Alberta Hansard — 10 June 1975, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 18, Session 1)

19750610

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

June 10, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 579 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Tuesday, June 10, 1975 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: PRESENTING PETITIONS MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to beg leave of the Assembly to deal with petitions. May I point out that due to a procedural matter I shall ask that the Assembly suspend the rules in order to allow the presentation of the petitions on private bills.

I wish to point out that pursuant to Standing Order 74, the proclamation and the publishing of same shall be done for the first time in any year in which the Assembly is meeting. This is the second time this year in which this Assembly has met. I should therefore ask that the rules be suspended or amended in order to allow the presentation of these petitions for private bills. I therefore ask the permission of the Assembly to proceed. MR. SPEAKER: May the hon. member have the required leave and unanimous consent to the extent that it may be necessary? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. HORSMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I beg leave to present the petitions for private bills as follows: J.R.W. Sykes, B. Sawyer, B. Scott, and A.F. Womack for

an act to amend certain settlements resulting from the last will and testament of the Hon. Patrick Burns; The Alberta Wheat Pool for

an act to amend The Alberta Wheat Pool Act, 1970; The Alberta Children's Hospital Foundation for

an act respecting Alberta Children's Hospital Foundation; John E. Logan for

an act to incorporate the Institute of Accredited Public Accountants of Alberta; Hector Couture for

an act to provide for the extension of time for filing a statement of claim by Hector Couture, beyond the period allowed by The Limitation of Actions Act; The Canada West Insurance Company for

an act to amend

an act to incorporate The Canada West Insurance Company. I beg leave to notify the Assembly that the first meeting of the committee will be held Monday, June 16 at 10 a.m., the place to be announced later. At 10:30 I will call forward the second bill, which is The Alberta Wheat Pool Amendment Act. head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS MR . KIDD: Mr. Speaker, on your behalf it gives me great pleasure to introduce through you to the members of this Assembly, 40 Grade 9 students from the St. Thomas More school in your constituency of Edmonton Meadowlark. They are accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Althouse and Mr.

Frank Letain. They are seated in the public gallery. I would ask them to rise so they can be recognized by this Assembly.

580 ALBERTA HANSARD June 10, 1975 MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I have great pleasure in introducing to you, and through you to the hon. members of the Legislature, a very distinguished Albertan who has spent 25 years in the coal mines of Alberta: 6 years as a coal mine manager in the Drumheller field and another 19 as a coal mine manager in other parts of Alberta. He has had a great deal to do with the development of coal mines in various parts of Alberta and has had a very exciting career as a coal mine manager. I'd ask Mr. Andrew Wilson, in the Speaker's gallery, to stand and be recognized. MR. ZANDER: Mr.

Speaker, it is indeed my pleasure today to introduce to you and to this Assembly, 27 students of the Drayton Valley Junior High School in the Town of Drayton Valley and the constituency of Drayton Valley. They're accompanied by 2 teachers, Mr. Berezan and Mr. Sawchyn, and their bus driver, Mr. Halushka. They are seated in the members gallery. I would ask them to rise and be recognized by this Assembly. MR. KUSHNER: Mr.

Speaker, I want to introduce to you, and through you, a group of 19 Grade 6 students from my constituency of Calgary Mountain View — as a matter of fact, from my community in Bridgeland -- with the assistant principal, Mr. Richard Steffen, and Mrs. Hartzler. Two of them have been to the city before, but none to the Legislature. I hope they will rise and be recognized by this Assembly. MR. MUSGREAVE: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to introduce to you, and through you to the members of this Legislative Assembly, a member of Calgary City Council, Alderman Don Hartman, who has served with great distinction on this council for the past several years. I would ask Alderman Hartman to please stand and be recognized by this Assembly. head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR . DOWLING: Mr. Speaker, by way of additional response to questions posed by the hon.

Member for Drumheller, I wish to file with the House a document regarding the establishment of the film industry in Alberta, and to table the response to Motion for a Return No. 136. MR. RUSSELL: Mr.

Speaker, I have a variety of reports to table at this time from the Environment Conservation Authority: the Paddle River Basin report, the annual report of the Environmental Research Trust, the annual report of the Environment Conservation Authority, the proceedings of the fourth annual joint meeting of the Public Advisory Committee on the Environment, and volumes 1 and 2 of the proceedings of the public hearings on the use of pesticides and herbicides in Alberta. DR. WARRACK: Mr.

Speaker, I'm pleased to table the answer to Motion for a Return 130, as ordered by the Assembly. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Oil and Gas Pricing MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the first question to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and ask if he plans to meet with the federal Minister of Energy, Mr. Macdonald, in the near future regarding the question of oil prices? MR. GETTY: Mr.

Speaker, I believe I responded to the same question yesterday by saying that negotiations were going on regarding oil and natural gas pricing and that, probably before it was all worked out in any final form, further ministerial meetings would be necessary. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. Are dates set as of now for such ministerial meetings between the hon. minister and his federal counterpart, Mr. Macdonald? MR. GETTY: Not a firm date, Mr. Speaker. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, in light of the Premier's absence, a supplementary question to the minister.

Is the minister in a position to indicate to the House whether the Prime Minister and the Premier have to date arranged meetings dealing with the oil price issue?

June 10, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 581 MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Prime Minister announced in Ottawa yesterday that he would be phoning a variety of premiers regarding oil and gas pricing. He mentioned he would be phoning the Premier of Alberta, and he is presently doing so. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a follow-up to the question. Can the minister indicate to the House whether a meeting on this specific matter has been agreed upon between the Premier and the Prime Minister? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I'm not listening in on their telephone conversation. It's difficult for me to say. MR.

CLARK: I would assume there's been no meeting organized then. Visit of French Minister MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, while we're on the subject of meetings, a supplementary question to the Minister of Business Development and Tourism. Will he be meeting with the French minister of trade and commerce when he arrives in Edmonton later this week? MR. DOWLING: Mr. Speaker, I understand the host for that meeting is our good friend, the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs. However, I've been invited to partake of some of the social occasions, which of course I'm going to do. MR.

CLARK: I think we'll leave that one there. Megavitamin Therapy — Hearings MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a second question, to the Minister of Social Services. I'd like to ask the minister if the hearings dealing with megavitamins presently under way are public? MISS HUNLEY: I don't have all the details before me of the plan for the hearings. I believe some of them are. Subsequent to a question which I believe arose in the House last week, Mr. Speaker, I received some indication from the committee promoting the use of megavitamins that they were not too satisfied with the proposal we had placed before them.

It was being discussed further. I am now under the impression that the suggested arrangements are satisfactory, but I would have to get additional information. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a follow-up question. Would the minister be in a position to indicate to the House whether in the course of these hearings there is cross-examination of people who come forward to present briefs or points of view? MISS HUNLEY: The hearings we had in mind, Mr. Speaker, were not really intended to be a cross-examination such as one might expect in a court.

In view of the fact that we are attempting to obtain information rather than arrive at something that might perhaps be considered almost a judicial decision, I question whether cross-examination is necessary. I know that's one of the issues that has been discussed and perhaps is still under discussion, though we are trying to work out with those who have agreed to conduct the inquiry for us a suitable atmosphere in which all sides of this case can be heard. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question to the minister.

Is the minister in a position to indicate to the House whether there is a physician on the committee hearing the various points of view who has had, shall we say, some professional experience in the use of megavitamins? MISS HUNLEY: I am unable to answer that question, Mr. Speaker. I'll have to look into it and advise the hon. member and members of the Assembly. Canada Winter Games — Prizes MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Attorney General. This is with regard to the unclaimed prizes from the Jeux Canada Games at Lethbridge.

How will the Attorney General's department dispose of these prizes when they are received by his department? MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, I wasn't aware we were in possession of unclaimed prizes. I'll look into the matter. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Attorney General. One of the unclaimed prizes is a trip to Hawaii. Would the minister reserve that right for himself, or would he be benevolent in his . . .

582 ALBERTA HANSARD June 10, 1975 MR. FOSTER: I think after a good deal of consideration, Mr. Speaker, I will claim the prizes and the benefits. [laughter] Manpower Requirements MR. GHITTER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Advanced Education. I'm wondering if the government has undertaken any ongoing studies relative to present and future manpower needs in the Province of Alberta. DR. HOHOL: Mr.

Speaker, in terms of working documentation, discussion, and study papers to make certain we know to the best of our ability what's happening in the manpower supply/demand equation, we're constantly working on that kind of thing. I wish to be extremely careful and make certain I wouldn't use the literal or dictionary definition of the word "study" in the context of what we're doing in manpower on the subject under discussion. MR. GHITTER: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I’m wondering if the hon. minister could advise the House whether he intends to undertake studies of a more formal nature in the future relative to our ongoing manpower needs in the Province of Alberta. DR. HOHOL: This is a consideration indeed. MR. GHITTER: Further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I'm wondering if the hon. minister could advise the House whether he has any indication as to the present or future shortfall manpower needs in the Province of Alberta. DR. HOHOL: Mr.

Speaker, we have indicators based on trends over the last decade and some capability from those projections to predict what may happen in the years to come, in two ways: first, in total manpower supply and demand in any occupation; secondly, in particular activities within an occupation, for example, in the building trades. MR. GHITTER: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. If I were to put a motion on the Order Paper to get the return of those figures, I'm wondering if the hon. minister would advise whether they are available. DR.

HOHOL: Probably not, because they're the kinds of things that industry, labor, and government use in terms of indicators of the kind of direction one or the other or a third party might take in terms of policy or practice. Some of the information is classified in the sense that it is used to assist one or the other of the three groups to progress in making predictions. It would not normally be shared because it is the kind of information a competing company or corporation, for example, might use to make some assessment of what the competition would do.

Secondly, to table figures like that would be to inevitably clothe them in the definition and description of validity and reliability. At this point in our efforts the work is more in the direction of indicators and possible kinds of

interpretations of what may occur in years to come. In terms of the research meaning of studies or reliability or validity, I would have to say they're not of that kind. They're more indicators than real predictors of anything that will occur within a particular occupation. MR. GHITTER: One final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is it then possible to receive any information from the hon. minister's department that would assist the members in understanding the future needs of this province on a manpower basis? DR. HOHOL: Yes, no question about it. I thought we covered a good deal of that in the estimates yesterday.

