November 17, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1677 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Thursday, November 17, 1983 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS MR. SCHMID: Mr. Speaker, today it's a great pleasure for me to introduce to you and to the members of this Assembly Mr. Dave Harding, the general manager of British Petroleum group operations in the People's Republic of China. That group also has two Canadian companies involved in drilling in the offshore exploration area of the South China Sea. In fact, yes­ terday Mr.

Harding gave a lecture — or conference, one could say — in Calgary, which was attended by 400 companies from across Canada. The subject was how Canadian companies can get into the Chinese market. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Harding very much for coming to Alberta to inform us as to how we can get into this market. As he said, it's a long and hard road to take to do business in that country but also, of course, eventually a very profitable one. Mr. Harding is leaving this afternoon for Canton, or Guang­ zhou, via San Francisco and Hong Kong. I would like to take this opportunity to wish Mr.

Harding every success and good health in his very difficult task. He is accompanied by Mr. Nawata, from the Department of Economic Development. I would like to ask both of them to stand and be recognized by this Assembly. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure this afternoon to introduce to you, and through you to the members of the Assembly, some 45 grade 8 students from the Ian Bazalgette junior high school in the constituency of Calgary Forest Lawn. They are joined today by their group leader, Barbara Will, as well as Michael McCauley and Brian Benoit.

I would ask them all to rise at this time and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. MR. PURDY: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure this afternoon to introduce to you and to hon. members of this Assembly a group of senior citizens from the town of Spruce Grove. Many of them are pioneers of the Spruce Grove and Stony Plain areas. They're accompanied today by their leader, Clarence Brox. Also accompanying the 12 participants is Margaret Bosse, who is the president of the Golden Age Club in Spruce Grove.

It's interesting to note that I found out today that Margaret's father worked on the dome of the building here when it was built in the early 1900s and was also one of the carpenters that hung the doors on many of the offices in this building. I would ask the group, which is in the members gallery, to stand and receive a warm and cordial welcome from the members. MR. WOO: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I take some consid­ erable pride and pleasure in introducing to you and to members of the Assembly a group of nine exceptional children from various schools throughout Sherwood Park.

These children are grade 5 students and are enrolled in the program for gifted children at Our Lady of Perpetual Help school. They are accom­ panied by their teacher, Mrs. Ruth Hayden, and parent Mrs. Agnes Rossel. They are seated in the members gallery, and I would ask them to rise now and receive the warm welcome of all members. MRS. FYFE: Mr. Speaker, I also have the pleasure of intro­ ducing a group of school children this afternoon. They're from the Robert Rundle elementary school in the city of St. Albert. They are grade 6 students, and there are 30 of them in the public gallery.

They are accompanied by their vice-principal, Tony Sware, and also by Mrs. Galliford. I would ask if they would stand and the members would recognize these students. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to you, and through you to the members, five members of the council of the county of Vulcan: first of all, Barry McFarland, the reeve; and councillors Dave Clark, Wendy Williams, Wayne Ericksen, and Robert Dow. This is a new group of councillors in the province, elected and re-elected. I'd certainly like them to stand and be recognized by this Assembly. MR. HIEBERT: Mr.

Speaker, it's my pleasure this afternoon to introduce to you and to the Assembly two special guests, Dorothy Keates, a constituent, and Sylvia McKinlay. I under­ stand both were recently elected to the executive of the pro­ vincial committee advocating the formation of a council on women's affairs. They may have a particular interest this after­ noon in the private member's motion proposed by the Member for Calgary McKnight. They are seated in the public gallery, and I would ask them to rise to receive the traditional welcome. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, it's my pleasure this afternoon to introduce to you, and through you to members of the Leg­ islature, three representatives from the Committee of the Unem­ ployed: Mr. Jerri Ross, from Edmonton Mill Woods; and John O'Reilly and Richard Jacob, from Edmonton Centre. They are seated in the public gallery. I would ask them to stand and be recognized by members of the House. MR. SPEAKER: May I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the Speaker's gallery of the former Member for Drayton Valley, who most of us will recall put in two periods of distinguished service in this Assembly.

I would like to ask our friend Rusty Zander to stand and receive the welcome of all the members. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Hospitality Expenditures MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the first question to the hon. Minister of Public Works, Supply and Services. It's with respect to the August 31 Alberta Gazette — some $32,000 in hospitality and entertainment expenses for a con­ ference of public works ministers in September 1982. My ques­ tion with respect to that particular conference is, could the minister advise the Assembly what follow-up meetings have been held subsequent to that conference? MR.

CHAMBERS: Mr. Speaker, maybe for the interest of members, public works ministers, deputies, and officials from

1678 ALBERTA HANSARD November 17, 1983 across the country meet annually. It has been the habit to alternate this; provinces vary it from year to year. Last year, for the first time in many years, it was Alberta's turn. Alberta hosted it. There is a significant follow-up on specific items at the offi­ cials' level. If the Leader of the Opposition has any specific area he'd like me to inform him on, I'd be happy to explore that and get back to him. But there is follow-up.

For example, the meeting at the ministers' level this year was hosted by Ontario, and ministers followed up on a couple of items that had been discussed the previous year. So there is follow-up in a number of areas. But if I could find out the specific area. I'd be happy to respond. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Public Works, Supply and Services, and ask whether any report which summarized the work done was published as a result of this august conference. MR. CHAMBERS: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge there has never been . . . MR.

CRAWFORD: You said September the first time; this time it's "august". [laughter] MR. CHAMBERS: I don't know how I follow that act, Mr. Speaker. No, it's never been the practice to summarize the entire conference in a report and publish that. The conferences incor­ porate workshops which are in a number of different areas, whether it be procurement, purchasing, construction, or what­ ever. The people with a particular interest in those areas will be involved in those workshops.

As well as interprovincial communication between officials, if you like, often there may be some follow-up material back and forth in that specific area, but there's no overall report of each conference. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask a further supplementary question of the hon.

Minister of Public Works, Supply and Services, and ask whether there has been any fol­ low-up or specific review conducted of the effectiveness of the helicopter tour of Kananaskis Country, the golf tournament at Banff Springs, the barbecue and dance at the Rafter Six Guest Ranch, and the wind-up dinner/dance at the Alhambra Room in the Banff Springs Hotel. MR. CHAMBERS: Mr.

Speaker, as in the case of any con­ ference — for example, the first one I attended, I guess it must have been five years ago, in New Brunswick by-the-sea — the host province tends to and wishes to make sure the conference is an enjoyable one. People work hard in long sessions during the day and in the evening, and they also like to participate socially. That obviously has benefits in terms of ministers and deputy ministers and officials getting to know each other. That's common practice and well understood, I think, and very ben­ eficial.

In Alberta we like to think we are doing the equivalent thing that is done in other provinces when they're the hosts. Overall, I think the feedback I've had from my counterparts in other provinces is that it was an excellent conference and certainly on a par, at least, with other conferences of the past and that the ministers, deputies, and officials got a lot out of it. Hope­ fully we can all learn from this sort of thing, and therefore be better able to perform our tasks on behalf of the citizens of our respective provinces. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, as I review the agenda, there should be no problem in the various people getting to know one another. A further supplementary question. I would ask the hon. min­ ister to advise the Assembly: who in fact determines the balance between the working part of the agenda and the hospitality part? Was that determined by the government of Alberta, as the host province? MR. CHAMBERS: I think how it has traditionally worked, Mr.

Speaker, is that the host province has a leadership role, of course, and the officials confer in terms of agenda with their counterparts in other provinces and ask: what issues would you like to have discussed at this conference and how do we follow up on last year's, on a particular item that might have been ongoing? Then the officials, in effect, work out an agenda for the conference.

I could say that traditionally, in the five years I've been involved, the format has been essentially the same in terms of work time — and I think the work time is significant and productive — and off time, whether it be golfing or fishing, as some people elected when we were in New Brunswick, and so forth. But I can quite sincerely say that I think the confer­ ences are hardworking and productive, and the agenda over the days of the conference is appropriately laid out. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to put a supplementary question to the hon.

Provincial Treasurer, and ask if it is part of the government's restraint policy that perhaps a directive will be sent to ministers hosting conferences, with respect to those conferences which one might categorize as being light on work and taxing on hospitality. Will any overall guidelines be developed by the government of Alberta with respect to conferences of this nature in the future? MR. HYNDMAN: That is in effect now, Mr. Speaker. MR. NOTLEY: Well, it's certainly in effect now; there's no question about that. Timber Harvesting — Oldman River Basin MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to direct the second question, if I may, to the hon. Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. In making a decision to allow primary timber har­ vesting and construction of a logging road in the Hidden Creek drainage of the upper Oldman River watershed, what studies were done on the impact of clear-cutting on the water supply from these creeks to farmers and ranchers downstream? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, the area the hon. member's question is in respect of was allocated to the Revelstoke organ­ ization as early as 1966.

Subsequent to that time, of course, the area was the subject of some discussion and assessment as the Eastern Slopes policy evolved and was determined to fall in the zone five category — namely multiple-use — which would very much include the opportunity to include the eco­ nomic activity of logging. As part and parcel of that, of course, there would be an assessment with representatives of the Alberta Forest Service, working in consultation with the fish and wild­ life organizations, to ensure that logging in that area would be an appropriate use, and it is so. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. In making the deci­ sion to allow 1.6 years of timber harvesting in the area, was any specific assessment made of similar clear-cutting that had

November 17, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1679 been allowed in the Gladstone valley in the southern Oldman area as a result of the pine bark beetle? Has that harvesting affected summertime water supply? MR. ZAOZIRNY. Mr. Speaker, in the same fashion, to some extent, as existed in the Gladstone valley, there is a concern about a beetle infestation. The lumber in that area is some 300 years old and is really very ripe for harvesting on overmature timber.

The investigations that have been pursued with respect to the water basin areas have led us to the conclusion that there will not be any significant adverse impact as a result of the logging operation, which I should mention constitutes only some 6 per cent of the entire watershed area. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of the Environment. Have any studies been conducted by the minister or the Department of the Environment with respect to the Oldman watershed area and the impact of the cumulative effect of the Gladstone ridge plus this other devel­ opment? MR.

BRADLEY: With regard to the Gladstone area, the offi­ cials of the department have had ongoing discussions with the Department of Energy and Natural Resources. I'm not aware of any studies with regard to the Hidden Creek area. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. Have there been any discussions with people in the Gladstone ridge area, par­ ticularly ranchers who have expressed public concern about the impact of clear-cutting on the watershed for the Oldman basin? Has the minister met with any of the people representing con­ cerned Alberta citizens? MR.

ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Gladstone logging operation, yes, I have personally met with individuals from the area. As a result of that particular meeting in my office, we undertook to do some follow-up work which has occurred. Additionally, I can say that representatives of the Alberta Forest Service have been involved in a series of meet­ ings with interested persons with respect to the Gladstone oper­ ations and the Hidden Creek logging.

