Alberta Hansard — 29 April 1985, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 20, Session 3)

19850429

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

April 29, 1985 ALBERTA HANSARD 663 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Monday, April 29, 1985 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 30 Public Service Employee Relations Amendment Act, 1985 MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to introduce Bill 30, the Public Service Employee Relations Amendment Act, 1985. Mr. Speaker, this Bill would clarify three areas in respect to the jurisdiction of the Public Service Employee Relations Board. One is the basis upon which the board might determine exclusions from a bargaining unit.

Another is in respect to directions that can be given to arbitration boards named in respect to either interest or grievance arbitrations by the Public Service Employee Relations Board pursuant either to the bargaining process or in respect to a collective agreement having to do with the grievance procedure. The third would clarify the board's capacity to make orders directed to either of the parties in respect to bargaining in good faith. [Leave granted; Bill 30 read a first time] Bill 61 Mortgage Brokers' Regulation Amendment Act, 1985 MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I request leave to intro duce a Bill, being the Mortgage Brokers' Regulation Amend ment Act, 1985. Mr. Speaker, this Bill will more clearly define the role of a mortgage broker and provide for additional disclosure requirements that deal particularly with information for the lender. [Leave granted; Bill 61 read a first time] Bill 62 Builders' Lien Amendment Act, 1985 MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill 62, the Builders' Lien Amendment Act, 1985. Mr.

Speaker, some of the principles in the Bill are: the time period for registering a lien having been extended from 35 to 45 days; there's now provision for a major and minor lien fund; and there's also provision for trust funds under certain circumstances, and it's a principle of the Bill. [Leave granted; Bill 62 read a first time] MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 62 be placed on the Order Paper under Government Bills and Orders. [Motion carried] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. M. MOORE: Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to file with the Assembly copies of the preliminary traffic collision statistics for the province of Alberta for 1984. MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table with the Assembly gas protection amendment regulations pursuant to the Gas Protection Act. MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, I wish to file with the Legislature copies of the memorandum of understanding reached between Alderman Ed Leger and MLA Al Hiebert containing the question of the dispute between Alberta Government Tele phones and Edmonton Telephones, and a copy of the terms of reference signed Wednesday, April 24, 1985. MR. KROEGER: Mr.

Speaker, I wish to table the annual report of the Alberta Water Resources Commission. MR. WEISS: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Northern Alberta Development Council, it is my pleasure to file reports on two recently completed projects; first, the employment alter natives for small community workshops and, secondly, the Tourism North conference report. Thank you. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. STILES: Mr.

Speaker, it gives me pleasure to introduce to you, and through you to members of the Assembly, 37 energetic students from the grade 10 class of the Hugh Sutherland high school in Carstairs in the Olds-Didsbury riding. The students are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Dale Weiss, and by parents Mr. Ron Gusella, Mr. Frank Wasch, Mrs. Symon, Mrs. Shepherd, Mrs. Pat Van Tetering, and a special parent among this group, the previous MLA for the Olds-Didsbury riding for over 20 years, Mr. Robert Clark and his wife Norma.

They're seated in the members' gallery, and I'd ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to introduce two dozen students from grade 6 in Laurier Heights school in Edmonton Glenora constituency. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mrs. Claire Desrochers. They are in the members' gallery, and I'd ask that they rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly at this time. MR. R. MOORE: Mr.

Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce to you, and through you to the members of this Assembly, 37 seniors from the Christian Reformed church situated in the constituency of Lacombe. We all know this Canada of ours is a land made up of immigrants from all countries around this world, and today we are honoured to have seated in the public gallery a group of pioneers from Holland. They have made a tremendous contribution to the cultural and economic well-being of our province. In fact, they've made the constituency of Lacombe one of the potato capitals of the province.

I'd ask them now to stand and receive the traditional welcome of the Assembly.

664 ALBERTA HANSARD April 29, 1985 head: MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Department of Transportation MR. M. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce today the implementation of" a new highway safety construc tion program. This new program will result in the expend iture of over $32 million directed towards improving highway safety.

While virtually every Alberta Transportation highway improvement project results in safer driving conditions for the motorist, a large number of improvements are requested each year to correct problems or situations which are at present or have the potential to become safety concerns in the future. Mr. Speaker, I have tabled today in the Legislature copies of the 1984 Alberta traffic collision statistics. Those figures indicate that the number of traffic injuries in 1984 decreased by 2 percent from 1983; traffic fatalities, however, increased by 10 percent.

A total of 470 people, or more than one each day, lost their lives in traffic collisions. A large percentage of these occurred in rural areas. To address these problems, the transportation safety branch has devel oped a priority list for improvements to our highway system based on the examination of police collision records. Mr.

Speaker, this program will involve the following types of work: skid-resistant surface treatment, illumination, rumble strip installation, traffic control signalization, passing lane construction, intersection improvement, side slope improvement, access control, railway crossing improvement, and the installation of guard rails and markings at various locations. Forty-five of this year's projects encompass skid-resistant surface treatment, at a cost of $10.15 million.

These meas ures are undertaken to improve highway and bridge surfaces by increasing pavement friction, which leads to improved braking and steering control for motorists. The construction of this surface of rock chips embedded in asphalt is a significant factor in improving safety for motorists, partic ularly during periods when the pavement is wet or icy. Fifty-five illumination projects will be scheduled this year, at a cost of $3.11 million. Highway lighting will be installed to increase visibility at a number of important intersections and interchanges.

This will make pedestrians and motorists on rural and urban roads more visible during hours of darkness. Thirty of the projects this year incorporate the installation of rumble strips, at a cost of $40,000, designed to alert drivers when approaching stop signs. Additionally, rumble strips will be used to warn drivers of special, hazardous conditions such as a railway crossing. Mr. Speaker, we intend to carry out 15 projects involving traffic signalization, at a cost of $750,000, including the installation of traffic signals at important intersections and pedestrian crosswalk signals in developed areas.

Passing lanes are slated for construction at 12 new locations this construction season, at a cost of $3.25 million. In order to reduce the frequency of unsafe passing and driver stress, these new lanes will be built on existing two-lane highways. These lanes will allow drivers to overtake slower moving vehicles more safely, thus improving the flow characteristics of the highway. Mr. Speaker, intersection improvements are particularly effective in reducing the number of rear-end collisions and unsafe-turning collisions.

This year we will either widen or add turning lanes to 55 intersections for a total cost of $5.5 million. The final result of this will be to separate through traffic from vehicles preparing to turn. These projects are in addition to those intersections already included in larger construction or reconstruction projects. A number of projects to flatten steep highway side slopes and eliminate unnecessary access points to the highways will be undertaken at a cost of $145,000. Mr.

Speaker, elimination of little-used intersections is a very effective method of reducing collisions involving vehi cles entering or leaving the highway and serious crashes involving vehicles that run off the highway and strike the crossroad or approach. This year, at a cost of $2 million, at least 50 minor intersections and approaches will be removed, relocated to safer locations, or combined with other well-designed intersections through the construction of service roads.

Increasing driver awareness of railway crossings is expected to have a major effect on the number of train/vehicle collisions in the province. We are therefore embarking on a multiyear program to increase the conspicuity of crossings — I didn't write that word — in other words, we're going to make them more visible through upgrading or signing, installation of more crossing signals, improvement of vis ibility, and other physical improvements. This year, crossing improvements are expected to cost about $3 million.

During 1985, $1 million will be used to improve the 123 crossings on the Canadian Pacific main line between Edmonton and Calgary. It is expected that the cost of some of the improve ments will be shareable with the Canadian Transport Com mission and the railway company. A further $2 million will be applied to 35 other crossings in other areas which have been identified as requiring crossing protection signals. Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Pacific main line announcement is one I made in Red Deer about two weeks ago.

Included in the plans we have for guardrail installation and marking improvements is the installation of 40,000 metres of new rails and the replacement of another 40,000 metres of rails at a cost of $4.2 million. Mr. Speaker, all of this work will provide increased safety for all motorists travelling on Alberta's highways. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, in replying to the ministerial statement, I certainly have no objection to $32 million being spent on highway safety. It certainly looks like a program that — as I said, it's well spent. I noticed the figures, and it surprised me that there were 470 deaths.

I can see the minister's concern, because that certainly is a startling figure. I wasn't aware it was that high. I would say to the government, though, that while these are good and worthwhile measures and money well spent, it seems to me that we should follow up on what was started last year and look at mandatory seat belt laws. I know that the minister brought in up to six. We know that seat belts save lives; it's well documented from reports from Ontario. The other thing, and we've mentioned this before, is that over the long haul it saves money.

In terms of length of stay in the hospital, we can compare the costs of accidents where you've had seat belts or not, and over the long haul it saves money. So while I certainly support this initiative, I hope that the government could screw up its political courage and go the rest of the way with seat belts. Thank you. Mr. Speaker. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say one or two things. I notice a common word that's used in downtown Debolt: "conspicuity". I'm glad the minister brought it here to the Legislature today.

April 29, 1985 ALBERTA HANSARD 665 The second item is that certainly the intent of the program is good, and I'd like to commend the minister for bringing it forward in an aggressive, comprehensive way. Often we try to do these things in a rather piecemeal way, and I believe what the minister is doing in his administration is pulling it all together and making it a thrust in the depart ment. I certainly congratulate him and the government on that point. I want to use this opportunity, though, to highlight this time of the year across Alberta. May is graduation month for many of our high school students.

It's a month when many incidents occur because of the gala time and the opportunity for partying. I'd just like to highlight the concern, I'm sure, of every member in this Legislature at this time, that as members we should be conscious of that. Wherever we can assist, we should bring about the concept of safety and promote it in our communities in every way we can.

I'd like to urge the Minister of Transportation that he in turn, through his department, his staff, and through advertising, promote that concept of safety; that when young people get into their vehicle, they must remember it is a weapon that can kill not only themselves but others about them. I'd like also to continue to urge the hon.

Member for Lethbridge West, in his responsibilities with AADAC and the drug commission, that they continue the good program of advertising to try to curtail all the deaths and injuries that we can during this month of May, so that the good crop of young people we have in Alberta can continue to grow to be the responsible citizens they are today. Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity of this announcement to urge all of us to do everything we can to maintain that good environment for our young citizens in Alberta. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Hazardous Materials MR. MARTIN: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to direct the first question to my friend the Minister of the Environment. To continue with PCBs, only in a little different way, I have here a small capacitor, recently purchased at an auto body shop in Edmonton. It contains Pyranol, which I'm sure the minister is well aware is a brand name for a form of PCB. My question to the minister is this: has the minister's department done any inventory of the number of pieces of electrical equipment containing PCBs available for over-the- counter purchase? MR. BRADLEY: Specifically, I don't believe they have, Mr. Speaker.