If there is any specific information the hon. member wishes to have, I'd be most generous in supplying it. Canada Winter Games — Prizes (continued) MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could add a further response to the question asked by the hon. Member for Little Bow concerning the Lethbridge games. I'm advised by the hon. Member for Lethbridge West, who was the lottery chairman of the Winter Games, that prizes must be claimed by March 15, 1976, or they will be funded to the provincial government. I regret that information, Mr. Speaker, since that Hawaiian trip cannot be claimed until then.

June 10, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 583 Industrial Relations — Complaints MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of labour. I'd like to know whether the Board of Industrial Relations has an unusual backlog of cases at this particular time. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, not to my knowledge. I'd be glad to check into the backlog and give the hon. member the information. MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. I'm wondering if the minister would undertake, when he is making that check, to check on the case of unfair labor practice which was generated in early February.

From the best information I've been able to find, it is still before the Board of Industrial Relations. That is the one concerning Ralph Eerkes Painting. Oil and Gas Pricing (continued) MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this question to the hon. Premier and ask if he's in a position to report to the Assembly on his telephone conversation with the Prime Minister of Canada? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, no, I'm not. I think the nature of the conversation is such — and I presume it's one of a number -- that I don't think I am in a position to make any comment to the House at this time. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, a further supplementary question. Can the Premier advise the Assembly whether the timetable of oil pricing was discussed? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, again I'm in the position at the moment, and the nature of the discussion is such that I really cannot provide any useful information to the House. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question. Can the Premier advise when we can anticipate an announcement in this Assembly on the question of oil pricing? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I don't think I could be definitive with regard to that.

As soon as there is something concrete which would be useful, I certainly would be prepared to advise the members of the House what has occurred. MR. CLARK: I wonder if I might ask a supplementary question of the Premier. Is the Premier in a position to indicate to the House whether as a result of his discussions with the Prime Minister he will be meeting with the Prime Minister? Or has a meeting, in fact, been set up on the issue of oil pricing? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, at this time I could not anticipate whether there would be a meeting with the Prime Minister on that particular subject in the near future.

Federal Budget MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask one more supplementary question of the Premier. Is the Premier in a position to indicate to the House whether the federal government has asked the premiers to meet with them prior to the federal budget coming down ? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I think I might be breaching the confidence of the Prime Minister's communications with me in that regard. I think it's possibly a question that would have to be directed to him -- if he did, in fact, call a meeting. At the moment I don't anticipate that would occur. Oil and Gas Pricing (continued) MR.

NOTLEY: A supplementary question to the hon. Premier. Can the Premier advise whether there are ongoing discussions on oil pricing with provincial officials, Alberta Petroleum Commission officials, as well as federal government officials? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, the use of the word "ongoing” in the hon. member's question is such that I would have to answer in the affirmative. We really have been having ongoing discussions regarding prices, at the official level, continuously since September 4, 1973. I presume they'll continue.

584 ALBERTA HANSARD June 10, 1975 Crimes Compensation — Medical Payments MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care. A very short explanation is required first. The crimes compensation report indicated that considerable money is paid to medical doctors. My question is: do the doctors bill medicare, or is that bill paid separately by the A.G.’s department? MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, I'd have to check that and report back to the hon. member. Impending Teacher Strike MR. ZANDER: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour.

Are there any new developments in the proposed teachers' strike in the north-central zone that is going to be in effect tomorrow at 8 o'clock? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I think there has been recent publicity to the effect there would be a strike tomorrow morning. I have no information at the present time to contradict that. MR. ZANDER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Are negotiations going on between the two bodies? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, there is always a certain degree of contact in a situation like this. It is not necessarily continuous throughout the period of negotiations.

I do not know if there is contact today, for example. Whether there would be a walkout or not, the parties would presumably be back in touch within a reasonable time. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Minister of Education. Has the Department of Education established any contingency plans with regard to exams and marks for the students of these particular schools? MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, the boards involved in the present dispute are accredited and entitled to provide marks on the basis of the full year's progress of the student and the superintendent's recommendations.

In the event there is some dissatisfaction by students in Grade 12 with the marks they received from their local board, the facilities of the Department of Education are, of course, open to them to write departmental examinations. School Financing MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister. Is the department planning any special funding beyond the present funding for smaller school jurisdictions? This seems to be one of the concerns in these areas. MR. KOZIAK: There is nothing planned that isn't provided for in the estimates for the present fiscal year. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary to the minister. Will the minister be tabling an analysis or report with regard to funding of small schools and related jurisdictions? MR. KOZIAK: That matter isn't presently under consideration, Mr. Speaker. Hunting Licences -- Exemption MR. BATIUK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Recreation, Parks and Wildlife. Since senior citizens are exempted from purchasing fishing licences and all senior citizens are not fishermen — would the minister consider exempting senior citizens from [purchasing] hunting licences? MR. ADAIR: Mr.

Speaker, I would have to take that as notice and respond after I've had a chance to review it.

June 10, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 585 Predator Control Program MR. APPLEBY: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Recreation, Parks and Wildlife. I would like to ask if he has had an opportunity to assess the success of the predator control program in effect in this province in the past year. MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, at the moment I have not. MR. APPLEBY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister's department have any means of monitoring the wolf population in the province? MR. ADAIR: Yes we do, Mr. Speaker, in co-operation with the Department of Agriculture. MR.

APPLEBY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister know if the wolf population is increasing? MR. ADAIR: I would have to take that as notice. I can't respond to that right now. I don't know. Municipal Tax Assessment MR. MUSGREAVE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. It is my understanding that the City of Calgary has established a municipal mill rate for 1975 taxes that, in effect, sets a different rate for an owner living in a multiple dwelling such as a duplex or triplex.

If the hon. minister confirms this situation, would he request the city council to reconsider its action? Failing that, would he consider amending the municipal legislation so discriminatory taxing powers would be removed from the jurisdiction of local councils? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, that is certainly a complex issue. In response to the first part of the question, there is a split mill rate with respect to multiple family dwellings, yet this cannot exceed the commercial rate in the City of Calgary. Secondly, a general comment. The City of Calgary has just completed a court case, Mr.

Speaker, with respect to the implementation of a split mill rate, and they came out very successfully. So at this point it would be doubtful whether we would introduce legislation to take a position contrary to that. I must admit that the balance of the question was a bit difficult for me to put in the context of a quick answer, but certainly I would be willing to discuss it further. MR. GHITTER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister.

While the minister is considering the proposal raised by the hon. member, I'm wondering if he would also consider the impact of the high assessment upon belt-line communities in our urban cores and the deteriorating effect on those communities to see if anything can be built within our tax structure to assist these particular communities now under very severe pressure? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Speaker, this particular case with respect to assessment, not only in the City of Calgary but in other major urban centres and fringe areas attendant to those urban centres, will certainly be a major problem facing the Provincial Municipal Finance Council in the forthcoming term. It will be a matter of high urgency for us to review it at that time. Certainly I think we'll have to find some new formula to attempt to better assess and tax these landholdings. Gasoline Retailing MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Business Development and Tourism and ask if he is in a position to report to the Assembly on the meetings he has held with large integrated oil companies concerning the concerns of the ARA? MR. DOWLING: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am. Briefly, we met with four major companies, discussed the problems from their standpoint, and had additional contact with some members of the ARA in the interim. Our position at the moment is to complete our meetings with the major oil companies and then call the principals of the ARA to visit with us and discuss the matter. MR.

CLARK: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the minister. Has he given further consideration to the desirability of holding a meeting with representatives of the ARA and the large integrated oil companies together, under the good auspices of the minister?

586 ALBERTA HANSARD June 10, 1975 MR. DOWLING: Yes, of course we did give that consideration earlier, Mr. Speaker. Our position relative to having all the major companies involved in that kind of meeting is that it would put them in a very difficult position relative to the federal anti-combines act. MR. CLARK: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the minister. Is he prepared then to have each company attend a meeting with representatives of the ARA under the good auspices of the minister so we get around the problem of the combines act? MR. DOWLING: Mr.

Speaker, I understand the private sector in typical fashion has done better than we could propose doing. In one particular instance they scheduled some 30 regional meetings with all the members of the group that represents their company. Another one is proceeding in the same manner. I believe most of those meetings are being accomplished. In some instances not only the members of the ARA but some of the people involved as retailers for the company have refused to attend such meetings, but the option and the invitation are, of course, open for them to attend. Visit to Japan MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the Premier. I understand the two members for Edmonton Norwood and Camrose have left on their trip today. My question is: does this action prohibit the hon. members from becoming the minister of transport or [taking] other related portfolios because of a potential conflict of interest in the future? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member seems to be clearly asking a question of law, the answer to which might be sought elsewhere. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, not to debate the issue, I certainly look at the seriousness of the intent of the question.

We have established in this session certain ground rules for senior civil servants. The Premier has outlined certain ground rules for the ministers. I felt even as MLAs there is a certain ground rule here. I want to take my example from precedent. When as a cabinet minister I was invited by a company which wanted me to take some administrative training to attend a meeting in the United States — it was a one-week course — I took the matter to cabinet and indicated this was available to me. They would take me there. The training was relative to the responsibilities I had as a cabinet minister.

At the time it was very clearly stated to me through cabinet: first, I would pay from my own pocket for any course I took

part in, or the government would pay for it because I am a cabinet minister; secondly, any tuition fees or expenses at such a course would be at the expense of myself or government, but not an outside company. To me, Mr. Speaker, this case is very similar. My question had serious intent, not light. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has — and I say this with respect — made it abundantly clear that what we may become involved in here if we are going to have questions and answers on this topic, is a debate on opinions concerning certain guidelines.