We have met on more than one occasion, through the department, with representatives of the Alberta Wilderness Association and the Great Divide Trail Association, as well as working with the fish and wildlife sector, to ensure that we are approaching this in as reasonable a way as possible. I should add that when the logging is undertaken, we are going to be utilizing the services of a landscape architect. We have already brought in Mr. Pern Van Heek, a landscape archi­ tect specialist from British Columbia who has provided an assessment of the proposed logging operations on the specific cuts.

As well, a representative of the timber management branch of the department will be working and on-site, to ensure that the logging operation is conducted in a way that preserves the aesthetics of the area to the maximum extent possible. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. Has Revelstoke made any representation to the min­ ister which indicates that there is currently a firm market for any timber from the Hidden Creek area? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, we have no reason to doubt that the lumber cannot be marketed.

As the hon. member would be aware, there has been an upturn in the lumber market, particularly in the United States, during the course of 1983. As a matter of fact, I am glad the hon. member raised the matter of the Revelstoke operation, because in order to meet our 20-year quota commitment to the Revelstoke operation, it is essential that this logging occur. As I said, the area was allocated back in 1966.

If in fact the area were not available, it could well mean the sawmill in the Revelstoke operation being shut down for a period of a year and many, many people involved in that industry being put out of work, which I am sure the hon. member would not want to see. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. What weight did the minister put on the commitment to Revelstoke, in comparison to the concerns expressed by people in the Glad­ stone valley area — the ranchers in particular — about the impact on the watershed?

In the course of determining the relative weights of those two conflicting positions, what assess­ ment, if any, was obtained from the Department of the Envi­ ronment about the impact on the watershed? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, first of all, in matters of this nature there is ongoing communication involving the depart­ ment for which I am responsible and the Department of the Environment. In terms of weighting, we don't approach it in quite that fashion. There were concerns raised by a few people in the area. Of course, there were many people who felt very strongly that the operation should go ahead.

In terms of those who expressed some concerns, we investigated those concerns and have satisfied ourselves that there will not be any substantial negative impact on the watershed. Moreover, we have satisfied ourselves that the logging operation will be conducted in a way that is aesthetically pleasing and satisfying, and ensures the multiple use of the area for both recreation and logging. Provincial Borrowing MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Pro­ vincial Treasurer. The Premier went to New York last week.

Was one of the purposes of the Premier's visit to New York to borrow money on the American market for the operation or any capital funding of the government of Alberta? MR. HYNDMAN: No it was not, Mr. Speaker. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Has the Provincial Treasurer any trips planned to either the United States or the European market, to explore the possibility of borrowing funds for the government of Alberta operations or capital, or for any of the Crown corporations the ministry is responsible for? MR. HYNDMAN: Not in the immediate future, Mr.

Speaker, although that is certainly possible in 1984. As members know, both Alberta Government Telephones and the Alberta Munic­ ipal Financing Corporation have been in the private market this year, and will continue to be, seeking borrowings for their capital needs. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, for clarification from the Provincial Treasurer. In terms of 1984, are we looking at the months of January, February, or March for those trips? Would the minister specify whether the Alberta government has pref­ erence for private funds from the American market or the Euro­ pean market? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I can't be precise as to whether there would be any trips and, if so, when. There would be a

1680 ALBERTA HANSARD November 17, 1983 number of considerations taken into account as to where the borrowings take place: the cost of the money, the extent to which they could be facilitated more easily or with difficulty, and the state of currency, the Euro-dollar market and the Amer­ ican market. So at this time we would simply seek to minimize the borrowings the province would require on its own account. Those figures would change from time to time, as the member can appreciate, depending on month by month predictions of revenue and expenditure. Sugar Beet Marketing MR. HYLAND: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question related to a vote that was taken by the Sugar Beet Growers of southern Alberta. I wonder if the minister could inform the Assembly if that vote has been com­ pleted and, if it is completed, the results of that vote toward a marketing board. MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr. Speaker, the member is correct; there was a plebiscite held. I believe the balance had to be in by last October 31. The vote was nearly 70 per cent in favor. Since it just takes a simple majority for the marketing plan to pass, the marketing board will in fact become a reality. MR.

HYLAND: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. Mr. Minister, what will be the next step for the association? MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr. Speaker, the marketing council from the department will now have to appoint a provisional board of directors until elections can be held. I believe it will likely take until the spring of '84 before that board of directors will be in place. Public Service Labor Legislation MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Government House Leader.

In light of a recent Ontario court decision, which would appear to cast some doubts on the government's ability to legislate against strikes in the public service, is the Government House Leader, or the government in general, planning any legislation that would clarify this sit­ uation? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, when a case like that is decided, it may indeed have impact in other provincial juris­ dictions.

But that depends upon the way in which the legislation in each case — the Ontario legislation as compared with the Alberta legislation — is drafted, as well as upon the result of any appeals in the Ontario case. MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Specifically, is the hon. Government House Leader considering any legislation under

section 33 of the Canada Act, 1982, which would utilize the rights of the provinces to opt out of interpre­ tations of the Charter of Rights? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in answer to the first question, that would depend on whether or not an existing decision would stand up, upon appeal. Subject to that, the answer would be yes. Courthouse Security MR. SZWENDER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Attorney General.

In view of the tragic shooting which took place yes­ terday in the Edmonton provincial courthouse, could the min­ ister indicate what steps are being taken to increase security in provincial courthouses? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I think it's too soon, perhaps, in light of that tragic incident, to respond with specifics for provincial courthouses across the province as a whole. An internal inquiry in full detail is being undertaken into all the circumstances. I would think it likely that that inquiry, when it's reduced to a report on what happened, may include rec­ ommendations. MR.

SZWENDER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister indicate when the inquiry results will be made public? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, depending upon the content of the report, it's a question of whether or not it would be made public; security matters are usually not. But I expect the report will be available within about a three- to four-week time frame. Highway Overpass Project MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my question to the Minister of Transportation.

Has the minister launched any special review of the possibility that there may be considerable waste of taxpayers' funds on construction of an overpass and access routes at the junction of highways 2 and 22X, just south of Calgary? MR. M. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I'm aware of the particular project the hon. member is referring to. I am not aware of his accusations that there is some considerable excess, waste, or extra construction there. If the member has some evidence to suggest that, I'd be pleased to have a look at it. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Could the minister outline for the Assembly why access roads to this new overpass were not completed before or during construction of the overpass itself, which now sits completed but useless? MR. M. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, the general approved and accepted method of constructing many of these types of struc­ tures that engineers have devised over the years entails up to a three-year period for construction. The first year generally sees what are called "approach fills" constructed, so the mate­ rial has time to settle; then in following years, such things as access roads are constructed.

I'd be pleased to go over the entire procedure of constructing with the hon. member. But perhaps it would be better if he outlined his concerns in some detail, and I could get him a full engineering report on the method of constructing highways in Alberta. It might be very useful for him. MR. MARTIN: I very much appreciate the offer from the Minister of Transportation. But the question I was asking about construction — I'm well aware of that, having worked with the department of highways — is specifically, why did you build an overpass and not have access roads?

It seems clear to me, and that's the question: why were the access roads not there at the same time as the overpass? I know that's not a common way to do construction, and he knows it too. MR. M. MOORE: There are some cases, Mr. Speaker, in which we build overpasses that in fact don't have access roads onto and off them at the junction the hon. member might be referring to. They're simply to separate the traffic at an intersection and not provide the opportunity for turning in any particular direc­ tion.

But I say again that I believe the particular matter the hon. member is referring to is a two- to three-year construction process that's well recognized in the engineering field and, as

November 17, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1681 far as I'm concerned, appropriate. I'd be happy to check further into that particular matter. As a matter of fact I'll be looking at that particular site near the end of this month, when I'm on a road and highway inspection tour of southern Alberta. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question to the minister. Does he have an estimate at this moment as to when the access roads to the new overpass will be finished? MR. M. MOORE: I don't have those now, Mr. Speaker. MR. MARTIN: One final supplementary.

While the minister is checking, will he also check to see if extra money — and how much extra money — is involved by not having the access roads there. We were told by some construction people that it could be as much as half a million dollars. MR. M. MOORE: I'd be pleased to, as long as the hon. member can explain to me: extra over what? MR. MARTIN: [Inaudible] to and as the minister is check­ ing . . . MR. SPEAKER: This would seem to be eminently a matter that might be dealt with far more effectively without tying up the whole House between the minister and the hon. member.

It may not get the same publicity, but I think the information could be just as effective. Teacher Evaluation DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Edu­ cation has to do with teacher evaluation. Can the minister indicate what policy is in place at this time to give some direc­ tion to school boards so that they will be involved in the eval­ uation of teachers? What directive has gone out from the minister's department? MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, there is no policy in place at the moment.

We have circulated to all boards in the province, as well as to other interested organizations, a copy of a discussion paper in which the outline of the pertinent features of a teacher evaluation policy are contained. Having released the discussion paper, we have invited school boards, the Teachers' Associ­ ation, and others, to make response to the department. On the basis of that response, we will be formulating a policy state­ ment. I expect that that policy statement, based on the reaction of interested public groups, will be available early in the new year. DR. BUCK: Mr.

Speaker, can the minister indicate what role the school superintendents will play in the evaluation process? MR. KING: Not in any specific fashion, Mr. Speaker, because clearly that's one of the questions about which we would expect to hear public reaction. I can say, repeating something that I think I said earlier in this House, that it is not feasible to consider a teacher evaluation policy operated by the provincial government or the Department of Education. We simply couldn't hire sufficient staff to operate a provincially directed teacher evaluation program.

Clearly, whatever teacher evalu­ ation program is put in place is going to rely very, very heavily on the skills, the experience, the expertise of the local admin­ istration, including but not necessarily limited to, the super­ intendent. DR. BUCK: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In this evaluation process, can the minister indicate if he or the Depart­ ment of Education are now looking at merit pay? Will this be part of the evaluation process? MR. KING: Mr.

Speaker, I cannot say that there has been any consideration of merit pay within the Department of Education, in the context of the development of a teacher evaluation policy. The hon. member having raised it, however, I think it has considerable merit. He can be assured that we will give it some consideration. I thank him for the suggestion. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Can the minister also indicate if the department or local school boards have been looking at the master teacher program for the people who seem to be more enthusiastic, more qualified, or doing a better job?

Will this be part of the entire evaluation process as well? MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, again it's very difficult to anticipate what will be in this policy, given my earlier description of how we are going about the formulation of this policy. Since we are still receiving advice from interested groups, school boards, the Alberta Teachers' Association, and others, I'm at some risk, commenting about what might be contained in a new policy.

I will make the comment, however, that I believe it is impor­ tant that in some way, we find the means of recognizing and giving public recognition to the exceptional teachers who are at work in the province's school system. One of the ways in which it has been suggested this might be done is by the des­ ignation of master teachers. Another of the ways in which it has been suggested this might be done is by offering merit pay.

