Alberta Hansard — 6 November 1972, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 17, Session 1)

19721106

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Monday, November 6, 1972 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 pm.] PRAYERS [MR. Speaker in the Chair.] head: PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING & SELECT COMMITTEES Select Committee on Censorship MR. JAMISON: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table the report of the Select Committee on Censorship. The prime recommendations in this report, Mr. Speaker, is to abolish the Censor Board and replace it with a true classification board, one that will neither cut nor reject any film. In essence, Mr.

Speaker, this report, if accepted by this legislature, will put the onus on the producer, the distributor, and the exhibitor to comply with the obscenity laws of the Criminal Code of Canada. Thank you. Bill No. 116 head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS The Alberta Hospitals Amendment Act. 1972 (No. 2) MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill being The Alberta Hospitals Amendment Act, 1972 (No. 2).

The bill, among other things, grants recognition to the growing need in hospitals for the development of utilization committees within the hospitals, and medical staff review committees to make recommendations to the board in regard to utilization of facilities and, as well, to review practices in regard to the care of patients. There are some provisions that relate to the divulging of certain records for research and professional review purposes, basically with the consent only of the patient.

The act would also introduce a standard eligibility in regard to coverage of this type on the like basis with coverage in other provinces. [Leave being granted, Bill No. 116 was introduced and read a first time.] head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS DR. HORNER: Mr.

Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce to you and to the House, four top representatives of Canada's Armed Forces in the person of Admiral Stephens, who is the Commander of the Prairie Region; Colonel Reilander, who is Deputy Chief of Staff; Major Beauregard, the Alberta representative to Training Command; and Captain Huckle, the aide to Admiral Stephens. These gentlemen are in Edmonton today for visits with the government in relation to their responsibilities and that of the provincial government. I would ask them to stand in your gallery and be recognized by the legislature. DR. HOHOL: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to introduce to you, and to this assembly, two more classes from my constituency of Edmonton Belmont. They are students from grades IV and V, from the York Elementary School. They are 75 in number, supervised and attended by their teacher, Mrs. A. Schlep. I commend them for their interest in government and would ask them to rise in the members' gallery and be recognized. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 4439

69-2 ALBERTA HANSARD November 6th, 1972 head: FILING RETURNS AND TABLING REPORTS MR. COPITHORNE: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table a report on the archaeology evaluation of the route east of Seebe to the Kananaskis Lakes. I would like also to table the engineering report. DR. WARRACK: Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to table, for the information of the House, two reports. One is a study done by Lombard North Planning Ltd., having regard to the highway route from Seebe to the Kananaskis Lakes area. The second item, Mr.

Speaker, is a preliminary analysis, Phase 1, of the pilot area Kananaskis spray drainage system as a part of the Foothills resource allocations. MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a report called the Environmental Impact Statement, Provincial Primary Highway No. 40, otherwise known as the Kananaskis Highway. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Oil and Gas Policy MR. STROM: I would like to direct my question to the hon. the Premier and ask him if he intends to make an announcement on future gas policy tomorrow or in the next few days? MR. LOUGHEED: No, Mr. Speaker.

I thought that I was fairly clear, I believe on Friday, but it may have been on some other day last week, that we were talking about within a couple of weeks. I made the observation that we, of course, couldn't judge whether the House would still be in session or not. If it is in session, of course, the position paper will be tabled in the House; if it isn't then I would certainly make sure that all hon. members get a full copy of the position paper as quickly as we possibly can. MR. STROM: Mr. Speaker, just for clarification, do I understand that it would not likely be within the next two weeks? MR.

LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, no. What I am unable to judge, Mr. Speaker, is the length of the fall session, not the timing with regard to the report. I anticipate that we will be able to make our position paper clear within the next two weeks. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Opposition House Leader, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary Bow. Road Allowances MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the hon. Minister of Highways? Does the present government agree with the concept that road allowances are public property, and should be available for anyone who wants to use them? MR. COPITHORNE: Mr.

Speaker, I'm not sure whether there is a public concept or not that road allowances are public property. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 4440

November 6, 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 69-3 MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, does the hon. minister not know what the policy of the government is? HON. MEMBERS: Order! Order! MR. TAYLOR: Well, supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Why has the minister killed the program of progressively opening road allowances in his constituency and on the other rivers in the Calgary area? MR. COPITHORNE: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to answer that question. The policy was killed before September 10th, 1971. MR. TAYLOR: That's a complete falsehood. That's not so. That is misinformation to the House, Mr.

Speaker, and it shouldn't stand unchallenged. Let the minister elaborate if he is telling the truth. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member will have to find some other means, I'm afraid, than the question period to challenge the information. The hon. Member for Calgary Bow, followed by the hon. Member for Sedgewick-Coronation. MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary on this question of road allowances. Does the hon. minister own land or have control of land on which there are closed road allowances - that is, legally closed road allowances? MR. TAYLOR: Have you so much land you can't tell? MR. COPITHORNE: Mr.

Speaker, I don't believe so. MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. Then could the minister tell us if he owns any land or has any control of land on which there may be illegally closed road allowances? DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, and I think it is a very important point of order. If the hon. gentleman is on a witch hunt then he should be putting his questions on the order paper as such because these are technical questions in which some consideration should be given, and further, Mr.

Speaker, they are not under the administrative jurisdiction of the minister; they are under his personal ownership, and as such I submit very clearly and very importantly for the future of this legislature, that if this kind of witch hunt is going to take place in the question period it's totally wrong. If the hon. gentleman has some facts, then fine; he has ways and means of putting them on the order paper and dealing with fact, not fiction. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order. The administration of road allowances is under the Minister of Highways. MR. LUDWIG: Mr.

Speaker, on the point of order, I believe that because the question may embarrass the minister is not a reason for not placing the question. I placed a question to the hon. Minister and he was not sure, but I'm not on any witch Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 4441

69-4 ALBERTA HANSARD November 6th 1972 hunt, I'm after facts which the public ought to know. I think that the hon. Deputy Premier should stand up -- [Interjections] MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister has, of course, completely the option of requiring if he wishes that the question be placed on the order paper. MR.

LUDWIG: I did not say I was speaking to the point of order, and because the minister may be embarrassed is not a cause for interrupting someone when asking a question; I can understand that the Deputy Premier might find that he might get an embarrassing answer so he jumps to his feet to the defence of a minister who can't take care of his own question -- [Interruptions] DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should now withdraw what he's just said. He's totally unparliamentary; I know he doesn't appreciate parliament and how he operates because he hasn't had enough education.

Perhaps when they get that law school in Calgary he'll learn something about it, but the fact still remains -- MR. TAYLOR: Is this a point of order? This is personalities. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I think we've ventilated the point of order to a sufficient extent and perhaps we could now leave the matter up to the minister. MR. COPITHORNE: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to report to the House on advisement on this matter. MR. LUDWIG: Supplementary to the minister. MR.

SPEAKER: If the hon. member's question is supplementary could he also add the supplementary to the question which he is going to place on the order paper. MR. LUDWIG: [inaudible] MR. DIXON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. minister, when he's drawing up this report to include in the report where he said that there was a postponement of opening up road allowances prior to the minister taking over as Minister. of Highways. I wonder if he would bring that information into the House, because apparently there is some confusion between the former minister and the present minister. MR. COPITHORNE: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, I will do that; I'm not sure there is written information in this regard but it is the general consensus in my department that the toilets that were placed at the end of some of the road allowances were asked to be removed prior to the election, August 30, 1971. MR. TAYLOR: Moving toilets is not closing road allowances. AN HON. MEMBER: It depends on where you're going. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 4442

November 6, 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 69-5 MR. SPEAKER: Order please! May I respectfully suggest to the hon. Member for Calgary Millican that he get together with his colleague and add that question to the one which is being put on the order paper so that we won't be dealing with the matter twice. MR. TAYLOR: Supplementary. Is the hon. minister aware that the information tabled in return 211 is not correct, and is simply taken out of the report that is a year old? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary Bow followed by the hon. Member for Sedgewick- Coronation. Drivers' Licence MR.

WILSON: I would like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Highways. Have you completed your consideration of placing photographs of drivers on operators' licences and what, if anything, will be done in this area? MR. COPITHORNE: Mr. Speaker, I am still giving this consideration. MR. WILSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. When might we expect you to complete your consideration in this area? MR. COPITHORNE: Mr. Speaker, if I make an announcement, I will have completed my consideration. Licence Plates MR. WILSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Highways.

Have you completed your study on vanity licence plates? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's question is not supplementary by any stretch. The hon. Member for Sedgewick-Coronation followed by the hon. Member for Camrose. Street Improvements in Towns and Villages MR. SORENSON: My question is to the Minister of Highways. Is the government aware of the difficulties many towns and villages find themselves in because of the elimination of a program for improvement of streets in towns and villages? MR. COPITHORNE: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. MR. SORENSON: A supplementary. Will funds be reallocated for this purpose? MR.

COPITHORNE: Mr. Speaker, we are developing many programs that will help the rural and the urban communities of Alberta. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 4443

69-6 ALBERTA HANSARD November 3rd 1972 MR. SORENSON: Is there any program of the government which will financially assist these towns and villages and specifically, I am thinking of a town in my constituency, Sedgewick. MR. COPITHORNE: Mr. Speaker, this may be answered when the budget is prepared for the 1972- 73 year. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Camrose followed by the hon. Member for Macleod. Big Knife Provincial Park MR. STROMBERG: Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. Minister of Lands and Forests.

How many campers this year were turned away from Big Knife provincial park which is in my constituency, and the reason why? DR. WARRACK: I would appreciate notice on this question so I can give a precise answer. Twelve people were asked if they would be kind enough to delay their entry into Big Knife Provincial Park.

Thwhat is May 24th weekend which happened to be good weather, one of the few times this summer when there was good weather, so there was a very heavy traffic count at a number of provincial parks including the same kind of problem at Rochon Sands as brought to my attention by the member from Stettler, Graham Harle. In the case of Big Knife, there were some 12 people that were asked to delay their entry, so that with the traffic flow in and out of that with the traffic flow in and out of the park it would be possible to have entry for them and to accommodate them properly when they did enter. MR.

STROMBERG: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Are you considering further expanion to the park? I understand that in 1970 there was an $11,000 bridge built there, and it has been idle ever since. It is not open to the public. AN HON. MEMBER: A new direction? DR. WARRACK: Well, that sounds like an old direction to me. If that bridge was put in and it is not being utilized, to my knowledge I know of no additional use encompassing that bridge at Big Knife Provincial Park. It apparently must have been installed at some time prior to my being there because it has not been installed since. I would be happy to check into it.

