fundamental duty as legislators is to help maintain control and review over the public purse, to evaluate its effectiveness in meeting the objectives and the policies to which it's being put.

But effective review and evaluation can only be done and exercised on the basis of knowledge of proposed and past expenditures, Mr. Speaker. So in order for this Legislature to be able to judge the effectiveness of the SBEC program, I think it should be allowed to know the information sought in the motion for a return. Without that information we can't judge the program as to its effectiveness, we cannot exercise effective control over the proportion of the public purse devoted to that program, and

July 8, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 407 by the same token, if we see deficiencies and see the urge for some changes or improvements, then we're not in a position to be able to make constructive and effective proposals for change and reform. Mr. Speaker, that's why I am making the motion for a return. It has four parts, as enumerated. I will now turn the floor over to the hon. member opposite to make an amendment. MR. SHABEN: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member indicated, a similar motion was brought before the House earlier, and the House declined to accept the motion.

I am urging in a similar fashion, although we have provided some amend­ ments that provide significant information to all the members of the Assembly. Also, in the estimates of the Department of Economic Development and Trade, I earlier outlined the number of investments and the dollars in terms of the investments. We're also prepared to provide further infor­ mation to the Assembly as to the sectoral investments made, in terms of whether the dollars are invested in agriculture or a service industry or a variety of other sectors of the economy, and also geographically.

But it has historically been the policy of the government that where matters are of a commercially confidential nature, they should remain that way, particularly as they relate to business dealings of individuals. There is simply no question that a full accounting of the expenditures of the government is made available through the Auditor General and by way of Public Accounts, so I'm at a loss to understand that angle of the concern. We are prepared to make the necessary information available according to the amendments and would therefore urge members of the Assembly to support the amendment. MR.

MITCHELL: I would like to speak against the amend­ ment to the motion. I believe we are seeing a continuing evolution of lack of information being brought to this Legislature. I see it time and time again in the debate on the estimates. I see that we do not necessarily get the kind of information that we need to make proper decisions about these important policies and about the important expenditure of Albertans' money. In this case the motion is rendered useless if we do not know where that money is going. There are critical criteria in this program that have to be evaluated. One is the nature of the investment.

Two is the status of the company. As an Alberta company, 75 percent of its salaries and wages are to be paid to Albertans. We have to know that if we can evaluate it. I become particularly concerned about this kind of amendment when I see what happened to the Alberta stock savings plan and what would have happened if this Legislature had not been able to evaluate the application of criteria under that program. In many respects, when Alber­ tans are putting 30 percent of an investment into a company, that company becomes a public firm. Therefore, what it does becomes the domain of the public.

Many, many companies in this private sector, as you know, report readily under regulation as public companies. These qualify to that extent as a public company, and we should have that information. Finally, I am not accepting that you can absolve de facto, unilaterally, the responsibility of this Legislature to review expenditures by this government by saying that it's the responsibility of Public Accounts or that it's the respon­ sibility of the Auditor. If you look at the Public Accounts report for 1984-85 — and I've just done that — there are a tremendous number of numbered companies.

That renders that information all but useless, because you can't readily tell what kind of company it is, you can't readily see who the principals are, and you can't understand where in fact that money is going. My concern is that this move to amend this motion is going to erode the effectiveness of this Legislature to evaluate this program properly. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, we tried to go from the last time, when the minister over there was in charge, and take in some of the criteria they said at the time to try to get this information.

Now we come back, and they're going to allow us the names of all registered small businesses. That's fine; fair enough. But we want to strike out clause (2). There's not really much point for this motion if we take out clause (2). Clause (2) is: "the nature of the business in respect of which the grant or certificate of corporate investment was issued." The minister says that because of commercial confidentiality, we can't do this. We're not asking for every business deal they've ever made.

We want to know what type of business they're in, because the government told us that one of the reasons they brought in this Bill is that it would lead toward diversification. How do we know, if we can't even tell what we're investing in? It's been pointed out before by the hon. Member for Edmonton Meadowlark that we don't even know where the diversification is occurring. We don't know what games are being played with this. The potential for taxpayers' dollars being abused is immense. There has already been speculation, as the minister is well aware, about that.

Surely it's the business of this Legislature to find out where the tax dollars are going and not to hide behind confidentiality of a particular business. If that particular business doesn't want to do business with taxpayers' dollars, then we are not interested in it. But we have a responsibility here. We are told that at least in theory the Legislature controls the purse strings; by that it means tax dollars. Now we find out that by deleting this we can't. We have no way of finding out the type of business. How do we judge whether this is successful or not, Mr. Speaker, without having clause (2) in there?

It seems to me, especially now — and the hon. Treasurer would be well aware that there has been all sorts of talk, whether it's right or wrong, about abuse of the system. Surely this minister would want to put that to rest if it's not happening. We're told, "What a wonderful system." But it keeps coming up time and time again that people may be making dollars on it without investing in any Alberta business. Is that true or not? We don't know, but if we had access to this type of information, we could make an intelligent decision in the Legislature.

I for one am not satisfied that we're always hiding behind some sort of commercial confidentiality when we're dealing with Alberta taxpayers' dollars. That's our respon­ sibility, Mr. Speaker, not a private business. MR. HAWKESWORTH: May I speak to the amendment, Mr. Speaker? Having opened debate on the motion, I believe I have an opportunity to speak to the debate. MR. SPEAKER: Yes. MR. HAWKESWORTH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to echo some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood, the hon. Leader of the Opposition. What clause (2) is getting at is, as it states quite clearly,

408 ALBERTA HANSARD July 8, 1986 "the nature of the business" of the corporation receiving a benefit under this particular program. For those members who don't have in front of them regulations under this Act setting up the small business equity corporations, they're from the Alberta Gazette of August 15, 1984, the small business equity corporations regulation. In those regulations a number of criteria are outlined as to how this program ought to be administered and the general kinds of information required from corporations seeking to benefit and participate under this particular program.