As I understand, the regulation put in place when the continuing manufacture of PCBs was eliminated was that the ongoing use of this material could be used in terms of electrical equipment as long as it was in a closed container. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question. I recognize the law, but is the minister saying that he does not see the selling of this type of transmitter across the counter as a potential problem? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked a question in terms of review of inventories. I think I responded that I didn't have that specific information.

I did respond in terms of what my understanding was of the law in the country in terms of manufacture and use of products with PCBs in them, that they had to be in closed containers. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Looking at it here, it mentions Pyranol being involved, but I don't see any warning on the capacitor itself to indicate that this is a form of PCB. Has the minister taken any steps to warn the public that this is a form of PCB? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, I think the regulations are clear in terms of the manufacture of these products and what's in place.

I believe that's a federal responsibility. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question. Recognizing that there are federal laws and provincial laws, Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister: is the minister suggesting that his department then has no role to play in PCBs being sold across the counter? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, in particular, these products are manufactured under federal legislation, and the manu facturing requirements are by the federal people, as they are for automobiles, for example. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question.

Is the minister saying that because it falls under federal law, his department has no options, that they could not do anything to warn people that there are PCBs in here, that that's totally beyond the mandate of the Department of the Environment? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that matter under consideration, but as I understand, the manufacture of these types of products is under federal jurisdiction. MR. MARTIN: Let me make a suggestion, Mr. Minister. I understand that leakage from this particular piece of equipment can occur if the casing rusts, is damaged, or overheats.

As a result of that — and it does happen — has the minister undertaken any sort of public awareness cam paign to warn citizens of possession of this equipment and what they could do to prevent leaks and, if not, would he consider such a campaign? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that under advise ment. MR. MARTIN: Let me see if we can take some other things under advisement too. Of course, the other part of it is disposing. We've had a lot of discussion in this House about how to dispose of PCBs. I take it, Mr.

Speaker, that if I wanted to dispose of this, I could simply throw it in my garbage can, but I don't think that would be responsible. My point is that people might be doing this without knowing. Could the minister advise if the department provides any place where such equipment can be left off for eventual disposal and how Albertans are notified of this? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, the matter as to specific disposal of that type of equipment is something I'll take under review, and advise the House accordingly. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question. I appreciate that the minister is now aware of it at least.

I'm always glad to help him out. But let me suggest that this is an auto part and that there are probably a number of older auto mobiles in the province especially that have parts like this

666 ALBERTA HANSARD April 29, 1985 under their hoods. Does the minister's department provide any advice or information for motorists on what to do in case of a leak? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, I think I've taken that question under advisement already. MR. MARTIN: We'll take all these questions under advise ment. I'm pleased to help the minister again. Let me just ask one final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. There are prob ably many other ballasts, transformers, and capacitors con taining PCBs which are still in use in the province, besides the obvious one here dealing with a car.

My question is: does the minister's department have any sort of compre hensive program to identify where these devices are still used, and are comprehensive efforts made to remove them when they are found? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, I think I've outlined the terms of the federal legislation which permitted these trans formers to continue in use in sealed containers. The concern is with the eventual disposal of transformers where the large bulk of PCBs are.

The department has in place with the utility companies a procedure in which they review the storage of these specific transformers once they are taken out of use. MR. MARTIN: We'll look forward to some answers when the minister comes back with all those questions under advisement. Edmonton Food Bank Report MR. MARTIN: I'd like to move over and welcome back the minister of Social Services and Community Health. If I may, I have a few questions to direct to the minister. I'm sure the minister is aware that Edmonton's Food Bank had their first-quarter results and released them last week.

I quote from one statement there, Mr. Speaker. They're talking about January 1 to March 31, 1985. its emergency program alone channelled about 365,000 pounds of food through member agencies and churches, to the equivalent of 35.152 persons in need, up 35% over the same period a year earlier and 527% over two years ago. My question to the minister is: what assessment has the minister's department made of these first-quarter results? Specifically, is there any concern that the food banks will not be able to feed the hungry in Edmonton in the immediate future? DR. WEBBER: Mr.

Speaker, in discussions with the Edmonton Food Bank organization prior to Christmas and prior to our increasing food benefits for larger families, particularly for children, and also clothing benefits for children, it was my prediction at that time that those increases would not have any impact on the numbers of people who would be going to the food outlets, because in spite of the claim by certain individuals that our social allowance rates are responsible for the numbers of people going to the food banks, we were claiming that that was not the case.

In spite of all the social allowance recipients having received these increases by mid-January, we end up seeing in January. February, and March the largest number of people going to the food banks in the last three years. So in terms of working with the Edmonton Food Bank people, we are continuing that process. The director of the Edmonton region is meeting with the Edmonton Food Bank people to follow up on some of the recommendations they have made in their report. I, too, am working with the Edmonton Food Bank organization to see what follow-up we can work out.

I think that brings the hon. member up- to-date on where we are. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question. Maybe the min ister read a different report. I agree that the minister predicted — back on March 19 he said that it was not going to have an impact giving additional funds to social services. But in the study they say just the opposite, Mr. Speaker: A preliminary study indicates a decline of about 10% is attributable to changes in provincial Social Allowance policies. My question is: does the minister have any information that would concur with this study?

What is his assessment of their saying that directly, which counteracts what he was saying? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, the only report I have is the report that the Edmonton Food Bank people issued in January or early February, I believe. I believe I haven't seen the report the member is reading from. He commented that what they're saying in that report is contrary to what I stated here in the Legislature. I would just say that I think the statistics bear out what I said here in the Legislature. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question.

For the minister's information, this is the first-quarter results from the Edmonton Food Bank, issued April 24. I'm surprised that the minister hasn't had a chance to look at that. They're saying that they have a study which indicates the decline was attributable. My question is: would the minister check into this study and find out who is right, they or the minister's department? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may be surprised that I haven't seen the report, but he knows full well that I was in Ottawa from the 24th on, the time period the hon. member is referring to.

Certainly, I expect that if the report has been sent to my office. I'll be seeing it very quickly and will give it full consideration. MR. MARTIN: Following up from this. Mr. Speaker, they indicate: "We would like to take this opportunity . . ." MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I have a little difficulty with this. The minister has agreed to look at the report. I assume that the hon. leader will have the opportunity after that to question him about the report.

I have some difficulty in the value of an exercise that takes the report piece by piece and asks the minister to comment on it now before he's had a chance to read it. It seems to me that's not an efficient use of question period time, with all the members sitting here while this is going on. MR. MARTIN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It's not my fault the minister hasn't read the paper. This was released last week. It's pressing for 30.000 people who are running out. My question . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I'm not questioning the importance of it, nor am I suggesting that the hon. leader

April 29, 1985 ALBERTA HANSARD 667 has any blame to take for the minister having been away and not having seen the report. I'm just saying, let's be a little practical about it and give the minister an opportunity to read the report, as he has promised to do. MR. MARTIN: Let me follow up on the food banks, Mr. Speaker. They say in the report that the cupboard is bare, that they're running out of food. My question . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The hon. member is simply continuing in the same way as if he and I hadn't had a discussion about it. Let's leave the report alone.

If he's got other questions, let's deal with those and be practical about it and let the minister have a chance to read the report and then deal with it. MR. MARTIN: I'm sure the hungry will appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. But we'll move into a different area. My question, then . . . MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's non sequiturs are not helpful. MR. MARTIN: That's a matter of opinion, Mr. Speaker. Going back to Hunger in Our City — I'm sure the minister is aware of this one. As I recall, they made some seven recommendations.

The Food Bank recommended that the department of social services "undertake a comprehensive cost of living study to ascertain objective levels of adequate support" for those who rely on social services. It would help the debate we're having here now. Has the minister initiated such a study yet, and what progress is he able to report on that study if he's looking at it? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of this report, probably to a greater degree than the hon. member would care to recognize. I've had discussions with people in the food bank area relative to the recommendations.

It's my intention to follow up with a response to the Edmonton Food Bank people on their recommendations. However, that recommendation refers to doing a particular cost of living study, and we had analyzed the cost of living situation, along with a number of other factors, in Edmonton, Calgary, and Alberta prior to our significant increase in food and clothing benefits for social allowance recipients before Christmas. We ended up in a position where the those benefits are the highest in the country.

As we go along, we will continue to assess the situation relative to the needs of those who are on social allowance, and we'll take into account a number of factors and studies in doing so. Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to comment that my office indicates that we have not received a copy of that report from the Edmonton Food Bank people. I hope we will soon. MR. MARTIN: You'd better ask your office what they've been doing, because it was a press release released last week, along with everything else. I suggest you'd better ask them what they're doing. [interjections] Look at them.

Don't get excited. You'll get your chance. My question to the minister is on another specific recommendation from that Hunger in Our City report. It urged the government to extend to single employables the social allowance benefits which others are entitled to. Has the minister followed up on that recommendation, and if so, can he report to the Assembly what the results of that follow-up are? DR. WEBBER: Mr.

Speaker, I have already indicated to the Assembly the follow-up to the recommendations from the Edmonton Food Bank people, I think it would be inappropriate at this time to report on each of the rec ommendations they made before I've had the opportunity to completely respond to all the recommendations to that particular organization. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question. MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the final supplementary on this topic. MR. MARTIN: As I recall, this report has been out for over two months, and he still hasn't replied to them.

My question is a simple one: when will the minister get around to making a formal response to the Food Bank's report? After two months, will it be another month or three, or what time frame are we looking at? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't want the hon. leader to have the impression that because we haven't formally responded to that organization things have been idle. As a matter of fact, we have taken these recom mendations seriously, and through discussions with the Edmonton Food Bank people, we actually made significant increases before Christmas, as I've referred to several times here.

Those increases in part reflect the concerns expressed to us by the Edmonton Food Bank people. With regard to such things as information being provided to people who come to the food banks about social allowance benefits, we are following up on that in a direct way. So a number of things we are doing are happening right now, and any formal report we make back to the Edmonton Gleaners Association will reflect actions that have already been taken. Sugar Beet Industry MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture, and it's with regard to the very difficult situation the sugar beet growers are facing in southern Alberta in negotiating with the B.C. sugar company. I wonder if the minister could indicate what information is available at this time in terms of the negotiations, and what seem to be the factors attributing to the deadlock? MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr. Speaker, I haven't had an update as of today, but I understand negotiations are under way with respect to the contract between B.C. sugar and the growers in southern Alberta.

Those negotiations are now under way not only in Alberta but in other provinces also. It comes down to the position of each one of the participants with respect to the returns on a ton of sugar beets. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. One of the very grave concerns in terms of the growers of southern Alberta is a Canadian sugar policy. I wonder if the minister could indicate what steps have been taken by the minister or the Premier in terms of a lobby to the federal government to have a policy put in place, hopefully in 1985.