MR. STROMBERG: One last supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Are you aware that the land on the other side of the bridge is presently owned by Canadian Utilities and always has been? DR. WARRACK: No, I'm not, Mr. Speaker, but I appreciate the information, and now I certainly would be confused as to why we would build a bridge there, but I will check into it. I shouldn't say we, that was before my time. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for MacLeod followed by the hon. Member for Little Bow. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 4444

November 6, 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 69-7 Highway Construction Projections MR. BUCKWELL: Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. minister of Highways. You indicated last spring that you were preparing a five-year highway construction program for completion, with Cabinet approval, this summer. Has this been done, or has the completion been approved? MR. COPITHORNE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there has been a program of projections for the development of highway assistance for Albertans for the next five years. MR. BUCKWELL: Supplementary, Mr. Minister.

When will you be informing the House as to the government's program in this area? MR. COPITHORNE: I'm not going to be informing the House, Mr. Speaker, of this program. It is just a program that is useful to me in projecting to my colleagues why I need certain monies for the year following one on to the other. Rapid Transit MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Highways. Has your department or the government developed a policy with regard to rapid transit in the urban areas? MR. COPITHORNE: Well, Mr.

Speaker, there are many studies being taken at this time and we would expect a good deal of direction to come from the cities themselves in this regard. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, supplementary. Mr. Minister, on April 28th in the question period you indicated that the City of Edmonton had given a plan to you outlining all of their transportation needs. Have you looked at that submission and will that be part of your plans? MR. COPITHORNE: Mr.

Speaker, the City of Edmonton and the City of Calgary -- in fact, every city in Alberta with the exception of Camrose -- have submitted a plan of what their projections on rapid transportation corridors and needs will be. MR. R. SPEAKER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister. When will the people of Alberta be aware of your comprehensive policy in this program? MR. COPITHORNE: Mr. Speaker, it develops all the time and there have to be set priorities in where you start and what you do first with the capabilities and the monies that are available. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

Will the hon. minister be releasing part of the plan so that the urban areas can initiate their planning programs to meet their needs, and also to plan in a more meaningful manner? MR. COPITHORNE: Mr. Speaker, the urban and rural areas municipalities certainly know what the priorities are as they have set their priorities themselves. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 4445

69-8 ALBERTA HANSARD November 3rd 1972 MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary North Hill, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary McKnight. Vista Heights, Calgary MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. Mr. Minister could you report to the House on your meetings with the Mayor of Calgary and others in efforts to find a solution to the problem in Vista Heights in Calgary? MR. RUSSELL: Mr.

Speaker, last week the Mayor of Calgary asked the province to intercede in attempting to find some sort of solution to a controversy in the city of Calgary that was becoming extremely contentious. I met in Calgary last Thursday morning with the mayor and with legal representatives of both sides -- if I can call them that -- and we merely pointed out that our involvement would be restricted to two areas.

(1) The enforcement of any provincial licences or permits that had to be issued through various agencies of the government with respect to the developmental;

(2) That we might take the initiative in keeping this new industry in Alberta in trying to find an attractive alternate site that would be acceptable to all parties and that process is now under way. MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Did any of these efforts arise from representations from any M.L.A.s who represent that area, Mr. Minister? MR. RUSSELL: The request came from the Mayor of Calgary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary McKnight, followed by the hon. Member for Vermilion-Viking. University of Calgary MR. LEE: A question for the hon. Minister of Advanced Education.

Have you had discussions lately with the Universities Commission regarding financing of the four-year arts program at the University of Calgary, and if so what is the present position on this item and on your previous request that a three-year degree be offered at that university? MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, I have not had discussions with the Univerisities Commission concerning the compulsory or otherwise three year or four year degree program in the University of Calgary. This is a decision and a matter which has been before the commission and between the commission and the University of Calgary.

I am aware that the weighting factor assigned by the University of Calgary to the compulsory four year non-honour bachelor degree program is a weighting factor of 1.0. I understand that the University of Calgary is somewhat concerned that that weighting factor may not provide sufficient funds to provide the course and they would like to return to the previous policy for a weighting factor of 1.5, which was for the compulsory four-year program when there was an optional three years.

The Universities Commission assigns the weighty factor, which all members of the House may appreciate is the basis upon which individual units of funds are made available to universities. I said that the waiting factor of 1.0 was tentative, and that is if there is any university which feels that they would like to make submissions to change that tentative position by the commission, the commission is prepared to hear it. MR. GHITTER: On a supplementary to the Minister of Advanced Education.

I am wondering what assurances the hon. minister can give that the institutional autonomy of the University of Calgary will be respected, now that the Universities Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 4446

November 6, 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 69-9 Commission will no longer be here to insure that there will be public input in respect to problems like those raised by the hon. Member for Calgary McKnight? MR. FOSTER: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is something that I had hoped to deal with briefly on the discussion of the Worth Report, the Commission on Educational Planning, however, I'll answer it very briefly at the moment.

I have assured the university community that in the reorganization of the Department of Advanced Education and upon the transfer of the authorities of both commissions to the department, we would carefully assess the matter of institutional autonomy and the matter of academic freedom. It is a problem, generally Mr.

Speaker, of balancing a move towards an integrated post-secondary education system on the one hand, and institutional autonomy on the other, and one such device for insuring that is to create an agency or an organization, call it what you will, which will accommodate members of the public in relationships between government and the institution.

I don't know at this time whether or not it should include representatives of the institutions, but I am very sure, in my view at least, that it should include members of the public in an advisory policy role between the institutions and government with freedom to comment, freedom to publish, freedom to criticize, and working in that relationship. That is one area that I think the role of. the institution can be guaranteed and its autonomous nature, I think, preserved from government. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, when do you plan to make this information available? MR. FOSTER: Mr.

Speaker, if you will permit me a moment, it occurs to me that in a press release -- I'm sorry I don't have it with me -- at the time when we announced that the Universities and Colleges commissions would be abolished the end of this year, we also made it clear -- and I appreciate the opportunity to say this because this message has not got across to the academic community as well as I had hoped -- that we wanted, as part of that assurance, to create some organization representative of the public in this relationship, as I previously answered.

That for some reason did not get across to them, but it was in the press release that went out, I think, in mid-September. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Vermillion-Viking, followed by the hon. Member for Bonnyville. Licence Plates (cont) MR. COOPER: To the hon. Minister of Highways, a short

preamble -- Mr. Minister. At the spring sitting of the legislature you intimated that you were carrying on a review of the methods used to determine the fees for licence plates on private automobiles. Has the study been completed? MR. COPITHORNE: Mr. Speaker, the study has been completed but there has been no decision made as yet. MR. COOPER: Supplementary Mr. Speaker, will the hon. minister be making an announcement to us or devulging the information to us when a decision has been reached? MR. COPITHORNE: Well Mr. Speaker, if there are any dramatic changes the minister will be making announcements to the House.

MR. WILSON: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Highways. Are you considering the possibility of additional revenue to the province by allowing people to have permanent plates with their choice of letters and numbers? Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 4447

69-10 ALBERTA HANSARD November 3rd 1972 MR. COPITHORNE: Well Mr. Speaker, it is a consideration that we could consider. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Bonnyville, followed by the hon. Member for Olds- Didsbury. Oculists' Services MR. HANSEN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Health. I have a letter here from one of the constituents, and he complains that he had his eyes tested a month, and they told him that he would have to wait another two to three months on account of shortage of money. Has your department looked into this and found out if this is so? Mr.

Speaker, the study has been completed but there has been no decision made as yet. MR. CRAWFORD: Yes, the question, raised by the hon. member on behalf of one of his constituents relates to arrangements, I believe, between the provincial government and the Optometrists' Association for the providing of glasses to persons who are receiving provincial assistance. There was a period during which there was some disagreement over the terms upon which the services would be provided, and these differences were resolved as of last week. Kananaskis Highway MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon.

Minister of Highways. I would like to ask him if he could tell us at this time when he expects the Kananaskis Road from Coleman to Hinton to be fixed? MR. COPITHORNE: Well, Mr. Speaker, from Kananaskis to Coleman, there is already a forestry road, and we are proposing at this time to build 30 miles in the Kananaskis Valley in the next three years. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, supplementary question, to the hon. minister. Does the minister expect to work on the road from Kananaskis north? This is directly to Hinton. MR. COPITHORNE: Well, Mr.

Speaker, at this time we have no plans in that particular program from Kananaskis north. But there are certain parts of the road that will be upgraded. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. minister give a commitment to the House that before you embark on any additional upgrading or reconstruction process of the Kananaskis road, you will first of all do an impact study, and secondly, a public hearing before construction begins? MR. COPITHORNE: Well, Mr.

Speaker, if the hon. member would have a look at the amount of work that is being done on the Kananaskis road it might be self-answerable, the question that he is asking. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, all I am asking the hon. minister is, would he give the assurance of the House that an impact study for any additional construction to the Kananaskis road, and secondly, will there be public hearings? Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 4448

November 6, 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 69-11 MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, I might answer that question as it lies to some degree in my department, in connection with environmental impact studies. I think the government has indicated on several occasions that on projects which have a considerable impact on the environment, the issuing of an environmental impact statement is a matter of government policy, and in fact that was done in regard to the Kananaskis Highway. MR. CLARK: Yes -- after -- MR. YURKO: Not after. We've been working on this for sometime, Mr. Speaker.

If that road was, in fact, considered for extension northward, then certainly an environmental impact study will be tabled, and if public hearings are warranted, public hearings will certainly be held. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, supplementary question to the hon. minister. Will the hon. Minister of the Environment give us an undertaking as to the public hearings? MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, I have just answered the question at some length. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, is the hon. minister then saying he will not guarantee the House there will be public hearings? Snowridge Ski Resort MR. DIXON: A supplementary question, Mr.

Speaker, to the hon. Minister of Highways. I wonder if the hon. minister could indicate to the House that the large Snowridge ski complex will be opened if they do build a road 30 miles to the ski resort? Has the company indicated that they will open this resort again once the road is completed? MR. COPITHORNE: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have no idea what the business affairs are of the ski resort at Snowridge. It will be three years before the highway is probably brought to a completion to that length, and I have no idea what the management of the operations of Snowridge will decide to do at that time. MR. DIXON: Mr.

Speaker, the hon. minister indicated to me that this was the main issue. Is he indicating that Snowridge has not been in touch with you regarding the road at all in the last year? AN HON. MEMBER: Out of Order. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary Mountain View followed by the hon. Member for Highwood. Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Legislation MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Attorney General.

In view of the concern expressed by the media and the public concerning the alcoholism and the drug problems, do you expect any new program or any new thrust from the department of the Attorney General in dealing with these two problems in Alberta? Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 4449

69-12 ALBERTA HANSARD November 3rd 1972 MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I think that, perhaps, should be answered partially by myself and partially by the hon. Minister of Health and Social Development. I can say, in answer to the hon. member's question, that I do regard the question of alcoholism as much more of a health and social problem than a criminal problem.