There are regulations such as a statement that the corporation, by its articles, restricts its business to assisting in the development of small business by (

i) providing capital . . . (ii) providing . . . managerial expertise . . . It goes on to note a requirement of stating for the purposes of those administering this program the general investment policies of the corporation. Further: any other information that may be relevant to an investor so as to enable him to make an informed decision. As well, for the purposes of another

section of the Act: a corporation is not a small business in which an eligible investment may be made if (

a) it is engaged in oil and gas drilling, production or exploration by virtue of its being a holder of a disposition under the Mines and Minerals Act or of its having otherwise acquired the right to the oil or gas or the right to work it, or (

b) it has (

i) issued shares or debt obligations, or (ii) granted a right under a scientific research financing contract. Again, Mr. Speaker, the regulations pertain to the nature of the business. Further in these regulations: For the purposes of

section ll(2)(c)(iv) of the Act, an investment by a small business equity corpora­ tion . . . is not an eligible investment if the small business uses the investments for the . . . (

a) repayment of a loan . . . (

b) repayment of a debt . . . (

c) payment of dividends, (

d) investments other than investments that are incidental and ancillary to the principal objects of the small business . . . Again, Mr. Speaker, the regulations speak of the nature of the business receiving program funds under this Act. Again, I quote from

section 6 of the Alberta Gazette of August 15, 1984, administration regulation: For the purposes of

section 28 of the Act, a person to whom that

section applies shall keep records and books of account in a form, and that contain the information, that will enable the determination of (

a) eligibility for a grant or certificate . . . (

b) the amount of a grant or certificate of corporate investment to which a person is entitled, (

c) the status under the Act and the regulations of the business affairs and operations . . . MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, hon. member. If you'd like to speak to it, please do so. I hope you're at almost the very end of quoting from the regulations. The Chair is very concerned that we're eating further and further into private members' time in the course of the day; that is the only concern. MR. HAWKESWORTH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The point I'm making is that consistently throughout these reg­ ulations, the nature of the business is dealt with and spelled out very, very clearly.

I recognize that very few members have the regulations in front of them. The point I want to make by quoting from it is to indicate the extent to which the regulations deal with the nature of the business. My question is this: why would we require information for a prospective investor as part of the regulations when we would not ask for it as information to be provided to the members of this House for the purposes of being able to evaluate and review this particular program? After all, by the way this program is structured, the public is a participant.

In a sense the public is an investor in this program by virtue of the way the Small Business Equity Corporations Act and the regulations are set out. In order for us to determine whether a corporation qualifies for support from the public purse, we as legislators need to be able to review the operation of the way these regulations are being interpreted and administered. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of that program, we have to be able to understand the way the regulations are being administered.

Are we financing real estate flips in this province which add nothing to the employment of people in the province? Despite the regulations, are we for some reason financing or assisting the financing of oil field service and drilling companies? Or, as the program was initially set out to do, are we helping people get into retail devel­ opment and transportation? Are they helping to diversify the economy? Are they actually doing work that's creating jobs in Alberta for Albertans?

Or are we putting all these public funds into empty corporate shells that are doing nothing other than being traded on the Alberta Stock Exchange, the Toronto Stock Exchange, or who knows what stock exchanges? That is why we need to have some notion in this House as to the nature of the businesses, in a general way, that are participating under this program. We don't need to know each and every deal that they've conducted, but I think this House has the right to the information asked for under clause 2 of the motion for a return. MR. SCHUMACHER: Mr.

Speaker, the motion presented in this session is really no different from the motion that was turned down in the last session. There are a few changes of words, but there's no change in what is being asked for. This matter was discussed before. Since that time I think it's also of interest to note that Ontario, governed under the New Democratic Party/Liberal coalition, docs have a small business development corporation Act which is very similar to this legislation. The same questions have been asked in that House, and the same answer has been given by the government.

So there is a precedent here for my friends on the other side — it depends where you're sitting — as to what attitude you're going to take. Never­ theless, we have a situation where there is a valid point for confidentiality. In the tax situation, the term "tax expenditures" arises more and more, because businesses are involved in receiving benefits through our tax programs. We don't treat those things as public information, and I believe the investment plans should not be disclosed in detail or else you're going to impair the effectiveness of these companies.

The minister has pointed out that information is available as to what sectors of the economy are being affected and benefit by this program, as well as the geographic distribution around the province.

July 8, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 409 The hon. Member for Calgary Mountain View has access to the regulations. If he feels the regulations themselves are not proper to protect the public purse, then he should make some suggestions on how those regulations should be improved. I would suggest that the regulations as they are presently proposed and in operation are having the effect of stimulating investment in Alberta corporations and that the money spent under this program is effective. Hon. members, you know that a lot of the information asked for can be readily obtained by making searches of the corporate registry.

If you want to know the names of the shareholders of these companies for which certificates have been issued, you can go to the corporate registry and get the names of those shareholders, [interjections] Why do we have to spend more money on clerical staff if it is not necessary and it's available to the general public if they wish it? Why do we have a corporate registry if nobody wants to use it? It's there for you to look at, and if you don't want to look at it, that's too bad, in my view. MR. HERON: Mr.

Speaker, I cannot in good conscience support this motion and, accordingly, I then urge the hon. members to support the amendment. Mr. Speaker, I liked the example given by the hon. Member for Drumheller when he spoke of the confidentiality between the income tax department and the government and the necessity for it. I also heard a pretty good example in question period today when our Provincial Treasurer made a statement to the effect that he could not divulge any client of the provincial Treasury Branch.

I also understand but have no appreciation for the socialistic point of view which controls business to the point of expropriation and eventual destruction. The small business equity legislation foresaw the need for public disclosure details. Subsections (1) and (2) of

section 4 set up a corporations registry to be maintained by the minister which lists all small business equity cor­ porations registered under the Act. This register is open for public inspection during normal office hours. The depart­ ment of economic development is aware of each investment and ensures that the regulations are met. As well, information on any Alberta corporation can be obtained from the cor­ porate registry. This registry does provide information on who the directors and shareholders are. These two registries are sufficient disclosure.

Providing any other information creates a number of problems, not the least of which is that the incentives or investments are commercial confidential. It is not acceptable that investors, large or small, have the size of the investments they are making known publicly. It could have consequences on other business dealings, and it could cause investors to not participate in the program. That's the destruction part of my example. In dealing with the same question in May of 1985, Mr.

Adair said that he and his department would be willing to provide general information; that is, the number of regis­ trations, the geographical location, the sectors investments are made in, and aggregate funding invested by both the private sector and government. More specific information — amount, date of grant, and nature of business — is not appropriate disclosure. To recapitulate, I have listed some of the difficulties and problems which may arise if we provide the names and amounts of individuals and corporations who received incentives under the small business equity corporations pro­ gram.

A disclosure system provided by the corporate registry is already in existence. Many of the original shareholders who received an incentive may not currently be shareholders, as they may have sold their shares. Over 250 individual shareholders who have invested in Churchill, the public SBEC, will have their names made public, which will be a major surprise and embarrassment to the brokerage firms. All transactions with brokerage firms are on a confidential basis, and our disclosure will create a mockery of this.