668 ALBERTA HANSARD April 29, 1985 MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr. Speaker, that has been not only our concern but the growers' concern, right from the beginning. I have to compliment the growers on the excellent job they've done, working in extremely difficult circum stances, recognizing that we don't at the present time have a comprehensive sugar policy in this country so that, in fact, we have become a dumping ground for sugar. The hon. Minister of Economic Development and I sent telexes on March 6 and March 8 to the federal Minister of Agriculture stressing the importance of a national sugar policy to this country.

Also, on March 16 here in Edmonton we met with the minister handling the responsibility for the whole area of sugar policy, at which time we very clearly outlined to him the importance of the sugar industry to Canada and to Alberta and the importance of getting on with negotiations and discussions with respect to a long- term sugar policy. The Premier has also corresponded with the Prime Minister, I believe.

In addition to that, I understand there is now a decision by the federal minister that over the period of the next months they will be undertaking discussions with the three provinces of Quebec, Manitoba, and Alberta to work toward a national sugar policy. The only concern I have at this point is that initially they are looking at the advisability of a sugar policy, not really working on a sugar policy. I believe we have had enough discussions over the last 15 to 20 years about whether or not there should be a sugar policy.

I hope to be involved personally and intensely in discussions with the other participants working toward a sugar policy that will give some stability to such an important industry in this province. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Can the minister indicate any type of immediate action that he is initiating that may not only bring about more fulfilling negotiations between the company and the growers but enhance the possibility of a sugar policy being put in place as well? MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr. Speaker, I'm having discussions.

I know I'll be on the telephone later this week with the minister responsible. In addition to that. I have asked the Member for Chinook as well as the members for Rocky Mountain House and Wainwright to go to Ottawa this week, at which time there will be discussions on a variety of issues with the agriculture caucus committees of the other two provinces and with the federal government agriculture caucus committee. I've asked the members from Alberta that will be going to make sure they strongly make rep resentation to those members on how important a sugar policy is for all of Canada. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary to the Premier. The Premier has made a telex submission to the Prime Minister. Could the Premier indicate whether there has been a response to that telex at this time and whether there could be any follow-up action? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I don't believe there has been a response directly, in the sense of a written com munication. In terms of the reaction of the federal government to our request for support for the growers, as the hon. member is aware, there was a response, but not in a direct way. If and when we receive such a response and I'm at liberty to do so.

I'd be quite pleased to table it in the House. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Premier. Would the Premier be prepared to table the earlier telex for the information of the Assembly as well? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly be prepared to do that. I have copies here that I could table with the House. Hire-a-Student Program MR. LYSONS: I'd like to direct my question today to the Minister of Manpower. It's relative to hire-a-student offices and what specific programs or policies the minister may have this year relative to hiring students in 1985. MR.

SPEAKER: If this is public information that has already been announced, then it would not seem to be efficient use of the question period to go over it again. But if the hon. member is seeking information that is not yet public, perhaps we might deal with it. MR. ISLEY: Mr. Speaker, very quickly, I would say it is the policy of the Alberta government to continue to work in co-operation with the Alberta Chamber of Commerce and the government of Canada in delivering the hire-a- student program.

For the interest of members of the House, I might add that as of May 6, there will be 79 centres in the province operating hire-a-student offices. The success of this program is highly dependent on the private sector placing job orders, and to date they have been very respon sive. MR. LYSONS: Mr. Speaker, a supplemental question, if I may. How many students were helped by the hire-a- student offices in 1984? Does he have those figures available? MR. SPEAKER: I really think we're getting into some research on past history.

It seems likely that that information is public, but if the hon. minister knows that it isn't, perhaps we might deal with it. MR. ISLEY: Mr. Speaker, the previous year there were slightly in excess of 32,000 placements. It's our anticipation that 1985 will be just as successful. Lubicon Band Social Assistance MR. GURNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like also to welcome the minister of social services back and direct a question to him.

On April 18, a week ago last Thursday, the minister reported to this Assembly that a check by his department with the federal department of Indian affairs indicated that only about one-third of the Lubicon Band members were receiving social assistance. My question is whether the minister will now confirm that his office was telephoned by officials of the federal department of Indian affairs on April 19, the following day, and informed that the Lubicon Band's assessment of approximately 90 percent on social assistance was substantially correct. DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, when I responded on April 18.

I indicated to the hon. member that the information I had gathered was accessible to him by a phone call to the same source, that the information was provided by the federal department. It was suggested that there was a mix- up in terms of the number of clients versus the number of

April 29, 1985 ALBERTA HANSARD 669 cases. It was clarified at a later date. However, I assume that if the hon. member was doubtful about the information, he could have phoned the same source and had it clarified, and I guess he has. MR. GURNETT: A supplementary question. Mr. Speaker. I think that the implications extend further, however. I wonder if the minister would confirm that his department in fact assured the federal department of Indian affairs that the minister would take the first opportunity possible to correct the misinformation made available here on the 18th. DR. WEBBER: Mr.

Speaker, it is not really misinformation, because I believe there is some doubt as to the exact numbers. Therefore, I would suggest that if the hon. member wants to clear that up with the department of Indian affairs, then proceed to do so. However, I do acknowledge that the number of one-third was based upon information which we interpreted as the number of cases, as opposed to the number of people. In terms of the 90 percent that the hon. member asked us to confirm, I cannot confirm that, because I think that is still in doubt. MR. GURNETT: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

I would indicate that the band social worker indicates that during April that figure has risen to 95 percent. My question to the minister is whether there are any intentions to send a letter of apology to the band, since the figure of one- third has been widely published as a result of the response here. MR. PAHL: Mr. Speaker, if I might supplement my col league's answer. I suppose part of the confusion rests with the fact that the records of Indian affairs federally, as I understand it, indicate there are 182 Lubicon Lake band members,

whereas the chief at various times has been quoted as indicating there are in excess of 300. Notwithstanding the confusion about whether you're dealing with individuals or cases, I suppose there's a little confusion as to just how many members are in the band; that would account for the differences, of course. I think all of this points to the very real need to have a validated land claim advanced by the band through the federal government that we could respond to and solve a lot of these problems. MR. GURNETT: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to redirect the question to the Minister of Social Services and Community Health and ask — there may or may not be 150 people hiding somewhere. Nonetheless, in view of the figure he gave here and the figure that is now being accepted on both sides, is there any plan to make any formal apology to the chief and the members of the band? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, the reasons for the confusion — and the confusion may not have originated with our office. It may have been through the way the federal office relayed the information to us.

In view of the comments of my colleague that there is doubt in terms of the percentage of people who are on social assistance provided by the federal government. I've got nothing to apologize about. MR. GURNETT: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the minister. The figure that the minister talked about may also have involved the people in the area who are nonstatus and Metis.

My question to the minister is whether he intends to direct his officials to consult with the Lubicon band to assess the accuracy of their survey that approximately 90 percent or more of the nonstatus and Metis people in the Little Buffalo area are on provincially funded social assistance. DR. WEBBER: If the hon. member would like to put on the Order Paper a request for numbers of individuals in the Little Buffalo area that are on social assistance, I'd be happy to follow up with it. Summer Temporary Employment Program MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Manpower, and it's with regard to STEP. Today I had the opportunity of talking to a number of students in line for employment at the employment centre on 109th Street. One of the questions that arose was with regard to the increase of opportunity in STEP. In terms of the program, the amount of dollars has increased from $15.6 million to $21 million. My information is that the jobs created last year will be equal to the number created this year.

Could the minister confirm that, or could the minister indicate that there will be a significant increase in job opportunity this year? MR. ISLEY: Mr. Speaker, the amount of money allocated by the province toward the summer temporary employment program last summer was $20 million. The amount allocated this summer is $20 million. STEP will generate approxi mately the same number of jobs in the summer of 1985 as it did in 1984.

In addition, this summer under the Alberta Challenge '85 announcement, we included the new federal summer employment experience development program for an additional $12.7 million, which should generate an addi tional 6,500 jobs. So Alberta Challenge '85, including our provincial component of STEP and the federal component of SEED, should generate 16,500 jobs this summer. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. One of the other questions that arose from the people in the line was the rate of pay.

The $5.50 per hour was established in 1982; that taken today in 1982 dollars would be around $4.46. Was any consideration given by the minister or the government to increase that $5.50 hourly rate? MR. ISLEY: I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that you have two options. If you increase the hourly rate, you will reduce the number of participants. The $5.50 per hour rate applies to the provincial government element of the summer temporary employment program. The community support element of STEP is the larger generator of jobs.

The provincial government pays $3.80 per hour, plus a 10 percent override for administration, and normally the nonprofit association, the community group, or the municipality tops that wage off, so the wage level through the community support sector of STEP can fluctuate anywhere from $3.80 up to probably $6.50. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: Might we revert briefly to Introduction of Special Guests? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

670 ALBERTA HANSARD April 29, 1985 head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, today I'm pleased to be able to introduce to you, and through you to members of the Assembly. 69 grade 6 students from Ponoka elementary and 14 grade 6 students from Riverside elementary, two fine schools located in the town of Ponoka. These students are accompanied by teachers Mrs. Watson. Miss Henderson, Mr. Hickey, and Mr. Rawji and their bus drivers, Mrs. Little and Mr. Rausch.

They had hoped to attend the Assembly on April 22, but due to the school being closed in the aftermath of the storm, they were unable to do so. But they are with us today. They are on a tour of the city. They are seated in the members' gallery, and I would ask them now to stand and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. head: GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 11. Moved by Mr. Payne;

Be it resolved that the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission tabled in the Assembly on October 18, 1984, be now received and the proposals be concurred in. MR. PAYNE: Mr. Speaker, as it's been something like six months since the final report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission was tabled in the Legislature, I thought it might be of value for me to reacquaint the members of the Assembly with certain features of that commission. First of all, members may recall that the commission comprises seven members: chaired by Mr.

Justice Dixon of the Court of Queen's Bench, with three government MLAs, the former Leader of the Opposition, the Chief Electoral Officer, and initially a former Lieutenant Governor of our province, the Honourable Mr. Ralph Steinhauer, but due to his illness he was replaced midstream by a former city of Edmonton alderman and businessman, Mr. Buck Olsen. I'd like also to remind the members of the Assembly that the seven members of the boundaries commission did in fact unani mously endorse the recommendations of the report now before the Assembly. If I could be permitted a personal observation, Mr.

Speaker, there are a couple of recommendations in the commission's report that impact very directly on my con stituency of Calgary Fish Creek. Due to its size, a population in excess of 33,000, the members of the commission have recommended that approximately one-third of the riding of Fish Creek be reassigned to a new provincial constituency to be named Calgary Shaw. It's with mixed emotions that I voted with the other members of the commission on that particular recommendation. I can sincerely say, Mr.

Speaker, that I regret the potential loss of the constituents of the communities of Shawnessy, Millrise, Canyon Meadows. Woodlands, and Woodbine. The other side of that coin, of course, is that it will be considerably easier for me to serve as an effective legislative representative for the reduced voter population of something like 22,000. I know that I speak not only for the legislative members of the commission, Mr.

