Alberta Hansard — 25 April 1977, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 18, Session 3)

19770425

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

April 25, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 929 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Monday, April 25, 1977 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. SCHMID: Mr. Speaker, I would like to file the Dunvegan Study Report of the Historic Sites Service of Alberta Culture, done by Mr. John Nicks. MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to file with the Legislative Assembly the following reports: the De partment of Housing and Public Works "Alberta Rent al Situation", Executive

Summary; the Rental Situa tion Report, March 31, 1977; the Supplementary Rental Information Report, April 7, 1977; the Urban Residential Housing Starts Report, Alberta, February 1977; the Rental Accommodation Study, Edmonton and Calgary, Alberta, January 1977, Phase 1; the Apartment Vacancy and Rental Cost Survey, October 1976. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. TRYNCHY: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure this afternoon to introduce to you and to the members of the House some 20 grades 11 and 12 Social Studies 30 students from the Grand Trunk High School in Evansburg in my constituency.

They are accom panied by their bus driver and their principal Mr. Sparks. I might add, Mr. Speaker, on my visits to the school on a number of occasions, they've proved to be very astute students and pretty knowledgeable of the polit ical process in Alberta. I'd like to ask them to rise in the members gallery and accept the welcome of the House. MR. MUSGREAVE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to intro duce to you, and through you to the Members of the Legislative Assembly, 82 students from James Fowler High School in the Calgary McKnight constituency. They are seated in the public gallery.

I note that every time a member stands up to introduce students from his constituency, he com ments how bright, brilliant, and studious they are. The same applies to these ladies and gentlemen. It obviously tells me, Mr. Speaker, that the educational system in Alberta is still in pretty good shape. I would like them to rise and be recognized by the members of this House. MR. BATIUK: Mr. Speaker, it also gives me pleasure to introduce to you, and through you to the Members of the Legislative Assembly, 50 grades 10 and 12 students from the Mundare school in my constitu ency.

They are seated in the members gallery. I would ask that they rise and be recognized. head: MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, The Temporary Rent Regulation Measures Act will cease to affect rents on June 30, 1977. For some weeks, the government has been studying the effect this might have on residen tial rents in Alberta. The government is aware that landlords have given occupants of more than 15,000 rental units notices of increases to be effective July 1, 1977, and these average between 24 and 48 per cent.

This represents about 10 per cent of the total rental stock of housing in the province. There is evidence that many other tenants have been given notices of increases as well. The Department of Housing and Public Works has been monitoring vacancy rates. While vacancy rates in apartments have increased slightly in recent months, to about 0.4 per cent in Edmonton and 1.2 per cent in Calgary, the general level of vacancy is not considered to be high enough to permit tenants seek ing a place to live adequate alternatives in price or type of accommodation.

Vacancy rates in centres other than Edmonton and Calgary appear to be somewhat higher, with the exception of Fort McMurray. The construction of new housing of all types is encouraging, and it is expected that vacancy rates will increase slightly over the next year. However, the strong demand for affordable housing will con tinue. In addition to the ordinary growth of our population, Alberta is attracting large numbers of new residents because of our strong economy, high employment participation rate, and low taxes. Our net growth from migration into Alberta is about 3,000 people per month.

The number of persons per household is slowly decreasing. This is due to a gradual drop in average family size, a tendency for young adults to leave the parental home earlier, and a growing unwillingness among others to live in shared accommodation. The average household in Alberta is now about 3.2 per sons, compared to 3.5 persons in 1971. This decline may continue. This trend in household size suggests that Alberta citizens generally enjoy adequate hous ing, but it also demonstrates pressure to have more housing available.

Thus, fostering the construction of more housing will continue to be a high priority of the government, and the Minister of Housing and Public Works has undertaken an ambitious program which is having some very good results. The nearly 39,000 housing starts in Alberta in 1976 was a record number for the province and represents the best per capita perfor mance of any Canadian province. Building on this record of achievement, the government will continue to stimulate and assist in the construction of addi tional shelter units for more Albertans at affordable costs.

The government will continue to place emphasis on construction of rent-assisted housing for those citi

930 ALBERTA HANSARD April 25, 1977 zens in need of assistance and will further emphasize the construction of senior citizen self-contained units and nursing home beds. It is to the private sector, however, that Albertans look for most of our housing requirements. The gov ernment will consider additional incentives to encourage the construction of rental housing as may be appropriate and necessary. We will continue to provide renter assistance credits and grants to Alber tans. For senior citizens who rent, the grant is at present $150 per household per year.

For most renters under age 65, the credit varies between $50 and $200 per household per year with higher credits going to those with higher rental expense or lower taxable income or both. Last year the average credit was about $95 for 210,000 families. These credits and grants placed some $23 million in the hands of Alberta taxpayers last year. The government has received the report of the Institute of Law Research and Reform recommending changes in the landlord and tenant law of the prov ince. Accordingly, we are now preparing amend ments to The Landlord and Tenant Act.

It is our intention to introduce them when the Assembly sits this fall. The purpose of these amendments will be to encourage greater harmony in the rental market place and an improved legal position for both land lords and tenants. It is our view that a protracted period of rent control will tend to discourage an adequate degree of private sector investment to meet future housing needs in Alberta. It is therefore the government's decision, after assessing the present rental market, that we are in a position to phase out the control of rents.

Very short ly we will introduce a bill in this Assembly entitled, The Alberta Rent Decontrol Act. This bill will continue rent regulation over the next three years, but its main emphasis will be a gradual withdrawal from the control scheme.

It will contain the following provisions: first, the new bill will permit the cabinet to approve regulations to remove controls after January 1, 1978, from those rental units where the rent paid on or after June 30, 1977, reaches or exceeds the following limits: $375 for units of three or more bedrooms, $325 for units of two bedrooms, and $275 for one bedroom and bachelor units. Once the permitted rent for a unit reaches these limits on a future date, that unit will automatically be exempted from controls by the legislation.

Secondly, until rents are removed from control, they will continue to be regulated on and after July 1, 1977, in much the same way they are now regulated. All notices of rent increases which are to take effect on or after July 1 will be subject to the new act. Thirdly, if the rent has been increased during the first six months of 1977, no further increase will be permitted before December 31, 1977, unless actual cost increases can be justified to a rent regulation officer.

However, if rents were not increased during the first six months of 1977, one increase of up to 9 per cent may be taken before December 31, 1977. Larger increases must be justified to a rent regulation officer on the basis of costs. Fourthly, on or after January 1, 1978, the act will permit a rent increase of up to 8 per cent or $20 per month, whichever is greater. On or after January 1, 1979, another increase of up to 8 per cent or $20 may be made. On January 1, 1980, a further increase will be permitted, of an amount to be deter mined at a later date. The act will cease to affect rents on June 30, 1980.

Fifthly, all new rental construction will continue to be exempt from control, and any building that is exempt under the present act will also be exempt. Sixthly, the new act will continue to prohibit the removal of rental units from the rental market, either through conversion to condominiums or conversion to another purpose, for as long as the rents of the units are subject to control. It is the purpose of the new act to permit those parts of the residential market which may no longer need regulation to gradually emerge from controls.

The decontrol will be directed to those parts of the rental market where alternative accommodation is available. At the same time, protection from rapid escalation will continue for up to three years for residents of less expensive housing, for it is felt that this is the housing generally occupied by those who can least afford inflationary price increases. But the government wishes to issue a caution to landlords, and I take this opportunity to point out that any rent increases upon decontrol of the magnitude experienced recently can only result in the govern ment of the day reassessing its position.

At the same time, I want to commend for their consideration and restraint those landlords who have not taken advantage of a very tight rental market. The government believes that the gradual decontrol of rents will result in rents keeping pace with other factors in the economy and will further encourage the private sector to meet the housing demands of the future. MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, in responding to the minis terial announcement made by the Minister of Con sumer and Corporate Affairs, I suppose it's fair to say we congratulate the minister on finally arriving at a decision with regard to this difficult matter. I would just like to remind the members of the Assembly of comments made by the Premier in the Legislature when this matter was discussed some time ago. He said: "We've come to this conclusion: that so long as incomes are controlled, then we must control rental increases." Mr.

Speaker, that's the rea son my colleague from Little Bow has raised the question as often as he has — because of the concern and the very real anxiety that a sizable number of people in the province have experienced in waiting for the announcement which has been made today. In commenting on the ministerial announcement, it appears that the minister is moving to close some of the loopholes. I think in terms of some landlords who have been switching from monthly rental rates to weekly rates. I commend the move in that direction, if that's what the government plans to do.

I'm hope ful, also, that the announcement today will make it possible for some landlords who were caught with unreasonably low rentals to make some adjustments there. In principle, Mr. Speaker, we support the idea of decontrol. We recognize that the next two and a half years will be difficult in this area, but we do think the move is in the right direction. Our greatest regret is that the announcement was not made some time ago,

April 25, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 931 so that over the last month to six weeks a number of people would not have lived under very uncertain circumstances. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Psychiatric Facilities MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the first question to the Minister of Social Services and Community Health and ask if she's in a position to indicate to the Assembly whether in fact patients are being turned away from psychiatric institutions in Alberta prior to their period of convalescence being completed.

I raise the question as a result of the Canadian Mental Health Association's comments over the weekend. MISS HUNLEY: Mr. Speaker, I presume the question the hon. member raises would be a matter of opinion. I don't have anything to confirm or deny what the hon. Leader of the Opposition is alluding to, except to say it is not my impression that this is widespread. There may be some specifics the writer of the report was referring to. I do not have that information, but I'm prepared to seek it out because it's causing me some concern. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister.

Is it the intention of the minister to ask the officials in her department — and, I suspect, Dr. Hellon — to clearly check into the concerns raised by the CMHA Calgary president and to report to the minister? Could the minister in turn report to the Assembly as to the seriousness, especially of this one complaint, and the other points raised? MISS HUNLEY: Certainly I will be discussing it, as I always am on an ongoing basis, particularly when specific issues of this nature are raised. I have to say, though, that from my first examina tion of it and from the publicity it received, I don't think the

article in the paper is completely accurate. I think, though, that it would be only reasonable that I check again with the director of mental health serv ices and report to the hon. member. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, very specifically to the minister. Have complaints been raised with the min ister's office with regard to individual patients being released from either Ponoka or Oliver prior to their period of convalescence being completed? MISS HUNLEY: I can't recall any particular corre spondence relating to that, but once again I do get a fair volume of correspondence.

I can't recall a specif ic instance of that. The average length of stay at Ponoka, Mr. Speaker, is 90 days, compared to 60 days at Alberta Hospital, Edmonton. But this all deals with the variety of ways the various cities, professionals, and systems work, because they are not identical in structure. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care, flowing from the matter of psychiatric facilities in Calgary. Is the minister in a position to indicate to the Assembly when the new psychiatric facilities at the Calgary General Hospital will be available for patients?

MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to comment on that, following my colleague the Minister of Social Services and Community Health. I would say in response to the hon. leader there has never been any question relative to the funding of the Calgary Gener al psychiatric wing now under construction and final ly being completed. The question has been the level or degree of program funding, which was extremely high when initially submitted to us.