Advance notice has not been given to any shareholders of small business equity corporations informing them that their names and the amount of the incentive, if they received an incentive, would be made public. If we follow with the intent of this motion, we're backing up and changing the rules. MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I hesitate to interrupt you, but if I have interrupted the previous members about exces­ sive reading of material, the same applies to you. MR. HERON: Thank you, sir. The Small Business Equity Corporations Act recognizes only the public register.

Infor­ mation on who received the incentives is available in the supplementary information to the public accounts. It is my recommendation that the public disclosure of the Small Business Equity Corporations Act be governed by its leg­ islation. MS BARRETT: Mr. Speaker . . . MR. SPEAKER: The Chair does indeed recognize the Member for Edmonton Kingsway. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Highlands. MS BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I am from Edmonton High­ lands. It's adjacent but not quite the same. I, too, have to make some comments about this amendment as moved by the minister of economic development.

Despite the fact that the Member for Stony Plain can read prepared statements very well, I have to point out to that member and the member who had the floor previous to that, the Member for Drumheller, that our caucus members so far in this debate are not talking about the minister's motion to strike reference to the names of the individuals receiving the benefits of SBECs, and we're not objecting to the minister's moving that the names of all registered small business equity corporations instead be replaced.

If the members were listening, what they would hear is that we are objecting to the removal of information that would come from this motion were it allowed to go through as printed, which would tell us what the money is being used for. I only rise for a moment, just to point this out. As a matter of fact, a lot of this information, once we have access to the names of the companies that are benefitting from the provisions of this Act, can be ferreted out. It may take years, but it can be ferreted out. There are a lot of resourceful people around here.

Our point is that it's not going to be able to be done very quickly, and it's not going to be able to be done in such a way that at a current time we can actually debate the merits of the program and whether or not it's working in terms of the provisions of the regulations; in other words, its goals. The point is this: if the government is willing to allow us to know which companies are getting the benefits of the Act — and the minister's amendment wouldn't defeat the purpose of the motion in this respect — then we don't

410 ALBERTA HANSARD July 8, 1986 understand why we can't know what the money was supposed to be used for, Mr. Speaker. That's all we want to know. Is it being used for the purpose for which it was intended? Is it effective? If we're going to get the names of the companies anyway, why not tell us this part? MR. FOX: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your concern that this discussion is cutting into time allotted to Motions Other Than Government Motions, but we, on most of this side of the House anyway, feel that this is a very important principle here.

As we see it, if this amendment were passed, it would erode two very important principles. The first principle is the need that we as duly elected members of this Legislature have to be well informed so that we can make the best decisions possible for the people that elected us to be here. The second is the right of taxpayers to know just how their money is being spent. It's a basic right. It's a democratic society, and I'm very concerned by what's achieved by passing this amendment and deleting the clauses that we have in here.

I think it's very important that governments not only do the right thing but be seen to be doing the right thing. Public perception is something very important here. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that over the past number of years there has been a growing credibility gap on the part of this government because of secrecy and unwillingness to divulge important information about the transactions that they get involved with.

It comes as a surprise to me that a government who received only slightly more than one out of every two votes in the last election would not be more concerned with opening up the public files to the taxpayers for scrutiny. MR. CHUMIR: Mr. Speaker, just some brief comments here. It is my submission that this is a scandalously inap­ propriate denial of information which will be recognized as such by the people of Alberta. I would like to comment specifically on the suggestion of the hon. Member for Drumheller that this is akin to a matter of taxes which should remain confidential and private.

I would note that when we're dealing with the matter of taxes and major tax expenditures, a case can in fact be made that when matters of that nature are at issue, there should be some disclosure. I think the members will be aware of the disclosure of certain income tax benefits which were given in respect of the acquisition of Gulf Canada recently, and I believe all members would agree that there is a tremendous public interest in being aware of that. However, that question of the tax is academic in this case, because we're dealing not with a tax but a grant.

Might I ask the hon. minister in this instance what the public would say if the government were to provide a grant to Syncrude corporation and indicate that the nature of the grant would be disclosed in due course, if ever — in other words, if they refused to disclose the purpose of such a grant. Moneys and grants are given by this government in significant amounts on a regular basis. We've had announce­ ments of grants for a magnesium plant recently and for other purposes.

When we have grants here, the only dif­ ference is that the grants are not large and they're being given on a systematic basis pursuant to a broad program. Nevertheless, it's a grant of public moneys. In this instance the purpose of the grant and the business of the company is at the heart of the program. It's one of the conditions of the program. Let us be clear that this is merely a request for the general nature, of the business to be provided and not specific trade secrets. I fail to see, Mr. Speaker, why this is any more private a matter than the fact that a given individual was in receipt of a grant.

The refusal to provide this information and my submission raises implications and suspicions that the government is hiding something. I believe that is an impli­ cation that will be drawn very clearly by members of the public, and rightfully so. MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Vegreville mentioned something about getting to know the facts. In speaking in support of the amendment, maybe I might take a moment to just outline part of the intent of the program. I don't want to go into all of it because I could take all afternoon to do that for you.

When the program was initially struck, in providing the best information to all of the public of Alberta, we provided information that led to the steps necessary to, one, create a small business equity corporation and, two, after creating that small business equity corporation, provide proof that you have deposited within a lending institution of your choice a sum of money, a minimum of which must be $100,000 and a maximum of which could be $5 million if it were a private or small business equity corporation or $10 million if it were public, like the Churchill group.

After that proof was in place, that started to trigger the mechanisms that would provide the 30 percent incentive to the shareholders. If there was one and if the minimum amount was $100,000, he or she would get $30,000. If there were 10, they would get three and the likes of that. If they were a corporation, they would get a certificate of corporate investment. The private individuals would get the grant. Of course, there's one step that I should place in there first: the SBEC must place the 30 percent factor in the bank in a jointly held trust account to ensure that those investments would be made.

Once that occurred, the payment would then take place. The decisions by the small business equity corporations are the private-sector decisions as to where they invest and what they invest, within the terms of what is already public. A document that has been out for who knows how long lays out the steps for eligible businesses, ineligible busi­ nesses, the lending of money, rental income from real property, mortgages and other dead instruments, the selling of insurance and real estate, the purchase and sale of shares, commodities traded on a stock exchange, or any combination of these activities.

In addition, businesses engaged in oil and gas exploration, drilling, and production are not eligible — and not eligible is underlined — nor were they from day one. Nor was the ability to invest in the purchase of what was called the SRTCs, scientific research tax credit shares. There was pressure out there for us to include that, but we did not. Having said that, within the Act itself are those mech­ anisms that would cover something that, if it were to occur, would be what you might call other than the intent.