As a result primarily of my tour of correctional institutions this summer, I have reached the conclusion that while we have made a number of changes in recent years in our liquor legislation, in the way we handle people with an alcohol problem, I'm still convinced that we are sending to our correctional institutes people for alcohol offenses that shouldn't be going there, and should be treated more as a health and social problem and crime control problem. To that extent, we are currently working within the Attorney General's department toward a problem, which I expect will bring about that result.

With respect to treatment programs, Mr. Speaker, I feel that would fall more within the Department of Health and Social Development. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, with your leave I would add a little bit to the answer of the hon. Attorney General. I think the government would recognize that there are gaps in certain levels of treatment as provided, which is the prime responsibility of the Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Commission. I have met, as recently as yesterday, with the commission and in part the subject matter of the hon. member's question came under discussion.

However, we certainly didn't wait until the occasion of that discussion to give full consideration to this. I could indicate that plans are in a fairly established form to close some gaps that exist in the areas, for example, of detoxification and rehabilitation of both alcoholics and drug addicts. MR. LUDWIG: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister. Is it the intention of the government to disband or eliminate the commission on alcoholism? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, no. MR. LUDWIG: Supplementary. Has the government made any additional allocation of funds for the operation of the commission. . . MR.

CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, the estimates of 1972-1973 show the amounts allocated by the government for the commission. MR. LUDWIG: How about any special ones? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, that is a question of detail that I would ask the hon. member to put on the Order Paper. In fairness to him I would just say that if there were, it would perhaps be the odd grant that might have gone through by special warrant. I can't say no, there weren't any. But for purposes other than relatively minor expenditures, I can say that there weren't any. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Highwood followed by the hon.

Member for Stony Plain. Highways Commission MR. BENOIT: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the hon. Minister of Highways. Has the government given any consideration this year to the establishment of a Highways Commission as intimated by your reply to a question last spring? Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 4450

November 6, 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 69-13 MR. PEACOCK: Mr. Speaker, if I was going to make any announcements, I would do so at the the specific time that I find appropriate. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Stony Plain, followed by the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview. Taxation of Senior Citizens' Homes MR. PURDY: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Is there any legislation in Alberta at the present time that would allow the City of Edmonton to put a tax on senior citizens' homes, and if so, would there be any consideration to repealing this type of legislation? MR.

RUSSELL: Yes, the legislation is there, Mr. Speaker, under The Municipal Taxation. Act. I think all members of the legislature will recall this spring that we supported unanimously, I think, an amendment giving further relief to non-profit organizations with respect to property taxes on institutions they are running for the elderly. It was rather puzzling that Edmonton did make this move, but that is one thing that our task force on Provincial-Municipal Financing is considering. We expect to perhaps bring in better guidelines in the future, but the legislation, fortunately or perhaps unfortunately, is there. MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview, followed by the hon. Member for Lethbridge East. Contract Awarding Procedures MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to direct this question to the hon. the Premier, and then perhaps you can allocate it to whichever minister, sir, it would come under. Can the government advise what the policy is with respect to awarding insurance contracts on department vehicles? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I believe that's a question I probably should answer by virtue of the Order Paper.

It's a question of trying to make an assessment on any sort of a service or professional contract between the various people that are available and in the particular industry offering that service. So perhaps if the hon. member would put it on the Order Paper, I could give him an answer. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'll put that particular question on the Order Paper, but I was wondering if I could rephrase it and make it a little more specific. Again, to the hon. Premier. Is tendering the rule in the awarding of these contracts, or one of the factors that the government takes into consideration? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, subject to correction, I don't believe that in this particular area it is. It's a matter of services and supplying of professional or semi- professional advice and assistance, and in that particular case I don't believe that it is the policy of the government to operate on a tender basis. MR. NOTLEY: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. the Premier. Is it true, Mr. Premier, that most government vehicles are insured through Roy Henry Agencies Ltd., which is operated by Mr. Roy Watson? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, that's probably so, but again, would you put that as part of the supplementary question on the Order Paper? Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 4451

69-14 ALBERTA HANSARD November 3rd 1972 MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge East, followed by the hon. Member for Clover Bar. Industrial Service Roads MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to pose a question to the hon. Minister of Highways. What assistance is your department prepared to give municipalities in developing industrial service roads and bypass roads? I have in mind 43rd Street in Lethbridge, of which you are aware. MR. COPITHORNE: Mr.

Speaker, dealing with 43rd Street in Lethbridge, there are three communities who have responsibilities, namely, the City of Lethbridge, the county next to Lethbridge, and the provincial government. We are now working in co-ordination to resolve the responsibility there. MR. ANDERSON: Then there are plans going ahead for fixing up that road? MR. COPITHORNE: Well, Mr. Speaker, that's kind of a loaded question, because at this time there has not been a priority set on that which all three parties would maybe agree to. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Clover Bar, followed by the hon. Member for Wainwright.

Sewage Lagoon Protection DR. BUCK: I would like to address this question to either the Minister of Municipal Affairs or the Minister of the Environment, whoever can help me with this problem. With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a little

preamble. Perhaps the members of the House noticed the tragedy that occured in my constituency, in Bruderheim, where three youngsters were drowned in a sewage lagoon. My question to either one of the gentlemen is this: is there a possibility that municipalities that have either settling ponds or sewage lagoons be, shall we say, indirectly advised to put adequate safety fences around these facilities in the future when they are getting provincial funds, and be directed retroactively some way to put up adequate safety fences? If somebody could help me with this matter? MR. YURKO: Mr.

Speaker, if I might answer that question, the regulations with regard to sewage lagoons call for fences. I happen to have it in front of me, and I might just read it for the benefit of the House, because it is a serious problem and it has resulted in a most unfortunate accident in the last few days. The requirement thus far reads as follows: The pond areas shall be fenced and gates provided with locks. The burns shall be seeded with grass to control weed growth and to reduce erosion. The grass should be cut two or three times a year. In this regard, Mr.

Speaker, I have asked the department to review this particular regulation so that in fact it might be made far more definite and something like a chain link fence be required rather than barbed wire fencing which has been used on several occasions. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Wainwright followed by the hon. Member for Wetaskiwin- Leduc. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 4452

November 6, 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 69-15 Urban Ring-Road Systems MR. RUSTE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Highways. Have there been any discussions with the City of Edmonton with regard to re- allocation of financial priorities for the Jasper Freeway and the Mackinnon Ravine projects? MR. COPITHORNE: Mr.

Speaker, within the bounds of the city, as I have stated many times in this House, we believe that local authority should be able to make the decisions where they put priority, and we have a $4.5 million grant which is applicable to the projects that are on the plans for their transporation policies and which we will share costs with them, usually on a 75-25 basis. MR. RUSSELL: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to that.

In light of the answer the minister has given, you indicated during the spring session that you were seriously considering a ring-road system for the City of Edmonton and Calgary, and what is your progress to date on that? MR. COPITHORNE: Well again, Mr. Speaker, when you are developing a program that is going to be useful for the economics and the distribution of traffic throughout the province, you have to have a plan and that is exactly what I have developed and it will be brought forth at the appropriate time. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Leduc followed by the hon. Member for Smoky River.

AGT Personnel - Wetaskiwin MR. HENDERSON: I wonder if the Minister of Telephones can advise as to when he will be meeting with the City of Wetaskiwin to discuss the matter of the withdrawal of AGT staff from that city? MR. WERRY: Mr. Speaker, the city has written a letter requesting an appointment and I believe it is tentatively laid on for the first week in December. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Smoky River followed by the hon. Member for Calgary Millican. Crude Oil Revenues MR. MOORE: Mr.

Speaker, I have a question to the hon. the Premier regarding the 10 cent per barrel price increase announced by Imperial Oil this morning for crude oil. I am wondering what effect this will have on the crude oil revenue returns to the people of the province of Alberta? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, it is a very significant announcement and it has very major connotations for the province. Certainly an increase, even as small as 10 cents a barrel will have, as I am sure the Minister of Mines and Minerals will be prepared to supplement, a very significant effect upon the revenue of the province.

However, we note that the press report made the comment that it would bring Canadian crude more in line with competitive crude prices in key export markets.

Our concern, of course, has been, and continues to be, that we, as the government of Alberta, representing the people, have a very large partnership- ownership interest in this depleting asset and the fact that the production is at its present high level and is being moved out of this province by way of exports -- some 90 percent of the crude oil production being exported at a price Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 4453

69-16 ALBERTA HANSARD November 3rd 1972November 3rd 1972 that we believe is below commodity value -- is of serious concern to us, and, we would hope, to all members and to the public at large. We hope to do what we can to exercise the necessary pressures to assure that the value is more closely equated with the commodity value. I raised, Mr. Speaker, in my earlier remarks, the question of the impact upon the consumer in Alberta. MR. NOTLEY: I wonder if the hon. the Premier could be a little more specific on the impact on the consumer of this price increase?

Have you, sir, been able to give any preliminary assessment to what the price increase might be at the gas pump level, and further, to save another supplementary question, have you considered alternative actions that might be taken to stop the price increase? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I think I adequately answered that item during the course of my remarks in the House on October 25th, and would refer the hon. member to Hansard on page 61-24. Perhaps the hon. Minister of Nines and Minerals though would like to point out the degree of impact upon the people of Alberta, of as little as a 10 cents a barrel increase.

MR. DICKIE: I will supplement that. After the information was received that the price of crude oil was going up 10 cents a barrel, I requested our department to give us some idea of what that would mean to the provincial treasury. They have now advised me, and I know all hon. members would be interested in knowing, that the 10 cents a barrel will mean approximately, based on last month's production, some $600,000 per month. MR. BARTON: Supplementary, to the hon. Minister of Mines and Minerals. Does this mean that taking the hon.

Premier's question to heart -- does this mean that the high quota allotments that are now being produced in the oil fields are going to continue to increase? MR. DICKIE: Mr. Speaker, I don't really think you can read that into that answer. Again I should also mention that the price of 10 cents a barrel that was announced by Imperial Oil would also have a bearing whether the major producers such as Texaco, and Gulf and Shell would go along with the 10 cents a barrel. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary Millican followed by the hon. Member for Wainwright. Re American Investment MR. DIXON: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. the Premier, and I am just going to have to make a short explanation to my question. Apparently, a American senator was asking for an investigation as to why an American company was allowed to invest $60 or $80 million in Alberta for gas export with no guarantee of gas export. I was wondering if the Premier or the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs were going to enlighten Ottawa to forward this information on to Washington as to what our policy is in gas export.