In either of those ways, or in any other way that is practical, it seems to me that it would be in the best interests of the educational system to give public recognition to the exceptional teachers who are doing a terrific job in the schools throughout Alberta. MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary to the minister on this topic. What role does the department's paper give to the teachers, those who are probably most competent and most affected by such a policy? MR. SPEAKER: I have a little problem with that. I understand, from the minister's remarks, that the paper is being widely circulated.

I don't suppose anyone would discriminate in that respect against the hon. Member for Ponoka. Water Quality MR. McPHERSON: Mr. Speaker, my question to the hon. Minister of the Environment relates to a concern that has been raised about the water quality in the Red Deer River, emanating from a discharge of sewage by a local trailer court. Apparently there is a high discharge of raw sewage into the Red Deer River. The number that comes to my mind is 6,800 litres twice a year. Can the minister indicate if he is aware of the situation and, if he is, if any steps are being taken to remedy this? MR. BRADLEY: Yes, Mr.

Speaker. Concerns with regard to the effect this sewage discharge has upon their water treatment have been expressed by the city of Red Deer. The city is of course advised prior to the discharge. There has been an ongoing problem with this particular trailer court, which is approximately four kilometres upstream of the

1682 ALBERTA HANSARD November 17, 1983 city of Red Deer. Prior to 1980, the trailer court discharged into an ill-defined drainage course and was causing a number of problems with regard to downstream property owners. In 1980, they constructed a pipeline which permitted them to discharge on a twice-yearly basis into the Red Deer River, but at that time it was only to be an interim method of disposal. This August, this particular trailer court was informed that this method was no longer acceptable, and they would have to find a different method in terms of disposal of their sewage.

Unfor­ tunately, they were not able to find an alternative method prior to the necessity to discharge over a five-day period this fall. I've been advised that the particular trailer court has found a solution, is finalizing purchasing land, and will be looking at an irrigation scheme to dispose of their sewage effluent in the future. MR. McPHERSON: Just one supplemental, Mr. Speaker. From the comments of the minister, can we have some assurance that the purchase of this land will alleviate the problem, and this won't occur again? MR.

BRADLEY: As I'm advised, the particular trailer court owner is finalizing purchase of land which would provide for an irrigation disposal system which would preclude any further problems. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Could the Minister of the Environment advise what precautions are taken during that three- to five-day period when the sewage is discharged into the Red Deer River? MR. BRADLEY: Specifically in terms of its water treatment, the city would ensure that the proper chlorination was being done, and perhaps an extra-strength chlorination to ensure dis­ infection. MR. R.

SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Is the minister saying that the discharge is upstream from the water intake of the city of Red Deer and that the only precaution that is taken is chlorination? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, I believe that is the process the city uses. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister, and I think this is more of a general concern across the province. Do the department or the minister direct that the river be posted with regard to the pollution being dumped directly into the river? Innocent persons who may use that water could be affected. MR.

BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, with regard to that particular question, usually the local health authority would be in a posi­ tion to advise local people of that matter if they felt it was necessary to do so, in terms of health effects. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Could the minister indicate to the Legislative Assembly, here today, that that precaution was taken by the local health unit and that there was no threat to the health of innocent individuals who might have used the water of the Red Deer River? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd have to check into that matter. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question. Could the minister indicate whether there is clear communi­ cation and a directive between the Department of the Environ­ ment and local health officials with regard to any kind of incidents such as this, so all precautions are taken and the health care of Albertans is taken care of as well? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, with regard to that matter, I'd have to check and see if those specific lines of communication are in place. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

Could the minister indicate whether there have been other inci­ dents such as this, and what kind of actions were taken with regard to situations such as that? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, that's a very broad question. With regard to sewage treatment generally, downstream users are usually notified in terms of releases. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. To be more specific, the city of Calgary has dumped various kinds of things into the river and the minister indicated, to earlier questions in the Assembly, that the river would not be posted and that people could use the river as they saw fit.

Posting was not done. The minister indicated there would be a review by the department. Has that review been done and, from the review, is there a real policy in place? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'm unclear as to the exact question the hon. member is asking. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question to the hon. minister: is there a clear policy from the department with regard to posting rivers when sewage is dumped in any respective river; in this specific case the Red Deer River, and in an earlier case discussed in this Legislature, the Bow River? MR. BRADLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I think it's generally well known throughout the province that in terms of the use of a river — and it depends on the nature and usage of a river resource — it is not suggested that downstream of a discharge, particularly a municipal sewage discharge, one would under­ take body contact types of sports in particular. That is a gen­ erally known fact in the province. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the final supplementary, fol­ lowed by a supplementary by the hon. Member for Red Deer. MR. R.

SPEAKER: I can understand that there shouldn't be any kind of body contact with a river in those cases. Could the minister indicate what policy is in place to provide to the general public information that a river is polluted at a point in time and should not be used. MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, I think the real concern the hon. member is addressing is particularly with regard to the effect of drinking surface water in our river systems in the province of Alberta. Generally it is not recommended that any­ one would wish to drink surface water in a river system in the province.

That is well known throughout the province. For example, the constituency in which I reside has its water supply from the supposedly pristine headwaters of the Crowsnest rivers and the adjacent streams. In fact, it's necessary to treat that water prior to consumption, even though it comes off the head­

November 17, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1683 waters. We are well aware of giardiasis, which can be caused from so-called pristine streams. MR. R. SPEAKER: A supplementary to the minister. MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps we could come back to this. I rec­ ognized the hon. Member for Red Deer, and the hon. Member for Little Bow has already had eight supplementaries on this. MR. R. SPEAKER: There is no river in this province that has drinkable water. MR. McPHERSON: Getting back to the Red Deer situation, Mr.

Speaker, is the minister aware of the communication, if there was any communication, between the private operator in this case and the new Red Deer regional sewage treatment plant, in order that on the twice-per-year occasions when this dumpage occurred, there were precautions taken to avoid any unneces­ sary sewage into the Red Deer River? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, the procedure with regard to a discharge of this type is that the downstream municipal water treatment operator would be noti­ fied. Surface Rights — Entry Fees MR. FISCHER: Mr.

Speaker, this question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Under the new Surface Rights Act, what was the intention regarding payment of the entry fee when there is more than one right of entry or surface agreement per titled unit; for instance, two wells per titled unit? MR. SPEAKER: I have a little difficulty with that. It seems the hon. member is asking for the

interpretation of a statute. If I'm mistaken in that regard, and the question relates to government policy under a statute, the question would be in order. But if he's asking to have the statute interpreted to him, then of course the question period is not the place for that. MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is . . . As part of the policy that was in the new Surface Rights Act pertaining to entry fees, and under

section 19 of that Act, it was very clear that there was an entry fee payable for each exercising of a right of entry on each titled unit. In other words, if there are multiple entries, multiple entry fees would paid. Gaming Regulations MR. SHRAKE: Mr. Speaker, could the Attorney General please tell me if his department monitors the profits from gam­ ing in this province? In this case, I'm referring to the com­ mercial bingo halls in the city of Calgary, who are making many thousands of dollars from bingo by getting non-profit organizations to get the bingo licence to hold the bingos in their halls. MR.

CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, any organization that's licensed to carry on a gaming event must provide information asked for by the Alberta Gaming Commission, and those include reports of receipts and disbursements. MR. SHRAKE: A supplementary question. Does this mean that any private commercial entrepreneur could run a bingo, as long as he gets the non-profit groups to get this licence? Maybe to phrase it slightly differently, are there no rules or regulations governing what portion or per cent of this profit must go to the non-profit or charitable organization? MR.

SPEAKER: With great respect to the hon. member, if he's asking for the existence of rules or regulations, other means than to take the time of the whole House should be found to find that out. If his question relates to ministerial or government policy, then of course it would be in order. MR. NOTLEY: Are there any rules? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I think it relates to government policy. The policy given the Gaming Commission to apply is that, in accordance with the necessary requirements of the law of the land, only charitable or religious organizations can be involved in gaming events.

What happens when it appears that a private operator is also gaining from it, in light of what the hon. member raised in his question, is the payment of rentals for premises or things used in connection with the gaming event. I would be glad to check further to see what there may be in respect of excessive charges in any of those areas, with special reference to the bingo palaces. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: If the House will give leave, I have a request from an hon. member to revert to Introduction of Special Guests. HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS (reversion) MR.

MARTIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to take this opportunity to introduce to you and to members of this Assembly, members of the Quality of Life Council who are in both the members gallery and the Speaker's gallery. I would like them to stand and be welcomed by the Legislative Assem­ bly at this time. head: MOTIONS FOR RETURNS MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, on the subject of motions for returns, I can advise the Assembly that the government is pre­ pared to accept motions for returns 209 and 210, but I move that Motion for a Return No. 214 stand and retain its place on the Order Paper. MR.

SPEAKER: Having heard the motion by the hon. Deputy Government House Leader with regard to Motion 214, does the Assembly agree? [Motion carried] 209. Mr. R. Speaker moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing the number of provincial student loans and Canada student loans applied for between April 1, 1983, and September 30, 1983, the number granted for that period, and the total amount loaned. [Motion carried]

1684 ALBERTA HANSARD November 17, 1983 210. Mr. R. Speaker moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: (

a) the number and total amount of all provincial student loans which should have been consolidated and on which pay­ ments should have been commenced but on which no payments have been received; (

b) the number and total amount of all provincial student loans which were consolidated and on which payments com­ menced but subsequently went into default in each of the fiscal years 1979-80, 1980-81, and 1981-82. [Motion carried] head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 222. Moved by Mr. Martin:

Be it resolved that Bill 240, Retail Business Holidays Act, be moved to first position on the Order Paper, under Public Bills and Orders other than Government Bills and Orders. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I take this welcome opportunity to try to bring forward a good Bill that was presented by a government member. The reason we're doing this is that the whole idea of Sunday shopping has caused a great deal of concern throughout the province of Alberta and, I might say, throughout Canada. Many people, as we can see by the number in the galleries, are concerned; they want the issued settled.

It's not good enough for the government to say: well, we're considering it, we're considering it, we're considering it. People at this point are tired of consideration. They think the government has had enough time to settle this matter. One of the things that we as the Official Opposition could do is to try to bring it forward to the government. Because it is on the Order Paper, the only way we can do this is to ask the Legislative Assembly to deal with this today.

I know there are members of caucus that want to deal with this — my friend over there from Edmonton Whitemud; I think we agree on one — and I'm hoping for the support of people here in this House. Mr. Speaker, I think the point we're trying to make at this specific time is that it is clearly time the study is over. It is time now to move on and bring this up. By moving it up on the Order Paper— let's be clear about it — this could be voted on. The way it was before, it was 17th on the Order Paper and, as a result, would have died on the Order Paper.