There's a spirit of intent clause in there that says that if you don't invest in that particular business as you stated for us you would, you have two options. One, pay back that 30 percent — and there may have been a portion of it held in that jointly held trust account, because they may not have invested all of it; they were only required to invest 40 percent in the first year and 70 percent in the second year. If they invested a percentage above those, they were eligible, they were legitimate, and they were on their way.

If for some reason a difference of opinion occurred between the two businesses — the small business equity corporation that had

July 8, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 411 made the investment of only 49 percent and the business they had invested in — and they then separated, that small business equity corporation had the opportunity within a given time to reinvest for a period of up to seven years. So those particular plans and steps, I guess you could say, are public and are in place right now for us to ensure that the terms and conditions of the small business equity corporation program are in fact met.

Again, there is strength within the Act under the spirit of intent clause to go after — if that's the right term — someone who for other reasons decides not to try and return it, if that should be the case. To my knowledge there have been none of those to this point of time, although I've been away from the program for a little while.

But in the same sense, with the creation of these private-sector pools of money, the best investments by the private sector — because that really was the intent of the program: to create private-sector pools of money out there that they would invest, and we would provide the incentive. So we are only providing the incentive, and the private sector, on its own, under the terms and conditions of this particular program, is making the decisions. As long as they meet the terms and conditions of that program, they have done what has been requested. As the hon. minister said, we can provide the names of the companies.

You can go over there and find out that company number 12345678 — that's one too many numbers — has these principals. You can obtain that. But as far as we're concerned, the intent was that if you are going to make those kinds of investment decisions, you have to be able to operate within the true spirit of the private sector. Thai's the intent and that was one of the reasons we turned it down before. We said that that is basically the private sector decision, not ours; we provide the incentive. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the amendment and urge our members to do the same. MR.

McEACHERN: Just very quickly before I go. I don't understand why you don't accept the scratching of the second amendment. We've accepted the first amendment. The second amendment would just give us the information that the legislation actually did those things it was meant to do. That's really all, Mr. Speaker. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, to the minister. I have very little to add, because the points made by my acquaintances — I hesitate to say friends — on the left and the free- enterprise characters across the wall there were quite to the point, and they're there.

I want to mention that surely he must know that the small business equity corporations are being bought and sold. In other words, what we're getting is groups of people putting these things together with no idea of doing anything except making money reselling them quickly. In effect the new set of shareholders are only going to get a 15 percent write-off because the first people pocketed 15 [percent]. In other words, they're selling it. You're being made fools of.

I don't know how to stop it entirely, but I think we can go a long way in that direction if they have to specify what business they're in in the Act here or when they register. Right now they say, "Here's a nice little package, fellows. I just happened to get it.

I have a friend up in Edmonton who got it through, and if you've got $.5 million or $1 million left, we'll split the 30 percent write-off and you can go do what you like." The point is that the fact that you can go and do what you like is being used as a selling mechanism and to convert and get around your tax write-offs, just like you've done in some other areas like small business and the other share things. I agree that when the government starts tampering, it's maybe always difficult.

Even the smartest people in the world — and certainly nobody's ever accused the government of being that — are going to be taken advantage of at times. I'm just suggesting that right now you're being taken advantage of by these things being peddled again. One of the things I said is that you're not making them say what they're going to do for Alberta, what the main objective is. MR. YOUNIE: Mr. Speaker, I think it was outlined exactly why that amendment must be defeated; that is, the government likes to tell us they always do everything very well and they in fact never make mistakes.

Our purpose is to scrutinize what they do and see if they have made mistakes. In terms of the operation of the program, our need for this information is to see whether or not they have in fact interpreted correctly the regulations that were just quoted. When they say, "That's close enough to the intent and spirit of the program, so we won't go after them," we on this side would like to look very carefully at whether that decision was modified by their admiration for this wonderful free-enterprise company or in fact by the spirit and intent of the program.

We would like to look at the information carefully from our point of view and say, "We think you made a mistake and you haven't interpreted the program carefully." In terms of confidentiality, I think a company that wants to operate only in the free-enterprise realm should bloody well do it. Operate only in the free-enterprise realm, and don't come and take the public money. If you're going to do that, accept that we will know what you did with the money. I think as members it is our right to know that, and we have every right to oppose this amendment and ask that. Another point.

When we said we wanted to know this, the Member for St. Albert started saying, "Oh, these socialists; they always want to know these things" — the Member for Stony Plain, excuse me; I am sure the member wouldn't appreciate it. The member said we're socialists for wanting this information. Perhaps I would have to agree that socialists do like to look at what government does and see if it's done honestly, openly, and carefully. I make no bones about that.

We want the information to see if in fact the government has been doing things properly, and the intent of the motion seems to be to make sure we can't make that judgment carefully without many long months of ferreting through information instead of getting it quickly and simply from the minister involved. MR. PIQUETTE: I also speak out against the amendment.

I don't want to repeat all that's been said in terms of the reasons for it, but just to bring back the government promise during the election campaign, I believe it was the Premier who indicated that he is striving to have a much more open government in this sitting of the House. Here we have a very legitimate need for the opposition parties to know information to make sure we are able to form a professional judgment if we're going to be looking at the financial return on the taxpayers' money invested in private corporations. We have a stonewalling effect here.

We are not allowed to have this information before the House. In terms of a lot of the documentation the government tables, if we're going to make it difficult for parliamentarians to be able to get information out and discuss this professionally among

412 ALBERTA HANSARD July 8, 1986 ourselves in the House, where is open government? Open government must come about with the government willing to disclose everything aboveboard. If the decision was right to begin with, why not have the legislation permitting the full disclosure of information to this House? MR. SPEAKER: Is there a call for the question on the amendment? HON. MEMBERS: Question. MR. HAWKESWORTH: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to ask whether it's possible to put the amendment in two parts. MR.

SPEAKER: It's my understanding that the amendment as proposed and circulated has its own basic integrity. I suppose, though, there could indeed be a subamendment to the amendment. HON. MEMBERS: Question. MR. WRIGHT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will the mover of the amendment not agree — I'm sure he would have unanimous consent if he did — that there are two separable parts. There is an amendment to the first subclause and an amendment to the second. HON. MEMBERS: Question. MR. SPEAKER: The mover of the amendment has indicated in the negative. Question on the amendment as circulated.

All those in favour of the amendment please signify by saying aye. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. MR. SPEAKER: Those opposed please signify by saying no. SOME HON. MEMBERS: No. MR.

SPEAKER: We have a call for a division. [The division bell was rung] [Eight minutes having elapsed, the House divided] For the motion: Adair Fischer Nelson Ady Getty Oldring Alger Gogo Orman Anderson Heron Osterman Betkowski Horsman Payne Bogle Hyland Pengelly Bradley Isley Reid Brassard Johnston Rostad Campbell Jonson Russell Cassin Koper Schumacher Clegg Kowalski Shaben Crawford Kroeger Shrake Day McCoy Sparrow Dinning Mirosh Stewart Downey M.