In consultation with my colleague the Minister of Social Services and Community Health, her officials, and officials in Hos pitals and Medical Care, we are now placing the highest priority on determining what the adequate level of program funding for the Calgary General psychiatric wing should be. I hope that decision will be made very soon. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. The question was, Mr. Minister — can the minister indicate to the Assembly when we can expect the new psychiatric area at the Calgary General Hospital to be open and available for patients? MR. MINIELY: Mr.

Speaker, I've indicated in response to the hon. leader that we're now giving very high priority to that decision. As soon as the hospital, the Department of Social Services and Community Health, and Hospitals and Medical Care can deter mine what the level of program funding for the psy chiatric wing of the Calgary General Hospital should be to provide quality and yet at the same time be reasonable, we will be in a position — and I hope very soon — to flow program funds through to the Calgary General Hospital. MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, then a supplementary question to the minister, hopefully so we can get a specific date. Is the minister in a position to assure the Assembly that the actual medical equipment needed for the psychiatric wing at the Calgary Gener al Hospital has in fact been ordered? MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, the ordering of the equipment by the Calgary General Hospital . . . I would point out to the hon. leader that in funding hospitals we're providing a total budget, with the exception of new programs.

Within their total budg etary funding, the Calgary General Hospital is not precluded from choosing their priorities and ordering equipment if they so desire. The matter we must determine in consultation with the Calgary General Hospital and officials of Social Services and Commu nity Health is the ongoing annual program funding for the psychiatric unit. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, another question to the minister. Can the minister indicate to the Assembly whether the staffing patterns have been finalized for the psychiatric facilities at the Calgary General Hospital? MR. MINIELY: Mr.

Speaker, I don't think the hon. leader is listening very closely. These matters are now being discussed by the Calgary General Hospital,

932 ALBERTA HANSARD April 25, 1977 the division of mental health in the Department of Social Services and Community Health, and officials in my portfolio in Hospitals and Medical Care. We hope to have a decision very soon. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to the minister. Could the minister indicate any target date to complete a new psychiatric facility in Lethbridge? MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, earlier in this Legislature I believe I indicated that that recommendation was under consideration at the present time.

One of the difficulties with respect to the development of pro grams and services in Lethbridge is that the two Lethbridge hospitals involved have not been able to agree which hospital should have given services and programs. We have made efforts. I have met with them personally to try to obtain agreement between the two hospitals as to the programs and services that each may provide. To this point we have no final agreement between them. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question to the minister.

Can the minister give assurance to the Assembly that the new psychiatric facilities at the Calgary General Hospital will be open by July 1, 1977? MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, I think I've indicated that as soon as we're able to arrive at the level of programming desirable to provide quality to mental health patients in Calgary and southern Alberta that they would serve, and what is reasonable between the hospital, the Department of Social Services and Community Health, and Hospitals and Medical Care, we will be able to open this psychiatric wing. MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, one last supplementary question to the minister. In light of the minister not being prepared to agree to July 1, can the minister give the Assembly assurance that the new facilities at the Calgary General Hospital will be open and patients will be able to be in those facilities by the end of 1977? Can you give us that kind of assurance at least? MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, I don't think the hon. leader should distort my answer. I did not say it would not be open by July 1. It would be my hope that we could arrive at this as quickly as possible. That is our intent.

But I think it in the best interests of quality programming for the psychiatric wing that the hon. leader should recognize it is important that the actual program . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. We're going beyond the scope of the question. Premier's Trip MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a second question to the hon. the Premier. In light of the announcement by the Premier outside the Legislature today with regard to the trip to Russia and the Middle East, is it the intention of the Premier to attend discussions on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in Geneva? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, I think that's a very important subject for discussion in the Assembly. Rather than deal with the matter in the question period, I'd welcome a similar question during Com mittee of Supply tonight at 8 o'clock when reviewing my estimates. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, despite that, a supplemen tary question to the Premier. Is it the Premier's inten tion to meet with the heads of government in Israel, and to meet with the heads of OPEC in the course of the visit to the Middle East? MR. SPEAKER: With respect to the hon.

Leader of the Opposition, it would appear he is following along the same line of questioning, even though the hon. Pre mier has indicated he'll be dealing with the matter tonight. Swine Flu Vaccine MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Social Services and Community Health, with regard to the swine flu vaccine that was left over for people's use in Alberta. I was wondering if the minister could indicate the present status of that swine flu vaccine we have in Alberta and how much is available. MISS HUNLEY: That's a matter of detail I don't have exactly at my fingertips, Mr. Speaker.

It's being stored, though. Some of our order was stored at Connaught Laboratories and never delivered. That which was delivered is being stored at the provincial lab here. I don't know whether any is now being stored with the health units. There was at one time, because it was being made available on prescription by local physicians. The total amount we adminis tered was 104,250 monovalent and 53,840 bivalent. But I don't have the statistics with me of the amount left over. Postsecondary Education Fees MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my ques tion to the hon.

Minister of Advanced Education and Manpower. It's a follow-up to questions raised dur ing the estimates of the department. Is the minister in a position to advise the Assembly when Alberta students can expect the next general increase in fees? DR. HOHOL: No I cannot, Mr. Speaker. This is something the institutions of higher learning and I would have to work on together. At the moment we are working at other things together. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to see there's a new spirit of harmony. Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister.

Has the minister had discussions with offi cials of the University of Calgary regarding plans by that institution for a $50 per semester tuition hike beginning in the spring of 1978? DR. HOHOL: No I have not. The Board of Governors discussed that, as it may and can and should, and to

April 25, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 933 the best of my understanding has left it alone to examine again in the fall of 1977. MR. NOTLEY: A further supplementary question to the hon. minister. Has the minister given any general guideline to universities and colleges respecting the timing of the next general fee increase? DR. HOHOL: No I have not, Mr. Speaker. Following the implementation of fees of a special kind this fall, I wish to recall to the Assembly that there will be a committee which will look at all the costs students face when they go to any institution of higher learn ing.

This will be part of the study, but only a part. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister. Will it still be the policy of the government to have constant fees, or will there be different fees at different institutions, for example, a different fee at the University of Lethbridge compared to the University of Calgary or the University in Edmonton? DR. HOHOL: Mr.

Speaker, it's the government's view and certainly my position at this point that each level of institution have the same kind of fee, for example, the same level of fees at universities but different from colleges and provincially-administered institutions. To reflect just a bit on the previous question, while I have not set any guidelines I have discussed with universities the fact that adjustments in fees should be gradual and from time to time — reflecting somewhat cost increases in other areas like transpor tation, registration fees, and so on — rather than every year or a lapse of six or seven years. MR.

NOTLEY: A further supplementary question to the hon. minister. Can the minister advise whether or not there will be a holding of fee increases prior to the completion of the study by the department which will be proceeding? Further, will there be any provi sion for public input in the departmental study on the whole question of university fee structures? DR. HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, certainly there is no inten tion to withhold any normal movement of any kind in the institutions, awaiting a report. I think that's im proper use of the anticipated results or conclusions of a report.

In the second case, while we have not set a committee in place, it is slowly being done. The frame of reference has generally but not exactly been put together. Certainly one of those will be some mechanism to get the views of Albertans on the matter. DR. PAPROSKI: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister could indicate to the House whether it's true that the fees in Alberta are still the lowest in Canada? DR. HOHOL: It depends on how you measure them. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The hon. member's representation is complete without any addition by the minister. DR. HOHOL: I just couldn't pass it up.

Eastern Slopes MR. KUSHNER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Recreation, Parks and Wildlife. Could the minister inform this Assembly if he has received an application from Underwood McLellan for developing a recreational area in the vicinity of Spray Lakes? MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, if I may, that should proper ly be addressed to the Associate Minister of the Department of Energy and Natural Resources, re sponsible for public lands. MR. SCHMIDT: Mr.

Speaker, considerable interest is being shown by individuals and collectively, by organizations in perhaps one of the more beautiful parts of our province, the eastern slopes. Because those applications, of which Assiniboia is one, are dependent on the disposition of land and land use that falls within the slopes, any decisions on either the Assiniboia project or others we have at the present time will have to be delayed until the final decision is made on land use and the disposition within the eastern slopes. MR. KUSHNER: A supplementary question to the min ister. Can the minister indicate any specific timing?

MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, the target date we are shooting for is midsummer. The time element involved will be the midsummer calendar month and not the temperature. Sport Alberta MR. CLARK: A question to the Minister of Recreation, Parks and Wildlife. I'd like to ask the minister if the audit on Sport Alberta has been completed. MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member repeat the question, please? MR. CLARK: My question to the Minister of Recrea tion, Parks and Wildlife is: has the audit been com pleted with regard to Sport Alberta? MR. ADAIR: I'm not sure which audit the gentleman is referring to.

If it's the current audit for the finan cial year just completed, I'm not aware that it has been completed yet. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question — with regard to the audit for the year 1976. MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, I would have to check and respond. MR. CLARK: A supplementary question to the minis ter. While the minister is checking, would he please check for 1 975 also? MR. ADAIR: Yes. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. Have concerns been expressed to the

934 ALBERTA HANSARD April 25, 1977 minister with regard to the disposition of funds left over from Sport Alberta operations in the year '75-76, other than by people in Sport Alberta itself? MR. ADAIR: I can't say I have, Mr. Speaker, other than by people in Sport Alberta. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, is the minister in a position to indicate whether a letter from one of the deputy ministers in the minister's department has gone out to the former director of Sport Alberta, Mr. Butlin, asking about the financial status of Sport Alberta for the year 1975-76? MR. ADAIR: I believe that information is correct.

Yes, a memo has gone to the gentleman. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, one last question to the minister. Would the minister be in a position to report to the Assembly within this week on the audited statements as far as '75 and '76 are concerned? MR. ADAIR: Yes, I would hope I can provide that information. MR. CLARK: So would I. Coal Sales to Ontario MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. Has the minister received any comments from the govern ment of Ontario or Ontario Hydro expressing satisfac tion or otherwise with Alberta coal being used by Ontario Hydro? MR.

GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I haven't had any current communication with the government of Ontario, par ticularly as to satisfaction with use. I know they are planning very heavily on the use of Alberta coal, and Ontario Hydro has entered into a long-term contract to use Alberta coal. They intend to put in place a transportation system which will allow a large flow of coal from our province to go to Ontario to help them in supplying their future energy needs. Furniture Purchases MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to direct this ques tion to either the Minister of Advanced Education and Manpower in his capacity or, alternatively, the hon. Minister of Housing and Public Works. It concerns the question of furniture being ordered for the former Simpsons-Sears building presently being renovated for NAIT. Has the government received any represen tation with respect to the apparent decision to pur chase the furniture for this renovated building from Westinghouse as opposed to seeking bids from other furniture companies in the city? MR. YURKO: Mr.