So I think we in the Official Opposition are trying to help out — as the helpful people we always are — and bring it up so that it could at least be discussed in this Legislature and, if this Legislature wants, it can vote it in today. The other point that I think we have to make to the government — and I'd say this to the Attorney General and other people like the Member for Edmonton Whitemud, who I think tend to agree with us on this issue — is that it is time to screw up a little bit of political courage and deal with a controversial issue.

Now I know that people in the government caucus — I don't often get to the government caucus, Mr. Speaker, but I'm told there are people on both sides of the issue. I think it's time we bring it here to the Legislature and debate it. I'm not going to speak long on this Bill, because it's very clear where my colleagues and I stand, but I think we want to see where the government members stand on this. The point we're trying to make, Mr. Speaker, is that governments are elected to make difficult decisions. They can't always hide behind Order Papers.

They can't always hide behind: well, we sort of agree with you, but there are other people who don't, and we'll study it. This particular issue has been studied to death. I know certain people are going to say that in Ontario there has been a Supreme Court decision. Well, I would say to members that they're quick with the notwithstanding clauses when it comes to labor rights, as we found out in question period in my conversation with the Minister of Labour. I'm saying to this government that if they want to bring in Bill 240, they know they can do it, so let's not hide behind that.

I would say to the Attorney General and House leader that I've heard him on television and I've read what he said in the paper. I agree with him. But he is the House leader, and now is a golden opportunity to bring this Bill up. Let's discuss it; let's vote on it today. Mr. Speaker, I think the arguments on both sides of the issue have been made time and time again. We in the Official Oppo­ sition tend to agree with the contents of Bill 240. Like any other Bill, it's not perfect. But I think the intent is the correct way to go. We in the Official Opposition are not for open Sundays, where it's business as usual.

There are arguments on both sides, but one that is important to me is that it still is the day for most people — I know there are others, but it still is a religious day to a large number of people in Alberta. We also know it would add to costs to small business, because there's no way they wouldn't have their overhead costs go up. That's another reason. The other reason, frankly, is from a CAC survey. While it was small, it still showed — if you read in the paper today — that 53 per cent of Albertans are not for open Sundays. I expect that if it were explained to them better, it would be much higher than that.

Sure, we all like the convenience, but if people cannot shop in six days, I do not see the point of seven. We say to people, there's only so many dollars. If everybody has to open up seven days, I suggest that we're not all going to be richer; it's just that we're spreading six days' business over seven days, because there are only so many dollars there. I think the main reason is that surely in this society, as we bounce ahead into 1984, there has to be one day — and that traditional day has been Sunday — that we can all get together with our families when we're not working, and we can say that's our day. Mr.

Speaker, we know what's happening in this society. We hear about divorce rates. We hear about all sorts of social factors breaking down. I suggest to you that we're adding one more tack if we open up another day. For religious reasons and even for economic reasons, but above all for family reasons, I'm suggesting that it's important that this Legislature take a stand on this issue and take it now. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make just three or four more comments.

I say to the government honestly, and especially to the people who agree with Bill 240: screw up your political courage and take a stand once in a while; we're giving you the opportunity to do this. We know what happens if Bill 240 is left on the Order Paper. It may or may not come up in the spring session. It's a whole new area. We will lose Sunday, because in those three or four months more businesses will open. They will feel the necessity. I've talked to small business people who say: I have to do it now — if there's no laws we're unsure — because I'll lose competition.

So by not making a stand, we are saying something political to those people. I suggest that it's been studied enough. The time to move on this is now. Again I say to the Members of the Legislative Assembly that they now have the opportunity to do this. I think it was said well by the CAC president, Mrs. Hall, who said, talking about the government:

November 17, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1685 We want them to quit stalling. How long can they a afford to have our laws on hold? We are the only province in Canada that is still governed by a 1906 law — it's long overdue that we had something in place. Mr. Speaker, I believe the majority of the members of this House agree with the Official Opposition on this specific Bill, and I hope it will come to a vote, because I believe they could support Bill 240. But if I'm misreading and the majority of the government members do not, they still should bring this up now and take the political consequences.

If they think it should be open Sundays, let us know now. Let us know, let the people in the galleries know, and let the people of Alberta know, because they're looking for leadership from here. Mr. Speaker, as a courtesy to the people of Alberta, to the people sitting in the galleries, I hope the government will allow this motion to come to a vote. I think this would be the thing to do.

Because it is such an urgent matter — I believe it's urgent because we're making the law by not doing anything; we're falling into open Sundays — I am going to have my colleague ask for unanimous consent of this House to continue this debate until 5:30. We want to hear. I know they've hidden from the income tax and many other Acts, as the Member for Clover Bar will say, but we want to give ample opportunity to every government member to talk on this Bill. Again I say to you that I think it's one of the more important Bills.

If people are worried about cutting into other private members' Bills, the next two are mine. I'd be glad to relinquish them — Bill 204 — and we can debate them at another time. We're going to ask for unanimous consent to keep this going until 5:30, and I hope members will give us that courtesy. As I said, I also hope they will screw up their political courage. Let's vote on this now, not next spring; that's not good enough. I'm afraid that if we go beyond the fall, it won't be next spring. Then there'll still be people disagreeing about it, and we still won't have our political courage up.

Now is the time to do it, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the government members recognize that they have a responsibility here. This can be a free vote. It doesn't have to go by party lines, because I know members disagree on it. Wouldn't it be nice, Mr. Speaker, to see the hon. Member for Edmonton Whitemud and the hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood voting in this House in the same way on one Bill? That would be a nice change. But I think he would have to support me on this Bill. With those few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I wait with interest to see what the rest of the hon. members will do with this Bill. Thank you very much.

MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, addressing very briefly on behalf of the government the motion which is now before the Assembly, I have observed with some considerable interest the procedure that has been adopted by the hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood today. While interesting, the procedure is of course quite inappropriate for dealing with a matter of public policy of this magnitude. The hon. member is quite correct in saying that there is a good deal of concern in the province of Alberta, obviously shared by a very large number of people who are here today to listen to a debate on this subject.

Speaking as the Member for Medicine Hat, I have been in correspondence with a number of the members who are perhaps present today in the galleries. However, I do think it unfortunate if anyone came here today expecting to have a conclusion of this matter in the manner proposed by the hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood and that it is going to happen; it is just not going to happen.

The reason for that, of course, is that in the way government policy is established in this province, it is quite clear that the government caucus will in due course consider which measures shall become government measures and which measures shall become government policy. I thought it was clearly understood, even by the Member for Edmonton Norwood, that that is the way legislation is brought forward as government legislation, and that is the way legislation dealing with this very important matter will be brought forward in due course.

The hon. member may want to try to score political points — and that's fair — here in the Assembly, outside the Assem­ bly, at conventions of the New Democratic Party, or wherever anyone will listen to him. But the fact of the matter is that it is not an appropriate motion by which to have a private mem­ ber's public Bill turned into a matter of government legislation. That will come about only after appropriate and due consider­ ation by the government caucus.

It is of course evident to all Albertans, and has been made perfectly clear by me and many other members of the government caucus who have been in receipt of representations on this subject, that the matter is under consideration at this time. Several matters relative to the implications of the Charter of Rights on the subject of Sunday observation are now before the courts of Alberta and the courts of other provinces.

It is very important that in approaching a determination on this issue, we only take measures which are appropriate in such a way that we will not find ourselves in conflict with the Charter of Rights. That, Mr. Speaker, is of considerable importance. I'm sure all the people in Alberta are as interested as I am and as members of the government are in seeing what determination there will be by the Supreme Court of Canada on this issue.

I would mention as well the court challenges which are under way in the province of Ontario, relative to the subject of leg­ islation of a similar nature to that proposed by the hon. Member for Stony Plain, a Bill which I suspect would have the approval of large numbers of members in the gallery today. The government has to take these matters under consideration before moving in a definitive way to bring about new legislation relative to the question of the observance of Sunday.

Without going into the details on the subject of the decision which has taken place in this province at the level of the court of appeal, perhaps we will have to bring in legislation which doesn't mention Sunday observance in such a way that it could be interpreted as being a violation of freedom of religion under the Charter of Rights. It's very well and good to say today: let us bring this Bill forward, let us pass it, let us have a free vote on the subject. But, Mr.

Speaker, it would be irresponsible foolishness on the part of this Assembly to move in such a way today before it becomes a government piece of legislation, until such time as proper consideration has been given in caucus on the impli­ cations on the legislation of the court actions which are now under way in this country. I may say — and this is speaking not on behalf of the government as much as on my own behalf as the Member of the Legislative Assembly for Medicine Hat — that I have been surprised and quite frankly distressed by the judicial

interpretations which have taken place so far. They have without any question created an aura of uncertainty in this whole area, which of course is of great interest to all Albertans. While the motion before the Assembly today may have been motivated by good intent, I rather suspect it has been brought forward without very much consideration about the actual and realistic approach that has to be taken by any government in dealing with a matter of such considerable complexity and importance to the lives and feelings of Albertans as expressed to members of the Assembly. Therefore, Mr.

Speaker, we cannot support this motion, and I regret to say that the debate which will take place in due course on the merits of the leg­ islation, or similar legislation, will have to await a further date.

1686 ALBERTA HANSARD November 17, 1983 MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I must confess that I am aston­ ished. When we look at the Order Paper, we see Motions Other Than Government Motions. This is an opportunity for members of the Legislature to stand up and speak out on motions which have been presented to the members of the Assembly. Surely the iron law of caucus decision doesn't have to apply all the time. What we've heard this afternoon is the Deputy Government House Leader stand up and say: no way is this government going to consider it at the moment; that's that.

And all the members of the government caucus, instead of taking this opportunity to enter the debate and register their positions on the matter, are silent Sams. Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with the arguments for pro­ ceeding with this particular Bill. I might point out that this is a Bill introduced by a government member. What we're saying today in the motion designated No. 1 is that we move ahead with Bill 240.

It isn't good enough for the government caucus to work both sides of the political street on this issue, to have one of the members of the government caucus introduce a Bill, then have it so far down on the Order Paper that it never has a chance to come to a vote or even be discussed. AN HON. MEMBER: It will. MR. NOTLEY: Someone says it will. It's certainly not going to this fall, unless hon. members vote in favor of this motion. It's so far down the Order Paper that it has no chance of being dealt with this fall. Mr.

Speaker, for members of the government caucus to say, oh, we're in favor of legislation which would prohibit open Sundays — it isn't good enough for them to say that when there is a Bill on the Order Paper and a motion today which will allow us to debate that Bill, and all of a sudden all the members of the government say, no, no, the Government House Leader has told us we can't vote for it, so that's that. With great respect, while it's an effort to work both sides of the political street, it just isn't supportable. When he spoke in this debate, hon.

Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs made a couple of points that in my view have to be answered. One is that it's not possible for the government to proceed, because it takes a lot of deliberation. No one argues that it doesn't take deliberation, Mr. Speaker, but this is not a new issue. It is an issue which has been before the people of Alberta for some time. As a matter of fact, before the last election we as members of the former Legislature were approached on this particular issue.