Moore Weiss Drobot Musgreave West Elliott Musgrove Zarusky Elzinga Against the motion: Barrett Martin Wright Ewasiuk McEachern Younie Fox Mjolsness Hewes Gibeault Piquette Mitchell Hawkesworth Roberts Taylor Laing Sigurdson Totals: Ayes – 52 Noes – 17 [Motion on amendment carried] MR. SPEAKER: Does the mover of the original motion wish to conclude debate on the original motion? The Member for Calgary McCall. MR. NELSON: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to rise briefly to speak to the amended motion. First of all, in examining the motion with the amendment . . . MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, hon. member.

I'd like to check with the Assembly. Is there excessive noise coming from the gallery behind me? MR. ADAIR: There's only one up there. MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. The Chair apologizes to the lone member up there. Perhaps it was the doors swinging out in other areas that I was hearing, and I apologize. The Member for Calgary McCall. MR. NELSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The noise was from elsewhere in the House, I think. Mr.

Speaker, in examining the amended motion, as the amendment has now passed, it is my feeling that the information as amended that is being requested and that will be supported by the members is quite sufficient for all members to be able to function with. Mr. Speaker, it's interesting, and it has already been mentioned, that there is available through the public registry the names of corporations and their principals.

I as a small businessperson, or for that matter a businessperson who may have control over a large corporation, certainly would object to having the rules changed in midstream, those that I have participated in under legislation and regulations that are available. The hon. minister from Peace River who rose, spoke, and gave in detail some of the areas that were placed into the regulations prior to the program being developed certainly outlined that area very well. I'm sure that all members who did listen will recognize the ability to obtain the information requested, if they wish to do so. Mr.

Speaker, it's interesting to watch the activity and, as has already been mentioned, the similar types of legislation and regulations that have been passed throughout the country, especially in Ontario, where we have an NDP-run province. Even though it's a coalition of two socialist groups, it's certainly being run by the NDP. It seems that many people don't wish to see the economy expanded in this province. I am not one of those people, and I'm sure the members of the government are not either. Mr.

Speaker, if business- people are going to be continually put down, continually asked to provide certain information that affects their business and is certainly after the fact, they're going to have trouble investing. There's no question about that, as I for one

July 8, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 413 would not want to invest in a social state that some propose we do. MR. WRIGHT: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member appears to be speaking on the amendment, which has been passed. MR. SPEAKER: If the Blues are checked, the hon. member did commence his comments by saying he was speaking in regard to the motion as amended. MR. WRIGHT: Yes, that's true. But it's not so. MR. SPEAKER: Please sit down. All of us will listen with great care and attention. MR. WRIGHT: That's what I've been doing. MR. NELSON: Mr.

Speaker, I will continue, as I have done, to speak to the amended motion and identify some of those things that I have been dealing with. In dealing with that again, it should be noted for our hon. member's ears near the end of the row there that all these areas that I've been discussing certainly are relevant to the particular motion that has been suggested by the Member for Calgary Mountain View.

As has been identified by the Member for Peace River, the department is in fact keeping a registry of all business equity corporations, so the members here — and I'm speaking rather slowly so that we all may understand — may obtain that information from that registry. That registry is also open to public scrutiny. If you wish to deal further with that, certainly through the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs you are able to obtain other information relevant to principles involved in any corporation you feel has some difficulty.

I don't see the opposition asking for moneys that are paid to other recipients of funds such as those that are paying income tax, social service recipients, and so on and so forth, because we could possibly even ask what those moneys are being used for. However, I'm sure we all recognize that people's lives have to be given some secrecy, which is not the term I would prefer to use, but for want of a better one at the present time . . . We have to honour some people's ability to do the right thing. Mr.

Speaker, I would suggest to the hon. members opposite that if they wish to make some changes, rather than do so midstream, maybe they should offer some positive changes through legislative means, either by motion or by a Bill to ask for legislation being changed to meet their perceived ends. I use the term "perceived" because it is my view that as the amendment has already been passed, the information that is available to all members will suffice all their needs, whatever they might be. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: Before the Chair recognizes the Member for Calgary Mountain View summing up, the Chair would like to make one brief comment with regard to the phrase "members opposite." The last speaker has indeed made some comments which I believe were directed at opposition members, but he managed to deal with the whole government. Perhaps the Member for Calgary Mountain View could now indeed sum up. MR. HAWKESWORTH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As one of the opposite members, I'd like to say that as far as our members are concerned, we're prepared to support the motion as amended.

I think we've put everyone on public record as to their position on this particular issue. We've registered our strong opposition to the gutting of this motion. But some light is better than no light at all. A candle, even if it's weak, provides some illumination, even if it would have been more valuable perhaps to have had a 100-watt bulb burning instead on this particular program. To coin a phrase, it's better to light a candle than curse the government. Mr. Speaker, we believe that what this debate has done, among other things, is convince us of the important need for a freedom of information Act.

I would refer hon. members to the fact that our leader, the hon. Leader of the Opposition, has put on notice Bill 225, the Freedom of Information and Personal Privacy Act. I think the debate today underscores the crying need for that particular piece of legislation. We would be prepared to co-operate in getting further information on this important program by agreeing to support the motion as amended. Thank you. [Motion as amended carried] head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 206. Moved by Mr. Hyland:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly encourage the government to direct the Alberta Government Telephones Commission to consider filing with the Public Utilities Board regulations prohibiting the use of telephone solicitations for commercial purposes. MR. HYLAND: I was beginning to wonder if I was going to be able to speak on this motion this afternoon. Mr.

Speaker, as no such regulations exist in this province, I have brought forward this motion because of some calls from people and some discussions with people relating to solicitations by, firstly, groups from outside the province and groups inside the province, commercial groups that are phoning and, more so, those using automatic dialing equip­ ment and computer dialing equipment that, as of some time last year, was outlawed. People still have the fear that there may be systems of that nature being used.

The motion is brought forward expressing their concerns and also express­ ing the concerns of people that receive calls from so-called supersalesmen on the other end, trying to sell them any number of products. Those people who have less knowledge of the product buy the product over the phone without actually seeing the salespeople and find out later that what they had been led to believe over the phone really wasn't what they'd purchased. Thus they are upset and disappointed in the product they thought they had, because the description was much better than the product they ended up with. As I said, Mr.