I would suggest if that is the hon. member's intention, it should be done by means of a resolution on the Order Paper. Offshore Mineral Rights — Alberta Position MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct this question to the hon. Premier too. It concerns a reasonably well-publicized trip of the Premier over the weekend. I would like to ask the hon. Premier whether his views on offshore mineral rights are the official position of the Government of Alberta, or whether he is staking out a position on Canadian federalism. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, the position I took is the official position of the Government of Alberta.

With regard to a rather long-standing dispute — I believe it traces itself back at least to 1968, when a proposal was made by the Prime Minister with regard to the sharing of offshore revenue of the various provinces with a view that a certain portion would flow 100 per cent to the federal government, other portions would flow 50 per cent to the federal government and 50 per cent to provincial governments — it's been our evaluation for some time that there would be some merit in the Canadian public interest to see some significant discoveries encouraged off Labrador, off Sable Island, and generally in the coastal waters of the Atlantic provinces.

All these provinces are the recipients of a significant portion of equalization funds. We think it would be good for Canada if there were fewer provinces obliged to rely upon equalization to meet their needs. We would welcome, as I am sure all Canadians would,

June 10, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 587 significant discoveries in production off the east coast which would strengthen our supply position. We think, too, it would be very important to resolve the issue, in this case with joint management of the discoveries and exploration between the federal and provincial governments to have 100 per cent of the revenues flow to the provincial governments involved. Natural Resources Control MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview is psychic. My question to the hon. Premier is along the same line but in a slightly different context.

I was wondering if the hon. Premier found on his trip to the Maritimes strong support for provincial governments having full control over the revenue from all natural resources. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. With great respect, I don't think the question period is the time to see how successful the hon. Premier might have been in conducting an opinion poll while he was in the Maritimes. MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary, then, to the hon. Premier. Did the hon. Premier get a feeling while he was in the East that he would like to live in Ottawa? Impending Teacher Strike (continued) MR. ZANDER: Mr.

Speaker, my question is again directed to the Minister of Labour. Has either of the groups in the dispute, the ATA or the ASTA, approached your office at any time for aid to settle this dispute? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Labour arranged for the appointment of a conciliation officer, if my memory is correct. The conciliation officer then proceeded to make a recommendation to the parties. The hon. member's question is, was my office approached? Certainly the services of the department were utilized at that point. AOC Loan — Drilling Industry MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to direct my question to the Minister of Business Development and ask if there were discussions between his office and the Alberta Opportunity Company prior to the decision by the Alberta Opportunity Company to assist Kenting in acquiring drilling rigs. MR. DOWLING: Mr. Speaker, only to the extent that when a loan is processed and has the approval of the Opportunity Company, the board comes forward for further ratification by cabinet. That documentation was forwarded to my office, and it proceeded in the normal fashion. MR. CLARK: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the minister.

Did the government cause a directive, a policy position paper, or any other kind of policy indication to go to the Alberta Opportunity Company prior to the decision regarding Kenting? MR. DOWLING: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. Our position on any loan application is that it proceed in the normal fashion without influence whatsoever. If someone comes to my office now in my new capacity I furnish them with the application forms, indicate we do have an office in Ponoka and other offices throughout various parts of the province, and the application is processed in the normal fashion.

Depending on the type of application, the process sometimes does take a bit of time. The Opportunity Company is private- enterprise oriented and does a great deal of study before it makes a recommendation, yea or nay, relative to a particular application. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister so I don't misunderstand the answer. Would it be fair to assume there was no discussion between the government and officials of the Alberta Opportunity Company prior to the Opportunity Company making its recommendation to the government regarding Kenting Drilling? MR. DOWLING: Mr.

Speaker, as I indicated earlier, the situation is this. An application for a loan to the AOC approved by the board of that organization must receive cabinet approval or approval from legislative council if it is for an amount over $500,000. It therefore has to come before legislative council, and it's my duty to bring that matter forward.

588 ALBERTA HANSARD June 10, 1975 MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might have one more opportunity to try to shed some light on the question. Just so I don't misunderstand the minister, were there discussions the minister knows of between any cabinet minister or government officials and officials of the Alberta Opportunity Company regarding the loan to Kenting Drilling prior to the recommendation coming from the Alberta Opportunity Company to the minister's office? MR. DOWLING: If there were, Mr. Speaker, it was only a matter of gaining additional information relative to the application.

Indian Affairs — Alberta Position MR. TAYLOR: My question is to the hon. minister in charge of native affairs. Is the hon. minister planning to visit Indian reserves this summer, particularly the Blackfoot Indian Reserve at Cluny and Gleichen? MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Member for Drumheller, I have visited a number of reserves to this point in time, and I plan to carry on once the House is out. The Blackfoot Reserve is one I will be visiting. MR. TAYLOR: Further supplementary to the hon. minister. This comes from some of the people of the Blackfoot Reserve.

Does the hon. minister carry on a hands-off policy on items under the federal government, or does he become an advocate for the Indians with the Indian Affairs department? MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that it's this government's position that in no way are we to undermine the relationship between the treaty Indians of the province and the federal government. We are attempting to provide services to treaty Indians which they are entitled to as Albertans. Municipal Tax Assessment (continued) MR. KUSHNER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Could he advise the House if he is considering revising the municipal assessment act? I had several calls, early this morning as a matter of fact and especially from the older area of my constituency, that the taxes are extremely outrageous and unjust. I wonder if the minister is considering revising it, or is it being revised at all? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I'm not too sure whether the hon.

Member for Calgary Mountain View is referring to the assessment manual which has the techniques used to assess property both in the city and across the province, or if he is referring to the various taxation acts we're dealing with. If he could clarify that, I'd be glad to provide the answer. MR. KUSHNER: The manual, Mr. Minister. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I'd be the first to admit I do not have too much detailed information with respect to the assessment manual since it involves a series of complex formulas and arrangements and, certainly, judgments.

I can't see any immediate changes forthcoming to the processes involved, primarily because I'm sure they are somewhat loath to make changes pending, perhaps, consideration by the Provincial Municipal Finance Council. I suggest that if there possibly are inequities involved, they are spread throughout the province and are applied consistently throughout. Environment — Athabasca River MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this question to the hon. Minister of Environment.

It's a follow-up question to one I posed yesterday concerning North Western Pulp & Power Ltd. dumping untreated waste chemicals into the Athabasca River. Has the minister had an opportunity yet to have the department check out this problem? MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I did ask the department to check that out and as of 2:30 today I hadn't had their response. I will report to the hon. member as soon as I have the answer.

June 10, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 589 ORDERS OF THE DAY head: WRITTEN QUESTIONS 162. Mr. Notley asked the government the following question:

(1) Who is the prime engineering contractor for the construction of the utility plant for the Syncrude Mildred Lake project?

(2) Who was responsible for hiring this contractor and under what terms and conditions?

(3) What fiscal arrangements are in place for the payment of the capital cost of said utility plant either by the Government of Alberta or the Alberta Energy Company? MR. GETTY: We agree with that question, Mr. Speaker, and assume it will now be made a motion for a return. head: MOTIONS FOR RETURNS 159. Mr.

Notley proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: A list of all grants issued under the provincial labor assistance for livestock facility development program, including the names of all individuals or groups who received grants, the amount of each grant, and the date each grant was issued, from the time the program was implemented to the present. [The motion was carried.] 160. Mr. Notley proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: A list of all loan guarantees issued under

Section 11 of The Department of Industry and Commerce Act showing in each case the date, the amount of the loan, the name and address of the organization and/or person on whose behalf it was issued, the purpose of the loan, the name and address of the lending institution, and the effective interest rate. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I move Motion for a Return No. 160, standing in my name on the Order Paper. I might just very briefly comment that I recognize 161 is redundant, and when we get to that point I'm going to ask that it be withdrawn, but we have not yet had the information tabled for 160. MR. DOWLING: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to move an amendment to Motion No. 160 by adding after "a list of all loan guarantees issued under

Section 11 of The Department of Energy and Commerce Act", the words "for the fiscal year 1974-75". [The motion as amended was carried.] 161. Mr. Notley proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: A list of all grants made pursuant to regulations under

Section 10 of The Department of Industry and Commerce Act showing in each case the amount of the grant, the name and address of the organization and/or person to whom it was directed, its purpose, and the date on which it was issued. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would request permission from the Assembly to withdraw Motion for a Return No. 161. After I had introduced it, the minister outguessed me and has already tabled the information, so it's now redundant. [The motion was withdrawn.] 163. Mr.

Notley proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: A copy of the full report of Loram International Ltd., dated February 4, 1975, regarding Syncrude Canada Ltd.'s cost estimates for the Mildred Lake project and the utility plant.

590 ALBERTA HANSARD June 10, 1975 MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, the government must advise they are unable to support this motion for a return, the reason being that it was one of a series of documents prepared in order that we could make an evaluation of the various aspects of the Syncrude project when that project was in deep difficulty. The government did, however, have a

summary and conclusions of the Loram report prepared. It was tabled in the House with all the other reports. It was necessary, however, that certain matters needed in the Loram main report not be made public, inasmuch as they affected the competitive position of the Syncrude project and participants. If we had taken the position that these sensitive, competitive matters had to be made public, it's quite possible we never would have been able to obtain the necessary information from the Syncrude participants and the contractor, Bechtel, in order to have the Loram report prepared. However, recognizing the interests of the Legislature, the government did insist on the

summary and conclusions report which was tabled in the House. MR. SPEAKER: May the hon. member close the debate? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. NOTLEY: With great respect to the hon. minister, in my judgment the answer he has given today is just not good enough, no better than the answer we had last winter when the matter was originally discussed. Mr. Speaker, the minister has noted the government released the

summary of the recommendations. But unfortunately, that

summary really didn't contain adequate information to give fully the background needed for members of this Assembly to make an objective judgment as to whether the construction costs went up by a reasonable amount. Mr. Speaker, without belaboring the point, let us keep in mind that the projected construction costs of the Syncrude plant have spiralled to an unreasonable degree. When the Premier made his announcement in September of 1973, we had a figure of approximately $1 billion. By the time the Syncrude deal was concluded, the figure had gone up to more than $2 billion. Mr. Speaker, in my judgment it isn't good enough for us just to get a

summary of the report. I also note in rereading Hansard of the time, that when the Shell people briefly took

part in the participation, they were given access to the Loram report — not just a

summary, but the entire report. It seems to me this whole argument about not making this information available because somehow it's going to affect Syncrude's competitive position goes out the window when you recognize that the one group which had access to it other than the participating governments was the Shell consortium. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that defeats the government's argument that somehow this information can't be made public because it would undermine the competitive position of Syncrude. Mr.