So it's not as if suddenly, miraculously, an issue has developed that requires all kinds of additional deliberation that wouldn't otherwise be necessary. This has been an ongoing issue which has developed, and it just isn't adequate as a response on the part of government to say we need more time. What do we need? Do we need another six months, two years, 10 years? Or are we going to wait until West Edmonton Mall has so expanded that virtually every small business man in this city is out of business, and we have a situation where in fact we have legislation by inaction, where we have open Sundays by inaction.

That's the point my col­ league made. Mr. Speaker, the second argument that the Deputy Government House Leader advanced is that somehow we can't move because there's some uncertainty vis-à-vis the Charter of Rights. Members in this Chamber and people in the gallery should not be under any misinformation on that item. Virtually no type of legislation is free from legal challenge with respect to jurisdiction.

We have legislation now — the Attorney Gen­ eral today indicated that if the labor legislation passed by this Legislature was not held to be intra vires, if it offended the Charter of Rights, there would be a notwithstanding clause inserted and the government would go ahead with their restric­ tive labor legislation. The fact of the matter is that if this Legislature chooses to say that in Alberta we're going to protect Sunday for the family and it requires a notwithstanding pro­ vision, we have every right under the new Canada Act to proceed accordingly.

What it requires is the government to screw up its courage and do just precisely that. The hon. Mem­ ber for Stony Plain, whom I note isn't here today, has intro­ duced a private member's Bill. During committee stage of this Bill, the Government House Leader could very easily introduce an amendment that would deal with the notwithstanding pro­ vision — perfectly in order, no difficulty at all. To suggest that we have to wait another four or five years, or heaven knows how long, because this government can't make up its mind on the issue is just not adequate at all.

I say to members of the House that this afternoon we have an oppor­ tunity to deal with the issue. I would challenge government members to stand up and tell us what kind of importance they place on this issue. If they say that we cannot move because of a Charter of Rights, let them then tell us why it's possible to move on labor legislation, even though they may have to insert a notwithstanding clause, because we already have a clear and definitive judgment from the Ontario Supreme Court on that issue. No, it isn't good enough to say that's a different matter.

Even though a court says the Charter of Rights may nullify our labor legislation, we'll move in that area, but we're not prepared to move to protect Sunday for the family in this province. Mr. Speaker, the final point I want to make is to re-emphasize one of the arguments my colleague presented. It is wrong for members of this House to say that we are waiting and delib­ erating, and that's it. The fact of the matter is that by inaction we see a situation developing in this province which, without any shadow of a doubt, is destroying Sunday by the back door.

It's destroying that one day of rest, that one day for the family. I think there are deficiencies in Bill 240; no question about that. Nevertheless, I think it is an effort to deal with this problem in a reasonably sensitive way. What is required now is for members of this government to buck up their courage, deal with the issue, stand and be counted so their constituents know where they are, and not hide behind the closed door of the government caucus. It's interesting that the hon.

Minister of Federal and Inter­ governmental Affairs — and I give him full credit for being blunt and to the point — a few moments ago told us precisely how things are done in this province. They're done behind the closed doors of government caucus. A decision is made, and that's it. Members who are in the House and people in the galleries should know that the fact that we are not proceeding with Bill 240 has nothing to do with the need for more study. It has nothing to do with the Charter of Rights, because we have the provision to insert a notwithstanding provision.

The fact of the matter is that what it has to do with is that this government has not been able to buck up the courage to say to some of the large developers of this province: we're going to protect Sunday for the family; we're going to protect one day. I say to members of the Assembly, this is your opportunity to demonstrate just a little independence in this House. It isn't good enough to have the Deputy Government House Leader say, this is where the government stands.

It would be a rather shocking situation indeed if we had all kinds of people on the government benches call "Question" and had not a single one of them stand up and be counted on the issue. When we get to 4:30, it will be my intention to ask for unanimous consent so hon. members, through the deliberations

November 17, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1687 in this House, will be able to give both themselves and the people of Alberta some indication as to where we stand on this issue. I say especially to those observing us today, that it is a well-established practice in this House, which has occurred on a number of occasions, that unanimous consent is given to extend debate. It can't be extended unless there is unanimous consent, but there have been many occasions in this House before, on items not nearly as important, when unanimous consent has been given.

Rather than quickly rushing to vote down the motion before the House this afternoon, we in the Official Opposition challenge the government backbenchers to tell us where they stand on this issue and urge that they support moving ahead with an important Bill which should be given the time of the House at this juncture in our history. DR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, it's fairly obvious where I stand because of one of my professional training backgrounds as a clergyman, but I must also make a few comments with respect to some of the comments that have already been made this afternoon.

First, I hesitate to comment to my fellow Anglican, the Member for Spirit River-Fairview, that in the last few minutes I've perceived a demonstration of more sanctimon­ iousness than I have seen within the Anglican church in my 25 years of being a clergyman. Having said that, I realize we are still friends and still mem­ bers of the Assembly. He has been here considerably longer than I have, and he realizes full well, as his seatmate from Edmonton Norwood should, that in actual fact the motion which we have before us is a procedural motion. We're not here to debate the merits or demerits of Bill 240.

This motion is pro­ cedural, as the Deputy Government House Leader pointed out. In a sense, I believe that the Member for Edmonton Norwood and others who have invited people to the gallery today — in effect there should be some form of explanation, if not apology, as to how the normal parliamentary procedure does in fact work. If some of them are here believing that there is going to be this wide-open debate on the merits of the Bill, whether it be till 4:30 or 5:30, then it's inappropriate in that way. MR. MARTIN: They're not stupid. DR.

CARTER: To the Member for Edmonton Norwood: no one has said they are stupid, Mr. Speaker. The comments were made by the Member for Spirit River- Fairview that one's entitled to at least one day of rest per week. I would hope that would be true, because after 25 years I still don't get Sundays off, nor does the member from one of the other Calgary ridings because of his professional background. I'm very interested that when one looks at the Order Paper, Bill No. 240 is a long way down the list; there's no doubt about that.

In terms of the normal workings of the Legislature, that means another five government private member's Bills there. There are nine Bills from members of the Official Opposition party, and one Bill has been sponsored by the Member for Clover Bar. I assume that both members of the Official Oppo­ sition who have spoken today have entered into some negoti­ ation with the Member for Clover Bar and that he's quite willing to withdraw from the sequence as well.

But I know that in the normal space of events, there might have been some discussion with other members of the Assembly as to whether or not they, or in this case we, would be prepared to have the place taken in terms of the Order Paper today. Being a sponsor of Bill No. 210, I find it rather critical and important that persons who are awaiting trial in the penal or detention facilities of the province should indeed be given the right to cast their vote.

That may be a minor thing in the assessment of the sponsor of the motion today, but in actual fact I think that if you go down the whole list, all of us do have important points we would like to make with respect to these various Bills. I would also make the comment that I am interested — or perhaps I am wrong in making this assumption — that the sponsor of the motion today is also the sponsor of Bill No. 207. He has oftentimes spoken quite vehemently within this Assembly; he regards this as being a very important issue to him: to provide for universal, financially accessible health care in Alberta.

Am I wrong in making the assumption, then, that he regards the matter of retail business on Sundays as a more important issue? I am sure that's probably a false assumption on my part. Mr. Speaker, the other thing of course is that if this pro­ cedural motion were to pass this afternoon, in actual fact the sponsor of Bill 240, the Member for Stony Plain, should have had sufficient time to be able to immediately launch into full- scale debate and use all of his allocated time. It is quite obvious that he is absent from the Assembly today, and therefore that is also inappropriate. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MRS.

CRIPPS: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to get into the debate on Motion 222 for a minute. I don't want to debate the merits of the Bill, although I know there have been a number of points made on the merits of Bill 240. As the Member for Calgary Egmont said, we are talking about a procedural motion here. Mr. Speaker, while I am also very interested in the outcome of Bill 240, I really can't feel that it is more important — it's as important, but I don't think it's more important — than Bill 201 which I have on the Order Paper, which couldn't possibly be debated if we went to this procedure today.

Personally I will not shop on Sundays. I repeat that. I will not go to West Edmonton Mall on Sunday. In fact, I don't think I will go there any day of the week because of the Sunday opening. But that is a decision I make, and it is a judgmental decision. I can't make that same judgmental decision when I am involved in an accident with a drunken driver. On the other hand, as far as Sunday shopping goes, I go to the Canadian finals every year on Sunday afternoon, and I have for some time. Mr. Speaker, I do however recall a Sunday rodeo that I attended 24 years ago in Ponoka.

They had been totally rained out on Friday and Saturday. If they were going to have any kind of result at all, they had to hold it on Sunday. They took up a silver collection that time at the gate. If I remember correctly, the Attorney General's Department pros­ ecuted the Ponoka rodeo association for its Sunday rodeo. To get back to Motion 222, which requests this House to debate Bill 240 over and above all others, I have been, and I am still, receiving mail concerning the continuation of second reading of Bill 201.

In fact, this morning I received a call from PAID, People Against Impaired Drivers, and yesterday, a note from a former alderman which says: good luck, I have sent a note to Julian Koziak, my MLA, in support of your Bill. Even the Alberta Medical Association has decided that it is time for a concerted campaign against impaired drivers. Mr. Speaker, in my opening remarks on Bill 201, I indicated that I don't believe the problem of drinking and driving can be solved until it is publicly unacceptable to drink and drive.

I believe the public now wants the government to act in a manner which will remove that hazard from the road. For the above reasons, I hope to have a chance to conclude second reading of Bill 201. If that is not possible, I hope that the government will bring in a Bill which they feel will solve the problem or

1688 ALBERTA HANSARD November 17, 1983 that I can bring in a Bill which is acceptable to the many concerned groups that I have had contact with and hopefully to the government. My main point is that I believe there are other Bills on the Order Paper which merit discussion. I note that the Member for Edmonton Norwood doesn't mind if his Bills aren't debated. Quite frankly, I don't put a Bill on the Order Paper unless I figure it is important enough to be debated. MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate briefly in this debate.

I do so because, to be generous, I think there has been some inaccurate information portrayed to the House this afternoon. A number of the issues raised by the hon. Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood have indeed been legitimate. There is no question that in the minds of Albertans this issue is an important one among many Albertans. There is no question in the minds of members of this Legislature that the issue is an important one.

There is also no doubt that there is an increasing degree of Sunday opening taking place and that that situation is perpetuated as long as there is no decision made. However, from the perspective of the constituents of Calgary Currie, may I say that not all constituents would say that's a bad thing. There are those who indeed would, but there are a good number who feel that they as well have a right to make a decision as to when and how they will shop. So I have a responsibility to speak on their behalf in that regard as well.