Speaker, I can only answer the question generally and suggest that furniture requirements, particularly on a large scale, are gen erally tendered. Apart from that, I'll have to check and get the specifics of the question for the hon. member. Parkland Nursing Home DR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minis ter of Hospitals and Medical Care. I wonder if the minister would indicate to the House whether the care and well-being of patients at the Parkland Nurs ing Home has now deteriorated as a result of the prolonged strike in that facility. MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, no.

My latest report is that the standard of care at the Parkland Nursing Home is excellent. DR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion to the Minister of Labour. I wonder if the Minis ter of Labour would indicate to the House whether he would like to report regarding the government's inter vention in settling this strike. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, the framing of the question with reference to the government's inter vention may lead us down the wrong track.

The answer to the question is that the Department of Labour has continued to provide mediation services on a basis it normally would, from the beginning of the dispute until the present time, when the parties desire to have them. Public Works Purchasing MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the hon. Minister of Housing and Public Works. Are there any guidelines or program in the minister's department that would make it possible for a purchasing agent to visit a company office at the expense of the company rather than have his way there and back paid by public funds? MR. YURKO: Mr.

Speaker, in the course of the various projects undertaken by the public works side of the Department of Housing and Public Works, it is common practice to send experts — engineers and experts in several areas — to obtain information from other jurisdictions and similar facilities not only throughout Canada but indeed in North America. Generally, in all cases I'm aware of, these visits have to be approved by the minister, that's me. In all cases I'm aware of, they are paid for by the budgetary process allocated through this Legislature.

Whether there's an instance where indeed some other appro priation rather than this Legislature's appropriation has paid or is considering paying for such a visit is something I will have to look into. But at this time I would advise it's not government policy, as I under stand the policy. French Language Use MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may take this opportunity to respond to a question asked of me last week by the Member for Spirit River-Fairview. He asked whether the government had any special policy regarding the use of the French language by the public service. The answer to that is no.

He also asked whether the government had given consideration to French language training programs for the public service working in areas which have a large number of French-speaking Albertans. The

April 25, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 935 answer is that we do not have any general program within the public service, nor am I aware of any particular programs within departments. But there may well be some departments in government which set their own requirements with respect to capabili ties in language when filling positions in those areas in Alberta in which there is a large number of French speaking Albertans. Brucellosis MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the hon.

Leader of the Opposition asked me to inquire with regard to delays which had been occasioned with respect to the slaughtering of herds infected with brucellosis. I had an opportunity to check with the federal health of animals branch in that regard. They advise there have been a few problems with delays between the decision to slaughter and the actual slaughter of these herds. However, they advise it is not generally a problem. There are two factors in particular that delay pro mpt slaughter.

With large herds, particularly those of poor quality, it has been difficult in some cases to make arrangements with a plant or plants to process the large numbers of animals. The second factor is the time involved to arrange for a third party arbiter where the owner does not accept the evaluation placed on the animals by the federal health of ani mals branch. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, they have assured us that continuing efforts will be made to ensure there are not undue delays. Public Works Purchasing (continued) MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to direct this question again to either the Minister of Advanced Education and Manpower or the Minister of Housing and Public Works. I appreciate the answer on policy given by the Minister of Housing and Public Works. My question, however, to both ministers is: have any complaints been received by the government with respect to both the question I put to the hon. minister concerning the renovation of NAIT and the furniture, and the question put to the hon. minister by the Leader of the Opposition concerning purchasing agents going on junkets paid for by private companies? MR. YURKO: Mr.

Speaker, no complaints have been brought to my attention, but I will certainly check into the matter and see if there are any around that were made to any officials of the department. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Advanced Education and Manpower. Has any information or complaints been received with respect to both these questions? DR. HOHOL: Mr.

Speaker, because of the care with both the question and the answer, I think this goes to the kind of subject that I would prefer to look in the files, speak to the officials, and make certain that my answer is proper, correct, and accurate. MR. CLARK: One supplementary question to the min ister. While the minister is doing that checking, I wonder if the minister would check specifically with Dr. Hameed in the minister's office to see if repre sentation has been made to that . . . DR. HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, that's an extremely gratui tous statement. Dr.

Hameed happens to be my exec utive assistant, and I don't need the advice and counsel of the hon. Leader of the Opposition on how to do my job. MR. CLARK: If you'd do your job, you wouldn't be in the bind you are in right now. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. DR. HOHOL: What sort of bind? MR. CLARK: Knowing the answer. Yes or no. DR. HOHOL: Baloney. That's not a yes or no question. ORDERS OF THE DAY head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS (reversion) MR. DOWLING: Mr. Speaker, it's a great privilege and pleasure for me to introduce to you and to members of this House, 30 grade 10 students from Grande Cache high school.

They are seated in the members gallery and are accompanied by their teacher Mr. Roland Duquette. I would ask them to rise and receive the welcome of the House. head: GOVERNMENT MOTIONS (Committee of Supply) [Dr. McCrimmon in the Chair] MR. CHAIRMAN: The Committee of Supply will now come to order. Legislation MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you open your estimates book to page 15, under Alberta Legislation. With the per mission of the committee, as we go through there are several members on the committee for legislation.

Perhaps it would be appropriate if you would direct any questions to the person in charge of that particu lar section. I will read the names of the members: government members' services, Legislature committees, the hon. Member for Athabasca; Hansard, the hon. Member for Bonnyville; general administration, legislative interns, the hon. Member for Edmonton Highlands; opposition members' services, office services for Speaker and Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Bow Valley; Ombudsman, the hon. Member for Whitecourt; indemnities and allowances, Legislature Library, the hon. Member for Highwood.

936 ALBERTA HANSARD April 25, 1977 MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, before we start, perhaps I should say — I've indicated to the Clerk — that the hon. member Mr. Mandeville, who is on the mem bers' services committee, unfortunately missed his plane in Calgary. All things being equal, he will be here about 3:30. So any questions in that area could be directed to him at that time. Agreed to: Ref. No. 1.0.1 $603,416 Ref. No. 1.0.2 $1,564,750 Ref. No. 1.0.3 $67,747 Ref. No. 1.0.4 $178,212 Ref. No. 1.0.5 $262,262 Ref. No. 1.0.6 $25,000 Ref. No. 1.0.7 $57,840 Ref. No. 1.0.8 $366,400 Ref. No. 1.0.9 $303,544 Ref.

No. 1.0.10 — Ref. No. 1.0.11 MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, might we might ask the Government House Leader if he could give us some indication of the government's intentions in dealing with the redistribution committee's report. MR. HYNDMAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the interim and final reports have been tabled with the Speaker over previous months. As I believe I mentioned earlier in the session, it's the government's intention to intro duce The Legislative Assembly Amendment Act into the Assembly, the provisions of which would imple ment the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission. MR.

CLARK: Did the Government House Leader indi cate when the government plans to do that? MR. HYNDMAN: I think no later than the next 12 days, Mr. Chairman. Agreed to: Ref. No. 1.0.11 Vote 1 Total Program $3,429,171 Vote 2 MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Chairman, the Provincial Treas urer is unable to be with the committee this after noon. I therefore ask that that vote be held. We'll come back to it either tomorrow or very shortly. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the request by the hon. Govern ment House Leader agreeable to the committee? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. Vote 3 MR.

HYNDMAN: I was wondering if we could have the report with respect to the possible time at which the committee reviewing The Ombudsman Act might report to the Assembly. MR. CHAIRMAN: The plans — as chairman of the Committee for The Ombudsman Act — should be coming back from the printers on May 4. It has been promised, and we hope to present it to the House shortly thereafter, if that is agreeable. Agreed to: Vote 3 $367,820 MR. CHAIRMAN: We will hold Vote 2 and come back to it. MR. APPLEBY: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Members Services Committee I would like to move that Votes 1 and 3 be reported. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Hon. Government House Leader, can we move a

section of an estimate? MR. HYNDMAN: If there's any doubt there, Mr. Chairman, perhaps we could leave the whole of the estimate with respect to legislation and report the whole thing after we've considered the Provincial Auditor. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that agreed? MR. APPLEBY: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my motion then. Department of the Attorney General MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, do you have any open ing remarks? MR. FOSTER: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do. If I appear to be disorganized it's because I am. Sometimes things move a little faster in this House than you anticipate, and that was my experience today. MR.

CLARK: Don't complain. MR. FOSTER: I won't complain. Mr. Chairman, I will say at the outset that I will have legislation for the House this fall that will deal in part with some of the things Project Omega is up to. This question was raised by the hon. Member for Little Bow and it will deal in particular with decri minalization of the traffic court. I propose at that time to deal extensively with the current status of where we are on Kirby 2 and its recommendations — although I'm sure we'll deal generally with some parts of it in the course of these estimates — and with what Project Omega is in fact doing.

So I propose to do that for the fall. Mr. Chairman, a few brief comments concerning this past year. The administration of justice and I think the department generally have experienced a dramatic change. I hope all for the better.

Unfortu nately, characteristic of dramatic change, a good deal of uncertainty and anxiety flows from that, and I would like to advise the members of the House that I'm deeply grateful to the staff of this department for their continued support and for putting up with very difficult circumstances of change as the department of the administration of justice endeavor to bring themselves into line with many of the recommenda

April 25, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 937 tions proposed by Mr. Justice Kirby in his report. I'm very grateful also to those outside the depart ment, our colleagues in the Solicitor General's de partment, the police forces of the province, and others who have been very much a part of this great pull upwards. I'm pleased to have the opportunity to express publicly my appreciation in that regard. I don't want to suggest that this budget will cause them any less concern or difficulty in the next year, since there is also additional substantial change as we carry forward Kirby recommendations.

I might say that in the course of the last while we have put in place a criminal case reporting system, the first of its kind in the country, which is allowing us to know better what is happening in the province generally. The significant budgetary increase in this budget, Mr. Chairman, has to do with manpower. I would propose now to outline briefly the new positions in this budget. Rather than answer a specific question sort of point by point or vote by vote, I would just outline the 99 new positions that are outlined in this budget.

They have to do with 21 regular A budget positions and some 78 which we have described as Kirby positions. The A budget positions are 6 in program 3 concerning the supreme and district court, 2 in Calgary and 4 in Edmonton; 9 persons in program 4, criminal prosecutions and legal advice, and of that 4 are legal and 5 are clerk-steno positions in the civil law section. In program 8 public utilities board, there are 4 positions, one a financial analyst and 3 clerk-stenographers.

In program 10, the medi cal examiners office, there are 2 new positions and both are medical investigators: for a total of 21 A budget positions. The Kirby positions are as follows: 52 positions in court services, and I will simply break them out briefly for the members. In the provincial court system, they will be in the provincial courts as staff in the courts consistent with Kirby's recommendation to increase both the number and the quality of staff services. They are as follows: Banff 2, Fort McMurray 3, Jasper 2, High Prairie 1, Lethbridge 1, Medicine Hat 1, St.