Speaker, as I see it, the entire information contained in the Loram report is absolutely crucial if this Assembly or anybody else in the province is to be able to make anything like an objective assessment as to whether Syncrude is a good or a bad deal, and more important, whether the increase in the construction costs is justified. Therefore, I simply conclude by saying that once again, Mr. Speaker, the door has been slammed shut, and vital information which the public needs to have at its disposal has been denied. [The motion was lost.] 164. Mr.

Mandeville proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing:

(1) The name of each legal firm engaged by the Agricultural Development Corporation during the fiscal years 1973-74 and 1974-75, including the name of the specific lawyer or lawyers dealt with in each firm.

(2) The nature of service supplied by each of the above, including the fees charged for each such service.

(3) The amount of legal fees paid for land transactions by the Agricultural Development Corporation for the fiscal years 1972-73, 1973-74, and 1974-75, including: (

a) a total dollar amount for each of those years; (

b) the number of such legal fees paid out in each of those years; and (

c) a copy of the tariff schedule, if any, used to determine such fees. [The motion was carried.] 165. Mr.

Mandeville proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: A list of all loans and guarantees of loans, including dates, amounts and purposes of same, obtained from the Agricultural Development Corporation in the fiscal years 1972-73, 1973-74, and 1974-75 by: (1) present employees of the Agricultural Development Corporation and/or the Department of Agriculture; and (2) persons who have been employed by the Agricultural Development Corporation and/or the Department of Agriculture during the fiscal years 1972-73, 1973-74, and 1974-75.

June 10, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 591 MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move an amendment to Motion for a Return 165 as follows: the words "A list of all loans” be struck out and replaced by the words ”A list of all direct loans". The reason for the amendment, Mr. Speaker, is that there are a number of loans guaranteed by the Agricultural Development Corporation in a partial way. The decision of whether to make those loans is one made by the individual banks, treasury branches, or credit unions where the loan is obtained.

It is difficult if not impossible for us to get a list of all the individuals who have obtained guarantees in that manner. [The motion as amended was carried.] 166. Dr. Buck proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing:

(1) The number of insurance companies which sold automobile insurance in Alberta as of: (

a) May 31, 1974, (

b) May 31, 1975.

(2) The name of each such insurance company which has completely withdrawn policies covering automobiles.

(3) The name of each such insurance company which requires that automobile insurance be sold only to customers who will also buy household insurance. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I ask that we hold Motion for a Return 166 until Thursday. MR. SPEAKER: Is this acceptable to the Assembly? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 1. Moved by Mr. Notley:

Be it resolved that this Legislature recommend the establishment of a select committee of the Legislature to review conflict of interest legislation as it applies to all statutes of the Province of Alberta respecting both the municipal and provincial levels of government. [Adjourned debate: Mr. Young] MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, it's with a great deal of pleasure that I rise for for the second time. [ applause] The applause was distinctly louder than the first time. AN HON. MEMBER: [Inaudible] sit down. MR. YOUNG: I shall do that shortly. Mr.

Speaker, on the last occasion I spoke to this particular motion I indicated it was my opinion that the matter before us is one on which there is quite a divergence of opinion. I subsequently had the opportunity to read Hansard and noted particularly the remarks of a number of members, and how difficult the challenge will be to meld those opinions and viewpoints to a common statute or a standard piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate that I believe the conflict of interest matter before us is one on which there are expectations which are not possible to meet in statute.

As I mentioned, having observed the remarks of some members, I believe there are members of this Legislature who share a different point of view from mine as to what can be accomplished with statute. I mentioned the other day that I do not believe it possible by statute, no matter how we develop that statute, to make it so clear that it can be applied by everyone to their particular situation beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The decision, which that individual as an elected member of this body or of a municipal council or school board must take, can and probably will in the course of years to come be challenged on occasion. It just seems to me that to hope for a statute which will indicate clearly to everyone what action to take in all the unique circumstances in which the elected person may find himself or herself is just not possible. I think our conscience must be our guide.

I think the possibility and, as a matter of fact, the full knowledge that any conduct which does not appear to be completely acceptable may be challenged at any time — that knowledge will in itself go a long way to guide members to probe the depths of their understanding of whatever statute exists. But I am of the firm opinion there are some persons who will see an action on the part of one member, however well intentioned, and choose to challenge that decision or action and suggest that it is a conflict of interest.

There are, of course, reasons some citizens may wish to do that, and we are quite familiar with them. There may be some short-run political gain from their point of view. They may disagree with the stand taken

592 ALBERTA HANSARD June 10, 1975 by the member on quite another issue and wish to cause a bit of embarassment. Those are situations which can arise and no doubt will arise no matter how we write the statute. It's my view the statutes do need to be reviewed. It's my view as well, Mr. Speaker, there will be a challenge before anyone who does that review, in order to try to determine how narrowly or how broadly to determine what does constitute a conflict of interest. I mentioned earlier that I think there are problems if we define it too narrowly. There are problems if we define it too broadly.

We have the situation in the City of Edmonton at the moment, where there is some question hanging over the heads of councillors whether they can, if they are renters, vote on a certain matter in connection with rents. I am sure if we are not extremely careful, it can be so written and so construed that almost everyone at some point will be immobilized and unable to contribute to the decision-making process of the elected body. Mr. Speaker, I have come to only one conclusion during the course of the debate I have heard so far.

The matter we have before us is a most complex one, and it isn't possible to arrive at a neat solution which would prevent the occasions when the decisions taken by members might be challenged. It is dealing with a topic on which I think different members of the public have quite divergent points of view as to what is or what should be acceptable. Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the substance of the motion, which is that the legislation be reviewed, is a good suggestion. However, I am not yet convinced that it should necessarily be done by a select committee. In his closing comments maybe the hon.

Member for Spirit River-Fairview will be able to persuade me in that direction. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, in entering the debate on the resolution, I think I was inspired to say a few things following question period. It's unfortunate we have to work towards written law to govern ourselves in this particular area with regard to conflict of interest. I think the values of our society and people certainly make these decisions for us. However, it seems these ground rules are not clear. There is not consensus or consistency within our social value system. That makes judgment necessary at times.

I guess at times it is necessary to write things into the law. I want to comment on the matter with regard to, first, the members of the Legislative Assembly, and secondly, candidates in an election, and relate that to conflict of interest legislation. When I raised questions in the Legislature earlier today, I believe I expressed my particular concern. We have to ask ourselves just what the issue is and what the questions are.

I used the example today of the two members of the Legislature taken to Japan with their passages paid, supposedly for individual practical experience and, maybe, potentially to bring something back to this Assembly. I don't know. That hasn't been clarified. Nor has it been clarified to me which air line it is. So I can't make any accusations or connections between the members and work they have done in the Legislature.

But the question I do raise with regard to that is the responsibilities those members of the Legislature have on certain issues which may be raised in the Legislature concerning that particular air line, concerning trade or commerce with that particular nation. Let's say they are hosted there. Maybe their expenses are paid. Maybe they are wined, dined, and boarded. Who knows? If they are, what obligations have they placed on themselves when they come back to this Assembly?

I think the biggest obligation and concern when they come back to this Assembly is: if we vote on something with regard to that air line, can they vote? In the next year or two, they may be elevated to cabinet positions. Can they legitimately deal with matters of that particular air line on an objective basis? I would have to say, no, they cannot. Because their attitudes have been tainted, colored, and distorted. And certainly in my mind, a . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. With respect, the hon. member is making allusions to the conduct of two other hon. members.

Although it is being done perhaps hypothetically and by way of example, with great respect, I would have to say it is being done in a way which could easily be seriously misconstrued. If the hon. member wishes to deal with the conduct of any other hon. members, including the two he referred to, there are means of doing it directly on the Order Paper. Of course, the hon. member himself would in that event be, and is anyway, responsible for what he might be alleging with regard to other hon. members. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, in indicating this as an example and as a situation which has been raised in this Assembly -- the Premier explained to us the two members have been given permission to go — I certainly feel it is an actual situation and not hypothetical. Nor was I trying to infer that a crime has been committed. I am saying that it could potentially be committed in the future. That's what I am saying. Because of that fact, the hon. member's resolution is certainly going to be supported by me. Any kind of conflict legislation we have before us in this Legislature should be reviewed.

I think that's basically the point I want to make. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I was not trying to infer that a conflict of interest has occurred at this point in time. I also indicated in my question today to the hon. Premier that a conflict of interest could potentially occur. I think that's the point I wanted to make. In that light, I want to recommend to the Assembly that The Legislative Assembly Act is one of the acts we should review and reassess. We have amended it from time to time

June 10, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 593 and made certain recommendations because certain situations occurred. Never have we taken an in-depth look at The Legislative Assembly Act and at situations confronting the members of the Legislative Assembly, which 20 years ago weren't possible but are today. They are possible because our means of travel is different, our response to citizens is different, and our work as MLAs involves us in many different activities and enterprises. Many of us are in business and have different enterprises. Activities such as this could cause types of conflicts we are not aware of.

The government has become more involved in the lives of people in the last 10 years -- grants, loans, and assistance we have never seen before are being made available. Some are legitimate dollars which could assist us in whatever enterprise we are carrying on. There are places where, as MLAs, we could fit into a normal role and, where grants are allotted, possibly be eligible. At this point in time, The Legislative Assembly Act just isn't clear with regard to those grants. It has not been reviewed in light of present situations. I certainly support that we do that.