Speaker, but indeed for all the members of the commission when I express gratitude for the not inconsiderable number of submissions and letters forwarded to me and to the other members of the commission during the process of its deliberations. On their behalf I'd like also to express gratitude to the considerable number of organizations and groups that went to the added effort of not only preparing a submission but making a presentation to one of the six public hearings conducted throughout the province by the boundaries commission during the latter part of August 1984.

I recognize that it's entirely possible today for members to comment on this motion and the boundaries commission report that gave rise to the motion, and of course I welcome those comments. But by the same token, Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that I welcome their support for this motion, and as I sit, I ask for it. MR. ALEXANDER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to reflect briefly on the motion in front of us. In doing so, I recognize that the hon. member presenting the motion has had a long and arduous and, worst of all, thankless job in dealing with the Electoral Boundaries Commission.

Like him, I guess I have a certain amount of reluctance to reflect on what's happening to our constituencies, in that we lose some valued friends, supporters, and constituents as our various constituencies are reduced in size. My constituency also had many more members in it than the average, around 28,000. Of course, it appeared only sensible that that be refined down to the 20,000 to 22,000 level, which it now is. I am happy, as I'm sure other members are, to pick up new areas.

I gather I'm now going to become a partly rural MLA, since my constituency will now extend to Ellerslie Road, where there are a number of small farms and small holdings. Whether I'll be invited to become a member of the agriculture caucus or not is unknown at the moment. AN HON. MEMBER: By all means. MR. ALEXANDER: I'm assured that I will. I'm happy to pick up those people as constituents, and I'm very sad to lose the ones I am losing. That's not an uncommon sentiment, I'm quite sure.

As I guess I'm required to bid adieu to those friends and loyal supporters in the districts of River Bend, both east and west, and Brander Gardens and so on, I want to say publicly that I do so with a great deal of regret. Personal matters aside, however, the difficulty I have had with the process is something which doesn't reflect in any way on the hon. member or members of the commission as far as I can tell.

But this has been a difficult road for the members of Whitemud constituency, and I want to highlight two or three points I hope may be as constructive as I can make them under the circumstances and perhaps useful for future such commissions. First, it's my perception that the parameters on which the decisions to redraw boundaries were made are unclear. The people in my constituency do not know why the lines were drawn where they were drawn. It seemed in their minds that there were a number of things from the point of view of demographics, the history of the constituency, community associations, and traffic flows.

Lines might have been drawn in different places which would have made more sense to the history and the demographics of the constituency. That, of course, is arguable. My point is not so much to argue the issue as to suggest that if there's any improvement that could be made in this process, one of those improvements might be that the constituency people be made somewhat more clear as to why these lines are drawn where they are. That may be an altogether onerous task for the members of the commission, but I think it

April 29, 1985 ALBERTA HANSARD 671 would be, nonetheless, a very useful exercise for the people who are being subjected to shifts of one kind or another in and among our constituencies. Secondly, in light of that first suggestion, I think the commission ought to try to make some kind of demographic sense, if that's the term, for the constituents who are being moved. In other words, there may be a very valid reason for drawing lines in one place or another.

If so, it wouldn't hurt in the least for the people of those constituencies, through their constituency association, community associa tions, and interested parties, to know why those things were done. My final remark is about the public hearings or the appeal process. I've reflected on this before to the hon. minister and to other members of the commission. When people get rather deeply rooted in their political traditions in their constituencies, they tend to feel rather intensely about that.

I feel, as I'm sure other members do, that that's one of the great residues of strength in the political system we have. I think our system works as well as it does in this province because our people have become involved in it and they are making it work. They're making it work by helping us in so many ways: by organizing, by supporting us financially, by doing all the kinds of things that com munities and constituencies do to see that their electoral process actually functions.

I suggest that the quid pro quo for that effort, that history, the time those people have had in the political process, might be that in the appeal process or in the hearing process they should also understand what it is they're supposed to present, in what kind of context it would be best presented, and what the outcome is. Mr. Speaker, if I could describe it properly, a sense of resentment was felt in my constituency from the appeal process in that (

a) we went to a great deal of difficulty to prepare our case. We went to some lengths to get the information compiled, we had large maps, and we had all kinds of research done. We even had one of our notable constituents who is a trial lawyer appear before the com mission to make our case, thinking that somehow or other we might thereby be more influential. All those things failed, which is not really the serious matter. The second and more serious matter is that we don't know why.

We never did find out why, and I don't think the process is really complete unless those who have made some kind of appeal are given at least some inkling as to why their appeal was disposed as it was. So I simply suggest that the process could be improved. It would certainly have left a lot of Whitemud residents much happier with the process if we had just been able to learn why the decision went the way it went. If we'd had that answer, we probably would have gone, like most constituencies, peacefully and quietly with the answer, but we were unable to discover why or how the decision was made. Mr.

Speaker, recognizing that no process is perfect, that this was an extremely difficult job for those who sat on the commission, and that the minister has already threatened us with either ending on a rather constructive note or being automatically nominated to the next commission, I will try to find a constructive note on which to end. My constructive note is: congratulations on a job done. MR. LYSONS: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to get in on this resolution and recognize how difficult a chore the commission had.

I have some concerns, though, of con stituents in the Alliance area that are being deleted from the Vermilion-Viking constituency. I promised them I would bring it to the Legislature and explain some of the problems on their behalf. Number one, eight years ago they never expected to be in the Vermilion-Viking constituency in the first place. But after going to that particular commission and expressing some doubts about the boundaries, they added on another 30 miles that we weren't happy about.

This time it's even more difficult for them, because it's split within two or three miles of their village and it goes into two different electoral divisions, Wainwright and Stettler. This is really causing them some anxiety, because they feel they're not wanted anywhere. It's certainly not the case as far as I'm concerned. They were as important to me as anyone else, and I tried to spend as much time as I could with them. We accomplished a number of things there that I think they are happy about. I have no concern about the additional land that was put into the area.

It has given me two more municipal governments to deal with, and that's all right. But I would like to suggest to the new boundary commission eight years down the road that parameters such as highways, shopping centres and, in some instances, educational facilities be considered. Rivers and so on are natural divisions, but in the constituency of Vermilion-Viking we have five numbered highways.

Most people in the country realize that the highway is the major character of your area as far as what happens where; that is, the town of Mannville wouldn't have a major function on when Vermilion is having their fair, and things like that. The way it is now does create a few problems. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the residents of the Alliance area, I would like to express my concern that they're being taken out of one constituency and being split into two different ones.

It's not a big population area or anything like that, but I'm sure they feel there wasn't enough consideration given to that particular adjustment in the map. With that, Mr. Speaker, from the experience I've had with the people of Alliance, I bid them a fond farewell. I'm sure their two new representatives will treat them as well or, hopefully, better than I was able to. Thank you very much. MRS. FYFE: Mr. Speaker. I also would like to say some words in favour of the motion presented by the hon. Member for Calgary Fish Creek.

I think most of us recognize that the changing of electoral boundaries is one of the most difficult tasks of any committee. Maybe it's second only to setting your own wage or salary, because it is a very emotional issue. Setting the electoral boundaries for the province of Alberta is extremely complex, and I would like to compliment the members of the committee, who worked very hard on this task. The first principle I would like to address relates to representation on size, representation of the number of residents in the constituency.

I believe the boundaries com mission members were very sensitive to the concerns of those constituencies that had grown beyond any reasonable ratio of representation by population. In the case of the St. Albert constituency, it had grown to approximately 35,000 voters, which means it currently is the size of an average urban plus an average rural constituency. Of course, it has a rural and an urban constituency, which means not only that it is large in size but also that it is diversified. Speaking as the person that represents it, I have to say there's a lot of work and a lot of responsibility.

I got into that with open eyes and I don't complain. But on behalf of the

672 ALBERTA HANSARD April 29, 1985 residents there, obviously they do not have access to as much time as the members, say, from some of the smaller rural constituencies that have less than 10,000 voters. So simply on the basis of fairness, it was essential that we readjust the boundaries of some of the larger constituencies to ensure that residents of our province have fair and equal representation within the scope that would provide them access and time to their member and the opportunity to meet with their representative.

I believe the boundaries commission did a very fair job in trying to adjust those boundaries to include ratios that would not allow a growth area within an eight-year period to go beyond what is a reasonable range in both urban and rural areas. For that I'm extremely appreciative. The second principle, which has been addressed by other members, relates to the process. I think the process is something the members of the Legislature must address for the next time we have a boundaries review, which would be two terms down the road if the process remains constant.

I think we should once again look at the representation we put onto the boundaries commission. I personally make representation at this time that we consider additional mem bers that would represent the public at large. There is always concern that the elected people would look at it from only their own constituency perspective, and I think that is an unfair criticism.

In order to protect the concerns of those who feel it has to be looked at in an impartial and fair way, which is obviously one of the prime objectives of the boundary commission, I think we should consider additional representation that would be appointed from citizens at large that are concerned about a fair and reasonable plan for constituency boundaries. From a personal perspective related to the St. Albert constituency, I must say that representing a large and diversified constituency is not only an extreme time con sideration but also an extremely rewarding situation.

I have enjoyed immensely the opportunity of making new friends, of meeting individuals that normally I would not have had an opportunity to meet and become acquainted with. Those people who will no longer be within the St. Albert con stituency and will go into the newly created Sturgeon constituency will be associations I will miss. Obviously, you keep up the relationship with friends, but you don't have the same opportunity to make those contacts.

I want to say to those people I represented within Sturgeon how much I have appreciated their support, their friendship, and the great feeling of trust we have developed over the two terms I have had the privilege of representing this constit uency. The people within this area recognized, as I do, the need to have the constituency split, and the decision to create a new Sturgeon constituency is one that is appreciated immensely.

Although there may be some individuals who would have liked to have been included in this and some that would have preferred a different configuration of bound aries, there is the satisfaction of knowing the boundaries commission listened to the major concern about size and representation by population. Appreciation has been expressed to me many times by those residents who know their views were responded to in the Electoral Boundaries Commission.

On their behalf I want to express to the Member for Calgary Fish Creek, the other members of the boundaries commission that are currently serving in the Assembly, and the other members that contributed many, many hours to this my very sincere thank you for the changes related to the St. Albert constituency and the new Sturgeon constit uency. I believe it is a task that will always be fraught with criticism, because it is, as I said at the very beginning, a very emotional process that we must be involved in.

I think they have done a very reasonable job, and if the Assembly considers added representation from the public at large in the future, I think we will also assist the process we as members are responsible for. In conclusion, I once again reiterate my very sincere appreciation for the decision related to the St. Albert con stituency and the new Sturgeon constituency, which will provide for a much greater degree of fairness within that

section of Alberta. Thank you. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on this motion. I'd like to start my remarks by congratulating the committee. I think they've done an excel lent job in quite a difficult area, and I'm sure they spent a lot of time in meetings, mulling over maps, and meeting with people. I think they deserve a lot of credit. While they were doing this, they also knew that when they got finished and made their report, it wouldn't be universally accepted and they would be in for some criticism.