Paul 2, Edson 2, Camrose 2, Vermilion 2, Vegreville 1, Wetaskiwin 2, Drumheller 1, and Fort Macleod 2. There are 4 persons in the small claims court, 2 in each of Edmonton and Calgary. There are 2 persons in the juvenile and family court, one each in Calgary and Medicine Hat. There is an additional position in the civil law

section in the department. There are 9 new positions for court recorders. These positions replace 9 project positions which we were using this past year. There are 2 new positions in provincial libraries. There are 10 new positions in the Crown prosecutors criminal justice section, all of whom are Crown attorneys except for one clerk-stenographer. There are 5 new provincial court judge positions: for a total, Mr. Chairman, of 78 Kirby positions in the forthcoming year.

I think in view of my remarks about the fall and decriminalization on Omega, I will conclude my brief opening remarks there, then deal with the questions and concerns, Mr. Chairman, as we proceed vote by vote. MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, just perhaps to start the discussion off, might I ask the Attorney General if he'd explain the kind of progress that's being made or perhaps not being made — once again, it depends who you talk to here — with regard to the remand period, especially at Calgary.

I raise the question because I'm told by some members of the legal fra ternity, some being of similar political persuasion to me and some of the same political persuasion as the Attorney General, that in fact the period of time for remands in Calgary is, if anything, longer not shorter. Now I fully recognize that with legal aid this has tended to stretch this out. But I think, Mr. Attorney General, that there was a feeling among a number of people in the legal profession that at this time, in the implementation of Kirby, those waiting periods would be cut down somewhat.

I have also had some concern expressed to me with regard to the availability of courtrooms and members of the bench. I understand that has been taken care of somewhat recently. But the concerns that have been expressed to me have come primarily from Calgary and from members of the legal fraternity in Calgary. MR. FOSTER: I would be happy to hear the concerns of the House and then respond in some detail if you like. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to hear the comments of the hon. member on jury duty, particu larly in Calgary.

I have received a number of com plaints from the south end of my riding, particularly from people who have been called to jury duty in Calgary. Following are some of those complaints that came to me. One lady advises me that she was called to Calgary on April 26 and again on December 6, 1976, and told us she was supposed to report to the Supreme Court of Alberta in Calgary. The courtroom was full on April 26 and on December 6 it was even more crowded, with a number of people crowding outside in the halls. The lady advises she had to remain standing for two hours in order for a jury of 24 to be chosen.

At my pre-sessional public meeting in the Cluny area, a number of complaints — as a matter of fact a number of people said they came to the meeting solely to talk about this jury system. While I had some of the answers, I didn't have them all. One chap said it must be costing the province a tremen dous sum of money, because the vast number of people who were called in order to get 24 jurors — their expenses paid, et cetera — must have amounted to a very large sum of money.

When I mentioned that it was necessary to call more than just the 24 because of the right to challenge the jurors, he said well, about half the people were farmers. They were called at harvest time, and all they had to do was stand in line, tell the judge they were farmers and immediately they were excused. One farmer said to someone in the line, why dc I have to stand here in order to tell him I'm a farmer? He's excusing every body who's a farmer. He said, well you had better stand there or you won't get paid your expenses of coming up here and going back.

I'm just wondering if there couldn't be a little more ordinary horse sense used in calling farmers, particu larly at harvest time, when the judge is simply going to excuse them anyway. They have to be on the land, and every day counts. There seems to be an unreal problem there of either they don't know who they are calling or they don't know whether they're farmers, or

938 ALBERTA HANSARD April 25, 1977 they're simply ignoring that particularly fact. Another point was mentioned. I haven't researched this, but they said a crippled chap was called. He phoned Calgary about it and said there's no way I can drive. I'm not permitted to drive. There's no way I can get on a bus. Whoever he was talking to told him to take a taxi. So he took a taxi from Cluny to Calgary and back. When he got there, I understand he was immediately excused by the judge. These are things that leave an awfully bad taste in the mouths of people, and they begin to wonder what's going on.

Now I realize from information kind ly supplied by Mr. Chrumka, the Chief Crown Prose cutor in Calgary, that much of this arises through the Criminal Code,

Section 562, which permits: that each accused may challenge 20 jurors peremptorily wherein the accused is charged with a serious offence . . . and 12 . . . where he is liable to imprisonment for more than five years and 4 jurors . . . where he is liable to imprison ment for five years or less. Consequently, I suppose the provincial department has no control over that. I have advised my people about this.

But they still think whether it's federal or provincial, it is public money that is being spent and, while they have got some of it, they think it was unnecessary and would like to see it looked into and streamlined. I wonder if the hon. minister would have any comments on that particular item. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Chairman, I take it that the proce dure we'll follow is for us to make general comments and the minister will answer them all. When we come back again, I do want to raise several questions with respect to the inquiry. But I'm just in the process of getting my notes, so I'll come back to that. Mr.

Chairman, to the hon. Attorney General. I want to take just a moment and deal with this question of the application of the AIB guidelines to the Public Utilities Board. Now we've had a little bit of flurry — as a matter of fact somewhat more than that. The president of International Utilities made it fairly clear that he didn't agree with some of the points I made. MR. CLARK: That's strange. MR. NOTLEY: That is strange, isn't it? But I wonder if the Attorney general is going to confirm what Mr. Edge [King] mentioned. Mr. Chairman, to the Attorney General.

On page 19 of the wage and price controls white paper out lined in October 1975, the federal government is very explicit about regulated industries. It says: Where industries are subject to regulation under existing statutes, as in transportation and communications, federal regulatory agencies are to use their powers over prices and the quality of service in order to ensure conformity with the program. It goes on to say, "the provincial governments are being asked to instruct their regulatory agencies to do likewise". Now, Mr.

Chairman, without going into too much detail but just enough so we can discuss this matter intelligently, it seems to me that what has occurred in Alberta is that the PUB has continued to use the old yardstick, which is a guaranteed rate of return on the equity investment put up by the owners of whatever company it may be — Alberta Power, Canadian West ern Natural Gas, Canadian Utilities, Northwestern Utilities, or Calgary Power.

Now the concern I would express to the minister is that what has happened is that there has been a marginal increase in production, that because of a rather substantial increase in the equity in these various companies the profits have gone up sharply. If you apply the old guidelines of the PUB, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Minister, there's no argument. Mr. Edge King is right. If you apply the guidelines of the PUB as has been historically the case, an increase in equity, you can have an increase on that equity base. So I would have no argument with that statement.

The argument I put forward, however, is that under the terms of the AIB program, all federal and provin cial agencies — in case of the provinces, the federal government obviously didn't have the power to bring provincial agencies under the purview of the pro gram, but at least it very clearly says, apply the guidelines to regulated industries within the province. Now, Mr.

Chairman, if you look at the actual pro duction of any of the companies — Calgary Power, Alberta Power, Canadian Western Natural Gas or what have you — and you follow the AIB guidelines, which are profits based on per unit of production — not on equity invested, but on per unit of production — then, Mr. Chairman, there is really no justification for those substantial increases in profits accorded the two companies that I cited last week when I raised questions to, I believe, the Attorney General.

The only way you can argue the increase that has occurred is if the former approach of the PUB had been used, without any changes as a result of the federal guidelines. Mr. Chairman, the power companies will say, all right, that's true, our number of kilowatts produced went up very marginally. But there are reasons our profits increased. We had to expand. This is essen tially the classic "yes, but" argument we hear with any wage and price control program. Yes, it's a good idea, but we have a special case.

The special case argued by the power companies is that they had to increase their capital in order to meet certain condi tions set out by the province, including environmental conditions. That's true. I don't deny that. But the point I want to bring to the attention of the Attorney General and members of this committee is that if we accept the "yes, but" argument — yes, the guidelines should apply, but in the case of the power companies they had other investments — then we have to look at the alternatives the companies had in financing that additional investment. Now, there are two basic alternatives.

One would be to borrow the money and pay interest rates of 9.5 [or] 10 per cent. The other would be to increase the equity. From the viewpoint of any owner, it is better to increase the equity, because under the PUB guide lines they get 15 per cent on their equity investment. So if I own a power company and have to increase my capital, Mr. Minister, particularly in a public utility, where you've got a beautiful situation, where you have a captive market, where you can limit your risk — the more you can shift this capitalization over to equity, the better it is. Because you're getting 15 per

April 25, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 939 cent rather than paying out 10 per cent. On a capital expansion of as much as $200 million, the difference between 15 per cent and 10 per cent is about $10 million a year, which has to come out of consumers' pockets. Let me put the argument to you this way: was it necessary that the PUB authorize the power compa nies to finance a large part of their capital needs through equity shares as opposed to borrowing money? I raise that because the equity to debt ratio of the power companies in this province is very high. I understand it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 50:50. Mr.

Chairman, I think it's extremely relevant for the members of the committee to discuss this, because we are in a deal in the Fort McMurray area where, as members know, we're putting up the $300 million power plant. And obviously, as owners of the Alberta Energy Company — to the extent the AEC is involved in the project — our best financial bet would be to have as much of that in equity and as [little] in borrowed money as possible.

I remember getting into a discussion a year ago in the Assembly and having the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources confirm that it would be desirable to have as much of that in equity as possible, because we are the owners. But, Mr. Attorney General, the debt to equity ratio in the AEC power plant is 90:10 — 10 per cent equity, 90 per cent borrowed. But you see, the private power companies have talked us into a 50:50 proposition. My argument is not that they didn't need to invest capital last year. No one is disputing that.

My argument is: why did the PUB allow them to do it the most expensive way from the viewpoint of the con sumers? But obviously from the viewpoint of the companies, it's the best way to improve return on their shareholder investment. Again, Mr. Chairman, we're really talking about a very good situation from the owner's viewpoint. Very little risk is involved, and perhaps even less risk will be involved if we pass

an act which is before the Legislature. But we'll get into that debate during the course of that bill. So I say to the minister, Mr. Chairman: the federal guidelines say very clearly that the province should apply the AIB to regulatory agencies. The federal guidelines are based on per unit of production. If you look at the per unit of production by both companies, there's enough to justify an increase to 5, 6, or 7 per cent in profits.

But because of this manoeuvre be tween debt and equity, what has happened is that they are able to increase their equity by a very large amount, on which we are paying 15 per cent instead of 10 per cent. Since we as consumers have to pick up that bill, it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that this is where it would have been in the interests of the province and the consumers if the government had very clearly said to Mr. Horton and the PUB officials that for the duration of this program, expansion in companies where there's already a very high equity basis should be done in the way least expensive to the consumer. Mr.

Chairman, I recognize that, in a sense, some would say that's unfair to the investor. But any anti- inflation program is going to be unfair. It's only as we can make this "yes, but" argument consistent across the board — we can argue the case of the outside worker in Fort McMurray; on the other hand, we can argue the case of the Calgary Power investor or the man who rents 200 suites in Edmonton — it's only as we can bring some kind of consistency in sharing the load of fighting inflation that the program is going to have any credibility.

I suggest to you that the gov ernment should quite frankly take a second look at how the PUB has functioned in this important regard for the last year and a half. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, I want to make comments on two areas. The first is a general area with regard to application of the law. I'm sure it's quite often wrestled with in the courts and in the mind of the minister. I haven't a lot of specifics at my fingertips at the moment, but I'd just like to make the comment and then have a response from the minister.