This could have a serious effect if the American government decides to look at every investment that comes into Canada. I am just wondering if any action is going to be taken to rebut the argument that this hon. senator is bringing up? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I don't at all follow the imputation behind the hon. member's question. As I remarked on the House on Friday, I would hope that we all understand that it is the position of the government of the Province of Alberta to protect the people of Alberta and the resources that we own.

Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 4454

November 6, 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 69-17 MR. DIXON: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am just as concerned as the hon. Premier about the people of Alberta. I know it is an important issue. But secondly, I think it is also important -- MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. member asking a question? MR. DIXON: Yes, I am. My question, Mr. Speaker, is; is the government going to take any action to inform the American investor of our policy and indicate to the American government through Ottawa, or direct through our city to your office in Washington that you are going to establish there? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, I haven't any doubt but that the document which we will present to the people of Alberta within the next two weeks will make its way very quickly, to the various offices in Washington, and if there is any possibility that that won't occur, we will see that it does. MR. SPEAKER: We will have to conclude the question period with the question from the hon. Member for Wainwright. Advertisements Along Highways MR. RUSTE: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Highways. Earlier in this session you indicated that you were reviewing the policy of advertising signs along the highway.

I am thinking in particular of livestock producers and so on. Have you done that at this time, are you in a position to make an announcement? MR. COPITHORNE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have made a considerable amount of progress in provincial highway signing in regard to farms and in regard to secondary roads throughout the province. MR. RUSTE: A supplementary question then. Would the minister be in a position to make this known to the members? MR. COPITHORNE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I hope in the next day or two to have a handy book coming out that will help you solve some of these problems.

ORDERS OF THE DAY head: GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I move you do now leave the chair and the assembly resolve itself into Committee of the Whole for consideration of certain bills on the Order Paper. [The motion was carried without dissent.] [Mr. Speaker left the chair.] Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 4455

69-18 ALBERTA HANSARD November 3rd 1972 head: COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE [Mr. Diachuk took the chair.] Bill No. 77: The Legal Profession Amendment Act, 1972 (No. 2) MR. CHAIRMAN: There is one amendment I trust you have, based on

Section 5.1. [Sections 1 to 5 were agreed to without debate.

Section 6 effects the addition to the existing act of Sections 102 to 108,

Section 102 was agreed to without debate.]

Section 103 MR. COOKSON: Mr. Chairman, if I could just say a word or two about this section, because I have spoken to those involved in establishing this act and I have some reservations about

Section 103. I would like to lodge these with the hon. the Attorney General so that he understands clearly my position, in saying the few words that I have. It perhaps overlaps in some of the other sections. Talking to some of the legal firms I know that there is a great deal of money which is deposited in trust funds in banks which draw no interest because there is no way of identifying the client. For example, one of the firms that I discussed this with has as much as $100,000 in trust which is not deriving any benefit to the client or to the legal firm or to anyone, for that matter, except to the bank.

So in that respect I support the concept of making use of these funds. I think it was suggested something like $5 million floating around in banks being used from which no benefit is being derived, except to the banks. So I agree with the concept, but I find it difficult to rationalize the way in which the foundation is set up. For example, I question under

Section 103 whether we should, in fact, be pointing out the use of these funds for specific individuals or groups of individuals. In Subsection 9, I wonder why we have to suggest in here that it is to assist native peoples' legal programs. In this area I am wondering if this might overlap into the area of The Bill of Rights. It avoids naming other groups', and therefore, it exempts other groups from this type of assistance. I wonder in my own mind whether, if it were spelled out that it was not to provide assistance to native peoples' programs, whether in fact then it would be a violation of the Bill of Rights?

In effect it's saying that about other groups. As I've said, I have some reservations about the foundation and getting into other areas which perhaps I could refer to at a later date;

Section 104 which spells out the members of the foundation, where a majority of the group are members of the legal profession. I have some concern about the rights of this fund, and the interest on this fund, with regard to all the people of Alberta. I know what the intent is. Hopefully this intent will be carried out, but I have some concern about these funds which really belong to all the people of Alberta, and how the interest will be used with regard to them. In other words, in

Section 103, I'd be much happier if in subsection (

a) you could clearly spell out that it was for the benefit of all the people of Alberta. I'd be much happier in

Section 109, since it's dealing with interest of people, that the majority of the members of this foundation were lay people or were people who were not directly associated with the legal profession. My feeling is that the funds should be for the benefit of everyone and not specifically spelled out for individuals or groups. These are the only concerns and reservations that I have and hopefully if the bill goes through, these concerns that I have won't occur. It will be carried out as I am sure the intent is.

I don't know whether this should result in comments by the Attorney General, perhaps he would like to comment on this. MR. STROM: If I might just repeat what I said the other day, I would have to say that the hon. Member for Lacombe has expressed the same concern that I expressed the other day when we were discussing the principle of the bill, and I think the points that he has raised today are very valid and have been expressed very well. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 4456

November 6, 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 69-19 This is money that belongs to people from every walk of life. It is all of the people who are involved in any way, shape, or form, where monies have to be left in trust with the legal profession. I think I indicated the other day that there is just the possibility of ideas being construed or coming up in the minds of people that may be hard to answer if it is limited in any way, shape, or form. It seems to me the points raised this afternoon again, are very valid and I would certainly like to see the Attorney General give this some attention. MR. LEITCH: Mr.

Speaker, the points of view just expressed by the last two speakers are valid ones and I should say that some time ago when, as a member of the Law Society I was involved in a discussion concerning this, I felt there might be some merit in simply providing that the money go to the general revenue of the province, and therefore, as the last speakers have said, be for the benefit of all.

But as I expressed on the comments made at second reading, there is this argument which has led me to go the other way, and that is that these monies come from people who are involved with the legal process, that is the reason the money has come there. Now, it's probably fair, to say then, use that money since we're not capable of sending it back to the clients -- to improve the legal process. And that is what this fund is designed to do.

So the clients whose money is being used in this way may well feel much happier about it being used for research and improvement of the law, simplifying it, research to improve the administration of the judicial system. They may not feel it's quite so appropriate to use it for, say, improving fishing, or an agriculture program, or something of that nature, which would be the case if it went to the general revenue.

So, while the point is a valid one, it's been my feeling after giving it a good deal of consideration, that it is more appropriate at least to use this money for that group of people who have come within the legal process, and in an effort to improve and streamline that process. So I think that argument is the one that justifies restricting the use of the fund to that area, rather than simply putting it in the province's general revenue. Now, as to the comment about it being a breach of The Bill of Rights. The view I take of The Bill of Rights, it isn't in breach of it.

I do not believe The Bill of Rights prevents the conferring of special benefits on any group. And that being so, this, at most, confers a special benefit on a particular group. And in my view The Bill of Rights was not in any way designed to prohibit that kind of thing. If it did, it would prohibit most of our programs, where for one reason or another we select a group and confer on them some special benefit.

As to the make-up of the board -- and I do want to correct a statement I think I inadvertently made on second reading, in which I said that the board of seven people could be five from the profession and two laymen. That is not the fact. The bill provides that the board of seven shall be three from the profession, three who are not members of the profession, and the seventh person is either the Attorney General or his nominee.

That person may be a member of the profession, or he may not, but in any event I wouldn't consider the Attorney General or his nominee as being either a lay person or a member of the profession. I think he is there as a representative of the government. So that what we have on this board is an equal division between the professional and lay people. The next thing I'd like to call to the hon. members' attention, is that the government does appoint the majority of this board. It appoints three of the five, and those five then appoint an additional two.

So in that way the government does appoint the majority of the board. There needs to be a number of people from the profession on this board if we're going to have the objects that are set out in clause 103(a)(i), take for example the first object, "conducting research into and recommending reform of the law and the administration of justice." When there are decisions as to what kind of research should be conducted, how it should be conducted, what areas should be looked into -- when those decisions are being made you need a significant amount of information from the profession itself.

They know the weaknesses; they know the areas in which research may be of some value, and you can't rely on one person from the profession to give that kind of input because his experience may simply not be wide enough. For that reason, I feel that there needs to be a reasonable representation from the profession to enable the board to make proper decisions on what should be done within the objectives as set out in 103. It seems to need an equal balance between the professionals and lay people with the odd person being a representative of the government. It is going to be a reasonable, workable kind of board.

Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 4457

69-20 ALBERTA HANSARD November 3rd 1972 MRS. CHICHAK: Mr. Chairman, I have indicated previously some comments on second reading on principle, and my concern, and I think they have been adequately dispelled. I would like to comment on some of the pluses that this bill has with respect to the establishment of the Albertaa Law Foundation.

Having been employed in a legal office for a number of years and being in reasonably close contact with the kind of problems which arise in the minds of the people, and knowing how little they know about their individual rights and the rights as we have them in our society and in our system, I think many criticisms levied against the legal profession, or many problems that arise between husband and wife, neighbours, friends, or business involvements, arise because of the lack of understanding of the legal rights that exist in our province.

So I think it is necessary and long overdue for some means of providing to the public the kind of educational program where they don't necessarily need to be involved with expenditures which perhaps their budgets don't allow. I think that this is a very big plus for this particular bill. We are concerned about corporations keeping money, making money on the individual, and I think it has been too long since we have been concerned about the kinds of money deposits that have been Bade into our banking systems or institutions, would they have had the use of such funds without having to pay for them?

Yet each day or each time that we go into an institution and ask for any funds or the use of any money, we have to pay for them. So I recognize that this bill will now require the institutions where the lawyers deposit their funds (being trust monies); it will now provide the kind of assistance that programs of the nature of helping the public, generally, in their knowledge of their rights, and will help the kind of groups that we often forget about. So I am not so displeased with

Section 103(a) (iv), where we indicate specifically an area of assistance. I think, that if we just leave it completely open to just Albertans, somehow the native people seem to be forgotten as Albertans as well. Or on the other hand, we interpret them as being citizens who come under the periphery of the federal government and that we have little responsibility for them. So I'm pleased that this has been spelled out.

Insofar as assistance to students is concerned, I think that they have enough of a hardship in meeting the costs of education, in bettering themselves, that many of them have personal problems as well as problems of a legal nature. They do not have the kinds of money that they may require to go into a law office or to go to a lawyer and get advice. I'm not exactly adverse to the suggestion that is here.

I'm reasonably satisfied that with the Attorney General constantly being involved in being present, and overseeing that the foundation is properly implemented, and in the best interests of Albertans, I think that we need to give very serious consideration to passing this bill. As a matter of fact we should pass it very quickly, because I feel that it is long overdue. Like many other new programs, it may cause many questions which certainly we cannot answer at the beginning.

We need to try the program, and if we find that there are certain aspects of it that are adverse to the type of service that should be afforded, taking into consideration where the money is coming from, I should certainly hope that we in this legislature, or whoever may be here, would have constantly that right and that privilege to make such recommendations of change and improvement as may become necessary. But I think to try and resolve and anticipate every problem in advance may be somewhat foolhardy, because surely we cannot foresee all of the many problems that may come in the future.