Regardless of that fact, they went ahead and did a very good job in a very difficult area. It's difficult because no matter what they do, their report recommends change, and change is almost universally resisted by people, even by politicians at times. Many people will now be voting in different areas where they never voted before. They'll be voting in towns where they never voted before. They'll be represented by different people and may even be represented by a party they weren't represented by before. They may even go from a rural to an urban riding or from an urban to a rural riding.

Most of these things have taken place in the constituency of Drumheller. In many cases these changes are resisted and challenged, and that's only the way it should be. We have to ask: are these changes really necessary? I guess the plain answer to that is: yes, they are. If we are going to keep our democratic system and equal representation from different areas, then some changes are necessary through this process. In my own riding of Drumheller, which extends from just about four miles west of Hanna into the old city limits of Calgary, we ended up with a portion of the city of Calgary within the riding.

As I went around during the last election campaign in McKenzie, Applewood, and Douglas Heights in Calgary, I said, "My name is Mickey Clark, and I'd like to welcome you to the Drumheller constituency." They said, "What the heck are we doing in Drumheller?" They didn't even know they were in the Drumheller con stituency. They just figured that because they were in the city of Calgary, they were represented by the MLAs in Calgary.

Although we ended up having good support from that area of my constituency, I believe it's important that people in the cities of Calgary and Edmonton are represented by MLAs from those areas, because the concerns of the cities of Calgary and Edmonton are certainly not the concerns of the rural area in Drumheller. I think they feel more at home if they're represented in the area in which they should be. It becomes even more difficult to change an area when you take a portion of a rural riding or constituency and give it to another rural constituency. That's when the problems really come.

The concerns seem to be even a little greater. But this is also necessary, because a lot of rural areas are growing. Some are not growing nearly as

April 29, 1985 ALBERTA HANSARD 673 fast, and the population gets way out of whack in that regard. I guess Drumheller is losing quite a number of constituents on the east, south, and west sides. I would like to say that I've enjoyed representing all these different areas in the past, and I would like to thank them for their co-operation and support for the few years I've been here. I know I'm losing some really good friends in some of these areas and also some really good support. But I would like to wish them well in their new riding, and I'm sure they're going to be very well represented where they go.

With those few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say congratulations to the committee for a job well done in a very difficult area. I think you've done an excellent job, and we'll now get on with making these the new boundaries. In eight years there will still be some squawks when we change them again. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [Two members rose] MR. SPEAKER: I believe the hon. minister tried to be recognized the previous time. MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a few comments with respect to the report of the boundaries commission.

First of all, it's my understanding that the challenge of the commission is to balance the number of voters between different constituencies. There is an old maxim, I think we could call it: no taxation without rep resentation. I understand that the purpose of the Electoral Boundaries Commission is to take that a little bit further and try to arrive at taxation with roughly balanced repre sentation. I take it that the balance is among rural consti tuencies and, separately or on a different basis, among urban constituencies. Mr.

Speaker, I commend the commission in respect of the achievement of those objectives. However, this afternoon some of us speak with perfect rearview vision, and there is a concern I have. I recognized that the constituency of Edmonton Jasper Place would most likely undergo some considerable change. It is well recognized that the population in the city of Edmonton, at least in the northwest quadrant, has shifted very much south and west as the city has expanded.

Accordingly, it was not a surprise to me that in balancing out the numbers of electors in the various con stituencies, there would be a shift in that direction. I've always considered Edmonton Jasper Place to be a bit of the cheese in the sandwich and expected that the cheese would get moved. That indeed happened, Mr. Speaker. However, my specific concern is that it appears not to have happened in the total respect that I think should have occurred. I am losing two communities: Woodcroft and North Glenora.

I would comment here that the community of North Glenora is becoming attached to the constituency of Glenora. It is true that there is a bit of commonality in the name, but I can sense very little other reason to justify that particular shift. In fact, it results in the constituency of Glenora moving north to pick up the community of North Glenora, which is contrary to the population flow in that quadrant of the city of Edmonton. Mr. Speaker, I raise that because it causes me to reflect upon another concern I have.

I think democracy is strength ened — and surely it is the wish of all of us to strengthen democracy — when people are familiar with the manner in which they've been participating and with the people with whom they've been having a continuing involvement. In this particular instance, in this change of boundaries, the community of North Glenora has become attached to the Glenora riding. But I suspect that in the next go-round it will be detached and appended to a different constituency altogether, because I see no reason to believe that the shift in population will change direction.

It may change momen tum; in fact, it may ease off quite considerably. I have a problem in that particular adjustment. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to the citizens of Woodcroft and North Glenora with whom I've had the pleasure of, first of all, campaigning; secondly, representing; thirdly, communicat ing; and fourth, being friends. I think it's fair to say that we have indeed established many friends and acquaintances in those communities. My final comment has to do with the process. Mr. Speaker.

I hope that in a future situation, a better opportunity for understanding occurs following the publication of the interim report. When citizens appear before the commission, we should try to create a better understanding. I have spoken to quite a number of citizens who appeared before that forum, and they did not, I think, come away with the complete understanding of what the process was about. In that sense I think there is an opportunity to improve the next time around. Mr. Speaker, the redrawing of electoral boundaries is a very challenging and difficult task.

I appreciate that and, in making the comments I have, in no way wish to criticize any particular members of the commission but simply to reflect upon incidents which happened in respect of the constituency of Edmonton Jasper Place. I look forward to representing the 10,000 new electors I am gaining through this process. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the manner in which they've been represented in the past, since they come from the constituency of Edmonton Mea- dowlark. [Two members rose] MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lac La Biche- McMurray followed by the hon. Member for Vegreville and then the hon.

Member for Little Bow. MR. WEISS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if three times is lucky or three times is out, but I'm here regardless. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to rise in support of the motion. In particular, I speak in relationship to the Lac La Biche- McMurray constituency. The effect on the constituency itself will be very major. I have remained silent and avoided any comments through media or others over this issue in par ticular, because I felt it would be unfair and perhaps biased if I made any remarks prior to any interim or final report issued by the committee.

The reason is that I as the MLA felt I was the representative for all of the Lac La Biche- McMurray constituency. I can appreciate the problems the committee would have faced, the dilemma of saying, "Where would you piece it off, or where would you carve out a portion of it, if you were to make any changes?" I can also appreciate the concern they had with regard to the differences between an urban and a rural constituency. In particular, Mr. Speaker, if you were to look at the Lac La Biche-McMurray constituency, you would find that it is the largest in Alberta, some 53,750 square miles.

If one is to relate that to other constituencies, the second largest

674 ALBERTA HANSARD April 29, 1985 is some 38,525 square miles, which is the constituency of Peace River. If you were to go further south into the constituency of Red Deer, it's some 2,700 square miles. So you can see it's a vast geographic difference — very difficult to service, very hard to maintain the continuity and to provide what I believe is the most essential ingredient, the important, effective representation, regardless of any political feelings or beliefs, of the constituents themselves.

They are the people who deserve that opportunity to have representation — the representation in the rural areas such as the Conklins, the Cheechams, the Anzacs, and the Fort Chipewyans, the areas that are remotely inaccessible in some cases. It's been very difficult, Mr. Speaker, to serve those areas over the past six years. I can also understand the problems my predecessors faced in sometimes not being able to be available to accommodate the needs of the constituents. In particular, Mr. Speaker, some of the areas that the committee would have had to face dealt with these situations.

I'm very pleased to stand and speak in support of the committee; they faced them with reality. I also know that many groups in the Lac La Biche-McMurray constituency have made representations in support of change and of the split. Those concerns were heard by the committee, in particular where they have addressed some changes with regard to the Conklin area, which is more serviceable and more readily handled through the Lac La Biche area. I understand that that particular area is going to be changed in the final report to accommodate those needs and the representation made by the people in the area.

Over the last years there were times when you would leave the Lac La Biche area and start to drive home after a 10 or 11 o'clock meeting. You'd find that you were driving three and a half hours, and you'd wonder: gosh, the member in an urban area is home within perhaps a half hour; he's able to travel his constituency within an hour or an hour and a half. I know all rural members will join me in this concern, to say that sometimes we even think of our own safety. We drive on the highway in winter conditions, in poor driving conditions, yet it's a part of the job and the obligation we accept.

And I accept that respon sibility. Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that I'm sure the committee had an awful lot of tough decisions to make. But in particular to the constituency of Lac La Biche- McMurray, I'm certainly supportive. I feel they've met it very well and, indeed, very fairly. I would like to say that I thank all the constituents of the area for their support. I, too, will lose a large percentage of them. While I've indicated that it's some 53,750 square miles, it still will be in excess of 50,000 square miles. So it won't appear to be that much smaller geographically.

But it's certainly going to be much more serviceable, in that the remote areas in the Lac La Biche region will form a new Athabasca-Lac La Biche constituency. Once again. Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to reaffirm the position and thank the committee for the overall concern and empathy they have shown. MR. BATIUK: Mr. Speaker. I must say I intend to support this motion, even though I may speak with some mixed feelings. It's been customary that after two terms a review is necessary, but there are not always changes with a review.

I've had the opportunity to serve the Vegreville constituency for the fourth term, and the boundaries have not changed through all this time, so I got to know the constituency very well. With this I have lost the southeast corner of the con stituency. It's a rural area, but it's a loss for me because there were several rural communities there who were very dedicated. They did well for themselves. They didn't depend totally on the government for everything. That will be my loss. However, this loss is going to be gained, I guess, by the constituency of Vermilion-Viking. At present, Mr.

Speaker, the Vegreville constituency has eight towns and villages, two hamlets, and three resident municipalities. In the Vegreville constituency there are more senior citizens than in any constituency in the province. All of these put together makes it somewhat difficult. The constituency is not really that large, but with the number of communities — and for some reason the communities are always competitive. They watch what one may acquire, and why didn't they get it and so forth. It's the same with our many programs for senior citizens. They take and require a lot of attention.

In losing this little portion, I must say that there has been an addition; that is, the town and district of Tofield. Even though that will be the ninth urban municipality in the constituency, it will be well accepted because at present Secondary Road 834 separates the Vegreville and Clover Bar constituencies. This little portion has been left all by itself as part of the county of Beaver. On numerous occasions they came to me for help in some way or other, because people from the Vegreville constituency are so close to Tofield that they do their business there — schools, health care, and so forth.