As I travel through my constituency and have my presession meetings, the matter is raised quite often of the penalty that is often handed out by the district court system for driving offences, liquor offences, drug offences. The common attitude amongst the population is that the penalty is not severe enough. I recall one instance where the penalty for a drug offence was $40 and costs. Just offhand, that seemed to me like not very much money. But this is a general feeling of the population. I wonder what work the minister is doing to have a look at some of these penalties. How often are they reviewed?

What happens in the district court system to have the district court judges get together and review their approach to it? That's one thing. The other thing they often say, in reference to drugs, is that the RCMP spend weeks trying to catch the fellow peddling drugs in the town. Then after they catch him, the penalty doesn't seem severe enough. It's a general comment, but it is an attitude out there that I thought I should relate to the minister. The second area I'd like the minister to comment on is the centralization program going on with regard to the district court system. What stage is it at?

What is happening in the minister's review? MR. FOSTER: What do you mean? MR. R. SPEAKER: Oh, the district court judges, what are they . . . MR. FOSTER: Oh, the mergers. MR. R. SPEAKER: The mergers, right. If the minister could just comment on that and bring us up to date. MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, I'd touch quickly upon perhaps just four areas in light of the way the minis ter wants to handle the matter. Mr. Minister, I'd like to get some indication as to the government's intention with regard to whether the government is going to appeal the acquittal of Mr. Stewart.

I believe he was acquitted on one charge last week. That's Mr. Stewart who's involved in the former department of office of special programs. The second thing, Mr. Chairman, is with regard to The Jury Act. It was my understanding that some changes may well be considered during '77 as far as The Jury Act is concerned. I know my office ofttimes receives complaints about the same people being called for jury duty time and time again. The third area I'd like to ask the minister to make

940 ALBERTA HANSARD April 25, 1977 some comments on is the question of the Public Utili ties Board. Perhaps I should have made my com ments right after or just before the Member for Spirit River-Fairview. He and I would have a somewhat different point of view — a very different different point of view as far as utility companies are con cerned. But I do think it needs to be said that as I view the role of the Public Utilities Board, it is in place on one hand to see that the investor gets a return on his investment.

On the other hand, it is there to protect the public also, because of a monopoly situa tion that has developed, and we're talking specifically with regard to power. Mr. Minister, it seems to me the Public Utilities Board is playing a much wider role in Alberta today, whether it's involved in hearings on the costs of electricity, in hearings with regard to natural gas, or a wide variety of other areas. Mr. Chairman, I make these comments with no disrespect to Mr. Horton or the Public Utilities Board.

But it does seem to me it's very timely that we should look at the Public Utilities Board legislation on a broad overall point of view rather than a piecemeal kind of approach which frankly, Mr. Minister, I think has been done for a number of years in this province. I can't recall when — maybe my colleague from Drum- heller can — the last time the Public Utilities Board, the legislation, the whole ball of wax was looked at from an overall point of view. It does seem to me that now might well be a very opportune time.

I'm sure the minister is familiar with the concern that's been raised in Lethbridge with regard to the way power costs are going up in the city of Leth bridge. In fact I think there have been something like 4,000 letters go into one particular party in Leth bridge on an open-line program which has led some what of one-man crusade in that particular area as far as Lethbridge is concerned. I want to make it very clear that there's no question in my mind that the province should not get involved in taking over the utility companies.

But I do think it's extremely important that the public are satisfied that the Public Utilities Board has the legislation and the expertise to be able to carry out the intent of the act. If there are some inequities in the act now, then we'd better be looking at them. Maybe the way you do that is for the province to acquire one or two people to have a full-scale look at the Public Utilities Board and its wide functions, with the view to coming back to us this fall or perhaps next spring with some basic recommendations for some area of change. I make the point again that have no personal difference with Mr.

Horton, but the point has been made to me on several occasions that really the board doesn't have the kind of power or the authority it needs in some cases. Mr. Chairman, the other point that I think has to be made as far as the Public Utilities Board is concerned is that it's extremely important that the public have confidence in that board. No member in this Assem bly is helping the situation if we end up spending our time rather downgrading the Public Utilities Board. I'm not suggesting any member has done that here this afternoon.

But it is important that the public have confidence in that board, just as it is important that the public have confidence in the system of jus tice or the courts in this province. For too many years now, I think the Public Utilities Board has been left on the back burner, both by this government and the government when I was a member, in perhaps [lea ving] the Public Utilities Board somewhat to its own devices. So, Mr. Chairman, I'd appreciate some response from the Attorney General in the particular area of the Public Utilities Board. The last comment I'd like to make deals with the question of witnesses.

I hope also this is an area where the Attorney General has received some static with regard to the way that people who come for ward, either voluntarily or are subpoenaed to court to appear as witnesses, and end up — very frankly, if I wasn't in the Legislature I'd say they end up getting 'jacked' around for days and days and days. I'm sure the whole problem can't be resolved. But I must say I share a great deal of concern for a number of these people who end up as witnesses and who really leave with a very sour taste in their mouths. Just one last comment as far as the Public Utilities Board. Mr.

Minister, one of the comments I've heard made by people on the Public Utilities Board is the need for sizable increases in our utility rates in the next number of years. That being the case, it seems to me that some place, be it Alberta — hopefully Alberta but some place in Canada — we should be looking collectively at what is going to happen in these areas, and develop some sort of public awareness, some kind of public understanding as to what really is taking place with regard to these kinds of increases.

I am aware the Public Utilities Board is now taking on some sort of public facilitator, and I've heard good comments of the work he is doing. But it seems to me that the board needs to think in terms of a bit further down the road and to the kind of respon sibilities it has in at least levelling with the public. Because the board too often now finds itself in a confrontation situation, and holds a very low profile otherwise. I can appreciate that may have been an acceptable — perhaps the proper — procedure in the past. I think perhaps we have to rethink that somewhat. MR. PLANCHE: Mr.

Chairman, I would just like to make a couple of comments if I may. These are not necessarily within the parameters of this particular conversation except this is the only forum I know of to bring them up in. They concern the handling of trust accounts by the legal profession. It is my information that until recently the banks paid no interest on trust funds. They now pay interest but that's not available to the lawyers as I understand it. It goes into some kind of general fund that is policed by a professional body.

I am wondering if you could respond and tell me — I would assume there is some serious magnitude to the fund — what kind of direction the expenses from that fund take, and how much of it is, for instance, directed into legal aid, specifically to disadvantaged, and one thing or another. If that wouldn't be too much trouble I'd like you to make a couple of remarks in that area. MRS. CHICHAK: Mr. Chairman, a couple of com ments, the hon. Leader of the Opposition has raised two or three of them — yes, on occasion we do agree with him.

I think that our constituents, regardless of what part of the province they come from, aren't that different in certain concerns and areas, particularly the Public Utilities Board. I feel the issues that have

April 25, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 941 been raised are timely and I'm sure the concern would have come to my attention — not only to my attention but to other members as well — that the public is having in understanding the terms of reference of the Public Utilities Board, in view of the continual increases on the applications that have been granted recently or in the past couple of years.

I would hope the Attorney General might take into consideration the need for reassessment and the whole function of the Public Utilities Board at this time, and whether the members on the board — not being critical of any of them at this time — but whether the time frame or the terms of reference properly direct them to reflect the concern and the interest of the public at large. Another area of concern I have had expressed to me is the inconsistencies in penalties being meted out by the courts in relation to the crimes committed.

Very often you will have sexual offences and mans laughter charges which are not anywhere near the severity in penalty that you will find in charges laid and convictions made on drug offences or other much lesser offences. I feel the area of charges with regard to rape and sexual offences certainly needs to be examined — the manner in which victims of such offences are being handled in the courts, and why in fact so many victims will not come forward as a result of the manner in which police forces and other agents deal with them.

With the opening of the Faculty of Law at the University of Calgary, I would like to inquire of the minister whether he has information as to the enrol ment level, the level of program compared to the educational program at the U of A, and just what criteria were used in establishing a faculty of law at the University of Alberta. I'm not convinced — and I think many members of the public are not convinced — that was really necessary, except perhaps to give the University of Calgary a higher status. I'm sure that is not the sole reason and that there must be some need.

But I wonder whether the cost of estab lishing a law faculty at the U of C compensates for the benefits the public will reap, bearing in mind that the fee structure for legal services is very much in the hands of members of the society. There is another area on which I have had concern expressed [to me] over a long period of time, and it seemed we were not able to resolve the problem; that is, where penalties have been meted out by the courts on charges. Individuals have accosted and robbed citizens and the courts have directed an accused, who has been charged and convicted, to repay and compensate the victim.

It seems we now have two or three cases in the province where the convicted person did not compensate the individual. Perhaps the Attorney General will be aware he has had correspondence on one of those, which now is probably three years old, where the senior citizen has never been compensated and the money was never returned. Nothing further was done, with regard to the individual who was charged and convicted, requir ing that individual whether over a period of time or by some means to compensate the senior citizen who was so accosted and suffered such harm.

I would hope the Attorney General would look into our legal structure and be sure that whatever changes must be made — whether in legislation or directive to the courts — that will require that in fact such penalties being handed out by the courts are indeed carried out. There is really no purpose in the whole process of what it costs us to try to bring about justice when decisions are not going to be further dealt with or followed up. Mr.

Chairman, I would like to inquire whether the minister has had under consideration or in fact has carried out any discussions with members of the law society or the Institute of Law Research and Reform to provide to the minister some assistance in bringing to his attention, or to the attention of the department, for consideration amendments to various legislation where there are weaknesses with regard, I would say, to a whole host of areas, but particularly the area of family law and the matter of equity before the courts with regard to separation — where there is division of property — and the manner in which chil dren of broken marriages are being dealt with.

Although the matter of matrimonial property is being considered at this time, being a very complex one it may take some time to bring in legislation. I hope that doesn't preclude submissions being put forward and amendments to other legislation currently in ex istence to bring about some equity in the interim, to remove some inequities that exist. Thank you. DR. WEBBER; Before the minister responds to the other questions, maybe I could ask mine. In question periods during the spring session a number of ques tions have been related to the motor vehicle accident claim fund.

The minister indicated I should bring up in estimates one of the questions I asked. As I understand it, the situation is that no police report is required for damage less than $300 or $350, whatever, in an accident unless personal injury is involved. Yet the minimum damage claim for the motor vehicle accident claim fund is $100. So all claims between $100 and $350 to the motor vehicle accident claim fund, I believe, do not require a police accident report.

I'm wondering whether this is a problem area in that it's being abused, claiming hit and run when possible scraps in parking lots occur and, if it is, whether consideration is being given to closing this gap of possible public abuse. Also, Mr. Chairman, there were a number of other questions related to the possible dropping of insur ance on the part of drivers, which the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs answered on a number of occasions.