Speaker, there are no regulations in the province governing such solicitation, except that of the use of automatic dialing equipment which was passed in the fall of last year, prohibiting the use of that equipment in those telephone solicitations. I have had some suggestions from various people in the public and other members of this Assembly that when I attempted to cast the net to stop commercial use of the phone and exploitation, I cast the net too wide in using the open term "commercial purposes."

414 ALBERTA HANSARD July 8, 1986 Mr. Speaker, being from a rural area, I well know that the telephone is a very important tool in the operation of any farm or agribusiness, and it is not meant to prohibit the use of the telephone for those purposes when it's a one-on-one conversation. When you're attempting to pur­ chase a tractor or a truck or look for parts, you can make a few phone calls and cover a large area in a short time, rather than having to drive a couple of hundred miles in some cases looking for a piece to keep a machine going.

The motion is meant, as I've said previously, when it's a rotary type system or a system where people receive many calls on motions. To them it's very important, and to some people it's also considered an invasion of their privacy. There's also the other side of the argument that it's the Big Brother government coming in to tell people how their lives can be lived. I don't think that's the case in the group that I really meant to get at in the motion. At least it's giving the person some time away from the telephone ringing all the time and somebody trying to sell you something. Mr.

Speaker, I should say — and I don't think I covered it when I talked about the automatic dialing equipment — that there were also limitations on hours, which helped considerably. That was passed last year: limiting the hours for which these calls could go on and limiting it to certain times, so that people weren't receiving the calls all day and night, in the late at night and early in the morning type of situation. I can well understand how some people would feel, as all members of this Assembly, I'm sure, have people phoning them late at night and early in the morning.

Once you become a member of the Assembly, your number is public and people phone you when they feel like phoning you — sometimes it's late at night after they've taken a little libation — and solve the problems. They want you to know about them. Or they've created more problems. We're subject to that, I guess. It doesn't mean to say that everybody should be subject to many, many calls later in the day. Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of ways that it could be changed. There could be alternatives established.

One could be restricted hours, as we have to some extent now, where the calls could be made only at a certain time of the day and early evening. The other could be the promotion of don't-call lists. You could phone in and get your name on a list that you don't want to be bothered. That might take a lot of people to accomplish, Mr. Speaker, and I don't know — though with today's modern times and modern computers, I don't think it would take too many people to accomplish such a list that would be available. As I said, Mr.

Speaker, the intent of the motion is not to get at those who are using a person-to-person type of — for example, if you want to buy a car or a tractor or whatever, the salesman phoning on a personal basis, one on one. It's meant to get at those that are involved in selling through a bank of phones to get people to buy something. I can well understand that I'll be subject to criticism in that it's restricting the smaller operator in his ability to approach and contact the public. He doesn't have the amount of money available to him for advertising in various media that the larger firms do. But, Mr.

Speaker, the one counter I would make to that is that, at least in my experience, when you're dealing one on one with somebody and attempt­ ing to sell them something or buy something from them, you're far better off and you have a lot better feeling between the person you're purchasing from when he's standing right in front of you and making his pitch to you and he has to look you in the eye and convince you that the product he's distributing is a good product and you should buy his product. Mr. Speaker, I think that's about all I would like to say on the motion.

I would like to hear the debate of other members and hear their views on the motion. Thank you. MR. YOUNIE: Mr. Speaker, I find it unusual that we have a Conservative wanting to severely restrict the free use of a communication device for business, and one of our more numerous socialist ones to in fact prevent that infringement on the free use of that communication device. I find myself having very serious reservations about the motion and what it seems to be aimed at. Number one would be the problem of judging who will decide whether or not what is being done is a commercial transaction.

As a simple example, about a year ago my campaign manager was phoned three times in a week to see if he wanted to buy a Conservative membership to go to the leadership convention. Of course, he turned down that commercial proposition quite quickly, thankfully. I don't know how the government is going to enforce such a law. Who listens in to the telephone conversations to see if they are in fact commercial? Who adjudicates? If in fact we leave it up to the person who is offended to lodge a complaint, then who gets to be on the board that listens to the complaints? The whole thing becomes horribly unworkable.

I think the much referred to law against machines doing the phoning is quite acceptable. When we start saying what I am allowed to have in mind and have as my purpose when I pick up the phone, that is a rather scary concept to work with for the government trying to restrict that. So I couldn't be more strong in my opposition to the whole concept behind it, which is a very serious infringement on the free right to use a telephone.

I would point out to the member that I do not have to listen to a high-powered salesman for five or 10 minutes before I say a polite no thank you or a very rude and profane no thank you, if I wish, and hang up the phone on him. In fact, I've gotten into the habit of doing that for many types of solicitations that come to my home. I could accept the idea of saying that you have to do it during normal business hours from nine in the morning to six at night perhaps. That is not difficult.

But saying that you just can't use the telephone for commercial purposes or solicitations I find a frightening and virtually unworkable proposition. So I would urge defeat of the motion. MR. ADY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make some comments on Motion 206. In view of the previous speaker. I almost find myself forced to reverse my position. However, I'll stay with it. Hansard bears record that similar Bills have been put forth and debated in this Legislature several times. In reviewing Hansard, I would recommend as required reading the issue of April 22, 1976, when Mr.

Batiuk told his famous story about the sow and the wheelbarrow. I'd recommend that all of you take time to dig it out and read it, but I won't relate it here. I believe that it only fits Mr. Batiuk. As near as I can determine, there is no such prohibitory legislation in any of the provinces in Canada. There's little doubt that unsolicited phone calls can be a nuisance. We all get calls selling everything from magazines to financial advice to burial plots that allow us to pay now and die

July 8, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 415 later. Then there are those who are conducting surveys, and these can be time-consuming and bothersome. The person who works shiftwork really resents unsolicited phone calls. If that person is to get any sleep during the day, he must make some arrangements to stop all the calls during his sleep time, so unsolicited phone calls wouldn't really make any difference to him.

But if we're going to prohibit unsolicited phone calls on our private phones, as an aside to that, perhaps we have to consider stopping door-to-door salesmen, and if we're going to do that then we have to prohibit them from using our public roads and streets in getting to our residences. It's not that much more absurd, and I don't think we want to go that far. I think we have to recognize that telephone solicitation can be beneficial. I know of a man who had a plan to merchandise a high-volume product. He hired two people to do phone solicitation because he didn't have enough capital to do it any other way.

Well, it proved to be a good plan and a good product. His little company generated some revenue and it grew. Two years later he had an assembly plant, a retail store selling a much expanded line and employing 25 people, with gross sales in excess of $3 million. So there's the other side of the coin. I think we have to be concerned about the summer jobs that that type of solicitation can provide. We all know of the university students who sometimes can't find other work but are able to find work in that field. We have to be concerned about the wife who wants a part-time job, and this will provide it.