Even the reeve of the county of Beaver resides in the Clover Bar area, and he's been to see me twice in the last week for some of his needs. As I say, the adjoining community of Tofield is going to be a real asset to the Vegreville constituency. Somehow or other, I want to say that I regret — the people from the towns of Lamont and Bruderheim have stated many times that they would also like to be in the Vegreville constituency. Mr. Speaker, I got a letter just recently, dated March 25, and it reads: Dear Mr. Batiuk: Recently the Bruderheim Municipal received a letter from Mr. Dave Monsen, Director.

Building Standards Branch. Alberta Labour granting relaxation from

article 3.2.7.1. On behalf of the members of our Board I wish to extend our sincere thanks and appreciation tor the part you played in helping us overcome the problem of having to comply with [this article]. Mr. Speaker, Lamont is in the Clover Bar constituency to the west of the Vegreville constituency, and Bruderheim is still another nine miles west. So it shows that people have come beyond that and would like to be a part of the Vegreville constituency, even though there would be so many more of them to serve.

Somehow or other, now I feel sorry that this committee did not dissolve the Clover Bar constituency totally and maybe give a little portion to Redwater-Andrew, some to Sturgeon, and maybe a little bit to Leduc. We could have had one less constituency to contend with. It may be said that the population is very important, and it is. I know that the members from the cities of both Edmonton and Calgary have many people to represent. The population is such, but when we look at there being 18 representatives right in Edmonton, they've got only a little

April 29, 1985 ALBERTA HANSARD 675 portion of the area that any rural representative has. They may have only about three square kilometres to represent, which makes it so much easier. They don't have to contend with roads, hospitals, schools, and so forth, which makes things a lot easier, even though the population may be greater. We see that the rural representatives have to reside in their constituencies, or I don't think they would ever have a chance of being elected. Yet in the cities I'm sure that maybe half the representatives do not reside in the areas they represent.

So in case it makes it a little difficult, it's not very hard to change a residence and be able to represent. With those few comments, Mr. Speaker, I intend to support the motion. Thank you. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few remarks. I certainly intend to support the recommend ation that is before the Legislature at the present time. One of the main reasons I wanted to stand in my place here today in this report was to give full credit to the Honourable Mr. Justice Russell A. Dixon, the chairman of that com mittee.

I felt that he was, first, the most impartial and, second, the most conscientious, tolerant, and understanding chairman I have observed in many commissions such as this one. I know he showed patience listening to many of my constituents and my own presentations. He even made himself available in his courtroom office so that submissions could be brought to him at the last possible moment to be included in the discussions of the report.

As a long-time representative in this Legislature and a representative of the people of Alberta, I just want to place on record that those kinds of persons are certainly ones we must appreciate and recognize. When the interim report came out, I must say that I was quite disappointed, in that some 4,000 new electors were added to the constituency of Little Bow, 4,000 persons that did not have a common interest with the rural back ground and rural centres of the historic Little Bow that was established in 1963. That concern was there.

I'm not going to go into the details of it, but by talking to the people in the newly added area, who are now still in the constituency of Drumheller, I found that they, too, were concerned that they were going to be added to a constituency south of the Bow River when their centre of interest was really Calgary, Strathmore, Brooks, or Bassano. It really wasn't an interest area that related to the old constituency of Little Bow. I spent a day travelling in the area, talking to these people who are still the constituents of the hon. member that represents Drumheller.

I found these people very helpful and willing to make submissions to the commission. The commission came to Vulcan and heard a number of people there: the mayor, other persons that represented interest groups, and me. The discussion was excellent. They were understanding and were able to change the boundaries of the interim report to add only the Gleichen reserve, some 1,000 voters, to the Little Bow constituency, and that is realistic. Members in this House have already commented on the factors of distance and time and being able to represent persons because of their spatial arrangement.

I feel that factor was taken into consideration in the final report we have before us. As a member of the Legislature and certainly as a constituent, in a sense, of Little Bow, I appreciated that. Other persons, particularly those in the Vulcan area, were very appreciative of the change in attitude of the commission, that they came up with a new recom mendation in the final report. All in all, Mr. Speaker, from my travels across the province, I believe the report is successful and generally very acceptable to Albertans. On that note.

I'd certainly like to congratulate all the members that worked so hard and spent time attempting to meet the needs of the concept of representation. I would like to add my note, in a belated sense, to Mr. Grant Notley, who was a member of that committee. Grant certainly attempted in all ways to be fair in his representation and his presentation. I was even able to make my presentation to him and say, "Look, these are some of the things that I as an opposition member see as necessary." I feel sure that he carried those attitudes into the commission as a whole. That co-operation was very much appreciated.

I had the opportunity of working with Mr. Notley on the former commission a number of years ago. I recall us on our hands and knees on the floor of the office of the minister of agriculture at that time, with our sleeves rolled up and a pair of scissors, glue, and tape, trying to reconstruct constituencies. The three of us spent a long period of time there trying to deal with the rural constituencies of Alberta, and it was done in a very nonpartisan, open way. I'm sure that Grant was a person who contributed to that kind of leadership in our reassessment of rural constituencies at that time. Mr.

Speaker, my congratulations to the committee, and certainly my appreciation personally and the appreciation of the constituents of Little Bow on how the final report turned out. MR. PURDY: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a few comments on Motion 11, I guess I'd be remiss if I didn't put on record that I represent a unique constituency. It's unique in comparison to what is happening to other members of the Assembly here, in that I lose a lot of area but I don't gain any; everything is all compressed. The present voter population in the Stony Plain constituency is 27,000.

That will drop to 20,000, which will still give me the largest rural area in the province of Alberta. I didn't see any problem with the 27,000 that I had to represent because of the small land base and the composition of the constit uency. I was very pleased that there was an appeal process between the interim report and the final report. Our con stituency association and a number of other interested groups had made an appeal to the boundaries commission and were successful in having one of the areas which was going to be put into the Drayton Valley area brought back into the Stony Plain constituency.

It was beyond the life of me — and we made the presentation — how they could bring an area with no access into it into the constituency of Drayton Valley. If a member lived in the Drayton Valley area and had to represent that area south of the town of Stony Plain and Spruce Grove, they would have to drive something like 60 miles to get into the area, because there are no bridges across the North Saskatchewan River in that particular region.

I thank the commission for recognizing that particular problem and making the necessary amendments to include that area south of Stony Plain and Spruce Grove, south of Highway 627, back into the Stony Plain constituency. I'm sorry to be losing an area I've represented for some time. In fact, I guess it's unique to this Legislature: I can say I represent an area I was born in. With the changes in the boundaries to exclude Alberta Beach and the Onoway and Heatherdown area, I will now lose that particular

676 ALBERTA HANSARD April 29, 1985 privilege of saying that I live in the constituency where I was born. But that process has to take place. The other concern I have is in the Darwell area. I would just put it on record and ask, if we're still all here after the next two elections and the boundaries commission is going to look at boundaries in the province: please, don't use secondary highways as boundaries of constituencies, especially when you split hamlets, towns, or villages.

When the legislation goes through and the new boundaries are set up in the province, we will have a split through one hamlet of Darwell. It's going to be very difficult for the citizens of that town — a very active hamlet with an agricultural society, senior citizens, and a number of other organizations — as to who they are going to invite to participate in events. Is it going to be the Member for Whitecourt? Is it going to be the Member for Barrhead? Or are they going to come back and ask the representative from Stony Plain to be there?

The other area I'm losing — as I say, I've had a lot of good friendship and good constituents there — is the Seba Beach, Fallis, and Gainford area. That will fall into the Whitecourt constituency. The other area I'm losing, which I just mentioned, is Darwell. There is also the area south of Onoway and the Heatherdown area. Another large area I've represented for some time, since annexation took place to the west of the city of Edmonton, is the Winterburn area. There are about 3,000 voters in that area who will now go into an urban constituency.

I can certainly support that; I have no problem that urban areas should be represented by urban people. It's going to be difficult for the urban members to go out into those pockets of areas and find people, because it's still mainly a rural constituency in the Winterburn area. There's one mobile-home area, a number of acreage holdings, and a number of farms. So I could see the people that are nominated and re-elected to represent that area having some problems trying to find what I call those predominantly rural areas.

I know the city fire department is having trouble right now finding residences out there when they call for a fire call or the city police because of the annexation that took place. The last comment I'd like to make, Mr. Speaker — we've tried this for a number of years, and I don't know if the records got lost or if the boundaries commission considered it or not. There was an area on the fringe of the new Sturgeon constituency which theoretically should be in the Stony Plain constituency, because it's part of the county of Parkland.

What has happened over the last number of years is that this area of Parkland has been in St. Albert and is now going to be in the Sturgeon constituency. The flow of business that people have, the police requirements they need, the fire protection, schools, and everything they do is in the towns of Stony Plain or Spruce Grove. With that, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to make a few comments on this very important motion. MR. McPHERSON: Mr. Speaker, I wish to offer a few very brief comments with respect to Government Motion 11.

Frankly, I consider it to be somewhat of a privilege to participate in this motion, because I view this motion to be historic for the city of Red Deer, insofar as the con stituency of Red Deer, if this motion passes in the Assembly, will henceforth be represented by two MLAs. I want to simply go on record as supporting that and supporting the recommendation of the Electoral Boundaries Commission that the city of Red Deer be severed into two constituencies and be represented by two MLAs. I suppose there are a variety of reasons why support could be given for that.

Most of them deal with the enormity of the task and those kinds of things, and I'm not going to get into that today. But I do want to say that should the Legislature concur in this motion, subsequent to the next election there will be two seats in the city of Red Deer. I'd like to express the view that while the job of representation may be severed in two, may be handled by two MLAs, one cannot sever the interests of a cohesive, closely knit community like Red Deer by some artificial barrier or boundary.

It's my belief that the citizens of Red Deer expect nothing less than their two elected representatives to work in close harmony for the best interests of the city of Red Deer. I intend to ensure that that challenge is met. MR. GURNETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to make just a few comments. I'm in a very interesting position commenting on this motion, which I certainly do support, in view of the fact that I don't think I have yet had a chance to drive up and down every one of the roads that exists in the Spirit River-Fairview constituency. I'm now looking forward to representing the new Dunvegan constituency.

It's not so much a dramatic change as just one more stage of a process to me. But I am definitely looking forward, Mr. Speaker, to the two areas that are being added to what was Spirit River- Fairview. I think the Eaglesham-Tangent area and also the Woking area are hearts of that part of the country that are in many ways natural parts of the constituency.

So what we're doing with the constituency there is creating an electoral boundary that really not only matches the geo graphical features of the area very well by following the Saddle Hills and the Smoky River but also fits into the context of the commercial patterns of people in that area, the school jurisdiction boundaries, and even, in fact, the social patterns of those communities that have a lot to do with each other. I think a very reasonable action has been taken in my area and that the new constituency will be a unit that's very natural and appropriate for that part of the country.