The second area I want to cover is with regard to The Election Act. I feel this is another area of potential conflict of interest. During a campaign, many of the candidates, for example, want to serve coffee to a particular group they wish to speak to. The Election Act isn't clear on whether giving coffee at a gathering is legal or not. It's a very, very unclear situation. Many candidates or members sitting in the Legislature over a period of time, without real knowledge of the severity of that particular

section of the act, I am sure have given coffee, drinks, pop, small sandwiches, et cetera to a group or gathering, not knowing that potentially there was some difficulty in that area. I'd certainly suggest that The Election Act be reviewed to clarify that, to protect the candidates and prevent situations from occurring which are very minor, perhaps irrelevant to the campaign, but legally could disqualify a candidate or a member of the Legislature. I think we should review that particular aspect. Mr. Speaker, those are the two points I wanted to make.

I certainly support the review and support the resolution of the hon. member. Thank you. MR. LITTLE: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to speak to this resolution. It would appear that conflict of interest has plagued governments and government officials since time immemorial. If you would permit me, I would like to quote some legal authorities. In 1854, in the case of the City of Toronto v. Bowes, we have the statement that, . . . a person cannot be both Judge and party. No man can serve two masters.

He that is interested with the interests of others cannot be allowed to make the business an object of interest to himself; because, from the frailty of human nature, one who has the power, will be too readily seized with the inclination to use the opportunity for serving his own interest at the expense of those for whom he is entrusted. The next authority is from the early 1900s. Mr. Justice Ives of the Supreme Court of Alberta in R. v. McNamara expressed it in this way: No person should be, or become member of a municipal council who cannot give a disinterested vote on a matter of dispute that may arise.

If his judgment may be clouded by self interest in the matter of contract or quasi-contract, he should not be a member of that council. The final quote I would like to make is by Mr. Justice W. G. Morrow in his inquiry into the affairs of the City of Edmonton. Mr. Justice Morrow had this to say: It is almost impossible today to avoid reading newpaper articles or hearing broadcasts reporting on political contributions and with [such] insinuations of corruption, conflict of interest, or other related abuse of office.

Edmonton is not alone [in this]; it seems to be almost universal, certainly in [both] Canada and the United States. Mr. Speaker, from recent events it would appear that the public has become particularly sensitive to these problems, particularly in the light of Watergate, and no doubt the public views most public and elected officials with a certain degree of suspicion as a result of all these affairs. It would appear that the Canadian government is presently addressing itself to the problem in view of the newly passed Election Expenses Act.

Although contributions to political parties and political individuals have become traditional, it is quite distasteful to some. But I dare say it will go on indefinitely, because if we were to eliminate this practice it would mean, of course, that only the wealthy would be able to stand for political office. During the Edmonton inquiry to which I just made reference, it appeared that most of the witnesses had trouble understanding the all-embracing nature of the term "conflict of interest". Most of them in their evidence expressed the opinion that they let their conscience be their guide.

However, unfortunately, their conscience did not always correspond with the law of the land. Another problem expressed by the witnesses was their understanding of the term "pecuniary interest", whether direct or indirect. With your approval, Mr. Speaker, I will read sections from The Municipal Government Act, 1970. 29(1) A person is not qualified to remain a member of council [that is, a municipal council] if he (

f) uses information gained through his position as a member of a council to gain a pecuniary benefit either directly or indirectly. And in the same section:

594 ALBERTA HANSARD June 10, 1975 (

m) has a pecuniary interest, whether direct or indirect, in any subsisting contract with the municipality under which money of the municipality is payable or may become payable for any work, service, matter, or thing. 30(1) A member of a council ceases to be qualified to remain a member of the council if he fails to comply with subsection (2) or (3). 30(2) A member of a council shall not vote in the council . . . (

d) on any question in which he has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest. In reviewing this particular section, Mr. Justice Morrow observed that it would be difficult, if not "impossible to find any civic official in this day and age who has not at least some indirect pecuniary interest in the outcome of [almost all or part of] city business." It might be useful at this point, Mr. Speaker, to read the terms of reference of this inquiry, which are rather all-encompassing: 1.

Whether any person improperly or unlawfully offered or attempted to give to any member of Council or official of the City of Edmonton, any money, loan, advantage, or benefit. 2. Whether any member of Council or official of the City of Edmonton, or any agent of a member of Council or of an official of the City of Edmonton, improperly or unlawfully solicited, demanded, or accepted any money, loan, reward, advantage, or benefit from any person, company, association, or group. 3.

Whether any member of Council or official of the City of Edmonton improperly or unlawfully arranged or attempted to arrange by Bylaw, resolution, or recommendation, any benefit, consideration, or grant, to any person, company, association, or group. There are a number of other terms of reference, but these cover the areas in which, I believe, we are interested. It would also appear from this inquiry that municipal officials are much more vulnerable to violations of conflict of interest than provincial officials, as they can more directly affect zoning and other areas of development of land. Mr.

Justice Morrow, in his summing up, suggested that we adopt a code of ethics. However, if we are to be realistic, we must accept the fact that the lobby has become almost a way of life in political life today. In his summing up, Mr. Justice Morrow did comment that he thought it was extremely wise for those members who did meet with developers and others in the community to meet with them in their aldermanic offices in the city hall, rather than the more or less clandestine meetings in restaurants lunches, dinners and so forth, which gave an aura of suspicion. One of the aldermen involved in the inquiry, a Mr.

Hayter, had a contract to do public relations work with a firm of developers. At a certain point he himself felt that it could be a conflict of interest; he returned most of his fees and sent a letter to the developers, terminating this contract. There is one paragraph in this letter which, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read to the Assembly, because I think it sums up the uncertainties of the public official. It reads as follows: A person in public life must tread cautiously in the areas where even a hint of conflict of interest might exist.

There are always people who will attempt to read the worst into anything an elected person does. I want my conduct in public office to be completely above suspicion. I don't want to leave myself exposed to the innuendoes of unscrupulous individuals who revel in irresponsible attacks upon the integrity of politicians. I think he sums it up very neatly there: the "innuendo". I'm sure that in the past several years many of us have read of inquiries where it was merely a trial by innuendo. You can't undo it once it is done.

As I stated earlier in this presentation, this conflict of interest is a most vexing problem to both elected and appointed officials. But it is one with which we must come to grips. However, if our laws are too restrictive, we will discourage good men from seeking public office, which would be a travesty upon our democratic system. All legislation, if we do adopt legislation, must be extremely specific. I would suggest that its objective should be aimed at removing opportunity and temptation, rather than taking the steps of punitive action against the alleged offender after the fact.

A very good example of the type of legislation which I suggest is that which has been adopted by a good number of municipal governments of putting all purchases out to tender, and requiring two or more bids on the tender, taking it completely out of the area of temptation. As I say, we must address ourselves to this problem, but with a great deal of caution. If we did adopt restrictive legislation which had the faults that I suggest, the cure could be much worse than the disease. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. DR. BACKUS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to speak on this motion.

I believe it to be timely in that steps taken by our Premier, and certain actions that have taken place with regard to a question of conflict of interest in municipal government, have certainly brought before the public this question of conflict of interest. It is certainly timely to bring the matter up for debate when the public is very conscious and aware of it.

June 10, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 595 On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I don't think conflict of interest has suddenly become a question of concern either to provincial or municipal governments in the last year or two. I can remember back as long as 10 years ago, when I was on the school board, our convention in Banff was entirely devoted to the question of conflict of interest. In fact, at the time, we drew up a code of ethics under which we felt members of school boards should act. I think, too, the previous as well as the present government has been very conscious of the question of conflict of interest.

I think the very restrictive Election Act and the restrictions in The Municipal Government Act and The Legislative Assembly Act are all obviously directed toward guarding against this problem of conflict of interest. I still feel that a question of conflict of interest is essentially a moral issue. I'm very aware that to legislate on moral issues is something that becomes very difficult if you try to write your acts to cover every possibility and alternative.

On the other hand, if one generalizes in terms of moral issues, it does, of course, leave opportunities for individuals who maybe don't have the same standards most of us regard as correct to enact acts of conflict and be able to get away with them as a result of the legislation. The other factor, of course, that I think is equally serious is that it does give the opportunity for certain members of the public to accuse members of either local or provincial government, by direct accusation or indirect innuendo, of breaches in this moral issue.

I don't know whether a committee reviewing all this legislation would, after many meetings, come up with effective changes to the legislation. I certainly know that the present government is genuinely concerned with the question of conflict of interest. This is quite obvious by virtue of the fact that the Premier has taken a number of steps to bring to the public notice the position of his ministers, so the minister himself may, in fact, be fully aware of the areas in which there might be some conflict of interest. I still believe the issue is one of our moral decisions as individuals.

I imagine many of us will be attending the breakfast by the mental health people tomorrow morning and the dinner by the ATA on Thursday evening. I think if one were to restrict the concept of conflict of interest, we wouldn't attend any of these functions. It is in fact, obvious that we are receiving gifts, receiving financial outlay on the part of these groups, because undoubtedly they wish to influence us in their favor. On the other hand, I think we can treat this as a degree of conflict.

I think they and we are aware of the fact that even though they do buy us breakfast or dinner, we are not going to decide in their favor in contravention of what would be to the public good. I think, because both parties are aware of this, occasions such as these two and many others do occur.

Because both parties are aware of the fact, they become more of a friendly gesture, a recognition of the part the government and Legislature must play in the activities of the teachers and of mental health; and on the other hand, a recognition on the part of the Legislature of the support given them in their work by these various bodies. In raising the question of forming a legislative committee to consider conflict of interest, one even wonders whether, in fact, this committee wouldn't be in conflict of interest in that it would be deciding what was and what was not conflict of interest.

So the whole argument can be carried to an extreme point and I therefore say it can become ridiculous. On the other hand, I think most of us who have reached these positions have done so by virtue of a certain degree of integrity. When we do face questions where we question ourselves whether what we are doing is a conflict of interest, we withdraw from the debate and the decision-making. I think this should remain to some degree an individual moral issue, perhaps with guidelines, rather than further complicating the laws beyond how they are already written. However, as was so ably pointed out by the hon.