I think it is important for us not to become overly distressed about some of the questions that may not be answered when they are being anticipated, but to try it and see how effectively this program can be implemented. sooner this foundation is established, the sooner the dollars will come into the areas of need. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. WILSON: Mr. Chairman, to the hon. Attorney General: solicitor-client relationships, generally speaking in Alberta, are very good, and I think it is in everybody's interest that we can maintain them on a very good level.

I'm wondering how a solicitor might defend himself in the circumstances of a delay in a transaction. The solicitor holding the funds quite often is in a position where the culmination of the transaction is delayed through no fault of his own. Under the present circumstances, the client is not led to suspect that the solicitor is delaying the transaction, because there is no benefit to the solicitor if it Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 4458

November 6, 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 69-21 is delayed. I wonder if there is any possibility in your opinion -- and I would like your assurance, if possible, that there isn't -- that this may tend to deteriorate solicitor-client relationships from that aspect of when delays occur. The client might feel that the solicitor is purposely delaying it? Most certainly I would hope that it would be unfounded, but I wonder if you have considered this, and if you have a defense ready, so to speak, for your colleagues in the event that the solicitor-client relationship begins to deteriorate? MR.

BENOIT: I have a question along the same line, and I'd like to elaborate a little farther. I know of more than one instance where two clients, each having his own lawyer, were making a transaction. The first client passes his money to the lawyer and the lawyer keeps it for two months, and then he passes it on to the next lawyer and he keeps it for two months, and then he gives it to the second client. In the meantime, the two lawyers have had the money for four months, and the clients have been under the impression that these lawyers are getting interest on the money that they have each passed to their lawyer.

Is it, in fact, a situation now that there is no possibility of a lawyer getting interest from funds of that nature? Does he have to put the money into a trust fund, or is there a possibility that the lawyer may put it in his own fund while it is being passed from one client to another? MR. FRENCH: Mr. Chairman, I Just have a question to ask the Attorney General.

In view of the fact that the payments made for legal aid are lower in Alberta than in some other parts of Canada, has any consideration been given to include legal aid in the objects of the foundation, thereby making it easier for people today that are having problems in obtaining legal aid so they will be able to get it in the near future? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Chairman, dealing with the questions in order in which they were asked.

The first question was whether this legislation was likely to cause some deterioration in the solicitor-client relationship because it may leave the public to be suspicious that the lawyer is holding the money longer than he should in order to have the foundation earn interest. The answer to that is quite the reverse.

There has been, although it may be unjustified, a feeling that the legal profession does get some indirect benefits from the financial institutions as a result of having their trust monies there (such as free chequing privileges or lower interest rates or things of that nature) and, I say, some speculation, because I have made some personal checks of my own while practising and since then, and satisfied myself that in the instances that I checked into it it was not so.

But there is certainly some feeling to that effect among the public at large and this, if anything, removes that because it now doesn't make any difference to the financial institution how long the money stays there,

whereas in the absence of this bill it is to their advantage if the money stays there a long time. So I think far from making this situation worse, if anything it improves it. To deal with the second question, which is whether there was any possibility now of the lawyer using his client's money. The answer to that is simply and clearly no. If he uses his client's money in any way whatsoever, that is a breech of conduct for which the punishment is extremely severe. In most cases it leads to disbarment.

What normally happens, when a lawyer receives money he is holding on behalf of a client, knows he is going to be holding it say, for a month, is that he puts it on deposit with the financial institution in an interest bearing trust account and pays that interest to the client. And in fact in the two firms that I had reviewed by auditors shortly before introducing this bill, one firm had about 30 per cent of its total trust money in interest bearing accounts where they accounted to the client for the interest. The other firm, which was a little smaller, had somewhere around 20 per cent.

But what will happen occasionally in the kind of situation that the hon. member raises, is that the money will come into the lawyer's hands and he expects to be able to disburse it in the next week or so, and then some difficulty arises in the transaction and he thinks it is going to get resolved daily and it doesnot get resolved, and ultimately will have held the money for quite some little time without any interest being earned on it. But that is one of the things they should simply try to avoid, but on occasion it's unavoidable. The last question raised by the hon.

Member for Hanna-Oyen, as I recall, was whether we had considered as one of the objects of this bill, the use of the money for legal aid. The answer to that is yes, and there are some provinces Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 4459

69-22 ALBERTA HANSARD November 3rd 1972 which do provide comparable legislation, that the money be used for legal aid. It's not included here for two reasons. I think the prime one is that the profession didn't want the money coming back to it directly.

It didn't want to be charged with the accusation that here was a fund that was somehow benefiting lawyers and if the money is going into the fund and back out to them, through their work in legal aid, that was what would be happening and they would then have to make the defense that they are doing the work under legal aid for an appreciable reduction; they simply didn't want to be in that position. I don't feel there is any advantage to our putting a specific provision to allocate these funds to legal aid.

We are funding the legal aid program out of provincial general revenue, and it seems to me as I said earlier, I think during the estimates last year, that the amount of funds we require there should provide them. It is simply a question of assessing the program, assessing those claims that are turned down (be it for a lack of funds in making a decision on whether they shouldn't have been turned down or whether more funds are needed for them) and expand the legal aid program in that way.

I should also add that with the federal government proposing to come into legal aid (and negotiations on the terms of their coming into it are under way between the provincial government and the federal government now). I rather anticipate it will be concluded by the federal government contributing towards legal aid. This would make a substantial increase in the total amount of money available for legal aid. MR. YOUNG: Mr.

Chairman, very briefly my comment is along the line of comments made by the Attorney General, but for the record in any event, I have a concern here that this 'found' money, if you will, not be used in a sense as to remove any professional obligation which the Law society may currently feel, either toward research on its own, and it must be doing some, or toward the assistance of student legal aid programs. There are a number of these programs which are in fact mentioned specifically in

section 103 currently underway in the province to some degree. I am not sure the funding of them currently. I just wanted to express my hope that these monies do not in fact, replace monies which are currently being identified for these particular uses. MR. ZANDER: Mr. Chairman, my concern is not with the amount of monies left in from a month to month basis. I am thinking in particular of two people in my area where the principal fund is well over $30,000, and it is well into the second year. Perhaps it will be settled in the third year.

Since this money is bringing in approximately well over $2,000 a year interest, will this part of the act now mean that these parties are not entitled to the interest that this money accumulates over a period of two or three years? MR. LEITCH: I will answer the last question first this time, Mr. Chairman. The answer is no. Subsection 3 of

section 108, which is the appropriate section, provides that nothing in this bill in any way interferes with any arrangement made between a lawyer and his client, as to the depositing of trust funds into accounts to earn interest, and the payment of that interest to the client. It is worthwhile repeating again, this bill in no way affects the existing rights between a lawyer and his client as to what is done with the client's money. The client can day to day come in and say, "here, I am depositing with you $10,000. You will be holding it for me for two months.

Please put it in the bank or trust company and then account to me for the interest." In other words, "pay me the interest". That arrangement you can still enter into. It is wholly unaffected by this bill. This bill only affects those areas where, because of accounting difficulties, such an arrangement could not be entered into. I feel I should respond to the earlier comment made about this somehow tending to destroy the social responsibility that the profession now has, and in the areas where it is on its own, legal research, legal aid work.

Incidentally, the profession has done this for years, much of it voluntarily, much of it simply contributing its own time without any payment for individual clients or groups of clients. I share that concern; I think that has been a good thing for the profession. I hope that they will continue to do that, and I'm satisfied that they will. Under the existing legal aid program they do contribute a good deal; they do carry on a reasonable amount of research through their various local, provincial, and national associations.

However, much research in this area is so complex that it simply cannot be carried on on the volunteer basis. An example of that is the Institute of Law Research and Reform which has done and Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 4460

November 6, 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 69-23 is now doing work that I don't feel could be carried on on a volunteer basis, and I think that is the kind of research I would hope the foundation would look to here, in addition, perhaps, assisting persons out of university doctoral researches and things of that nature. MR. D. MILLER: I have thought about this for some time and I think we should be careful about passing

Part 7 of the Alberta Law Foundation or any amendments thereto, because I have listened closely to the discussions that have taken place on monies that may be placed -- small or large, for a short time or a long time with the barristers in the province and they say that because of accounting difficulties -- I can hardly buy that because I am sure the bank could take care of it quite easily and arrive at an average.

But reading this and looking at it closely, as far as I am concerned, and I would ask all members to look at it closely, I think we should be careful to pass legislation that would turn monies that belong to somebody else or could be directed to them and their estate, and turn it over to the Bar Association or the Alberta Law Foundation. I think we should be very cautious about this. MR. LEITCH: The one comment I would like to respond to is the statement that they can be accounted for and they have never been accounted for in the past in any jurisdiction. I think that is pretty strong evidence in itself.

They simply are not accounted for. I can give some very simple illustrations as to what happens and why they aren't accounted for. It is not uncommon, for example, in the case of a lawsuit for a lawyer to ask for a retainer to meet, perhaps, his fees, but in addition his expenses. So he then gets in, say, $1000 and he will start paying it out and he might pay it out in a dozen different small amounts.

The banks or the financial institutions pay interest on this kind of account based on the minimum balance over a three-month period, and then to properly allocate the interest to all of the dollars that were in that fund over that three-month period you would have to take the interest and calculate it at so much per dollar of the total funds that flowed through during that three-month period, and then work it back to each individual client whose funds were in there.

To give you an illustration of the complexity of that transaction I have looked at one firm which started with an $800,000 trust balance at the beginning of the period and finished a two-month period with $800,000 in its trust account. But during that two month period $3 million flowed through the trust account and that would represent a tremendous number of transactions. To work out the interest payable to each one you would have to figure out the amount per dollar per day that was earned, and then try to allocate it back.

It simply is an accounting impossibility in this sense that the costs of doing so are going to be equal roughly to the money that was earned. So all you have done is taken the money and paid for a lot of accounting costs that has, at the most, given some people employment. But it is not going to result in any return to the people whose money is there. [Section 103 was agreed to without further debate.] [Section 104 to

Section 107 were agreed to without debate.]

Section 108(1) MR. KOZIAK: This is the

section that requires the practising lawyer and the firm to open up an interest bearing account. Now, I think that we have precedent for this requirement in the scriptures; you will all recall the parable about the talents and the wrath of the Lord in regard to the one individual who took his talent and buried it because he was afraid to lose it, and I think this is an area which has concerned a number of individuals for some time, that here we have funds that are sitting idle and not creating anything for the benefit of anybody, society or the owners of those funds or the users of those funds. But I have some concerns in connection with this

section and I'll put these to the hon. minister and perhaps he can allay my fears. The first concern is in connection with the requirement that every member open up an interest bearing account. Now with my experience in whatever banking I have done, I have never run into an interest paying current account with a bank. Now I may be wrong; however, I would like the hon. minister to assure us that there are such animals as interest paying current accounts. I know that Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 4461

69-24 ALBERTA HANSARD November 3rd 1972 the trust companies do provide this service; they will pay an interest on current checking accounts. However, I am not sure that a bank provides this service; in other words, pays interest on a checking account.