It will allow her to stay at home and spend time with her children, avoid the use of day care centres which we have to subsidize so heavily. She can spend that valuable quality time with her family. We really can't afford to curtail any economic effort on the part of Albertans, I don't believe, in this economic climate when they're out there trying to find a way to provide for their families. Perhaps there's enough benefit to our economy to offset the inconvenience that unsolicited telephone calls put upon our lives.

Although enforcing legislation prohibiting solicitation by phone would be dif­ ficult, legislation prohibiting it would surely lessen it because most people are law abiding. And if we had legislation prohibiting it, I believe most people would abide by it, and most companies are also honest and they would abide by it. But in the final analysis, I'm afraid I have to take the position of being opposed to the motion. Thank you. MR. MUSGREAVE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a few comments with regard to this motion.

I would point out to the hon. member from Cypress that the Progressive Con­ servative Party in the last election did run under our Premier a campaign of less government. I suggest to him that to me this does not indicate less government, but more. He mentions the fact that some supersalesman may use the telephone system to encourage people to buy products that they wouldn't otherwise buy. I suggest to him that it would be a poor businessman that would hire a salesman that was not a supersalesman. Why waste money on a poor one?

And selling over the telephone does give small businesspeople an opportunity to maybe cut down on their selling expenses. As has been indicated, for commercial purposes this could be a lifeline for many people. But as some members have already pointed out, there are other uses that are just as annoying. Political parties, for example, getting out the vote. What about charitable organizations who canvass on behalf of circuses and chocolate bars and chocolate-coated nuts? As the hon. Member for Cardston pointed out, personal surveys can be annoying. But going back to the motion, the member said:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly encourage the government to direct the Alberta Government Tele­ phones Commission to consider filing with the Public Utilities Board regulations prohibiting the use of tele­ phone solicitations for commercial purposes. He says that this is not a Big Brother motion, but I just urge the member to look at what the motion says.

It says that the Legislative Assembly should "encourage", and it should "direct" AGT to file "with the Public Utilities Board regulations prohibiting the use of telephone solicitations." I ask the members here: if that isn't Big Brother telling the ordinary citizen what to do, I don't know what is. People have the power in their hands to deal with this situation. All they have to do is hang up. It's that simple; just hang up. Or if you're just too polite, listen as long as you want, then say thank you, and then hang up. But really, you can hang up.

I agree with the Member for Edmonton Glengarry; who is going to listen in? Think of the bureaucracy. I'm not that worried about machines being able to dial numbers from Toronto or New York or wherever, trying to sell me magazines and heaven knows what. I think we have got to realize that more and more machines are becoming an integral part of our life. Many of us now use automatic bank tellers. At first we were probably nervous about them, but now I think you'll find that if you run down to the bank and pick up some money on Sunday night, it's a very convenient way of doing business.

Granted, I'd rather deal with a teller in a bank — it's nice to have the human touch — but the banking machines work very well. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I'll say I'm opposed to the motion for several reasons. First of all, it's an invasion of privacy. It is a Big Brother approach. It could need a horde of eavesdroppers to police it, and it is government inter­ ference, and we have enough of this. MR. SHRAKE: Mr. Speaker, somebody has got to stand up here for our Member for Cypress-Redcliff. Actually, this is not a new problem.

We're just getting into it now, and we'll have a lot more of it before we get through in a few years from now. I'm sure some of our members here will probably have a little different view on this matter of the right to do anything anywhere, even coming into your home through your telephone. B.C. telephones experi­ enced this problem a lot more heavily and a lot earlier than we did, but it's coming here. And I agree, a corporation — a company — has a right to promote their product. I would never dispute that.

They ran into this argument down in the States many years ago and they said, "Well, we have the right to put billboards along the roads." So you approach Grand Canyon; you approach the Black Hills of South Dakota. The beautiful landscape and the scenery was all cluttered with billboards, so finally they said, "Your right to promote your product interferes with our right to see the scenery." So they regulated it, and this is the way things sometimes happen in the old big city there. As we got into Alberta here, it was not a problem before.

If it's not a problem, I think your government usually figures "If it's not broke, don't fix it." But it's starting to get broke now. Some people have to pay extra to Alberta Government Telephones. It costs you extra if you want an unlisted phone number, but they only want calls coming into their home that are people they wish to

416 ALBERTA HANSARD July 8, 1986 speak to. Often, if a person works nights and he's sleeping days, if he does get up to answer the telephone he wants to get up because he knows it's a member of his family. And he should have that right, shouldn't he? I wouldn't deny it to him. But he now even has the unlisted phone number. They've got the old phoning machines. When it starts out — say we use the 427. It goes 427-0001, 427- 0002, and on through. And even though you have an unlisted phone number, that mechanical machine is going to ring your telephone.

It will ring it until you answer it, if you're in the bathtub or whatever. With the carpet cleaning — I'm getting my furnace vents cleaned out — I've had so many phone calls, my sympathy rose a little bit for the Member for Cypress-Redcliff. I've got a device for the advertisements on television. If I'm watching television, I hit this button; it turns the sound off. I don't have to listen to a ruddy commercial on television. If I don't like the radio commercials, I can turn the radio off. And if I don't want to read the advertisements in the newspaper, I can read the articles and skip the advertising.

But when my phone rings, I must answer it. It could be an emergency. It could be a family problem or it could be a constituent. Of course I don't want to miss getting a phone call from my constituents, so I answer the thing. I don't mind the constituents, relatives, and friends, but I really don't like it when that lady asked me for the fifth time if I want my carpets cleaned one more time.

I have ho objections to small business promoting products, but I don't like it when they've hired 12 girls in this firm and they will take on contract and have them phone every citizen in the city of Calgary or Edmonton or wherever and badger and bother them. Somewhere down the way we will have to address this, but I think perhaps right now it's a little premature. The problem is not bad enough, and the citizens haven't gotten stirred up. They're not protesting around the Legislature, so perhaps we had best leave this one alone. But along the same vein, AGT does have a monopoly. There's no question about that.

You can buy a phone from ET but only if you live in Edmonton. The average person has gone to this company and got their phone there because that's the only place they can go to buy a telephone. They buy it with the understanding, whether it's in the contract or not, that when they buy this telephone they will be able to pick up their phone and dial out and reach other people who have similar telephones and maybe even phone long­ distance. That was the agreement that they had in their minds.