I wonder if the minister would give us an overview of some other problem areas that exist with regard to insurance, and whether he is contemplating any changes which might help correct some of the problems with regard to this fund. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I want to say a word or two on the board of Public Utilities commissioners. I want to outline the way I understand this, and would appreciate the minister's comments. Some time ago, shortly after the AIB regulations and guidelines came in I believe the hon.

Premier outlined to the Legislature the guidelines he expected the board of Public Utilities commissioners to follow. As far as I can see, the board is following those. I think it's unfair to base the AIB guidelines on the dollar value of the earnings of a utility company. This doesn't make sense to me if there is any expansion.

942 ALBERTA HANSARD April 25, 1977 For instance, a farmer has a hundred chickens and gets so many eggs from those chickens. If he doubles the flock he will probably get twice as many eggs. But that doesn't mean he's going to get twice as much profit. The increase came from the expansion. While I want the consumer to get the lowest possi ble price for utilities, I don't want to be responsible in any way for our running out of power in the next 20, 30, or 50 years. We take power for granted; we simply flick the switch and the light comes on.

Imag ine the general havoc in this country if we flicked the switch and no light came on. When we have a short power failure, there's almost utter havoc in our homes, hotels, wherever you go. Even in the best of places . . . Last year when I was in Caesar's Palace the power went off in my

section of the hotel. I couldn't shave; there were no candles. Complete havoc resulted for several hours. Now imagine the havoc in this country if we didn't keep expanding to meet the increased needs of power. I want to say that definitely we want power at the lowest possible price, but we don't want to stop our power companies from expanding to meet required needs in the future. I really want to emphasize that point. I think some of the criticism in regard to expansion is very unfair, because if we don't have that expansion we're just not going to have power to meet the needs in the future.

That's a point I want to emphasize. I think another point has to be referred to. A few years ago the previous government arranged with Ottawa that the income tax on privately owned power companies would go to Ottawa, come back to the power companies, and then go back to the consumer, in order to make them equal or comparable with the nationally owned power companies of other prov inces. As a result that income tax does come back, and consequently has a bearing on the way money is invested by our power companies.

I believe the board of Public Utilities commissioners requires a certain amount in common stock, a certain amount in preferred stock, and a certain amount in borrowings or debt. Many times the whole story is not told when we say how much a power company is earning. For instance I think the rough guidelines the board of Public Utilities commissioners uses are 15 per cent for preferred stock, 30 to 35 per cent for common equity, and about 50 per cent for debt. I think the board is required to use those rough guide lines, give or take a little.

But if the board reverted entirely to debt by borrow ing, we would find ourselves in a position where the amount coming back to the consumers of power would be far less. Because the best paying proposi tion is the preferred stock when it comes to getting something back for the consumers. I don't think we should forget that point. As I understand it, the board of Public Utilities commissioners has been trying to thicken the amount for preferred stock, for the sole reason that it gives the consumer a better return when the tax money comes back from Ottawa. It's cheaper.

It's a better deal for the company and for the people of the entire province. So when we start talking about equity, common shares, and preferred stock, I think we'd better tell the whole story. Otherwise we're apt to be doing something that will hurt the consumer and hurt the expansion of power in the province. I emphasize again that sometimes I am concerned when I see the amount of increase granted. But I don't think you can base the AIB regulations on that. I think you have to base them on the rate of return.

I wonder if the minister can assure us that the amount of return to Alberta Power and Calgary Power today is very much the same as it was prior to the AIB guidelines. Or has it changed, has it gone up during the AIB guidelines? Have the companies received a greater rate of return? Because if you're not going to have competition, then they're required to live within a stipulated rate of return to protect the consumer. I think that's the point we have to mention. Has the rate of return for these companies changed?

If so, I think the board of Public Utilities commissioners is in a position where they can be criticized. If the rate of return has not changed, then I think they're carrying out their job and the utility companies are able to make the expansions necessary to assure us of power in the future. MR. FOSTER: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. With respect to the comments from the hon. Leader of the Opposition concerning remands in Calgary, I think we should be aware that a perfect judicial system, perfectly operated, would not eliminate remands.

There would always be remands; there would always be the extraordinary case of someone in remand for a long period of time. I think, though, that the comments of the hon. leader in expressing the frustration there with respect to the level of remands, and no doubt my colleague the Solicitor General would comment on this as well — the frus tration is valid, because clearly we should not have on remand persons who are there unnecessarily. Many of the reasons for persons existing on remand are being cured or have been cured.

Some of those reasons are: inadequate numbers of Crown counsel; backlogs in the courts; people getting caught up in the judicial process and languishing in remand centres until they can be dealt with by the court; perhaps an insufficient number of judges to adequately process the administration of the court; perhaps in adequate facilities, space, and staff — all those things to which Kirby made reference. Mr. Chairman, we have come a long way to redressing many of those grievances. I would have hoped we would have come a longer way with respect to the state of remands, particularly in Calgary.

Now there is no doubt that in the last several months we have been short of judicial manpower in Calgary. We have not necessarily been short of Crown counsel, but we have acquired quite a number of new ones in the last while. There has been a modest delay factor in Calgary, but not significant. We did open up a number of new courtrooms, and there were some short term staffing problems there. I have had discussions with members of the judi ciary, generally on the subject of remands and delays in the courts.

I assure the House that the judiciary generally, and in particular the provincial court, are very aware of this and, I believe, are doing what they can to ensure that remands are kept to a minimum and unnecessary remands don't exist. But the Crown is sometimes at fault in not pressing forward with its cases. By hiring additional Crown counsel and by instructing our staff appropriately, we have taken steps that matters are to be carried for

April 25, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 943 ward as quickly as possible. We've added new judges. If defence counsel requests an adjournment, the Crown indeed can and does object, but it's essen tially up to the court to decide whether or not that adjournment's going to be allowed. There've been many examples of adjournment after adjournment. When we track them down we find, on the face of it, usually good and valid reason for the adjournment. All I can do is call on the resources of the department, invite the co-operation of the bench, and invite the co-operation of the private bar.

Since our judicial system is a highly independent organiza tion, in that it accommodates to several independent groups, or quasi-independent groups — the bar, the bench, the Crown, and the police — my colleague and I will be doing what we can to ensure that there are as few as possible delays in the system. I conclude with my beginning remarks: there will always be remands and, regrettably, no doubt there will always be some people in there who should have been dealt with more quickly. I'm simply saying I will do everything I can to ensure that that delay is not occasioned by the Crown.

Sometimes it may be inevi table, but at the same time I think our attention should be focused on the defense bar in their conduct as well. Certainly we are now getting to the level of resources and complement of staff [so] that I hope I can stand here and say the Crown has not necessarily delayed any proceeding. There may be exceptions to that, but we are very mindful of our responsibility. With respect to the comments of the hon. Member for Drumheller concerning jury duty, I could not have phrased the problems better had I addressed my mind to it.

I think the examples he has given this House of the problems with jury duty in the province particular ly, as you've pointed out, in Calgary, are sad and unfortunate and call out for a cure. I think I indicated last fall that we were inviting our staff, in co-operation with the Provincial Court Reor ganization Agency to consider the whole question of witness scheduling. I have made the statement and make it here again that witnesses are sometimes treated in the total system with less regard than the accused and all others. There is no doubt that on occasions that conclusion is very easily arrived at.

Now, what to do about it? We are finding many, many people being called, standing around as you've pointed out — delays in the system. A better witness scheduling process can be put in place. I don't want to stand here and pretend I'm an expert and can call upon easy solutions. If they were easy and could be easily called on they'd be there now. But they're not. All who have been most closely involved in this area agree that a better way must be found. I say to you that we will do our best to find a better way, because witness scheduling in the court today is at an unac- ceptably low level of treatment.

We're calling on the public to suffer through this interval with us as we endeavor to make these changes in the system. We believe in trial by jury, that an individual may call upon a group of his peers to determine his guilt. At the same time, while that principle is important to maintain — and recognizing that [while] jury trials have not been a popular form of trial in Alberta, they are increasing in use — that foists a tremendous burden on our staff, who are now having to accustom themselves to more and more witness scheduling problems, particularly in the sheriff's office. I can only say to the hon.

Member for Drumheller he's bang on the point. I'm painfully aware of it and I hope by this fall, in dealing with traffic court diversion, I might give this House some specific recommenda tions and comments as to how I think we can stream line the system, involve fewer people in it, treat those whom we must involve with respect and more quick ly, and occasion less delay. The specific matters the hon. member raised with respect to crippled persons or the like — it's extreme ly unfortunate that they have to find themselves all the way down to the sheriff's office before they are excused.

I simply say to you those problems are there, and have been there for many years. We're now trying to find some ways to speed it up. Knowing what I do about the work of the project team that is working on this question, I'll be in a position by this fall to indicate to the House — and get the House's response, frankly — where I think these kinds of safeguards and time-saving activities might be realized. Mr. Chairman, I have very much enjoyed the comments by all members in the House, leading first with the Member for Spirit River-Fairview. I'm par ticularly appreciative of the concluding remarks by the hon.

Member for Drumheller about the role of the Public Utilities Board. I understand from the news media that indeed there may be a challenge to the Public Utilities Board. I read that some solicitors may be taking steps to challenge the capacity of the board at the current moment, so I don't want to move into that area at all and deal with that question. The hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview referred to page 19 of the white paper and quoted the reference to the fact that the provincial government should be asked to instruct these agencies in this regard.

He's asked this question several times in the House and my response has been — as has the response of my colleague, the hon. Minister of Utilities and Telephones — that when the AIB program was dropped on this country, subsequent to the an nouncement of our own guideline, I then provided the Public Utilities Board with the program, with the guideline, with as much material as we got from the federal government.

I did not look on that communi cation then, nor do I now, as instruction by me to the Public Utilities Board that they must be bound by either the government's guideline or the guideline established under the AIB program. It was, if you will, an invitation by government to the Public Utili ties Board to consider both. I have adopted — I was about to say a hands-off attitude with respect to the Public Utilities Board. I don't want now to suggest that I'm beginning a 'hands-on' approach.

But I look on the Public Utilities Board as a quasi-judicial or judicial body not suscept ible of ministerial direction per se, however clearly susceptible of legislative direction. I read the com ments by all in the House who have referred to this, that now may be the time to look back over the history of the conduct of the Public Utilities Board, particularly in the last couple of years. In view of the point made both by the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Spirit River-Fairview that we may be facing some highly significant increases in the next little while, this indeed may be a very appropriate

944 ALBERTA HANSARD April 25, 1977 time for government to examine its relationship qua the Utilities Board on behalf of the investment community, the public generally, and certainly on behalf of the consumers. Interestingly enough, my colleague the Minister of Utilities and Telephones and I will be hosting a utili ties seminar as a follow-up to the research docu ments done by M. and M.

Research in this area in an attempt to ensure that if there is a better way with respect to utility regulation, we find it, and to see whether there are additional safeguards or mechanisms we might put in place either internally with the board or legislatively. As perhaps all members know, M. and M. Research had a good look at utility regulation across Canada. This was not done for the government, but we have been privileged to receive their documents. I've spent some time discussing this with Mr. Preston Manning. This will partly be the subject of the seminar.