There's one other comment I want to make about it. I'm particularly pleased about the choice of the name for the constituency. Naming this new constituency Dunvegan revives an important historic name in this province, a name that reminds those of us who live in that area that although a lot of the land may be being cleared for the first time and a lot of the farming that's taking place is first-generation farming, in fact we are also one of the older settled areas of the province. So it's nice to see Dunvegan recognized again.

I think it's a significant thing in view of the fact that Dunvegan dates from the time the Peace River was a geographical feature that united northern Alberta. Traffic flowed along the river prior to railroads and roads being built. The rivers were seen as a feature that united people and communities, and over the years the name Spirit River- Fairview hasn't shown that as clearly. It has tended to define the south side and the north side of the river. With a name like Dunvegan constituency, I'm very pleased that we'll be able to very clearly affirm again that the river is something that unites the area.

I am looking forward to the challenge of making sure everybody in the area is aware of what it means and what the new boundaries are. With the travelling I've done in the constituency already, I've discovered that despite all the

April 29, 1985 ALBERTA HANSARD 677 advertising and the coverage in the media of this redistri bution, there are still lots of people who don't know whether they're going to be in Dunvegan constituency, Smoky River constituency, or Grande Prairie constituency. I think the job is not quite finished, and there is going to be lots of communication left to do. I certainly welcome the motion and, as I said at the outset, look forward to representing the new people in the two areas that will be added to what will become Dunvegan constituency. MRS. CRIPPS; Mr.

Speaker, I find it necessary to represent the concerns of my constituents and others who are vitally involved in the boundary changes. First, I'd like to point out that in my area people did not feel there was ample time to respond to the interim report, which was sent to you on July 10. I notice that in the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act it says:

(2) The Commission shall give reasonable public notice of the lime and place and purpose of any public hearings held and time to respond to the original report. The original report was issued on July 10. Of course, that was summer holidays. That left many areas and groups unable to respond, because there just wasn't ample notice from July 10. Every body was holidaying, and there was some real concern about that inopportunity to respond. In the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act there's an implication that the electoral divisions in the cities will be plus or minus 25 percent of the average.

In the Edmonton area the boundaries vary from 16,030 to 24,942. This leaves no room at all for changing populations and is at the very maximum of the variance limit. In the rural areas the variance is from 9,000-plus to 21,000-plus. This certainly is in excess of the norm, or plus or minus 25 percent. I recognize that Cypress, for example, is in the 9,000-plus but has 10,000 square miles more or less in total area. Lesser Slave Lake has an incredible area to cover. In fact, I worked it out and it's over 26,000 square miles. So some consideration must be given for an area that size.

I agree that that must be a major consideration. Comments I've heard from citizens who have had a chance to review the report and the impact document are that if the changes in the boundaries were to equalize the inequities and that doesn't do it, what's the purpose? The second area of major concern is natural travel and com munications patterns. I'm really surprised to hear that the Member for Little Bow is so supportive of Judge Dixon, who he said was supportive of him, because in our case there was certainly no consideration at all given to the natural travel patterns of the area.

In fact, I have a number of letters from people in the east end of the new constituency, or the west end of the Wetaskiwin-Leduc constituency, that indicate their natural travel patterns do not conform in any way to the boundaries commission. I just want to read into the record, Mr. Speaker: The Commission, in determining the area to be included in and in fixing the boundaries of all proposed electoral divisions, shall take into consideration (

a) the community or diversity of interests of the population, (

b) the means of communication between the various parts of the community, (

c) the physical features of the community, (

d) the sparsity or density of population, and (

e) all other similar or relevant factors. I think it's important that I bring those considerations to the Assembly today. I feel it's my obligation to represent the concerns of the residents east of me. Firstly, I know that the people in the Wetaskiwin area felt there should have been a new constituency of Wetaskiwin, and they can certainly make a justifiable and logical case for such a constituency.

In fact, if you take the two constituencies of Drayton Valley and Wetaskiwin-Leduc, the population could easily justify three constituencies, and all three of them would be in excess of 3,000 over the population of Little Bow. I'm surprised that they reduced the population of that constituency. In reviewing the changes in the Drayton Valley con stituency boundary, it's apparent that local travel and business patterns were not considered. I'm glad they were considered in the new Dunvegan constituency. It would seem logical for this to be a major factor, all other things being equal.

The people of Thorsby, Devon, and Calmar have a particular concern in that their inclusion in the Drayton Valley con stituency totally ignores those travel and communication patterns. They have close physical, transportation, mail, and phone ties to the east. I feel it's only fair to place these concerns before the Assembly. In the future I believe the commission should surely place more emphasis on natural community boundaries because they are extremely important.

Notwithstanding my commitment to raise the concerns of the people of the west half of the Wetaskiwin-Leduc constituency, I'd like to welcome them to the Drayton Valley constituency if this resolution passes. From the number of comments, it doesn't sound like there's any question. I know many of the people of the area through our involvement in farming over the past 27 years. We've made friends and business associates, and from these contacts I really look forward to representing the area in the future, if that's the voters' wish.

I was raised in the Ma-Me-0 Beach area, so I would be a homegrown product. [inter jection] That's right. I was actually born on a quarter in that area, so I'm not even hospital-bought. Mr. Speaker, I don't for a minute underestimate the job the representative of the new Drayton Valley constituency will have. There are three town councils, three village councils, three counties, 17 summer villages, four school boards, five hospital boards, 14 hamlets, and numerous foundations and boards to meet with on a regular basis. It's a large area and a large population.

I know the challenge, because I already put 55,000-plus kilometres on my car a year. I can only say that the new constituency will be a lady killer or a man killer, whoever happens to be the MLA for the area. I won't say that maybe only a lady can handle it. I'd like to welcome the people of the Ma-Me-0 Beach, Pigeon Lake, Devon, Calmar, and Thorsby areas into the new constituency of Drayton Valley. MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to add a few comments on Government Motion 11.

I would like to echo remarks made by a number of members in the Assembly when they acknowledged the difficult task the Electoral Boundaries Commission members had. I believe it was the hon. Member for St. Albert who indicated that the two most difficult things we as elected members in this Assembly must deal with are the questions of our salaries and the boundaries of our constituencies. I'm extremely pleased and would like to thank the Electoral Boundaries Commission for transferring that por tion of the county of Warner currently in the Cypress constituency to the Taber-Warner constituency. Mr. Speaker,

678 ALBERTA HANSARD April 29, 1985 this action corrects a decision made by a previous Electoral Boundaries Commission some 17 years ago when that part of the then Taber-Warner constituency was transferred to the Cypress constituency, to the dismay of many of the residents within the area. It came as a complete surprise to the area, because the shopping patterns, the schools, the churches, the recreational facilities are all to the west in the communities of Coutts, Warner, and Milk River,

whereas the rural area was transferred to the Cypress constituency and thus to another municipal jurisdiction, trading area, set of schools, and other facilities. There were some suggestions made — in fact, two briefs submitted — when boundaries were reviewed in 1977, but to no avail. The primary argument used by the Electoral Boundaries Commission at the time was that the population of the Cypress constituency was then, I believe, something less than 9,000, and the population of Taber-Warner was in excess of 12,000.

The argument was that it hardly made sense to transfer population from a smaller constituency, populationwise, to a larger constituency, notwithstanding the fact that the Cypress constituency is approximately two and a half times the geographic size of Taber-Warner. I should mention, Mr. Speaker, that we're not talking about a very large number of people in the area that was transferred — about 220 or 230 people, I believe, at the time. So it did not have a great bearing on the population of either con stituency. On the other hand, it was an impact regarding the various factors I previously mentioned.

I'm pleased that in preparation for the recently completed boundaries commission work, submissions were made by Mrs. Sharon Kerfoot from Coutts, Mrs. Audrey Vansen- Turner from Milk River, and Mr. Ron Hierath from Milk River. These three individuals, representing various organ izations and groups within their communities, persuaded the Electoral Boundaries Commission that an error had indeed been made some years earlier and that the area should be transferred back into the Taber-Warner riding.

Obviously, the Electoral Boundaries Commission agreed with that argu ment, as we saw the proposed revision in the interim report which was released on July 10, 1984. On the other hand, there was another side to the coin, and that was with regard to the community of Hardieville. Hardieville was incorporated along with some rural land to the city of Lethbridge from the county of Lethbridge in, I believe, 1978 or thereabouts.

While it's true that Hardieville is now part of the city of Lethbridge, anyone who knows the area will know that there is approximately half a mile of undeveloped land between the hamlet and the city proper. Hardieville therefore has a distinctive personality and char acter of its own. There is a community association, a school that serves the area, and a small general store which caters to the needs of the residents. It is very much like some of the smaller villages and hamlets in other pans of the Taber-Warner constituency. A presentation was made by Mr.

Gary Kelly, president of the Hardieville Community Association, and two other members when the boundaries commission held its hearings in Vulcan, I believe. The concern I have, Mr. Speaker, is that the rationale used by the commission — at least as stated by the secretary of the commission in a letter to me wherein the secretary indicated that in the commissioners' view there was an implication that urban electoral division boundaries must be extended to at least the currently approved corporate or municipal limits.

That caused some concern in that it was my feeling, from both the way the legislation creating the Electoral Boundaries Commission was struck and the debate which occurred in this Assembly, that flexibility had been given to the Electoral Boundaries Commission so that in communities like Lethbridge, Red Deer, Medicine Hat — for certain in Lethbridge and Medicine Hat — a greater degree of flexibility would still be the case.

However, the view of the secretary and therefore, I believe, of the commission members was that all of the area within the corporate limits of the city of Lethbridge should be part of either Lethbridge West or Lethbridge East. Mr.

Speaker, I would like to conclude my remarks by again complimenting the committee for taking the position that some 225 residents of the Cypress constituency should be transferred from that constituency, whose population dropped to some 9,053 as a result of the transfer, and added to the Taber-Warner constituency, keeping in mind the fact that we lost about 650 residents and electors to both Lethbridge West and Lethbridge East as a result of recent annexations. The net result leaves the Taber-Warner constituency with some 12,802 voters.

So while I indicated in my opening remarks that this is one of the more difficult tasks we as legislators must face and keeping in mind that four of the seven members of the Electoral Boundaries Commission were elected members from this Assembly, so they knew fully the concerns that cover this province, in the urban as well as the rural constituencies, and keeping in mind how difficult the task is, I would like to conclude my remarks by commending those members of the com mission and urging my colleagues to support this motion. MR. COOK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a few brief comments.

I, too, would like to compliment the work of the commission. But I have some concerns I've expressed in caucus before, and I think I'll express them once more. I'd like to refer to the population figures, not just the voter figures. Going through the recent data from the census done in 1981, it's possible to recreate the population figures. Going through the report, the smallest constituency in popu lation will be Pincher Creek-Crowsnest at 14,365. The smallest urban constituency will be Edmonton Highlands at 25,615. These are population figures, not voter figures.