Now the reason I bring this up, is that if these current accounts do not pay interest and some arrangement is made for an interest paying current account, there would then be charges made for cheques written against that account and those charges would be passed on to the very people who have funds in deposit in those trust accounts; and this may work to their detriment.

So I would hope that there have been discussions or correspondence with the banking institutions in regard to this proposed section, and that some sort of a system has been worked out whereby existing clients won't be hurt by a change in existing practices. The other thing that concerns me, of course, is interest rates, because the principal is fine but the principal is based on a certain return, on the fact that there's money sitting idly by and only the financial institutions benefit from that. I recall when my savings account earned one or one and a one-half per cent interest.

Those were the days when you paid six per cent on a loan and those days are gone. But we may some day return to that. However, in the meantime we are in a state of rather high interest rates, and one-half of one per cent may be a particular interest rate at a particular bank which is prepared to pay for this type of an account,

whereas another may be prepared to pay one and one half or two. So the real value of the act then depends on the amount of interest which is paid on the monies in the account. Because if the principle is that we shouldn't leave the money sitting idly by, then that principal hasn't been served, if in one case you can get a half per cent, and in the other case you can get five and a half per cent.

But then if you proceed with that direction, I'm concerned that perhaps the firm or the lawyer might be pressed into depositing funds in a higher interest paying account, but that might have correspondingly higher loss rate, more of a possibility of the principal being lost, because there is a correlation between the interest paid and the risk involved. And the main concern of the barrister and solicitor in taking trust funds on deposit is that he return them to the client or to the purpose that they are supposed to be put.

And he should at no time be jeopardized by the banking institution with which he is dealing. MR. FRENCH: Mr. Chairman, I have another concern which is along the lines expressed by the hon. Member for Edmonton Strathcona. And that is, what assurance have we that the interest will not be added to the taxable income of that particular lawyer, notwithstanding the fact that the money will eventually be paid to the foundation?

At the present time the banks, I believe, issue what is known as a T-5 slip, and this will be issued in the name of the lawyer, and what assurance have we that this won't be added to the taxable income, because copies of these T-5 slips are sent to the tax branch, and I don't know -- possibly we have some assurance from the hon. minister that this will not happen. In any event I'm wondering if maybe this

section shouldn't have an amendment to be absolutely sure that this interest will not be added to the taxable income of that particular lawyer. I know we have quite a number of lawyers in the House, and I can understand they may be a little reluctant to bring this point up, but I don't mind bringing it up because I think we should be fair to the association. MR. LEITCH: Well to deal with the question of the hon. Member for Hanna-Oyen. I'm sure the legal profession wouldn't be at all reluctant to raise it if they were going to be taxed on money that never came to their hands.

I think the short answer to the question you have raised is that the money just never accrues to the lawyer's benefit. So it is not income -- it is not his income at all. Of course there is nothing magic about a T-5 slip; they simply indicate what money came to you, but if the fact is you don't get the money, it is not yours and you do not pay income tax on it, so I don't anticipate any problem in that area.

And I am not sure exactly what mechanics the bank would follow in reporting this income; it may well be that they show it as income to the Alberta Law Foundation as opposed to the individual lawyer, because this legislation requires them to account to the foundation, not to the lawyer. I'm not sure what mechanic they would follow, but in any event I'm satisfied that the tax department would not assess the individual lawyer because it was never his money -- never becomes his income. To deal with some of the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Edmonton Strathcona.

One of the questions he raised was whether this provision might lead to a bank making banking charges for cheques and things of that nature, which in turn would find their way back to the clients, because the lawyer would Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 4462

November 6, 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 69-25 not be expected to absorb that as one of his costs, and then the clients would, in fact, be paying some additional money as a result of this legislation which they wouldn't be paying without it. It's my understanding that that has not happened in the other jurisdictions which have similar legislation. I think for this very good reason, the financial institutions, despite this legislation, are still going to have a material advantage in having that trust account there.

The example I have given to you of the one firm with an $800,000 balance at the opening of a two-month period, and an $800 balance at the closing of the two- month period, that would be the figure on which they would pay interest. But, during that two-month period an additional $5 million flowed through that account. That money, even if it is only there for a day, is available and the institution makes use of it and doesn't pay interest on it.

So I would expect the existing arrangement, whereby banks do not charge law firms the normal bank charges on the processing of the cheques and trust accounts would continue. If it turns out that that does not continue, then I wwould be quite prepared to recommend amendments to the legislation which would provide for that. There are some jurisdictions which have that kind of provision. There are some jurisdictions which have gone through a rather elaborate procedure providing for payments of interest on only certain sums over a minimum balance.

They've left in the trust account a minimum balance to ensure the free charges that now exist. I doubt that that would be necessary but it is a point that we will keep in mind and something we gave consideration to in preparation of the bill. The other question of interest rates is again a matter that hasn't created a problem in the other jurisdiction. I don't anticipte a problem. If one arises, again it is something that may be cured by an appropriate amendment.

I would expect the financial institutions simply to pay the going interest rates on these deposits, because again I'm sure they will be pleased to have them, although they now must pay interest on them. On the question of a depositer endeavouring to get a higher interest rate, and as a result placing the money in a more risky institution, I doubt that there is any danger there. The act specifically requires that funds be deposited with a bank, trust company, or treasury branch, and that is where they are now deposited.

In those areas there are certain guarantees provided under by the federal government with agreements with the provincial governments. This restricts the depositing of those three types of institutions where the depositer's money is guaranteed. [Section 108(1) was agreed to.]

Section 108(2) MR. HENDERSON: Mr. Chairman, before we leave this page, I would like to ask the hon. minister the implications under 106(6) where it is talking about investing surplus funds under the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act.

What specifically was that chosen for (maybe a far-fetched question) first with Britain in the process of assuming much closer relationships with the Common Market and reducing many of its economic involvements in the Commonwealth; and, secondly, with the fact that, as I understand it, there are laws before the British House that will, in effect, make a Canadian an alien in Britain? What are the ministers doing with investment related to the British Insurance Companies Act? I realize it is

an act of Canada, but will the hon. minister explain it? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Chairman, that merely specifies the type of securities the foundation may invest in. They are defined under that legislation. The federal act says that insurance companies can invest in certain things. The object is to secure the assets of the insurance companies by restricting them to the type of investment they can invest in.

What has been done here is simply saying to the foundation, "You must invest in similar securities, so that the assets of the foundation are not exposed to an unnecessary risk which might occur if the directors were given complete opportunity in what they could invest in." So that legislation, although I appreciate the hon. member's concern with name, is merely federal legislation that specifies the kind of security that could be invested. It might have been tied to our own legislation. We have legislation for trust companies, for example, we could have tied it to that, but this is a little broader.

Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 4463

69-26 ALBERTA HANSARD November 3rd 1972 MR. HENDERSON: Just a question on the

interpretation of the act -- and quite frankly, I haven't looked at The Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act -- but does this mean that surplus funds could be invested in a foreign operation? As far as I am concerned, England has got to be foreign since you are treated as a foreigner if you want to go to England now, so it is a foreign operation. MR. LEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I'd have to look at the act again to be sure. My memory is not. They are restricted to bonds and things of that nature under that act.

That is what insurance companies can invest in -- mortgages and things of that nature, and it is spelled out. But without again looking at the act, I couldn't answer that question. MR. HENDERSON: Well, would the minister consider putting some restrictions on it a little closer to home, under the jurisdiction of this legislature?

As I say, quite seriously, with the change in the world situation as far as Britain is concerned, I, quite frankly, have no idea what the implications are but I would be far happier if I saw something in here that related to the controls that are under the jurisdiction of this legislature. MR. LEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure we have a problem here, or that the hon. member has one, and I think it might easily be solved by just looking at the act to see what the act does permit in the way of investment. MR. HENDERSON: Does the Attorney General think now that he'd better look at it?

He's the one that has brought the legislation before the House. MR. LEITCH: Well, I was satisfied when it was drafted that there was no problem, but I can appreciate that the hon. member is not prepared to take my assurance of that. But I really think that if you will look at the act you will be satisfied. MR. HENDERSON: Will the minister look at it? MR. LEITCH: Yes.

Section 108(3) MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, this is a type of public money -- public in the sense that it belongs to someone else and not to the lawyers -- and I notice that there is provision made for the books to be audited by chartered accountants for the purposes of the board. But I can't find any place in the act where the legislature is going to be informed as to how much money is coming into this fund, the accounting for it, the number of expenses, and so on.

I realize it is not money that belongs to the legislature, but since the act is being passed by the legislature, I would think that there should be an annual report tabled with the legislature -- at least the audited report -- so that we know whether we've done well or whether we've done badly in passing this type of legislation. I would like to see in the bill the requirement that a report including the audited statement be filed with the Attorney General and tabled in the legislature each year. MR. LEITCH: Mr.

Chairman, I think the hon. member has raised a good point, and I would have no objection to a suitable amendment. I'm not sure whether it is a requirement that it be tabled in the legislature. It may be that it should be restricted to filing a report with the Attorney General or with the government. I'm not sure, for example, what is done with other comparable funds, whether Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 4464

November 6, 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 69-27 they file annual reports for tabling in the legislature. But I am in agreement with the principle, that there be some communication requirement, such as a report from the board to the government. MR. TAYLOR: I think that is a good point, but that doesn't make it public unless the Attorney General in office at the time made it public. What I was thinking is that this is public money in the sense that it is being handled by somebody who doesn't own the money. I would think it would be a good gesture to make this public by tabling it in the legislature each year. MR.

COOKSON: I have just one comment on 108(3). It's interesting to note that one of the better critics on the other side, with considerable legal background, is very silent on this bill; that's our hon. Member for Calgary Mountain View. He's one of the better critics; I'd like to see him rise, just with reference to subsection 3; I wouldn't want everyone to fall asleep this afternoon. When you provide a provision in

section .. MR. HENDERSON: May I raise a question on 106 (7) before we go on to this next point? AN HON. MEMBER: Which? I don't know who's asleep here, but it's 106(7) that we're specifically asking the minister about at the moment. Certainly I can't see anything in it other than the public interest and the interest of the legal profession; I like to think that all lawyers are legal -- but that actual statement should simply be tabled in the House each year. It's a matter of public record; I think it precludes the possibility of people criticizing public money being spent here and there purposelessly, and so on.