There may be additional procedures, safeguards, guidelines — legislative or otherwise — that we need to consid er. If that is the invitation of the members opposite and other members of the House who are my col leagues, that is a very useful expression and instruc tion, and I'll be happy to carry that forward. Frankly, I am not in a position here to discuss the relative strengths and weaknesses of a 50-50 or 60-40 equity/debt burden split. I have not gone into the utility-financing detail with the Public Utilities Board for reasons I have outlined before.

It may be, as you have said, that there are additional safeguards we might consider. I take that as a very useful comment from all members who have discussed the subject, will do so, and no doubt will have an occa sion not too long from this interval to discuss it further in the House. Incidentally, the M. and M. Research paper general ly concluded that the Alberta public utilities legisla tion — and this has been true going back many, many years — is a model for Canada and no doubt will have some specific recommendations to make.

Many of the good things that have been accomplished in utility regulation have flowed from the Alberta initiative, both under this and the previous government. The hon. Member for Little Bow touched upon a subject which is very difficult to deal with because the problem is public communication. Too many peo ple read a brief press report that A was convicted of possession of this, or of assaulting someone, and the penalty was thus and so. They compare that in their mind perhaps to another report on the same page of the newspaper, that somebody else was convicted and got a penalty many times that in dollar value.

Or perhaps one went to jail and one got a suspended sentence. And they say, where is the justice in that? The justice is not readily apparent. Perhaps the single most important reason is that the press releases themselves do not communicate all the facts the court had to consider in assessing sentence. I don't want to suggest that the courts of Alberta are always consistent. I don't want to suggest that the courts in Alberta always administer an adequate sentence in the mind of the vast majority of our citizens.

I do want to suggest, however, that the courts have consistency as an objective and have a very real concern as to the standards of our society and what is a reasonable and fair punishment in the circumstances. I feel for the public. The hon. Mem ber for Little Bow has touched it very nicely: if you can't see justice being done, then you can assume justice is not being done. There is a difficulty, in terms of media relation ships.

Frankly, I've even had a proposal just recently from a member of the judiciary in this province, that we assign a media relations officer to the courts to assist judges and courts in looking at this question to come up with a format that will more readily disclose the relevant considerations made by the court in coming to its determination, in the hope that public communication in this area might be better. There are some things that can be done. I don't want to put it down to the fact that miscommunica- tion is at its root. That's an element.

My gosh, my office gets all kinds of calls all the time about this question. Occasionally it's looked into and facts that were not apparent are brought forward. When it's all out there and you look at it, then most often you can find that thread of consistency in terms of the rea sonableness of the sentence. But it's not always evident to the public. If there were many members of the press gallery present, I hope they would listen to that, because they do no one a service when they minimize the question of public communication on sentencing.

The comments are instructive in this House because they are completely consistent with what I get outside the House. There are some things we can and should do. One is that the Crown must be more aware of what's going on in our courts in terms of sentencing, to spot inconsistencies and to try, where appropriate, to minimize those inconsistencies by appeal. Too often in the past the Crown in Alberta has not been appeal ing sentences which were clearly inadequate.

And too often the singularly most important reason for that was they simply had so much to do and so many cases stacked up they didn't take the time with that minor appeal and they were on to other matters. That was a very real burden, particularly on Crown counsel in this department. It is being lifted daily. We are now almost to the point where we have adequate numbers of Crown attorneys [so] that there is no excuse for the Crown not appealing some of these cases.

That's assuming perfect knowledge, and that the senior Crown agents across the province are aware of what's going on and have some guideline or some feel for what may be a reasonable sentence in the circumstances. We have in place a mechanism called the criminal case reporting system which I referred to at the outset of my remarks. It is intended to bring to the attention of senior members of the department exactly what is going on, what are the sentences coming out, almost by judge, certainly by offence, and by location. The Crown itself must be consistent.

The court — I'm now talking provincial court — has expressed an interest in having some of these statis tics. Because the chief judge of the provincial court, Chief Judge Cawsey, has some responsibility — and he recognizes that — for ensuring that when his colleagues in the court function in Lethbridge and Fort McMurray, they are being somewhat consistent. I don't want to suggest that there's too much inconsistency, but there sure is a good deal more than in many instances in the past. Senior Crown agents or Crown attorneys in the province meet regu larly to discuss common problems, including sentenc

April 25, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 945 ing. It is not unusual for the deputy attorney general and me to be involved on sentencing questions, spe cifically to consider them and the matter of appeal. I've done so in some of the more significant cases in the province. The public, I think, has noted a hardening of our line with respect to sentencing, particularly in com mercial fraud. We intend to continue on that tack. In fact, on the Jaasma case I think we got 18 months at trial and five years on appeal, because we initiated an appeal.

I don't want to go into informal discussions with some members of the judiciary but I think it's fair to say the court of appeal in Alberta has wel comed the opportunity to consider some of the sen tences which, I think, in the minds of that court were too low in some instances. The comment is made that the police forces in the province work very hard and are sometimes disap pointed by what happened in the courtroom. There's no doubt that's true.

Sometimes that flows from a lack of appreciation on their part as to what may happen in that courtroom; sometimes it flows from a lack of a close working relationship between the police and the Crown attorney. I say we're now to the point where our resources are sufficient that there can be a much closer co-operation and communica tion between the police officer and the Crown before they get into the courtroom. I had occasion not too long ago to sit in a courtroom in Calgary. There were about 14 police officers just sitting around waiting for their events to come up — back to the scheduling problem.

This has to do with cases, not juries. If the police officer leaves that courtroom as a cynic, he perhaps takes it out on you and me in the discharge of his duties. I know that I'm human; I may be inclined to do that as well. We should improve the relationship between the Crown and the police and at the same time ensure when a case is lost, in the sense that a conviction has not been found, that the police understand why that happened, and that if both of us need to do a better job in future, that kind of communication takes place and instructions proceed.

With respect to the question of merger, I suppose it's no secret that I feel there is merit in exploring the question of the unification of the district court and the trial division of the Supreme Court. The reasons for and the concerns can all be listed. My essential thesis is that in 1977 the district court and the trial division of the Supreme Court are essentially one court in any event. They have almost identical civil jurisdictions.

Speaking for those who operate the courts internally, there is much to be realized in terms of manpower savings — including judicial manpower, frankly — from the realization that those two courts now operating almost independently could operate as well, I think, as one unit — moreover, I think, better. Now that's my thesis. That is not government poli cy. But I have put out that view to a lot of people. I say to the House that I think the suggestion has merit. I'm working on the question internally, and hope to see the matter proceed step by step in future. Since the hon.

Member for Little Bow made no comment one way or the other, I assume he was not opposed to it. But in saying I think there is merit to it, at the same time I have to recognize that the quality of legal services, court services, is extremely impor tant — particularly to those communities outside Edmonton and Calgary. I say "particularly" outside those two major cities because most judges actually reside in those two cities; and justice, if you will, is easily available there. It is less easily available in smaller communities which may be part of the circuit of either the trial division or district court.

I have no hesitation in saying that the service to rural Alberta, given certain conditions, will be as good as it is today. In fact it can be better. If I get my thoughts on paper and organized to the point where I have a specific proposal to make, I'll be quite pre pared to debate the matter in detail, as I no doubt will be doing with my caucus friends. The Leader of the Opposition referred to four points. One was the Public Utilities Board, which I have dealt with generally. I'll come back to his remarks. I think I have dealt with the question on witnesses; I note his concern.

Jury Act changes were part of the witness scheduling question that I think I'll be in a better position to deal with in some detail in the fall. The question of an appeal on Stewart has not yet been discussed with me. You may be sure it will be. It would be inappropriate for me to make any further remarks at this point. I want to underline something that the Leader of the Opposition said, Mr. Chairman, with respect to public confidence in the Public Utilities Board. The hon. Member for Drumheller also made the same remark. I think that's extremely key, extremely impor tant.

It is as important that there be public confi dence in that board as in the judiciary of this prov ince, which is a comment made by the hon. leader that I simply want to underline and endorse. With respect to the concerns by the hon. Member for Calgary Glenmore, I would direct the hon. member to the provisions of The Legal Profession Act, I think, which sets up the Alberta Law Foundation. The Al berta Law Foundation is a body appointed by the government and by the Law Society of Alberta involv ing lawyers, members of the public, accountants, and the like, to administer the funds acquired by the foundation.

Those funds are the interest that flows from lawyers' trust accounts in the province. Pre viously, those funds were not flowing to any real public benefit except to the chartered banks, because lawyers were precluded from getting interest on their trust accounts except under special circumstances. Now those funds are flowing to the Law Founda tion. I'm not sure what the revenue is on them. I think it's close to $2 million a year. [interjection] Higher? Higher than $2 million a year, so I'm advised. I don't have with me a

schedule of the various expenditures and commitments to legal research made by the Law Foundation. But if the hon. members of the House are interested, I would be quite happy to get a

schedule of all the expenditures and commitments made by the Alberta Law Founda tion and circulate it [among] the members of the House. You will see there a considerable commit ment to legal research, involving not only the Institute of Law Research and Reform but others as well; also, the funding of a number of small projects involving small organizations and small groups. For example, touching upon legal aid interests, the supply of the Statutes of Alberta to public or school libraries: I think small initiatives like that, while not costing a great

946 ALBERTA HANSARD April 25, 1977 deal of money, have a good deal of public value. With respect to the comments of the Member for Edmonton Norwood, I have chatted briefly about the Public Utilities Board and the assessment of changing the function of that board, which I take to mean essentially what other members were getting to in her concern about it. I think the point is extremely well taken and should be followed up. Her second point concerned the inconsistency of penalties. Again my problem is about public com munication.

But, all the facts on the table, no doubt there have been examples of inconsistent penalties, inconsistent even within specific regions of the prov ince and sometimes by the same judge. I suppose that is simple evidence of the fact that we're human, and sometimes those things occur. To suggest that the court should always be consistent isn't always the situation. But no doubt the courts and the Crown must be much more aware of sentencing in the law, and strive for somewhat more consistency than has been the case in the past. I think the machinery is there.

It's beginning to work particularly well with our criminal case report ing system. We're the only jurisdiction in Canada that has a system like that in place. It's only been functioning effectively for a few months. It's being refined. In time, depending upon our experience, we may be able to supply a good deal of information from there to news media people, to assist them in under standing what's going on in their communities. I have had one request in that regard from a major newspaper in the province.

The questions about the faculty of law at the Uni versity of Calgary — the short answer to the question about whether I went is yes, I did go. I was very happy to be there, not only because of the office I currently occupy but because I was, as the hon. member well knew, Minister of Advanced Education at the time, and had some role to play in the approval of that new program at the University of Calgary. If she wants to involve me in a debate in this House at this time, over why . . . I'd like the debate, but I'm not sure this is the proper forum.