Member for Calgary McCall, we have had recommendations with regard to municipal elected officers. They, in fact, have appealed for help and advice in this matter and for a review of legislation. I would certainly have the feeling that I'm sure the government has taken this appeal on their behalf very much to heart, and will be acting quite rapidly in providing those changes being sought by municipalities with regard to amendments to their act.

I therefore wonder if it is necessary to delay that process by appointing committees to discuss the things which have already been fairly widely discussed both in the House and out of it, discussed in our constituencies, discussed by the legal experts such as Mr. Morrow, and have been reported on very adequately and very fully. It is my feeling that now to appoint committees would just further delay something I feel can be acted on much more rapidly.

I certainly would believe it is being acted on by the government, because I recognize the government's desire to maintain that high moral standard with regard to the subject of conflict of interest. It would therefore be my purpose to vote against this motion, not because I feel the motion isn't very important — I join in the debate because I feel it's important to debate it — but because I feel the particular approach recommended by this motion is unnecessary in view of the recognized attitude of the government. It would in fact do nothing but delay the action which I am sure the government is taking. MR.

NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, in rising to conclude debate on this resolution, I certainly . . . MR. SPEAKER: May the hon. member conclude the debate?

596 ALBERTA HANSARD June 10, 1975 HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. NOTLEY: . . . wish to thank the hon. members who have taken

part in the debate. We've had some excellent discussion on this particular issue. In concluding debate, Mr. Speaker, I would urge all hon. members of the Assembly to support the resolution. The importance of this resolution, as has been pointed out by a number of speakers, is that it is extremely timely. We have the situation with respect to The Legislative Assembly Act, The Municipal Government Act, The Election Act. Numerous examples have been cited where these acts really are somewhat outdated in certain areas, while they need to be strengthened in others. So, Mr.

Speaker, it's my view that the best way to deal with this very complex situation is for the Legislative Assembly to appoint a committee and authorize it to examine the entire question of conflict of interest in its complexity. In so doing, I think we would be making it clear to the people of Alberta that the elected representatives of the people in this province are concerned about the issue. We are not just talking about it, but are clearly committing ourselves to do something about it. With those words, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the members to support the resolution. [The motion was lost.] 2. Mr.

Clark proposed the following motion to the Assembly:

Be it resolved that this Assembly urge the government: (

a) to introduce a fall budget or supplementary estimates during the fall sitting of the Assembly accompanies by an appropriation (interim supply) bill to cover the anticipated necessary expenditures during the balance of the fiscal year which are not covered by an existing appropriation in order that financing by special warrant be minimized, and (

b) to table at the same time an estimate of the grants to be made to municipalities during the next fiscal year. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to think the proposition I'm putting before the Assembly is quite straightforward. Basically, what the resolution is asking is that in the fall when the Assembly reconvenes, in the course of business the Provincial Treasurer would bring forward to the Assembly an interim supply bill. Included in this interim supply bill would be the anticipated amount of money the government is going to need for the various votes for the rest of the fiscal year.

At that time there would be an opportunity for members to discuss the interim supply bill, to debate the various propositions put forward by the Provincial Treasurer. Mr. Speaker, the second portion of the resolution asks that the government at the same time consider bringing forward estimates of the grants to municipalities for the next calendar year. I'd like to deal, Mr. Speaker, with the first matter, that is the need for us, at this particular time, to be prepared to reassess our budgeting procedure.

As all hon. members are aware, the budget comes down as it did two or three weeks ago when the Provincial Treasurer brought down the budget. Then we go through the estimate took, appropriation by appropriation. From my standpoint, the most uninspiring and perhaps most nauseating portion of all the estimate studies comes when you get to the very back of the estimate book. It's that portion that says, Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure of the Province of Alberta for the fiscal year, whatever it is. Basically, what we're being asked to do on that occasion, Mr.

Speaker, is approve the special warrants or approve the additional expenditures which took place during the year. Now I fully recognize this is a practice that goes on virtually in all provinces in Canada. I am aware that in the House of Commons, the federal government brings down supplementary estimates. There is a time, more than once a year, when the opposition and other members — government members too — have the opportunity to go through those supplementary estimates. Then those supplementary estimates go to the committee. That's really the purpose of part (

a) of this particular resolution: in the fall the Treasurer would bring forward supplementary estimates which he anticipates would be the bulk of the additional expenditures for the rest of the year. I'm sure some of the new members, hopefully all members, would be interested in the amount of special warrant usage we've had in this province. When those of us on this side of the House, in rather small numbers, sat on the other side of the House — let me be very frank — there were special warrants, and on some occasions sizable amounts.

In the first year the present government took over, there was something like $94 million in special warrants. In fairness, over $8 million had been passed on by the former administration prior to the election at the end of August. In 1972, the special warrants amounted to approximately $31 million. In 1973, the special warrants were close to $97 million. In 1974-75, the special warrants are in the vicinity of $300 million.

What we will be asked to do later on this year, when we get to the conclusion of the estimates, will be to vote on both the operational and the capital special warrants for the year, which will be over $300 million. We're being asked to vote on money that, one, is already spent. Secondly, we're being asked, on some occasions, to vote on money which very severely alters the estimates of some departments. Let's just take a moment or two and look at the effect special warrants have had on some of the departmental estimates this year.

June 10, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 597 We look at the Department of Agriculture. In 1974-75, the budget for the Department of Agriculture was something like $42 million. Yet the special warrants for the year are something like $60 million. Now this may be a good opportunity to say that I don’t want any hon. member to interpret by what I'm saying that I’m against every program involved in the expenditure of $300 million. But what I am against is the fact that the Legislature comes and discusses it after the fact.

If we went the route of the Treasurer bringing in supplementary estimates in the fall, we would go some distance toward removing the necessity for special warrants. There would still be the need for some, but we would be able to reduce that substantially. It seems to me that the hon. members might want to look at it from this standpoint: it adds a great deal to the Legislature if, in fact, we're discussing the expenditures of those moneys before rather than after they're spent.

When you look at $300 million this year, out of a budget that was estimated at about $1.6 billion for last year, you can see that's a pretty substantive portion of the budget. Moving on from the Department of Agriculture, where we actually had almost $20 million more in special warrants than there was in the total budget for the department, we can go to the Attorney General's department, where special warrants last year were half the estimates for the department. That was basically for one item of $10 million.

It would, I think, have added a great deal to the legislative process in Alberta if we could have had a discussion right in the Legislature on why that $10 million had to be expended by the Provincial Treasurer. If I recall correctly, it was dealing with a trust company which had problems in the province, and we had to pay this back to the federal government. We can look at the Department of Highways last year. We will find in the capital portion of the estimates, when we study them later on this year, that something like an additional $22 million was spent on highway construction.

Perhaps the former Legislature erred somewhat in not getting some sort of commitment from the Minister of Highways as to how many miles of construction he anticipated, and looked at it from that standpoint. Nevertheless, if the Legislature were in a position to be involved in these kinds of discussions during the time it was being spent, it seems to me it would add a great deal to the Legislature and to the budgeting process, as far as that goes. I think also, Mr.

Speaker, it would reduce a great deal of pressure on the government from the public service to push for special warrants, whoever the government might be. I note one particular special warrant we will be asked to approve this year is $4 million for renovation of community halls and restoration of cemeteries, which I'm sure many members thought was a good program. But, hon. members, we are being asked to discuss this matter for the first time ever, perhaps two weeks from now, after the money is all spent.

Unless I missed the session a year ago when we dealt with the Estimates, there wasn't one mention in the Speech from the Throne [or] the budget, or any comments made by the minister or anyone else that this kind of program was in the works. Now if this kind of program is needed, let's bring it forward. If it wasn't included in the budget dealt with in the spring session, it could be dealt with in the fall session. Dealing with that particular program, it's interesting to look at the mechanism by which special warrants come into being. If hon. members were to look at The Financial Administration Act,

Section 36 — that's the

section where the power for special warrants is -- it says: Where, at any time the Legislative Assembly is not in session, the Treasurer (

a) reports that a Minister having charge of any matter has certified that, in the public interest, an expenditure of public money is urgently required with respect to this matter and (

b) reports either that (

i) there is no legislative authority for an expenditure with respect to that matter, or (ii) there is legislative authority for an expenditure with respect to that matter but the amount of money so available is insufficient, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may order a special warrant to be prepared to be signed by himself authorizing the expenditure for the amount estimated to be required, which shall be placed to the credit of the appropriate account and against which cheques or orders may issue the usual form as they are required. So, we have a

section of The Financial Administration Act, which makes the special warrant approach possible. I emphasize the point again, all governments use this route. But we could take a substantive step in the direction of having the decisions made here in the Legislature if we were to commit ourselves to a fall budget or to supplementary estimates coming down at that time. Then, in fact, we would be involved in the discussion of the public business when it's relevant, not spending time in two weeks talking about $300 million which, for all intents and purposes, has already been spent.

The second portion of the resolution, Mr. Speaker, deals with this question: at the same time the supplementary estimates or interim supply bill comes before the Assembly [so would] estimates of grants to be made to municipalities during the next fiscal year. All members are aware — certainly most, if not all — that municipalities in this province operate on a calendar year from January to the end of December. It's not very often that the municipalities know what kind of grants and assistance they're going to get from the province until some time after the start of their year.

Both the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Education, I'm sure, are now wrestling with municipalities which still, at this time of the year, haven't set their budgets, be it plebiscites or some other kind of problem. If we're really concerned, first of all, with making the municipalities more accountable, if we're really concerned

598 ALBERTA HANSARD June 10, 1975 about making the jobs of municipalities and councillors more meaningful, and if we're really concerned about having municipalities as equal partners in this province, let's let them start to budget at least a couple of months before the start of their calendar year or two months before the start of their fiscal year, rather than force them, as we do now, to start to budget, at least from the provincial standpoint, after their year has already started. In my own area, the County of Mountain View, they still haven't finalized the school budget.

They've got five months of actual operation of the education system left in the year — whatever is left of June, September, October, November, and December. It is just an impossible situation from the standpoint of local government, as I see it. If we were to commit ourselves to move in the direction suggested here, at least municipal governments would know one or two months before the start of their calendar year. They would have some indication of where they stand.