MR. LEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we might, if we complete the bill this afternoon, hold that question and during the adjournment between 5:30 and 8:00 I'll give some thought to it. As I indicated earlier, the problem that concerns me is whether this type of funding is in keeping with other funds of a similar type for which we require a flat tabling in the legislature. Perhaps I'll be able to come back with an amendment. It would merely be an addition to 106, because the foundation has auditors and the accounts will be audited.

It would simply be adding to it another subsection requiring the statement to be filed or delivered to the government. So we'll hold that 106 and deal with it this evening. MR. COOKSON: Mr. Chairman, on that same point.... MR. CHAIRMAN: So we will come back to 108 (2), however, even after approval of this complete act we will hold it; we won't report until the Attorney General has given further thought to it, so Mr. Cookson, please continue. You had a question on 108(3). MR. COOKSON: Mr. Chairman, I was hoping I would get the member for Calgary Mountain View to rise but he is hesitant. You spell out in

section 103 that the funds will be used to maintain operating law libraries, and then you stack your foundation, if I may use the term, with a majority or a number in the legal profession, it could be the majority; then you have 108(3). Host clients have little if any knowledge of what trust funds are used for or how they are held. There is no provision in the bill other than a subsection which quite likely no one will ever be aware of.

Is there any protection, or would there be any protection, against the possibility eventually that legal people will channel all trust funds into this sort of a foundation and the interest will escalate as the years progress? Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 4465

69-28 ALBERTA HANSARD November 3rd 1972 MR. LEE: I have a suggestion on Mr. Taylor's comment in regard to

section 105. Perhaps this filing of the operations of the foundation could come under

section 105 and I guess my question is; under 105, are these by-laws to be filed with the Attorney General? Perhaps it could be extended within that section? MR. LEITCH: There is no requirement, Mr. Chairman, that by-laws be filed with the Attorney General, but there is in the act a provision that either the Attorney General or his nominee is on the board. As a result of being on the board he is of course aware of the by-laws because they are made by the board.

Turning to the last point about the trust monies, I should say that the concern expressed as I followed it, was that the lawyer might, in order to increase the amount of money in this fund, not put his client's money in an interest bearing trust account when he should. I think there are just two simple answers to that. First of all, the Law Society would exercise some control over that.

I would think that the lawyer who retained money in a trust account, a non-interest bearing trust account, when it would have been to his client's interest to put it in an interest bearing trust account, would be in difficulty with the law society. That is the first thing. The second thing is when you talk about law libraries, these law labraries really aren't of very much benefit to the legal profession.

If you go to any large law firm, it maintains its own law library, and notwithstanding the fact that there is a large law library in the court house two blocks away, they simply don't use it, except for very, very complex items in research where you need books that might be from other Commonwealth countries, special reports from the United States, and so on. In fact, nearly every lawyer who has an office with any substantial number of people in it has a fairly substantial library which he buys himself and maintains himself. He uses that as his every day working tool.

They really make quite limited use of the libraries in court houses and what have you, which is what we really have in mind here. They are used much more as a convenience during the course of trials, because you simply get your books out of that library and take them into the courtroom, rather than carting them from your office to the court house. The public makes quite extensive use of the law libraries in the court houses, particularly law students who are going to university.

They quite frequently use the downtown library as opposed to the library at the university because it is easier for them to get to in the evening. People doing research and things of that nature make use of libraries. Then the staff of the courthouse, and the judiciary, make use of those libraries. So, I think I just want to dispel any suggestion that these libraries -- maintained now, in part, by the government, under an agreement with the Law Society in the court houses are not used that extensively, or certainly not solely by the legal profession. MR.

BUCKWELL: I just want to ask the Attorney General for a bit of information. How does the Law Society check up on the individual lawyer, whether he put the accounts into an interest bearing or non-interest bearing account? MR. LEITCH: Two ways, Mr. Chairman. One, through complaints from clients -- if you are holding a client's money for any length of time in an account and there is no interest there, it is not at all unusual for him to ask you about it. He then can complain to the law society about it.

The second way, of course is that the law society, in the operation of its fund to pay for any defaultations, has auditors who go in and examine the lawyer's trust account without warning. That is the way that they police it. They are examined by accountants or auditors retained by the society, and they don't specifically look for that kind of thing, they are really looking at the balances -- that you have the amount there that you should have.

But if, in the course of that review, something of this nature came to their attention, that would be, I am sure, part of their report to the Law Society. [The remaining clauses of the bill, the title, and the

preamble were agreed to.] MR. CHAIRMAN: We will hold this until tonight. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 4466

November 6, 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 69-29 Bill No. 108: The Workmen's Compensation Amendment Act, 1972 (No. 2) [All the clauses of this bill, and the title and

preamble, were agreed to without debate.] DR. HOHOL: Mr. Chairman, I move that the bill be reported. [The motion was carried without debate.] Bill No. 109: The Land Titles Amendment Act, 1972 [All clauses of this bill were agreed to without debate.] Title and

Preamble MR. RUSTE: I had drawn to my attention this summer the fact that the people were waiting for their titles to be transferred; would this facilitate this procedure? This is where people needed their titles to get loans and so on, as a deposit for borrowing power. MR. LEITCH: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we hope that this will lead to a more efficient and speedy service within the Land Titles office. MR.

KOZIAK: A question that arose from that -- have the TWX facilities been arranged for searches between the Land Titles Office in Edmonton and solicitors in Edmonton, and the Land Titles Office in Calgary and solicitors in Calgary? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I can't answer that without checking. MR. ZANDER: Mr. Minister, has any thought been given to the number of caveats that are being put on to the lands? I have seen titles that have had as many as possible that can be put on the back of any land title that I have seen.

Is it possible that some of these caveats that are placed on this land by companies having an interest in the land (by virtue of a pipeline or power line or well site) be determined by the area rather than by the quarter or half section, whatever the amount is; if it is 4.1 acres the company has an interest on 4.1 acres rather than on the whole title. This seems to be the concern that most of the farmers and farm unions have now -- the caveat should state that it is the area, not the 160 acres in a quarter section, rather than the amount of land that is under survey that they have taken from that quarter section.

MR. LEITCH: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member raises a very good point and it is one that has been a concern to many people. It will arise in the case of, say, someone who owns farm land and he has worked hard all his life and finally succeeded in clearing the mortgage off, but at the same time some electrical or pipeline company has acquired an easement over his property and the next time he looks at his title he finds that there is a $6 million or $10 million mortgage registered against it because the company has used that easement as part of the security to raise its financing.

That is a question that has been under consideration. The Institute, as I recall it, has looked at the matter and there is nothing in this bill that deals with that. It is of valid concern and it is something for which we will endeavour to find a satisfactory answer MR. ZANDER: I would like to ask, Mr. Minister, about a concern of the people, especially in my area; I know that some of them have as high as 25 caveats placed against their quarter and it's always the willing buyer that has to acept those caveats and sometimes it takes about six months or maybe a year before a transaction can be completed.

Now I think there is deep concern by the farm Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 4467

69-30 ALBERTA HANSARD November 3rd 1972 people and the farm anions in Alberta, concerning the method of how they are being applied as you said, for security purposes. I am only going to refer to one thing that happened in my constituency, where the pipeline company in the construction went broke and the owner of the land was just in the process of selling it. Now this has gone on for about three years now and the whole thing is tied up because the person cannot sell it because the pipeline company has a $3 million dollar caveat on that property and won't lift it.

I wonder if we couldn't have a good look to see whether these companies, or whatever people take any portion of a quarter section, should be entitled to the amount that they take, and not in reference to the whole quarter section. MR. LEITCH: Well, Mr. Chairman, I can't comment in detail on the hon. member's statement without knowing a good deal more about the facts. The caveat, of course, doesn't protect any wider interest than the document on which the caveat is founded.

So the fact is that the caveat really only attaches to the property covered by the easement, if the caveat is given by the owner of the easement. So while there's no distinguishing on the title itself, indicating to what area the caveat refers, the fact is that it can only refer, if it's based on the easement, to the area covered by the easement. But without knowing the exact details of the case, I can't really respond beyond that. [The title and

preamble were agreed to.] Bill No. 110 The Defamation Amendment Act. 1972 [All Sections of the bill, the title, and the

preamble were agreed to without debate.] MR. LEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I move that the bill be reported. [The motion was carried.] Bill No. 111 The Alberta Income Tax Amendment Act, 1972, (No. 2) [All sections of this bill, the title, and the

preamble were agreed to without debate.] MR. MINIELY: Mr. Chairman, I move that this bill be reported. [The motion was carried.] Bill No. 112 The Department of Public Works Amendment Act, 1972 [All sections of this bill were agreed to without debate.] Title and

Preamble MR. LUDWIG: I'd like to make a few remarks on title and

preamble and it deals with a matter that concerns the Department of Public Works in Calgary. That's in the vicinity of the Court House. I understand that there have been some changes made and some repairs to the steps in front of the Court House, and this has been going on for five or six weeks, and when I see how this operation is being handled, I get the impression, and people seem to get the impression that a haywire outfit is doing the job. There doesn't seem to be anyone moving ahead with what is intended to be done.

Everybody is moving slowly, the winter is well on the way, and we have not completed this very minor project. If it takes the department more than six weeks to do a minor project like this, I'd hate to see them construct a whole court house. Now, something else that I noticed about that operation. It was a policy of the department to make provision for access for handicapped people -- people in wheelchairs, etc. In these changes that are being made, I don't notice that being done with regard to either of the access entrances to the court house.

Now, another item of interest, I think, that should be brought to the hon. Minister of Public Works. It's minor, but it's important. There is a dead tree Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 4468

November 6, 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 69-31 beside the court house, it's been dead since spring, and I am surprised that - - I don't know who the M.L.A. for Calgary Buffalo is, but he walked past there and he doesn't seem to care. Now I was going to suggest that perhaps the Calgary M.L.A.s could -- MR. GHITTER: Point of order. Having walked by that location on many occasions, not only was I very disturbed about the dead tree, but I was also very disturbed about the dead fish in the pond outside the court house.

And I would like to see the hon. minister do something about that as well, which I am sure would please the hon. Member for Calgary Mountain View. MR. LUDWIG: Yes, apparently the dead fish rebelled against the change in administration, obviously. But, Mr. Chairman, with regard to that tree, almost $1/2 million was spent in building a mini-park down there, and this tree is there, and anyone can see that something should be done. It is a minor operation. I think the hon. minister ought to find out and change this. It detracts from the whole beautiful mini-park that is there.

It is something I think the Calgary people deserve to have changed, and I would only like to recommend that when you change the tree, don't plant an apple tree because some conservative spark might escort it out of its place at midnight. So I think an evergreen tree planted there would be an indication that someone is concerned about what is going on there, Mr. Minister, and I hope you will attend to this very quickly. Thank you very much. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, this isn't too vital, but I am just wondering what type of articles the hon. minister is concerned about.