May I also say that it was implied that we have been sitting on an Ontario court decision for some time and have had the ability to assess it and determine what's going to happen. In fact, that paper has only arrived in the last few days. The assessment of that and the continuing difficulties caused by the

interpretations of the Charter of Rights, I think, are important if you want a Bill that will indeed stick, that will mean some­ thing, and that will be of importance. So regardless of how I will vote on such a Bill myself, there is a need for some assessment there. Mr. Speaker, the most specious part of the arguments made today was an implication that the government or government members have been holding down the position of the topic on the Order Paper. All members realize that topics on the Order Paper on private member's days are there in the order that they were brought into the Clerk's office.

Indeed on the day of the opening of the Assembly, that draw takes place and there is an equal opportunity for Bills. If the opposition so badly wanted this or some similar Bill debated early in the session, in fact last spring, they should have put a Bill on the Order Paper at that: time.

If they felt this issue was so crucial that they have to try to supersede the Bills of members who feel that their issues are crucial and important — and indeed there are now a number of those topics on the Order Paper in front of Bill 240 — then those hon. members had that opportunity, that right, and the ability to present that, and we would have debated that issue long ago.

However, for whatever reasons — some would suggest political — they chose to dramatically present this motion to the Assembly today to try to jump over the order of business that all members, opposition and government, have determined, certainly with equal opportunity for the opposition; in fact more opportunity, because they can designate a motion in the Assembly for any Thursday to bring this to the top of the Order Paper. Mr. Speaker, for me to vote for this motion would be very inappropriate.

As chairman of the House strategy committee of government members, we indeed have a number of Bills on the Order Paper that are of importance and concern to con- stituents of these hon. members throughout the province. To say that an issue that by the admission of the hon. member just to my right has been going on for some time, should all of a sudden supersede the interests and concerns of those constit­ uents — I have no choice but to call for defeat of this motion and ask that we move on with the Order Paper as has been determined by members of this Assembly. MR.

SPEAKER: May the hon. member conclude the debate? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised at the spa­ cious arguments for not dealing with a controversial subject. I have heard it all in this . . . SOME HON. MEMBERS: Specious arguments. MR. NOTLEY: No, spacious. MR. MARTIN: That's right. Spacious is absolutely correct. The point that we want to make — I remember in the Novem­ ber 2 election, over a year ago, it had been a major issue for at least two years before that. As a member I was lobbied very heavily during that election about my stand on Sunday shop­ ping.

I expect a lot of other members were too. To say that we're still studying it one year later really makes a farce of the whole legislative process. Sure they're studying it. But make it clear why we're study­ ing it, Mr. Speaker. It's because this government does not want to make a stand at this specific time. We hear about the not­ withstanding clause. I knew that they'd bring that up today and the other day. It's clear that when we take away collective bargaining rights in this province, we'll use the notwithstanding clause; that's clear.

But now there are two recent Ontario deci­ sions, and we treat each of those matters separately. We're quite prepared to say we're going to use the notwithstanding clause if it goes that far, but here we have to study it. I think it shows clearly; you can be consistent in both of those. The red herrings about the private member's Bills: the one thing they forget to tell you is that private member's Bills can be made government Bills at any time if the government thinks it's important.

We had an example of that last session, when the Member for Edmonton Belmont had a private member's Bill made into a government Bill. The House leader knows that that is in fact the case. They say we're misleading people; we don't understand how the Legislative Assembly works. There are two things to remember here. They're seeing clearly how the Legislative Assembly works: a few people call the shots, and the back­ benchers follow along because they don't have any political courage to say, even when they believe something is wrong. That's the bottom line.

The other bottom line is that they know full well that from this debate today we could vote on it. We as a Legislative Assembly have the right to do that. It could be voted on today; make no mistake about that. But somehow it's a private member's Bill and it can't be done. Under the rules of this Legislature it can, so let us just forget about that. The other one that was told to me: the Member for Stony Plain isn't here. That's rather interesting. Did he not know the Legislature was sitting today? Did he not know his Bill was coming up? Could he not have made arrangements? What abso­ lute nonsense.

He's not here because he doesn't want to be here for this debate. AN HON. MEMBER: Not fair.

November 17, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1689 SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I was a little bit concerned a while ago when I heard the word "sanctimonious"; I let it go by. A moment ago I was more concerned when I heard the hon. member who has just been debating refer to members not having political courage. That may be his private assessment; he may wish to make it publicly outside the House. But as he knows from our own Standing Orders, we are here to debate issues, not the characteristics of the members. Consequently, it's not in order in this House to accuse a member of lacking courage.

It takes away from the respect which all of us must have for each other in order to operate as a civilized parliament. In other words, we are here to debate motions such as the one before us this afternoon, Bills, and issues of various kinds, but we're not here to second guess the voters as to what we think about the people they chose to send to this parliament. I would therefore, respectfully and in the most kindly way, ask the Member for Edmonton Norwood if he might deal further with those two expressions: the one referring to political cour­ age and the more recent one which he just used. MR.

MARTIN: I didn't know they were so touchy, Mr. Speaker, but I will say it in a different way. The government as a whole is lacking political courage. That's what I . . . MR. SPEAKER. Order please. That was not what the hon. member said. Had he said that about the government I would not have intervened, because the government, of course, is not a member of this Assembly. MR. MARTIN: All right then, I will say it. I apologize to each individual member. What I mean, Mr. Speaker, is that the government as a whole lacks political courage.

Individual mem­ bers are afraid to make decisions — and I think that's quite parliamentary. MR. WEISS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I would question that. I believe I'm entitled to make decisions and would appre­ ciate the member withdrawing that remark. MR. SPEAKER: It's borderline. It's certainly not the sort of withdrawal that I thought the hon. member might give. He seems to want to withdraw and yet to save as much as he can of what he said before. MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will come to the end of it. I didn't realize that they'd be so sensitive over the issue. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

It's not a question of sensibility. The hon. government members didn't raise this; I raised it. I'm sensitive about it, because I'm always sensitive if any member insults another one. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I was not insulting individual members. We went through a long time before with the Member for Clover Bar. What I said is clearly parliamentary, and I'd like to get on with my speech. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. That is quite beside the point. The simple situation is that we do not cast aspersions on the characteristics of other members in the House.

It's totally irrel­ evant to the debate. What is being debated here is a motion, not the characteristics of the elected members. I respectfully suggest to the hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood that we leave this topic. If he has further statements to make with regard to the motion under debate, I'm sure that everyone will be prepared to listen. MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to say to the government that I agree with some of the other arguments used. The Member for Calgary Currie basically said that by not making a decision at this specific time, we are in fact making a decision.

That was exactly my point to begin with. It's clearly correct that after we know that it's been studied to death for two or three years, by not making a decision this fall we are making a decision. The longer we wait, the more Sunday shop­ ping we are going to have. To say that it's good enough just to wait, and we'll have to study it some more . . . At the very minimum, if it doesn't come up this fall, it's going to be at least over Christmas. That's going to be added pressure in terms of Sunday shopping. It's probably going to be at least until next spring.

We have no guarantee that it'll even come up next spring to solve the issue one way or the other. By having it sit there, it's clear that we are making a political decision. That's why we wanted to bring it up. To say that we couldn't bring up a private member's Bill — we understood very much. How many Bills have you seen passed by the opposition here? When the government was going to bring in a private member's Bill, we were glad because they'd have a better chance of getting it passed through this House.

When it was clear that they weren't going to do anything this fall, we had groups approach us because they were getting frustrated. The only thing we could do was move it up so it could be debated, and that is clearly our prerogative as the Legislative Assembly, Mr. Speaker. To say that that is some­ how devious is absolutely not correct. I know it's not going to happen; I can see it now. The Deputy Government House Leader has laid down the law; they're not going to vote on it. But I would say to you, Mr.

Speaker, and to members of the Legislative Assembly, that by not allowing this vote today, regardless of all the things they talked about, we are in fact making a decision. That is very clear. I say to the hon. members, if you didn't want to deal with it, it should not have been brought up. But to say somehow that we're misleading people, that they don't understand the House — it's clear that they understand that a private member's Bill doesn't necessarily mean government business. We were very clear what could happen.

We were hoping against hope that people would stand up and bring this to a vote, but it's obviously not going to happen. In closing, I would say again that the government should get their political courage and take on some of these issues. They could have done it today, but we're again seeing an example of a government that will not do it. I am frankly disappointed that we as elected members are not making major decisions here in the Legislature. As I said, until we can get it through the government caucus, get everybody on board, then we're not going to do anything.

If we look at what's happening in the province on this issue, more people favor Sunday closing than don't, but we know it's controversial. I expect that it's controversial within the government caucus, but that's not a reason for not bringing it forward at this time. Surely there is a time that a government has to take the lead and take some responsibility. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to members of the Assembly: you still have an opportunity to vote and get on with it.

If we have problems, as we were told, with the other Bills in terms of the Charter of Rights — we were told the same thing; we could have used exactly the same argument for not bringing in the police Bill the other day.

1690 ALBERTA HANSARD November 17, 1983 because it's in the Ontario Supreme Court. If that's true for that Bill, it could be true for this one too. As the Minister of Labour told us the other day, the notwithstanding clause could be used. To be fair to him, he didn't say it would, but it could be used, so it was obviously considered. Exactly the same thing could be said for this Bill today. With those few calm remarks, Mr. Speaker, I close debate and hope the members look at this in a more serious way than they have. MR. SPEAKER: May I now equally calmly put the motion to a vote? [Motion lost] 206. Moved by Mr. Musgreave:

Be it resolved that the Assembly urge the government to con­ sider establishing a task force composed of representative cit­ izens concerned with the role of women in Alberta's society. Part of the task force's mandate would be a review of the achievements of the Alberta Women's Bureau. They would also examine and evaluate the progress of women toward full and equal participation in social, educational, and economic activ­ ities; and identify those areas which are most in need of more attention, with specific suggestions for improvements if required. [Adjourned debate April 14: Mrs. Embury] MRS.

EMBURY: Upon reviewing the length of my remarks on April 14, 1983, when this motion was first debated, I realized my allotted time was used. Therefore I look forward to the comments of other members of the Legislature at this time. MR. PAPROSKI: As I rise, Mr. Speaker, I want to stress my whole-hearted support for Motion No. 206, the establishment of a task force concerned with the role of women in Alberta society. First of all, I want to congratulate the hon. Member for Calgary McKnight for bringing this motion to this Assem­ bly.

I look with optimism to the establishment of this task force to deal with many, many issues related to women in Alberta society. I know that with the establishment of this task force, and through their deliberations, Canadians across this land will benefit. There are a number of issues pertaining to women in Alberta that have been discussed and will continue to be discussed and debated. Issues of equality, opportunity, day care, pensions, sexism, political involvement, and many, many more. These are very important, Mr. Speaker, and I feel confident that the task force will indeed deal with all of these issues.

I want to share with members of the Assembly today my major concerns, specifically in the area of the world of work and women associated with the world of work. I would like to begin with a quotation from a publication entitled Working Woman, where an in-depth study was done on the women in the world of work in the United States: I see more and more women moving into science, tech­ nology, engineering, but not enough. My concern is that women are moving into fields that men have decided to move out of, fields such as law.