From time to time on both sides of the House, or all corners of the House, there come very nice flowing comments about how we need to upgrade municipal governments, how we need to encourage more respected people to seek municipal office, how we need to make that kind of opportunity more challenging. Frankly, I can think of nothing more blooming frustrating than to be a school trustee or municipal councillor under today's circumstances and have the kind of budgeting situation we have. I’m not being critical of the present government although I enjoy doing that on occasion. I'm really not.

This isn't the occasion to do that at all. What I'm trying to set before the members is a situation that has grown for years. I'm sure some member is going to get up and say, well, why didn't you people do it, you had 36 years. AN HON. MEMBER: Agreed. MR. CLARK: Well, doggone it, we didn't do it. We likely should have. AN HON. MEMBER: Right on. MR. CLARK: But that doesn't stop us from looking at the thing now. MR. TRYNCHY: I agree. MR. CLARK: I'm surprised you'd agree with anything I say. But let's make the point . . . AN. HON. MEMBER: You're lucky he's listening. MR.

CLARK: . . . let's make the point that the Member for Whitecourt is agreeing. But going further than that — with the tremendous increase in our budget, with the increased problems municipalities are facing, I'd like to think this is an appropriate time for us to move in the directions outlined here. Mr. Speaker, to conclude my comments, suffice it to say by moving in this direction, we'd really be doing three things.

First of all, we'd have an interim motion of supply in the fall with the amount of money the government feels it would need, in addition to the estimates we’ll be approving shortly, brought before the Assembly to be discussed. That would avoid the ridiculous situation of discussing estimates after they are spent. Secondly, it would go some distance toward making municipalities much more aware of the kind of revenue they can expect before they start their budget year. The last comment I make, Mr. Speaker, is that I would hope hon. members would be prepared to give this proposition pretty serious consideration. MR.

MUSGREAVE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make just a few brief comments. I don't have the experience the Leader of the Opposition has with regard to practices in the past on special warrants. I would point out that I appreciate the fact that $300 million is a substantial sum of money. But what he is in effect suggesting by the restriction of this process is restriction of the ability of the government of this province to govern. The people of the province have given this government a strong mandate to look after their financial affairs and to see that programs are conducted in their best interest.

There are occasions when a minister may decide that a particular program should be enlarged or its direction should be changed, or some substantial requirement for additional funds becomes evident to the minister and cabinet. I think it would be most unfortunate if the government didn't have the ability to spend these moneys through use of a special warrant procedure. I suggest though that if the hon.

Leader of the Opposition would perhaps go back and look at his figures vis-a-vis the special warrants developed in the last 36 years against the total budget of those particular years, perhaps the percentage of warrants in relation to the total budget would not be as significant as he suggests is apparent today. MR. CLARK: Two wrongs don't make a right. MR. MUSGREAVE: I agree that two wrongs don't make a right. I'm not suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that they do. AN HON. MEMBER: Two Conservatives don't make a Liberal either.

June 10, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 599 MR. MUSGREAVE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to speak to the second part of the motion, with which I'm more familiar. In doing so, I'd like to quote from the hon. Minister for Municipal Affairs. On June 2 he advised this House that: I think the most important aspect in the near term will be the question of revenue sharing between the provincial and municipal governments. It would seem, however, that no rational settlement can be made without first defining the areas of responsibility which accrue to the province and to the municipalities. Mr.

Speaker, none of us in this House are naive enough to suggest that the determination of these areas of responsibility is going to be an easy task. Every jurisdiction in North America and many in Europe are still wrestling with it. But I do believe the Provincial Municipal Finance Council will make a real, hard, honest attempt to come up with a clear definition of the responsibilities of cities and how they will pay their bills. I would suggest that tabling an estimate of grants to municipalities in the fall budget would really be of little help to local councillors or to city taxpayers. For example, Mr.

Speaker, in 1974 the total budget of the City of Calgary was $131 million. Of this budget, 70 per cent comes from city taxes. Slightly over 8 per cent, $10.9 million, is grants from the provincial government. With the greatest respect to the hon. Leader of the Opposition and to the intent of the motion, Mr. Speaker, it should be obvious that historically grants have not been less than [in] previous years and, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs advised on June 2, this year unconditional grants were approximately 15 per cent higher.

If the intent of the budget is to try to aid municipalities in setting their goals, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, it's rather a weak attempt. Fifteen per cent of 8 per cent is slightly over 1 per cent. I would suggest to you, sir, that municipal politicians can do their budgeting quite well without that kind of help. I would urge all members of the House to consider making presentations to the Provincial Municipal Finance Council, to try to resolve how we can divide the powers of the city to tax and govern from the powers of the province to tax and govern. There are requests for financial aid from municipalities.

The City of Calgary, for example, wants us to take over the cost of the ambulance service. They want us to pick up their $10 million bus deficit. They want us to pay for all sorts of social health programs. They want us to subsidize their sewer system. There have been reguests in the House to pay for land banking. The list is endless, Mr. Speaker. The requests for handouts from municipalities come from all sides of the House and from all parts of the province. Mr. Speaker, as I read the motion, the intent is that the hon. Leader of the Opposition assist municipalities in budget planning.

Frankly, it's too small, too restrictive, and loses sight of the overall needs and desires of many citizens for a fresh approach to municipal financing and the resulting government responsibilities of city councils. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, in addressing a few words to this resolution, first of all I think we should keep in mind that under this particular resolution there is no statement that the right of the government to issue special warrants would be taken away. In fact, the government could still on occasion pass special warrants.

The point is, the number of special warrants would not need to be nearly as great, because there would be an opportunity during the fall session to discuss not only the interim supply motion, but also the supplementary estimates. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that our objective should be to reduce the number of special warrants passed. Certainly the amount last year, some $320 million, approximately 16 per cent of the budget, is a large percentage and one we should try to reduce. It's important, Mr.

Speaker, to look at this resolution in light of the traditional right of the Legislature to control expenditure of public funds. That, of course, is one of the basic rights of Parliament and what our system is all about. As I see it, Mr. Speaker, there are three things which make this resolution not only workable, but consistent with our parliamentary traditions. The first is that the interim supply motion would allow hon. members the opportunity during the fall sitting to discuss whatever general issue they want to raise. Mr. Speaker, we have provision now in the fall session for general debate.

It's just a normal resolution that's presented. The interim supply bill could make provision for this general debate. The second thing is that the provision for supplementary estimates is, as has already been pointed out, something that the federal government is doing, and would allow members to consider expenditures before they're in fact made. Too often we have accountability after the fact. That's a debate we've often had in this Legislature. Nevertheless, Mr.

Speaker, where there is a reasonable opportunity to budget in such manner that debate can take place before these programs are authorized by special warrant, surely it is not unreasonable to take that course. The very fact that we have a fall session of the Legislature provides us with the latitude to do the things suggested in the motion we are presently considering. If we had only one session a year, and that session were in the spring, obviously this proposal would not be workable. But a fall session does give us an extra dimension.

It seems to me, in recognizing that, we should insist there be an opportunity to consider the supplementary estimates for the various departments. I want to say a word or two about part (

b) of this resolution, "to table at the same time an estimate of the grants to be made to municipalities during the next fiscal year".

600 ALBERTA HANSARD June 10, 1975 I would agree that the government, through the municipal commission, has to reassess its position, and it's a very complicated and difficult subject to examine. I would also agree that the change in the grants, per se, to the municipalities may not be that large an amount for a town or city, or what have you. Nevertheless, there is still the principle of the thing. That is the principle that this information should be made available, if possible before the budgeting process of the local level of government takes place. But one area, Mr.

Speaker, that perhaps isn't covered specifically in this resolution but does represent a large part of the budget, is the funds under the school foundation plan. There is certainly no question about that. A very large percentage of the cost of the basic education system in the province is dependent upon the grants made under the school foundation plan. Now what has happened in past years? Let's take last year as an example. We had the debate where the minister announced the new foundation plan formula for this current year, but it was done after the general debate occurred in the Legislature.

It was done in the dying days of the fall session, and there was really no opportunity to debate whether the Minister of Education's announcement for the new grants for education for the 1975 year was adequate. Mr. Speaker, one of the advantages of this particular resolution, because I would see (

b) being extended also to include grants under the foundation plan to school divisions and counties in the province, is that we would be able to discuss formally in the Legislature not only before the local levels of government have to make up their minds what their budget will be for the coming year, but also that we in the Legislature would have an opportunity to pass comment on whether those grants were adequate or not. We have the ridiculous situation throughout the province at the present time, Mr.

Speaker, as many hon. members know, because of the grant structure which was announced last November by the Minister of Education that supplementary requisitions have had to be increased — in many areas increased by more than the 15 per cent which is allowed. As a consequence, there are demands for referendums from one end of the province to the other. As I believe the Minister of Education advised during question period the other day, in the case of the two areas where have been held, those have been turned down.

We now have the local educational authorities in an awful mess, faced with problems halfway through the school year, where they are going to have to make serious cuts which will reduce the duality of education. Mr. Speaker, we are in a position now where we will be able to debate the grants in June of this year when the minister's estimates come before the Assembly. But it would have been far better, not only for the school boards of this province, but indeed for the whole debate on educational funding, if this debate could have occurred last fall before the school boards started their new financial year. So, Mr.

Speaker, the proposal advanced by the Leader of the Opposition is a reasonable one, and one surely consistent with the concept that the purse strings should be rigidly controlled by the Legislative Assembly. MR. TRYNCHY: Mr. Speaker, just a few brief comments on this resolution. Last January 31, I spoke at some length on what I thought about special warrants, looking back in Hansard, I covered a lot of the details of the special warrants pretty completely. Just to go over them again very briefly. I listened to the hon.

Leader of the Opposition when he talked about agriculture, where we have $60 million in special warrants compared to a total budget of $40 million. Mr. Speaker, if this special warrant were $100 million more I would be happier, because this is one place we really need it. If he were to campaign in his area in agriculture and say, we've spent $100 million more than this, I think the people of that area would accept it, as they have throughout the province. Even though I agree with him on one little point, there are a number of points on which I don't agree with him. MR. CLARK: I feel more comfortable. MR.