Also, will there be any advertising through press releases where these articles are of some value, so that people might know that they have been retained by the government? Say a person lost a diamond ring, and the government held it for three months and then sold it. Would there be a press release stating that a diamond ring h ad been found in the auditorium, or wherever it was found? What I am trying to get at is: what is being done in order to acquaint the public that the government has some articles that it is going to sell if they are not claimed promptly? DR.

BACKUS: I have noted the problems brought to my attention by the hon. Member for Calgary Mountain View, and certainly will look into these matters. I'm afraid I was not aware of the dead tree or the fish, but these will certainly be looked into, and also the matter of the steps. I did a preliminary check on the steps and this has already had some review. With regard to the bill, the types of articles that are left are various articles of apparel left in the Jubilee Auditorium and other public buildings. These can vary quite a little tit. I do believe that already at the present, if any really valuable

article is found, the normal process of notification of the police is carried out, If anybody losing one of these articles follows the usual process of trying to find it, he should be able to find out where it was lost. On the other hand, it does present a real problem because a lot of people seem to leave things behind and don't seem to have the least concern about recovering them. They are kept there for the public to come back and recover them for this period of three months, and, in fact, in the past they have been kept a lot longer. Nobody seems to bother to come back and pick them up.

I'm sure if somebody even thought that he had lost a diamond ring and there was the least possibility it might have been lost in a public building, he would be very quick in trying to follow it up. I could look into the possibility of advertising these lost property sales in such a way that people would have an opportunity, if they saw the advertisement and recognized personal possessions in the list, to get into the department to claim it before it was actually sold. I can assure the hon. members that if this were the case and somebody gave notification before an

article was sold, even if the three months had expired, there would be no question about returning it to the person. It is really just to cover the ones who don't seem to worry about their articles being left behind. MR. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to suggest to the hon. minister that I would like him to give some consideration over a year or two, if this bill proceeds. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 4469

69-32 ALBERTA HANSARD November 3rd 1972 I have some question, in my own mind, as to whether the procedure for the sale and disposal of these lost items is most appropriately the Alberta Opportunity Company. My understanding of the operations of that company is that its procedure may perhaps be better suited to government office fixtures and this sort of things -- larger items, which can be put on display on the floor. I would guess that these items we are discussing here are of a smaller more personal nature and might just as well disposed of by auction sales, for instance, as the federal post office does.

Also I'm not aware of the Alberta Opportunity Company advertising its items the way auction sales are sometimes advertised. So, while I'm not opposed to a procedure of some type, I do raise a question as to whether, after some experience, we might not again look at this with a view to a different procedure. DR. BACKUS: I perhaps should say, at this point, that the desks and other items which you referred to had, in the past, been handled by the commercial branch. The Alberta Opportunity Company is a completely new undertaking.

For this reason, we really have had virtually no experience of their method of disposal of articles. I certainly think any recommendations would be very much appreciated by the Alberta Opportunity Company. I'm sure they will look into the various ways of disposing of these things, whether by auction or by bulk sale, whatever seems to bring in the most satisfactory return for them. I'm sure they would only be too happen to adopt this. I certainly agree that after we have watched this go along for a short while, there will be some changes in the technique of selling these surplus articles. [The title and

preamble were agreed to.] DR. BACKUS: Mr. Chairman, I move the bill be reported. [The motion was carried.] Bill No. 115, The Financial Administration Amendment Act, (No. 2) [All Sections of the bill, the title, and the

preamble, were agreed to without debate.] MR. MINIELY: Mr. Chairman, I move the bill be reported. [The motion was carried] Bill No. 120, The AGT-Edmonton Telephones Act [Section 1 to

Section 2(1)(

b) were agreed to without debate]

Section 2(1)(

c) MR. BENOIT: Mr. Chairman, I can't see the difference between these two; arbitration tribunal and price evaluation committee. Are they going to do the same thing and have a different name? MR. WERRY: Mr. Chairman, we are on

Section 3, are we? MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 2(1)(c), the first amendment, the Arbitration Tribunal. MR. WERRY: Mr. Chairman, I'll speak to that, and while I'm speaking to that, I will also be speaking to

Section 3. The arbitration tribunal, as set out in the present bill before it is amended, states that the Executive Council shall sit for any matters that are in dispute as to compensation, or what the assets are under

Section 3. The tribunal, as it is referred to, shall be set by the Executive Council. Well, upon the request of the City of Edmonton, we have Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 4470

November 6, 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 69-33 changed

Section 3 so that the tribunal, or what is now called the Price Evaluation Committee, is set as follows: the City Council shall nominate one member; the Executive Council will appoint one member; and then those two members shall appoint the third member. So, really we are talking about the same thing. Instead of calling it a tribunal, now it is a Price Evaluation Committee and has to do with the pricing and the assets that will go into the evaluation as of December 31st. MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Chairman, in appointing a member to this price evaluation committee, has the government indicated who will be representing it? MR. WERRY: Certainly not, Mr. Chairman, because if the hon. member will look at

Section 3, there are two items there that might require the striking of the price evaluation committee We have no idea if there are going to be any items to be referred to this committee, and until there is some item that is in dispute, why strike a committee? MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Chairman, the concern I have is: have any prices been agreed to, to date, and if they have, would the minister give us some indication of how they have been arrived at and who agreed to any prices?

Naturally if one party is selling and there are a number of items for sale, one can anticipate that Edmonton is going to want the best deal it can get and the government ought to get for the people the best deal possible if this bill passes. I'd like to know who the individual is who is going to be representing the people of the province against Edmonton Telephones. MR. WERRY: The hon. member will know when the member is appointed. MR. LUDWIG: After that remark, I hope it is someone who can do a much better job for the people than the hon. minister has done on this bill. MR.

HYNDMAN: You had 30 years to do nothing. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Chairman, just a small question to the minister. I gather that whether it is called a price evaluation committee or an arbitration tribunal, the decision will be binding on both parties? MR. WERRY: Yes, that is correct, Mr. Chairman. Under the provisions of

section 3, the third member that is appointed; there is a three-man committee and the majority carries, so that in effect the chairman will act as the person that will set the value of the equipment. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dixon. MR. DIXON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to direct a question to the hon. minister. I was wondering if in this bill somewhere they could allow an option exercise where the province, in the case where it decides to negotiate with others and Edmonton to buy them out, if they can have the option to use the same conditions as we are giving Edmonton at the present time, as a safeguard.

The option would be that they could use it if they wished to, or if they wanted to go with what the committee recommended later on in the day.

I was wondering if there was some protection for the Alberta people whose crown assets we are selling, because they are being sold at an encouraging price to Edmonton, and I am wondering if the shoe was on the other foot, and especially when I heard during the debates the members opposite who were stating they were hoping to build up this Edmonton empire and then maybe at that time start selling it back to AGT, Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 4471

69-34 ALBERTA HANSARD November 3rd 1972 so I was wondering, and I am being serious, I was wondering if there was some way where there could be an option whereby we, as AGT subscribers, could buy it back under the same conditions as we are selling at the present time, providing that each party is agreeable to a sale? MR. WERRY: Mr. Chairman, there are a number of problems with that and, in principle, what the hon. member is saying is a good point, but in that sort of an event we have to have a willing seller and at this particular point in time the City of Edmonton has indicated that the system is not for sale.

Now with respect to this bill, we hope that a precedent will be set for evaluation of equipment from here on in, and that evaluation has nothing to do with cost. For instance, as of today's date an approximate value of the cost of the City of Edmonton telephone system is $60 million. Well to anyone who has been aware of the debates that have taken place in the council chambers, that figure gets bandied around from $100 million to $200 million, depending on which council member is speaking.

I am hopeful that this bill here will reflect how a purchase price can be set if, in fact, Edmonton Telephones would be for sale in the forseeable future. It is a precedent, too, that is well recognized in utilities in Alberta, in that in The Public Utilities Act it states that any franchise that is acquired shall be on the basis of reproduction cost new, less depreciation. MR. HENDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I think I understand the intent of

Section 2, particularly (1) (

c) but I am wondering if it really makes it clear that this committee is to deal with the payment to the city for incremental cost over and above the $10 million referred to the

preamble in clause 1. Now the way I look at the thing, I don't think it makes it explicit that the committee aren't negotiating or dealing with the question of $10 million. All they are dealing with is this -- MR. WERRY: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member will refer to the amendments that have been circulated, then I think he will see what I am referring to. Unfortunately I had to move from

section 2 to

section 3 to explain the change in wording from "tribunal" to "price evaluation committee." MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Chairman, the minister states that Edmonton was not a willing seller. Can he explain why and for what reason AGT became a willing seller? MR. WERRY: Well, if the hon. member was listening Friday last, I think he would have found out a little bit about what happened in the previous five years. I don't want to take the time of the House to go back to the year 1902 to bring them up- to-date — MR. LUDWIG: Go ahead, go ahead.

I don't want to take the time of the House to go back to the year 1902 to bring them up to date, but I would just reiterate that in the last three or four years the City of Edmonton had requested that they service Jasper Place and west Jasper Place. In January of 1971, Justice Dechene ruled in the Supreme Court of Alberta that the City of Edmonton had the right to service Jasper Place. Now, at that point, the whole telephone dispute sort of exploded, as you might say. The thing got out of hand, and a telephone mediation committee was struck.

There was one appointee from the City of Edmonton; there was one appointee from AGT, and there was an independent person, Alec Lester. They came down with a mediation report. As I indicated in the House on Friday, there were -- I don't have the mediation committee report with me -- but I think there were some 15 points in that the committee recommended, that had to do with the solution of the outstanding items that had been bandied around for some time. Now all of those were accepted with the exception of two. One of them had to do with boundaries.

And in the boundaries question there were eight recommendations as to different boundaries. Also, in those recommendations was another item that recommended that Edmonton Telephones received three per cent of the long distance toll revenue from the calls emenating or terminating in the City of Edmonton. So, in this telephone negotiating committee that was struck, Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 4472

November 6, 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 69-35 being comprised of members of city council and three members from the government side, we moved off the mediation committee report in two areas. We moved off on the boundaries, and we moved off on the long-distance toll settlement. The agreement was that the City of Edmonton would be allowed to serve the subscribers in the City of Edmonton as the boundaries may be from time to time. The second part of that settlement was that AGT is not authorized to enter into any agreement with the City of Edmonton for toll revenue. And that, Mr. Chairman, was the basis of the settlement.

MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Chairman, I could understand and appreciate the minister's concern for trying to make this mess look good, but I want to know why he said that all the recommendations of t

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19721106
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L17 S1 19721106 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	c734debd42fd38a6b3465f1e6f57c6a093c1ab60

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