We have now reached the point though — maybe a little off the topic, but bear with me — where the kiddies can come in, phone to New York or wherever this thing is on one of these old Zenith 900 numbers and listen to sex messages. The mother and the father have no knowledge of this until the end of the month — I guess you can buy all kinds of goods, tapes and all these things, and they're automatically billed on your telephone. Then you begin to wonder: well, wait a minute; these people that bought this telephone only wanted to make phone calls, not buy sex messages, products, and so on.

And you don't have to sign your name. This I think is a problem that is probably more pressing that telephone soliciting for selling of goods, and it's one that should be addressed. I really believe that unless when you bought your telephone and you signed — "I will take anything that's charged against this thing, whether it's buying a new TV, records, all these odds and things, K-tel, mechanical things that chop up onions, or whatever." Unless the owner of the phone has signed, they should not be liable for this type of bill. But no.

Any one of the kids — the three year old, if he can speak well enough — can phone up and order all these things. Because of the monopoly, ACT tells the homeowner: "If you don't pay you lose your phone." A phone is a very valuable instrument. "And we aren't even going to negotiate on all those goods and things that some kid bought on your phone that you didn't want." That is a little item that in the future I would hope our minister would take up with AGT and make the arrange­ ments. Be good to the old subscribers on the telephones because you have a captive set of customers there.

You have a monopoly, and when you have a monopoly you have an obligation to those people a little beyond. They should say, "Okay, you can sign this form if you want to be allowed to charge all this garbage on your telephone or if you just want straight phone calls." That is one I would be happy to see the minister take up with ACT and see if they can't get that type of arrangement. Other than that, Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps this motion is a little premature, but I'm glad you brought it up because I got some discussion going. We can bring out a few of the problems that are out there. MR. R.

MOORE: Just a couple of comments, Mr. Speaker. Some of the previous speakers mentioned that a lot of legitimate business is done over the phone, and I agree wholeheartedly. I do not know how AGT can distinguish between a legitimate business and nuisance business. I have to oppose this motion on that basis. Another point is: to regulate such a piece of legislation means that telephones have to be monitored. Mr. Speaker, I don't want my telephone monitored. I don't think anybody in this House wants their telephone monitored. I want it to be a private instrument between me and whoever is on the other end.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I don't think it's a good piece of legislation to come in when there is a more powerful way to control it in the hands of the public. It's a fact that they can hang up the minute they don't want to listen to it. Individual choice is far stronger than any piece of legislation we can bring in or discuss in this House. MRS. MIROSH: Mr. Speaker. I agree with my colleagues about nuisance phone calls, especially my colleague from Calgary Millican. They are a nuisance, Mr. Shrake, but I do know that there are a lot of people that do depend on a telephone for business.

In Calgary there are several handicapped individuals who definitely need this service. They sell light bulbs, and they have become very independent as a result of their telephone solicitation. I also feel that if you remove this, it is removing people's livelihood. I think if people quit buying the product that is being solicited on the telephone it would remove these nuisance calls, but obviously people do like this or else they wouldn't be buying. It is something that gives people freedom of their rights.

This government is always pushing for small business and freedom of people's rights, and I don't think we should be infringing on human rights. Unfortunately, I have to agree with our member from the NDP with regard to selling . . . [interjection] I know, he's groaning beside me here. But we do sell memberships and we do solicit our constituents. I think this would infringe on our own rights. I don't like to stand here and go against my colleague, but I really do not agree with this motion.

July 8, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 417 I feel that telephone solicitation should continue, and if you don't like it, all you have to do is say very politely that you're not interested in the product and say goodbye. That's all you have to do. People will soon not call you, and there will be lists made up. If they keep calling you all the time and you keep saying no, they won't call you anymore. I'd like to say that I do not agree with this motion. MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, I'm very intrigued at the moti­ vation by the hon. Member for Cypress-Redcliff.

There was a man who served longer in this House than anybody else, the former Member for Drumheller. He had a similar Bill on the books. It wasn't a resolution, but it was a similar Bill. There was a lot of merit at that time. I just wonder in looking at the motion whether for some reason the printers didn't completely print the resolution, because as I recall — and I have some sympathy for the member. I can't support it the way it is. If the member would amend it, I don't know anybody in their right mind in this House that wants to get a phone call at half past four in the morning. I can just hear it now, Mr.

Speaker. They'd march into this House demanding that AGT withdraw equipment. Here they are all opposing the hon. member who's trying to make life civilized for some of us. So let's take a minute and understand the motivation. Is it because of his twins? Is it because the member has twins and has a long history of walking the floor and getting those phone calls at three and four in the morning from a rotary automatic system telling him to buy a membership in a certain unnamed political party? We went through a phase here in recent times when it was fashionable to join political parties.

Many of those solicitations were by telephone. We'd be ashamed really if we carried the motion and did away with that and none of us were here to succeed ourselves the next time round. We should be very, very cautious. Mr. Speaker, the telephone obviously is a marvellous instrument and it serves us in so many ways. How else can we be advised that we're going to be disconnected if they don't phone us? Have you ever noticed that they tend to do this not during working hours? They tend to do it during Dynasty or the ball game or, in the case of Highwood, the football game. They tend to do it at those odd hours.

It's a little bit like Chargex, Visa, and these credit organizations who have difficulties and then hire people on commission, of course, to put the screws to you to get that last ounce of blood out when for some unknown reason, not your fault, you failed to pay a bill. Well, it's the same with the telephone. I recall that we had a bit of a misunderstanding a year ago in Edmonton with AGT-ET, because at my place we got several bills, all purporting that I owed them different sums of money.

They had the habit of phoning in the late hours demanding that I send a long-distance toll to one company and the regular charge to another company. At that time I would strongly have supported this member's resolution, because I viewed it as an invasion of privacy, having people phone me at odd hours for messages I don't like. The member for Pincher Creek is well aware of this: an oldtimer of 75 or 80 years, a bachelor that lived north of Cowley. That's out in the foothills country. People were obviously having difficulty reaching him. The Mounties showed up at his place and inquired as to how he was.

He appeared to be fine — a little cranky with arthritis because of his age and its being February. It seemed that they inquired about his telephone, and he said that it was fine, he was on a party line. That's something that's soon to be in the past, as you know, in Alberta. We're going to put a first-class line in every home. The one Mountie went over to the phone, said "Can I use your phone?" and rang up and got through to town, the police detachment, and had a conversation and hung up.

The oldtimer said, "What are you doing?" He said, "Well, I just wanted to use your phone." The Mountie waited and nothing happened. He phoned again to Pincher Creek, and apparently the message at the other end was: "Yes, we phoned you; didn't your phone ring?" I guess the Mountie said no, so he said to the oldtimer, "Well, there's obviously something wrong with your phone because people keep trying to call you and it doesn't ring." He said: "It shouldn't ring. I took the bell