The largest rural constituency is 35,990 — people, not voters — or over twice the population of another rural constituency. The largest urban constituency will be Calgary Forest Lawn with a population of 45,190, almost three times the size of the smallest rural constituency. In short, a citizen in Pincher Creek-Crowsnest has three times the voting power of an urban citizen in the province. Or put another way, in some cases the voting power of an urban Albertan is one third that of rural citizens.

I think that factor of three is a gross distortion in the basic principle of democracy in this system, which is representation on the basis of population. It's true that we have accepted the idea that there should be some compensation or recognition for the larger distances involved in rural Alberta, but I suggest we have gone too far. If there are difficulties for rural members, they should be given extra support services — for example, travel allowances or office staff and assistants — but the votes in the Assembly should be on the basis of representation by population as closely as it is possible.

We recognize that in northern Alberta, where distances are vast and populations aren't, there is a case for some special consideration. It is interesting to look at the compensation or support given to northern members in other provinces, and Saskatchewan is a good example. I think we could use that model to compensate those members who have those very onerous responsibilities in northern Alberta. We should give them more backup.

April 29, 1985 ALBERTA HANSARD 679 Mr. Speaker, I'm only speaking to a basic principle in our representative democracy. I think we've gone too far. The factor of three to one is too great. I can understand a 25 percent difference, maybe even a 50 percent difference, but not a difference of three times. MR. HYLAND: Mr. Speaker, I was encouraged to partic ipate for a few moments in the debate and to say a few words after my colleague just got through speaking. There is indeed a difference between representing a rural area and representing a city area in this province.

There's also a difference between representing a northern area and rep resenting a southern area such as I do with a population the size of my constituency, covering the area it covers. We heard about the difference in the split in the popu lation. Let me give you a little illustration. Last year I drove to Edmonton once. In March of last year I purchased a new vehicle. I looked at the speedometer on the way into the Hat today, and I think it said 29,800 and some kilometres. I'm between 30 and 35 miles from the airport. Mine isn't the largest constituency that's settled, but it's up there.

It's a large area with not many people. I would have to sit down and count how many town councils, school boards, and hospital board I deal with. For example, I have parts of at least four hospital districts. So it's not quite as easy as it may sound. I should say that I'm sad to see the group that are going to the hon. Member for Taber-Warner's constituency. They are good people, and I've worked with many of them for the last ten years. It is true that their direction of travel is the way the committee added them to that constituency.

The only other thing is that I wrote a letter to the committee asking for a change of name of the constituency, and so did the Redcliff town council. It is subject to checking, but I don't remember a response coming back. At the time, I suggested changing it to Cypress-Redcliff. Of course, the town council of Redcliff wanted it changed to Redcliff- Cypress because previously it had been called Medicine Hat-Redcliff. So they did have the part of the constituency identified with their name. We also heard from other members about having more support staff.

It may be nice for members of this Assembly to have support staff and extra budgets, but if I were in a position to have an EA, the person my constituents want to talk to is me, their MLA. Thank you. MR. NELSON: Mr. Speaker, like the Member for Calgary Fish Creek, I guess I'm one of the big losers in this boundary change. Having the largest, most populous con stituency in the province has certainly been a challenge over the last number of years, as the area of the constituency has been one that I represented as an alderman at the municipal level and now in the provincial legislature in Edmonton. Mr.

Speaker, during the event of having the boundary commission in place and the boundaries considered, many concerns have been raised within our constituency. I feel it is incumbent upon me to stand in my place and discuss some of them. First of all, many of my constituents are disappointed that the boundary is to be changed at all, and secondly, the manner and placement of the boundary change. Due to the common participation of a number of our communities in Calgary McCall, they felt the boundary could have been changed in a different manner.

However, today we've been discussing that over and over, and it has been somewhat accepted. I'm sure that over a period of years people will grow to live with this change. Mr. Speaker, over a number of years the constituency as it presently is and was as a ward in the city has seen a lot of changes that have been made through the participation of many people within the community assisting me in endeavouring to make and get those different changes and items into the communities.

It's now probably the most serviced part of the city of Calgary with the leisure centre, one of the most beautiful facilities in Canada and maybe in the world, the recent opening last Saturday of the LRT line into northeast Calgary, the development of schools, parks, the road systems, the new hospital going in place, and the various other services that are available in the communities.

The many fights we've had to participate in with both city hall and the provincial Legislature in the development of overpasses and various other things certainly has many nostalgic reminders for me, especially of those many good people who live in this constituency. I guess I can stand in my place, as could any other member, and call my constituency the best in the province. Each of us possibly has a similar view of our own con stituency. In all sincerity, Mr.

Speaker, it is nostalgic because I'm going to lose nearly half the population of my con stituency, many of whom I've known and become friends with for many, many years. That is very sad to me in many respects, because should I still wish and should the electors wish me to continue representing them in this place, it will be sad that not all of them will be under the auspices of the Calgary McCall constituency, although if I wish to return here I still have an option to pick and choose which constituency I may eventually participate in. However.

I would like to place on the public record my appreciation of those people in either constituency, whether I am here again or not, whether I'm representing one or the other or maybe even both constituencies at some time in the future, for their support and continued assistance in developing the northeast area of Calgary, making it the finest area in the city of Calgary not only to live in but to work and play in, and of course the great community spirit that abounds within that community. Mr. Speaker, I know the task of changing boundaries is a difficult one.

At one time I, too, participated in this at city hall, as did some other hon. members, and had to make some difficult decisions, publicly at the time. Although some were unhappy, it really ended up working out well. I hope that this, too, will work out well not only for the members here but for the constituents, because those are the people who get to know their member, get to know the work he can do, and get to trust or otherwise that particular member. Mr. Speaker, I guess the moment of real sadness is the time this will actually come to fruition — at the next election.

I hope that any person who seeks to represent the folks in either or both of these constituencies will be mindful that they are good people. They deserve to be well rep resented and also to have the ear of the government at this or any other level. For my part. Mr. Speaker, I'm sad to see the constituency split up in the manner it is or split up at all for that matter. However, I'm sure that in the long run it will benefit not only the folks in the northeast area of the city of Calgary but hopefully the rest of the province as well. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. MARTIN: Mr.

Speaker, just a few comments on Motion 11. I, too, would like to say, as has been alluded

680 ALBERTA HANSARD April 29, 1985 to by other members, that I can't think of a more difficult process than trying to draw up new electoral boundaries in the province. What we call natural constituency boundaries — I've heard that term — are sometimes in the eye of the beholder. I've heard different people say, "This is the natural boundary," and another group will say that this other area is the natural boundary. It is difficult to deal with the whole concept, with distances and population and, as some members have alluded to, what takes place in rural areas compared to a city.

The Member for Edmonton Glengarry talked about three to one. Let me say, first of all, that knowing a little bit about the process and the amount of time my late colleague Grant Notley had to put in and recognizing that with a caucus of two other things fell in my lap, I know that a lot of work went into this commission. At this point I would like to give all members — the three government members, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Wark, and Mr. Olsen — a great deal of credit, because I know it was an arduous process.

The Member for Little Bow talked about what it takes to do this, and it seems to me that when you come out of a process like this, you're not going to please everybody. It would be absolutely impossible, because every different constituency association from every different party wants to change things in the way they see best. You hope there are people of goodwill on this commission — and I think there were — and that eventually that age-old thing of politics, a compromise, comes out of it. Not knowing all the details, I expect this is precisely what happened in this case.

I would be remiss if I didn't say with some sentimentality that this was one of the last committees my late colleague Grant Notley served on, and I think we'll all remember that. I know it's one he put a lot of time into. I'm sure that while other members of the commission will remember him in this Assembly, they will remember him in perhaps a more intimate sense on this commission. Mr. Speaker, I would say that it's come through a lot of hard work by a lot of people. While I sec that members on the Conservative side are happy. I suggest that not everybody is happy.

I can assure you that not everybody in the NDP is happy. We've been taking some flak: what was Grant doing at the time and all the rest of it. It doesn't mean that there wasn't a road here or something there or somewhere else where it couldn't have been improved. But when you go through a process like this and have people coming together as a commission, with all of them, from neutral people to government members to my late colleague, signing it. I will certainly support it because I know that the process was adequate. Just one question to perhaps fill us in on what this means.

Maybe in concluding debate the minister can tell us the time frame, what this means after the motion. I understand we'll now have to go back to legislation. Perhaps he could update us on the next time frame and, if we pass this motion, when it will be law. Let me conclude. Mr. Speaker, by congratulating all the members of the commission. Having been there at the time, working with my late colleague, knowing that it involved a fair amount of work, and knowing that he was satisfied with the process. I have no hesitation at all supporting Motion 11. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker. I'd like to make one or two brief comments.

I would like to say that I have had the privilege of serving the people that I or someone will be losing in the next election, and I would like to mention the areas of Lamont, Bruderheim, and Scotford. Historically, Clover Bar is one of the oldest constituencies in that the name Clover Bar comes from the little settlement along the river just outside Edmonton where there were many coal mines at that time. It's one of the oldest electoral boundary names in the province.

But time marches on. and because of the rapid growth of the acreage areas in the constituency of Clover Bar, the people on the committee had to look at changing the numbers. I know that the area of Tofield has always been concerned. They're always in the corner of a constituency, and when you need some numbers, you just kick them to one boundary and eight years later you kick them back again. They really get sick and tired of that, and I'm sure all hon. members who have that situation in their constituencies receive the same kind of flak from those constituencies. Mr.

Speaker, I want to make one point that I think we as elected people have to look at. I think politicians can be accused of taking the path of least resistance when it comes to redistribution. We just added a couple more constituencies because we know some of our buddies are going to lose their seats. I think we have too many con stituencies in this province. I think we have too many members in this Assembly. [interjections] You can mumble all you want, but I think the whole system needs revamping. I don't think we need 82 or 83 members in this Assembly. I don't think we need 30 members in the cabinet.

If we really want to serve the best interests of the people of this province, what we should do is cut the Assembly down to about 60 members, double the pay for the members, pay the Premier about $200,000 — what he's worth — pay the Cabinet $150,000 or what they're worth, and get the show on the road. [interjections] I know it's not popular. But on the other hand, if you explain to the taxpayers of this province how many millions of dollars you'd save them, hon. member. I think they could go along with that kind of reasoning.

Every time we open a new department and a new minister, we immediately spend a million of the taxpayers' dollars. I sat in a government where we did the same thing: you need more members, so you just add some more to the House. Pretty soon we're going to run out of room. This government is no different from the Socred government before: you know, there are a few areas we've got problems in, so we'll just add a few more members. Mr. Speaker, I know the committee has had a difficult job to do.

But they had to work within the parameters we set for them, which said: "Change the boundaries and add a few more seats." I want to say publicly that I know the people who will be gone from the Clover Bar constituency don't like the redistribution an

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19850429
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L20 S3 19850429 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	d79deaf153f8ec56f432e773a42fa537a6a78565

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