They are moving into civil and mechanical engineering, which is good, but not as good as the male-dominated electrical engineering, where the jobs will be opening up. I feel pessimistic. Mr. Speaker, I think that particular quote typifies the dilemma that women are in and will continue to be in, in 1983. Whether the future for women gaining employment in various occupations is pessimistic or optimistic is, I think, a moot point. However, statistics do show that women are entering the labor force like never before, and the trend that was established in the 1970s is continuing today.

What are some of the factors that contribute to the numbers of women working? Rising divorce rates is one, declining birth rates, later marriages, more education for women, a faltering economy, and, of course, the women's movement that has raised social consciousness. The evidence is clear that females have been entering, and are continuing to enter, the labor force in large numbers. This phenomenon of social change, especially in the last 20 years, has had a profound effect on our country. Women comprise a quarter to almost one-half of the labor force throughout the various world regions.

For example, in Africa, women comprise 32 per cent of the labor force; in Asia, it's 34 per cent; in North America, 38 per cent; in Canada alone, 34 per cent; in Latin America, 23 per cent; in the USSR, 49 per cent; and in Europe, 37 per cent. Throughout the world, some 35 per cent of the labor force is women. Predictive and extrapolation studies seem to agree that by 1990 at least, 50 per cent of the labor force in Canada will be female. Evidence shows that between 1953 and 1973, the female labor force grew at a rate of two and a half times that of the male rate.

However, the most striking change in the labor force since World War II has been the impact of married women on the labor force. This group of the female population was scarcely evident prior to World War II. For example, in 1931 only 3.5 per cent of the labor force was female. Twenty years later, only 8 per cent was female. But by 1981, 48.9 per cent of all married women in Canada were in the labor force. Almost 40 per cent of the female labor force is widowed, separated, or divorced.

These women are financially respon­ sible for themselves, and anyone who says women work only for the love of work is definitely incorrect. Many are definitely supporting themselves. Further studies illustrate that the more education a women has, the more likely she is to be in the labor force, regardless of marital status or family size. For example, more than 70 per cent with university degrees were in the labor force in 1980, compared to only 50 per cent of women with high school certificates and only 20 per cent with a grade 9 education or less. Mr.

Speaker, there are serious problems facing women in the world of work in 1983. Women in Canada experience higher unemployment than men in every industry except construction — an overall unemployment rate of 46 per cent. The unem­ ployment rate of married women in 1979 was 95 percent higher than the rate for married men. Additionally, there is hidden female unemployment. In 1979 nearly 25,000 women wanted jobs but did not believe that work was available. As well, women in Canada unfortunately continue to concentrate in a few occupations.

I'm sure that these issues will be dealt with when the task force is established. For example, in 1981, Sta­ tistics Canada pointed out that 62.9 per cent of all female employees in this country worked in three occupational areas: clerical, sales, and service. Yet there is another interesting statistic: in the year 1900, 60 per cent of all women were also in three major areas of employment. Those areas of employment they are in today and where they dominate are of course social services, teaching, and medicine and health. But unfortunately, Mr.

Speaker, the statistics do not show that women are more teachers than administrators and more nurses than doctors. Research continues to show that women dominate in the lower paying, lower status jobs as well, a phenomenon that exists in many, many countries. Although some females have entered non-traditional occupations, few in total have entered

November 17, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1691 management, technical, and generally male dominated occu­ pations. Unfortunately women continue to be exceptions to the general rule. In 1964, for example, 3.8 per cent of employed women were in management occupations. In 1974 the figure had changed to only 4.2 per cent, while in 1975 the figure was only 5 per cent. One author commented succinctly: seemingly at this rate, equality will occur in the year 2054. Mr. Speaker, apprenticeship training is another area where women are lagging far, far behind.

They comprise a scant 3 per cent of all trainees, a figure that hasn't changed over the last 10 years. Few women are actually receiving training in these non-traditional career areas, and as of February 1983 statistics in Alberta, only 716 apprentices out of 28,000-plus were females. In the United States, however, a very interesting document entitled A Woman's Guide to Apprenticeship gives all hon. members a number of examples that where women are given the opportunity, given the chance, to participate in these particular areas, there indeed is tremendous success. I'd like to touch upon a couple of examples.

The city of Seattle, Wash­ ington, instituted a 12 per cent hiring goal for women in city- financed construction projects in 1977. This goal was met the first year and raised to 15 per cent in 1978. To this date, this 15 per cent figure is still being met. At the Ingalls shipyard in Mississippi, the hiring goal of 20 per cent women in the ship­ building trade was met the first year. MR.

SPEAKER: I regret interrupting the hon. member, but I must draw his attention to the clock, and that under the Standing Orders we are now obliged to move to deal with private mem­ bers' public Bills. head: PUBLIC BILLS AND ORDERS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Second Reading) Bill 204

An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly Act [Adjourned debate March 24: Mrs. Koper] MRS. KOPER: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the fact that the person who introduced this Bill felt it could be dismissed this after­ noon, I rise to speak on it. It's likely appropriate to briefly review the previous discussion on the Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood, since there have been a few changes in the situation since the Bill was first introduced.

The Bill was intended to put into legislation the criteria on which the Official Opposition and the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in our House may be designated in future Assemblies. It proposes to dictate to the Speaker what should be done in case of a tie, in the number of seats of the opposition parties or groups, and in addition reduces to two the number of seats a party sitting in opposition to the government requires in order to be recognized.

This Bill has been introduced in order to make into law the criteria that you, the Speaker, used in your decision in deter­ mining the opposition at the opening of the 20th Legislature, and perhaps that may be part of the problem. Much as I respect you, Mr.

Speaker — and your decision is very highly regarded by all members — I think there have been three instances in Alberta's political history when the designation of the Official Opposition has been controversial: the first time in 1944, when there were three Independent members; the second time in 1959, when there were four opposition members, two different parties and two Independents, giving equal numbers of all; and the present situation.

It's extremely interesting to me that when a similar situation happened in Saskatchewan, where there were 11 members elected from two different parties in 1977, they found no solu­ tion to their problem at all. The Speaker made a choice, how­ ever, and it was based on the principle that the leader of the largest party sitting in opposition should be the Leader of the Opposition. Since there was no tie situation, that meant there was no Leader of the Opposition, and I guess my concern for this Bill lies in this problem, Mr. Speaker.

The decision in our Legislature as to what group should be the Official Opposition was based on several factors, and I think one statement you made was that the designation of the Official Opposition was of questionable status in parliaments, hence the determination should be based on the special circumstances within our Assem­ bly. Basically two factors were part of the decision: the number of seats held by the recognized party and the popular vote. Mr. Speaker, you took great care to explain just how narrow and limited you felt those arguments were.

I believe this Bill there­ fore would codify criteria that is limited in application to the particular circumstances we found ourselves in as a result of the vote of the electorate last November, and perhaps putting it in legislation would not help future Assemblies. It also appears to me to be extremely unsatisfactory to [base] the selection of an opposition on the popular vote. In Alberta we have a single member plurality electoral system, which elects members to represent constituents within a firmly defined electoral boundary. It seems that the use of the popular vote would not be at all consistent with this.

By using the popular vote, it would appear that the electorate that voted for a can­ didate that did not win would not be represented, and it makes about as much sense as my trying to look after the Conservative candidates in Edmonton Norwood, or if the Member for Edmonton Norwood is not looking after the Conservative elec­ tors in his riding, I'm sure he would be negligent in his respon­ sibility. Mr. Speaker, as I said before at the opening of this Legis­ lature — one day after in fact — you presented a very well documented decision on the issues addressed in this Bill.

You mentioned, even with all the research done by yourself and others, that there were no directly applicable precedents. If I may quote from Hansard of March 11, there were no directly applicable precedents or compelling answers [that were] found in the experience of any of the parlia­ ments of the Commonwealth or in any of our rules or statutes. With that in mind, if we were to follow the precedents that are there, there are more precedents for not recognizing an oppo­ sition at all. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the time-honored role of the opposition in British parliamentary tradition.

I believe that in Parliament there is a role for the opposition to persuade government, and as a balance to government, and because of the wide variance of situations that I have discussed resulting from the decisions of the electorate, I would urge the House to maintain the parliamentary tradition that gives the Speaker the task of naming the Official Opposition. Democracy includes respect for rights of minorities, and the legislative process day in and day out must always be subject to the sensitivity of the time and the public we serve. Therefore, Mr.

Speaker, I urge hon. members to defeat this Bill and carry on in the British parliamentary traditions we have grown used to over many years.

1692 ALBERTA HANSARD November 17, 1983 Thank you. MR. SZWENDER: Mr. Speaker, I also rise to participate in the debate on Bill 204. I'm glad that the hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood is back from one of his press conferences so he can listen to the debate. MR. MARTIN: Don't be jealous. MR. SZWENDER: I do not have much good news for him, because I also rise to speak against the passage of Bill 204. I know the debate on this Bill has been rather extensive, if not exhaustive, and I don't wish to prolong it. However, I do want to make a couple of brief points to the Assembly. Mr.

Speaker, I would also like to congratulate you on the extremely intelligent and thoughtful decision you produced for this Assembly on March 11, of 1983. As a new MLA, I was extremely impressed and amazed by the difficulty of your deci­ sion, and the conclusion you reached served us all so very well, although some of us may not be particularly pleased with it. However, in the British parliamentary tradition, it is accepted that the Speaker is at the basis of decisions in the Assembly. The Speaker is the referee.

As Bill 204 is worded, it works against this whole concept of the British parliamentary system, which is dependent upon a case-by-case basis and building a tradition of case law and precedents. This basis provides guid­ ance in difficult and unusual circumstances, such as was the case after the last election of November 2. Mr. Speaker, just two quick points regarding the Bill.

If the Member for Edmonton Norwood had presented this Bill — certainly he couldn't have presented it because he was not elected prior to November 2 — or if other members had pre­ sented it in earlier sessions prior to the situation in which we found ourselves, then maybe I could have considered sup­ porting this Bill. In fact he presented it after the case and almost modelled the Bill to suit the situation in which his party found itself and, as such, was trying to legitimize its position. So indeed, occurring after the fact, I wonder if this is not just a self-serving Bill. The second point I'd like to make, Mr.

Speaker, is that the Leader of the Opposition said that if the rules were clearly outlined as to who the opposition would be, then their work could commence immediately. In this case, there was a time lapse from the election until the beginning of the spring session. But I find that argument rather weak, because if the Leader of the Opposition, whether he is Leader of the Opposition or not, is doing his job, then he should be preparing, and preparing adequately, the day immediately after the election for the role that he will be pursuing.