My colleague, the Minister of Advanced Education and Manpower may wish to comment on it. Save and except the follow ing, because I can't let this occasion go by. The University of Calgary has 60 students in its first-year class. It will be enrolling an additional 60 the year after, and the year after. They have been encouraged to keep the enrolment relatively small. That enrolment today is even greater than when I was in law school in the early 1960s. However, it's no secret that Alberta will have something in excess of 200 graduates coming out of our law schools, Alberta and Calgary, within three years.

It's no secret that there is an additional law school — UVic — in B.C. It's no secret that law graduates in central Canada are looking for jobs. It's no secret that many more students are going to be looking for articled positions and full-time legal positions in this province in the next few years than I think any of us would enjoy. Now that will bring some pressures to the Law Society of Alberta, and some implications to the pub lic in terms of costs of legal services. I don't want to embark now on my speech about paralegal education for lawyers. MR. JOHNSTON: Agreed. MR. FOSTER: The hon.

Minister of Municipal Affairs is encouraging me not to get into it. I'll deal with him later, if I can. But as a Legislature and as a profession, we should think long and hard about the implications for para legal education. In times of a high supply of highly qualified professionals, it's very difficult for any pro fessional group to move significantly into paralegal education and paralegal manpower within the legal services delivery program.

I am assuming that the reason for moving into paralegal programs is with a view to keeping the costs relatively down with respect to the consumer — all of which I heartily endorse. It's going to be very difficult for the Law Society and the Bar to manage that situation. Speaking on behalf of my colleagues, if I may, I hope that doesn't dis suade us as a society and as a profession from continuing our serious efforts in regard to paralegal education. With respect to the compensation of victims of vio lent crime or of crime, perhaps this is an appropriate occasion for me to say that we have instructed Mr.

Ernest Watkins, the chairman of The Crimes Com pensation Board, to commence a thorough public review of the past performance and future possibili ties of the board. He has just returned from New Zealand where he was reviewing the activities of the crimes compensation board which began there some time ago. I chatted with him last week, and I'll be meeting with him shortly. We'll be setting out a series of public meetings from which we can get additional input in the area of possible modification to this legislation and crimes compensation in the future. That is only one avenue for a victim of violent crime.

Of course the other is the courts. Too often, I suppose people have failed to take before the courts their initiatives to obtain redress for small injury. You will recall amendments in this House to the small claims legislation, which now allows a citizen to proceed to court in a relatively simple process at very modest cost. Unfortunately the jurisdiction there is limited to $1,000. Back to the comments from the hon. Member for Little Bow — because if we deal with the question of merger we may then have to deal with the question of the jurisdiction of the provincial court, particularly in small claims.

I'm quite interested in seeing citi zens have the capacity for access to the courts with modest cost and maximum convenience. However, I don't want to suggest that the citizen should hope to resolve major personal injury claims on his own behalf in a small claims court. The amendments to legislation, again referred to by the hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood — I would be keenly disappointed had she not raised the ques tion of the process and the timing of that. I'm grateful to her for doing so.

Because the reform in family law, the children and the law — responding to some of the recent reports from the Institute of Law Research and Reform and other law reform commissions — I think is now timely and will be done. For some time we have discussed family court and the possibility of a unified family court. That's been going on in federal/ provincial discussions. I noticed recently the Attorney General for Canada announced the appointment of

April 25, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 947 some 15 new judges to participate in this experiment in Ontario, I assume, and Manitoba. I haven't seen the results of those papers yet. But needless to say, we are hopeful of simplifying the whole area both of family law and the process of family law. Right now you can deal with four courts in one family matter, as hon. members know. That's simply too much to ask of the public. The Member for Calgary Bow raised the question of the motor vehicle accident claims fund. This has been raised before in the House.

He's quite accurate in his remarks concerning the limits on the fund of $100. As a matter of statistics, it's interesting to note that for the year ending March 31, 1977, there were some 3,661 claims against the fund. Of those, slight ly over 3,000 — which is the vast majority — were hit and run. I haven't got a breakdown here of the dollar amounts involved, but I do have a breakdown of the numbers of persons paying off their indebtedness over time. The total number of debtors as of March 28 would be 1,124. Of those, 768 are paying off an indebtedness of under $5,000.

I'm sorry I don't have with me the breakdown as to the average hit-and-run problem. But there's no doubt that with the absence of police reports now, there's an evidence problem on hit and run. With 3,000 claimants out of 3,700-odd, that is a very significant factor. One of the ways of reducing the abuse, if it's there — and we can assume some of it is — is to raise the limit from $100 to perhaps $250 or $300. The public should understand that in doing that they will be responsible for the first $300 of their damage if they can't find the responsible driver. Thereafter they may claim against the fund.

Quite frankly, I would certain ly endorse an increase in the minimum. I wouldn't say at this time whether it should be $100, $200, or $300, but I think without doubt it should be increased. A question was also raised concerning the matter of the interest payment. I don't always know what the law is in this province, although we're all deemed to know it. It came as something of a surprise to me to realize there is a specific provision in the motor vehicle accident claims fund legislation that provides for no interest being assessed.

I'm assuming the reason for that is to offer some encouragement or inducement to the public to pay off their indebted ness. As a matter of interest, of the 1,124 currently paying off indebtedness, the vast majority are under $5,000. But just picking a figure between $5,000 and $10,000, there are 176 persons. Fifty people owe the fund more than $30,000. That is being paid off at an average payment which any of us who have house payments to make on mortgages would be happy to meet, without the interest payment. I'm open on the question as to whether there should be some consideration for interest.

Because clearly some people have the resources and capacity to pay back the entire indebtedness plus interest, while others do not. Mr. Chairman, I'll conclude for the moment by again saying to the hon. Member for Drumheller that I appreciate his remarks on the Public Utilities Board. I am not armed with the detail at the moment, but I'll get it to answer your question about the rate of return, how it has changed and the like. I have note of your comment, and I'll pursue that for you. MR. KUSHNER: Mr. Chairman, to the minister.

This is not in the form of an attack or a charge or whatever — but maybe I have been charged instead by many communities in Calgary. Probably every MLA in Cal gary is going to be getting notice to attend a meeting in regard to bingos. Some rules are being changed. I wonder if these rules are really firm, Mr. Minister. My questioning here is that the source of income to the community comes from bingos.

Now I under stand — if I understand the legislation proposed — that they will not be able to use any of these moneys for a social or banquet for a hockey team or baseball team, a picnic, or even a kiddies' Christmas party. I wonder if the minister is in a position to inform this Assembly. On the other hand, we seem to be getting into more bureaucracy and red tape. We're asking now, as they inform me — and I used to be involved in bingos in communities — for a banker, a paymaster, a cashier. They're asking for more volunteer help.

I wonder if the minister could inform this Assembly what in fact we can do to correct the situation. Because if that is so, I think we're going a little too far. MRS. CHICHAK: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask the minister to comment on one point I raised in my initial remarks, and I'll add one other. That is the point he overlooked.

I'd like him to comment with regard to the manner in which victims of sex crimes are dealt with in the process of the law where charges are being laid; whether we are making any substantial gains in trying to make such changes in procedure and, to some extent, in trying to encourage changes of attitude toward the victims of sex crimes in dealing with them and attempting to bring justice and to bring into the courts those who are charged.

The other point I would like to raise is: although we have initially considered support for agencies attempting to assist victims of sex crimes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Social Services and Community Health, I think it belongs to some extent jointly in the Attorney General's department. I don't think it's solely in the jurisdiction of the Minister of Social Services and Community Health. This is a matter of violation of law and human dignity, and support ought to come from the Attorney General's estimates as well.

It's unfortunate the budget that is allowed to the Minister of Social Services and Community Health just doesn't give the kind of sup port, at least in some part, to meet the need of the agencies to a greater degree. The destruction of human respect is very deep. The trauma is great and very often lasting for the balance of the lifetime of the individual. I for one feel we must give greater recog nition and support to the victims of such crime. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Chairman, just a couple of com ments on the PUB and then several questions on another area that I would like the hon. Attorney General to respond to.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, with respect to the PUB and the Calgary Power/Alberta Power question. The decision to allow substantial increase in equity was occasioned by PUB Order E76088 on June 29, 1976. There are really two aspects of this. I want to comment on one very briefly and question the other. This order was given, Mr. Minister, without any pro vision for public hearings. Because it does have an

948 ALBERTA HANSARD April 25, 1977 impact on overall rates indirectly, I would ask the minister if he's in a position to outline just what the board policy is with respect to the hearing process. Most of us have assumed there are public hearings — and certainly there are with respect to rate applica tion increases — but to what extent has any policy been set out as far as changes within the internal structure of the regulated utilities, which may have a rather important impact on the rate hearing process and the ultimate rates that people have to pay? The second part of course, Mr.

Chairman, is that under the terms of that order, it would appear the reason the company made the application was not in fact to increase their power potential. No extra kilo watts will be produced as a result of that particular board order. The stated purpose was to pay off debts and to provide working capital. That does raise a reasonably important point. In a time of restraint most of us would argue that there may be well be an "or else", as the Member for Drumheller argued quite well. If it's a case of expanding power production or the ability to produce power, that's a "but".

We can then argue how we finance that "but", but it is a "but". However, if it's a case of reshaping the debt/ equity structure of the company, it seems to me that's a different matter, Mr. Minister. The Member for Drumheller raised the argument that perhaps there is value in more equity as opposed to debt because of the taxes paid and rebated back to the province as a result of an agreement some years ago.

Whether that is good or bad for the consumers is a difference between what that would amount to, and the interest they would have to pay on borrowed capital — the difference between 15 per cent less the transfer, versus borrowed capital. It's our under standing from the survey of the Calgary Power finan cial statement that as consumers we still would have been better off if they had used borrowed capital. Now that raises something I'd like to put to the minister in the form of a specific question.

In areas like this, where the overall interest of the public is at stake — because we do need additional power pro duction — has the cabinet given any consideration to making loans for hydro-electric or thermal power operation in the province available from the heritage fund? Because it seems to me that would fit within the guidelines of the heritage trust fund. If the utility companies have to pay 10 per cent to New York bankers, it might be a better proposition that they pay 10 per cent to us through the Alberta heritage trust fund.

I wonder if the government had given any particular consideration to that option. Now the only other point I'd like to make on the utility board question is to say to the minister: I would approach the M. and M. report with a little bit of caution. I'm glad you're having a seminar on it. Might I suggest, Mr. Minister, that you invite mem bers of the opposition as well to sit in on and partici pate in the seminar, because I'd like to have a chance to ask some questions of M. and M. consultants on their report.

I appreciate the fact that we're now looking — or that the minister indicated the govern ment is prepared to look — at the whole question of the operation of the board, and how we balance the need to protect the consumer on the one hand with the interest of the investor on the other. As I read the M. and M. study, there seems to me to be some danger to the consumer particularly with the provi sion for automatic pass-through and not necessarily having public hearings. Without belaboring the ques tion, Mr. Minister, I would just suggest on that score that there should be a good deal of caution.

However, I quite frankly find it difficult to know how to phrase the questions I wanted to put to the Attor ney General becaus

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19770425
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L18 S3 19770425 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	b520b3847d6818e1ad5b9da601cc57d8e36e391b

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