He should be preparing his arguments, preparing his agendas, and preparing his business without knowing whether that would be in the role of the opposition leader or not. So, Mr. Speaker, I can only offer one word of consolation to the Member for Edmonton Norwood: in the future, to solve the problem of these kinds of decisions, his party should go out and make sure they win enough seats so the decision is clear and it would not be left up to the Speaker to make it. In conclusion, I urge all members of the Assembly to defeat Bill 204. MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, as previous speakers have indi­ cated, there has been a fairly thorough debate on Bill 204, but I would like to take this opportunity to express two or three concerns about the Bill. First, I'd like to reflect on the fact that there has been a tremendous amount of material gathered over this particular issue. The material, rather than falling into any particular pat­ tern that would make a decision easy, instead has indicated that there are a tremendous number of variables involved here, a tremendous variety of circumstances that can arise in this kind of situation, and that there are no easy solutions.

It is a situation which has to be dealt with on the circumstances of that particular time. Secondly, I would like to comment on the role of the Speaker and how important the Speaker's participation in this particular type of decision is. I think of the role of the Speaker in this Assembly as being very near, if not more so than, that of a judge. We might reflect on the difficulty presented by falling into a pattern of trying to legislate all things in precise terms.

Our judicial and parliamentary systems function as well as they do because it has long been recognized that a certain amount of flexibility and discretion must be allowed. In a different context, Mr.

Speaker, we would all agree that if we were being judged on a particular matter or set of circumstances on a very serious matter, we would want the person looking at the two sides of the question to have the opportunity and the power and not be tied by legislation, so that the various historical items, the circumstances of the case, the nature of the functioning of government at a particular time could all be taken into con­ sideration. I think we would certainly want that to be a pos­ sibility as individuals and as far as operating in this Assembly is concerned.

While some might think that this Bill would apply for all time as far as history is concerned, it does not guarantee that at all. I think it is more suited to the particular circumstances of this time and of certain groups. Mr. Speaker, I would much rather see the role of the Speaker continue as one of judging on these particular questions. The third item I would like to comment on is the overall concept of using the percentage of the popular vote to decide the Official Opposition. A number of weaknesses in what seems like a very, very simple solution were pointed out in the pre­ vious debate.

I would like to add a couple of other reservations on this particular "solution". First of all, one thing that did not appear in the previous debate and in the research is that you could perhaps get a fairly significant popular vote from one or two constituencies in the province. And you might have the vote of another party which is tied — in terms of seats in the House, but perhaps two or three percentage points below that of the first party — more representative of the total province, perhaps having a signifi­ cance in 50 or 60 of the constituencies in the province.

In that set of circumstances, one might very well question whether the more broadly representative vote would be more indicative of what really would show the best Official Opposition for the province at that time. As westerners, Mr. Speaker, we have often been faced with the frustrations of coming from a region which does not have the highest population or popular vote or number of seats in the Dominion government, and we would like to see more recognition of the regional factors as far as that government is concerned. In a different kind of way perhaps, I think there are some parallels.

The Speaker might very well want to con­ sider that factor in deciding on an Official Opposition if the number of seats of two or three parties are equal in this Assem­ bly. The final point I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, once again under the heading of questioning this use of a percentage vote, is that it is only because of the nature of the present legislation that during this last set of circumstances we had to choose an Official Opposition and allow that to be only one

November 17, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1693 party. I note that in a previous Saskatchewan situation, it was possible for a decision to be made that the two opposition parties would split the resources — I suppose split the status — and split the responsibility of being opposition to the government. As far as I know, there is no evidence that the opposition interests of the province of Saskatchewan weren't well served during that period of time. Perhaps it would have been a better situation if that had been the case here. I'd like to say in conclusion, Mr.

Speaker, that you have deliberated long on this particular topic in the role that I think it is very important for you to assume in this type of matter. Therefore I would urge the Assembly to vote against Bill 204. MR. FYFE: Mr. Speaker, Bill 204 is certainly an interesting Bill, and I'm sure it was motivated by the unusual circum­ stances of November 2, 1982. There have been only two pre­ vious occasions in the political history of the province of Alberta when the designation of the Official Opposition was, let's say, slightly controversial.

The first occurred in 1944, when three Independent members elected to the Legislature were recognized as the Official Opposition and the leader of that group was recognized as Leader of the Official Opposition. The second did not occur until 1959, when four opposition members were elected: one Progressive Conservative, one Lib­ eral, one Independent, and one Coalition member. In this sit­ uation, no leader was recognized. Under the precedent of the tradition of this House, the recog­ nition of an Official Opposition falls to the Speaker.

It's the duty of the president of the Assembly to choose the Official Opposition. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is imperative to ensure that the responsibilities, the role of the Speaker — that that office has full authority to assess such situations should they happen sometime in the future. In my opinion, the Speaker should be able to assess precedents from previous years or, if that's lacking, review judgments made in other parliaments in other circumstances. You, the Speaker of this Assembly, delivered a decision on March 11, 1983, designating the Official Opposition for Alberta's 20th Legislature.

The decision, in my opinion and obviously shared by other members of this Assembly, was a masterpiece that recognized the fine line between the arguments that had been presented to you. The decision considered prec­ edent. It was thought out over a long period of time and will provide valuable input should this circumstance occur again. Since a solution to the opposition question could not be found within the Assembly, circumstances outside the House were taken into consideration. This is the type of flexibility that I believe it is important to ensure rests with the office of the Speaker.

I believe the Bill casts into stone a decision which should be based on circumstance, on precedent, on judgment of the office. The public, the supporters, the voters have the final responsibility in ensuring that the decisions made within this Assembly reflect the positions and feelings of the vast number of people within this province. To cast into stone something that is flexible, that has worked well in the past, and that I think should work well in the future would lead me to the conclusion that I do not support Bill 204. I would ask other members to follow that same position. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. [Motion lost] Bill 207

An Act to Provide for Universal, Financially Accessible Health Care in Alberta MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I was not quite prepared for this Bill, but I think I know enough about it that I can probably wax eloquent. It's Bill 207,

An Act to Provide for Universal, Financially Accessible Health Care in Alberta. If you recall, the time we brought this Bill in was when we just had higher medicare premiums and user fees. I suppose at this time it is still appropriate, although we have debated this in the House before. I'm almost positive that the members are going to rush up at this moment to support this Bill, bring it into law, and overturn what the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care has said. I wait with bated breath to see that happen. [interjection] The Member for Edmonton Belmont is trying to get in.

We'll give you a chance in a minute. I think it comes down to a difference in philosophy in terms of the universality of medicare. We are very concerned. I know the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care says that when we raise medicare premiums, as we did in the last budget, to where the average family is paying somewhat over $300 now, where we bring in user fees that will come due on January 1, or at least hospitals will be able to charge them — that worries us. We see the minister talking about private management.

We see example after example where we quite honestly and sincerely believe the whole concept of medicare is being threatened in this province. That's not only us, as members are well aware. It's not only in this province that this battle is going on; it's going on, as members are well aware, across the country. The point we are trying to make here, Mr. Speaker, is that our party — going back to Saskatchewan, where we lost an election over the issue but brought in medicare — feels we have a very vested interest. We think there are problems with the medicare system.

Time after time, we've tried to point out where we could save money. We do not see the government moving in that direction. The only direction we see them mov­ ing — and I would admit that it's not a total slapping down of medicare right away, but we see the government niggling away at it. When we brought in this Bill in the spring, we wanted to make it clear, if you like — we just had that debate on a private member's Bill — that we have to make political statements with private members' Bills.

After seeing user fees and higher medicare premiums, we knew our chances of this Bill becoming law were next to remote if not absolutely zero. But the point is that through a private member's Bill, Mr. Speaker, we have the right to say to the Legislature through you, and to other people of the community, what we believe in. Surely that's what the debate is all about, the major issues of the day. To put it into perspective, we brought Bill 207 in after a 47 per cent increase in medicare premiums was introduced in the budget back in March.

We introduced this very quickly — I think a day or two after that — to provide for universal, finan­ cially accessible health care in Alberta. We brought it in for first reading. Now I won't bore you, because we're probably going to have this debate when we deal with Bill 98, which legitimizes user fees. But we have to look at what the original intention of medicare was. Unquestionably the original inten­ tion of medicare was to provide basic health services to Canadians as a right. That's the whole purpose to medicare: to provide basic health services to Canadians as a right.

I say to Members of the Legislative Assembly that all but three Canadian provinces have recognized that principle and totally done away with premiums. The three provinces: unfor­

1694 ALBERTA HANSARD November 17, 1983 tunately this is one, as we're well aware, and B.C., which again is one of the richer provinces, and Ontario. In fairness to the government here, Ontario's premiums are much higher and much worse. But there are three provinces. All the other provinces have abolished premiums. [interjection] The Member for Edmonton Belmont needs a little lesson in economics. He knows where the money comes from. It comes from the general revenues of the province, which we're already taxed for to begin with. All we're doing by having premiums is being taxed twice.

There is a point I've made: that we say clearly that medicare premiums are a regressive tax. It's clear that when you have to pay premiums — if you make $100,000 you pay the same premium as the person making $10,000 who is working. I recognize that the very poor are protected if you're unfortunate enough to be on welfare, but the working poor pay the same as the Peter Pocklingtons of the world. So we end up paying our taxes. That's not the point. As somebody has said, there is no free lunch. We recognize that as well as anybody. But let us not kid ourselves. Medicare premiums are a tax.

Very clearly we say to members of the government, it's time for Alberta to recognize that and follow what other provinces have done and abolish it. If they can do it in Newfoundland, surely they can do it in Alberta. This particular Bill would accomplish this by the simple expedient of repealing the Health Insurance Premiums Act. Without going through all the details and boring you, this is done in the Bill simply by amending various sections of the Alberta Health Care Insurance Act. Mr.

Speaker, the sum total of the effect of the amendments is to prohibit extra billing by any doctor wishing to collect agreed-upon fees for service from the Alberta health care insurance plan. A doctor could still extra bill but would have to opt out of the program completely before being able to do so. Members may well ask: has that been done in other prov­ inces? The answer is yes, it has. This is precisely the system that has been in effect in Quebec for the last few years, and we have not noticed — and figures will back us up — any great exodus of doctors from that province. [interjection] Mr.

Speaker, the doctor over there is getting excited. He will get his chance. The other point we would make is that there is another way to go that I've thought about since. It's not in the Bill. It would be to demand a surtax on that income — and I hope the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care is looking at this as he said he was — to put that back into the revenue of the province. To be fair, then, that means we would have to negotiate fairly with our physicians.

In this Bill we would change the system under which fees for service are set by providing for automatic indexing of fees on the basis of a formula to be negotiated with the College of Physicians and Surgeons, and by providing in any event at least annual meetings between the minister and the college to review the agreement. Our point here is that if we're taking away double billing, we have to bargain fairly with the physicians. But no other group in this society can you bargain collectively and be in, and then have the right to charge extra. We don't think that's reasonable.

Again, we think that goes against the accessibility of medicare. If people don't believe in medicare, obviously it won't bother them. They would argue that's the way it should be. But for those of us who believe strongly in medicare, all these things in total take away t