TRYNCHY: I'm glad he does. Going back over the special warrants, I wonder which one of these items the hon. members of the opposition would delete? Which program would they cut out? It's nice to stand here and speak about special warrants, but the public, as a whole, don't really care what we do in here as long as we spend the money or invest it wisely, and report back to them how it was done and why it done. I think that is a point we should consider. We've moved in quite a few areas. It was interesting to see there was some mention of highways, that we overspent a certain amount of dollars. I'm glad we did.

But what would a fall budget do to us as far as highways are concerned? We meet in October, and at that time the highway construction season is over. So we're behind the fact anyway. The hon. Leader of the Opposition is saying we should bring it into the fall budget; decide whether we are going to move ahead when the ground is already frozen. Again, I point out some deficiencies in his speech. I would like to go back even further than that. Last fall the Provincial Treasurer tabled a full resume of all special warrants for scrutiny by all members and by the public. It was accepted.

I might mention that never before has there been a fall session, and the Social Credit government for the past number of years used special warrants. Of course I agree with that too, because emergencies will occur between

June 10, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 601 sessions. I don't care how you plan it, there are going to be certain times you have to move with a special warrant. Let's go back to August 1972, I believe it was, when we made a special warrant of $12 million to assist senior citizens with eyeglasses, hearing aids, and so on. We didn't feel it was right to keep the senior citizens waiting, so we moved in that direction. If we hadn't moved, I can just hear the opposition say, well, you could have used a special warrant; why didn't you do it? But, you know, that's politics.

It's his turn today to criticize the government and I guess it's our turn to try to correct some of the inaccuracies. Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with special warrants because the hon. member behind me spoke very clearly on municipal financing. I'll just mention a few words on that as I go along. In Lands and Forests you look under fire suppression, fire control, and wildlife damage. How can you really assess what you are going to need? Some years you don't have any fire control at all. In this special warrant we have spent millions of dollars for fire suppression.

Now if it's a wet year, you don't have this. So then they'll come back when we do the estimates and say, why did the minister budget so much when he knew he wasn't going to spend it? Foolish of the minister. So when you underbudget you get criticized again. But you have to look at it fairly and squarely. There's a special warrant — and I had some remarks on this last fall — on the reduction of capital debt for new towns in Alberta. I guess I should remind members again how we incurred this debt, $4,614,386. That was done by the previous administration many, many years ago.

It provided funds for towns which never expanded, never grew, never are, or never will be. Some of the debt retirement — it's quite fantastic when you see there was a debt retirement for one town of $3,420 per capita because of good budgeting by the Social Credit government. That's why we had to write it off. Whether you do it in the House or with special warrants, I think the public really is concerned. Spend it wisely, tell us why, and tell us where. We move on and see special warrants under nursing homes. I don't think we are doing enough there, even though we have special warrants. We're still crowded.

We need more care in our nursing homes. I would approve double the special warrant or triple the budget. I can't see anything wrong in that regard. We might even move to something done in the House a few years ago. The hon. Deputy Premier talked about it yesterday: the Alberta Resources Railway. It was estimated [at] $31 million, and was approved in this House. A few months later, it was estimated to be $100 million. The total cost to the public was $130 million. Ever since then, we've been paying, as people of Alberta, $6 to $8 million yearly in interest alone. Mr.

Speaker, just the other day we heard why we can't move with our $1,000 grant to senior citizens, outlined in the campaign. And there are good reasons for that. I think governments need flexibility to move in whichever direction is necessary, as we go along. But when you look at these $1,000 grants, I think they have to be handed out wisely and accurately. We heard from the hon. Member for Clover Bar that we should do it right now. It doesn't matter if we have a program. It doesn't matter if we have

an act or the minister is ready. Let's do it now. Then what would they say if there were some misgivings? They'd say, well, we'd have moved a little slower. We'd have put in

an act. We'd have provided a good program and then we'd have brought in a special warrant. That's probably what they'd have done. Mr. Speaker, when we speak of special warrants, I'd like to go back to my campaign in March. One of the first things I did was take the special warrants we had issued. I knew there would be some concern, especially with the Social Credit candidate in my area, because I guess he was told to campaign on that theory. In the first forum we had, he brought up special warrants, and he did a pretty good job.

After it was all done, I corrected some of his inaccuracies, and the member who got 2,000 votes in 1971 apparently didn't do so well when he mentioned special warrants. He only received about 500 votes in the final analysis. Mr. Speaker, when we speak of special warrants, I don't really think we are concerned whether we spend the money by special warrants or in the budget, but let's spend it wisely. Let's show the people where it has gone, how we did it, and why we did it. I think that's the important thing.

I'd like to close by saying we should maybe slow down on special warrants, but when the need is there — and I have found no special warrant estimates in the last year where the need was neglected. So I'd move along and say we use special warrants where we have to, and let the people of Alberta decide whether we're right or wrong. MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, with respect to this particular motion, I'd like to make a few comments which, I think, open up an aspect of what would, in fact, be the effect of the motion, which I do not think has been touched upon.

It seems to me that the motion which asked for supplementary estimates or an interim supply bill would be expecting something more of the Legislature than we are accustomed to at the present time. It's my view that when the federal government sometimes brings down a supplementary budget, it does so more with regard to fiscal policy in terms of gearing the economy, either cooling it down or, hopefully, warming it up or whatever it sees as the objective of that particular time. That's a responsibility, Mr. Speaker, which provincial governments have generally not accepted.

It may well be a responsibility which in time we will come to accept as more of a provincial responsibility than we have in times past. It's my view to date that this is

602 ALBERTA HANSARD June 10, 1975 not generally seen as a responsibility of our provincial government. I would further submit, Mr. Speaker, that the experience of the federal parliament in dealing with this particular problem or challenge has not produced such outstanding success as we would like to see at times. First of all, it’s very, very difficult to analyse the direction in which the economy is going. Frequently there is considerable lag in terms of the data available to the analysts.

Secondly, there is on almost every occasion a debate among those doing the analysing as to what the data, such as it is, portends. Thirdly, there is always a difference of opinion as to what should be done about the situation as analysed. We are only too well aware that frequently the lag is so great between the capability of a federal parliament to move, that it can be debated quite seriously whether its supplementary budgets are really of positive impact in terms of the objective, whether it has in mind to speed up or to slow down the economy. Mr.

Speaker, I think that if the Legislature becomes more of a full-time body in terms of the days of sitting, the number of times or frequency of sitting, this may be a role we will come to accept. That, it seems to me, would anticipate a much larger and different type of economy than we now have. Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the debate, one of the hon. members seemed to be suggesting that a reason for the motion would be to supply members of the Assembly with an opportunity to debate issues on a rather broad scale in the autumn sitting, as it has come to be called.

At the same time, an hon. member acknowledged that there is this opportunity since we have had fall sittings, that a motion has been placed on the Order Paper. It is wide in scope and gives members the opportunity to debate just about any aspect they care to. I would submit that I am quite concerned about the opportunity for members of the Assembly to debate issues, and to debate them at the appropriate time. There is a timeliness to debate. Sometimes it is pointless to debate after the fact. This is obviously of concern.

I think there are many ways to engage in debate that we, as members of this Legislature, have failed to develop. There are possibilities, especially under the amended rules we are using for this session, for the opposition, or for any member for that matter, to place a motion, but particularly for the opposition on Thursdays to place a motion which would indeed be timely. To take the illustration which the hon.

Member for Spirit River-Fairview drew, the announcement of the foundation program grants, I would see that it would be quite possible to so draft a motion that could be brought forward on a Thursday to cover the possibility for debate of that type. I think we need to look at this motion in the light of that amendment. It would certainly give more scope than existed before. Mr. Speaker, another point I want to make in particular is that even now, even in the budget debate as we know and exercise it, we are in the process of debating and approving proposed expenditures two months after they have begun to run.

There is no way I can see that that possibility can be precluded. I'm not sure, Mr. Speaker, that's really the important point in a budget debate. A tradition of our legislative system, at least my understanding of the tradition, is that for a government to be defeated or forced to amend in any substantive manner the budget as tabled either in the Legislature or in Parliament is tantamount to a defeat which must be taken to the polls. Custom, apparently, has long established that those kinds of amendments to the budget are never made. Mr.

Speaker, I have always regarded the budget debate in a manner quite different from any attempt to make amendments, or to make changes in the budgeted appropriations. Rather, Mr.

Speaker, it has been my view that the purpose of the budget debate and the study of the appropriations is more to give members an opportunity to make their suggestions, to make their criticisms, and to make their inquiries in a manner which will be useful, first, to the minister responsible for the administration of a particular program during that year, and secondly, as a guide to the government, to the Executive Council in terms of its decisions in drafting the next budget. It's my understanding that the budgeting process for this government begins as early as six weeks from now, if not earlier.

The budget as tabled in 1976 will reflect decisions taken as far back as mid-1975. The budget we are now debating reflects decisions which were made almost a year ago. Now it's true that there have been many more recent decisions which have had some implications, but not all that many. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that our traditions in this Legislature, and also the way this Legislature functions, the way they operate, the most useful contribution members can make is to explore carefully the introduction of new programs, and the budget ramifications of these.

This can be done during the review of the appropriations and, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I think there are many of us who would, and do, have second thoughts about just how effectively we do accomplish this, from time to time, in the system as it now stands. I would submit that there is a great deal of possibility for improvement here, a great deal of opportunity for more probing of the respective appropriations than we do. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to reflect for a moment on the matter of the advance notice to municipalities which is the (

b) portion of the motion before us. For some time, I was employed by the Alberta School Trustees Association and have had many, many occasions to consider the problems of school boards and their budgetary uncertainties. After a few years of that, Mr. Speaker, I came to the conclusion that school boards would always like to know in advance what they're going to get. If they know far enough in advance, they

June 10, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 603 will then undertake to try to change the amount they are going to get. If their employees, and the people from whom they purchase goods and services, know far in advance how much the school boards are going to get, they will then engage in tactics and strategy in order to extract a larger portion than does exist there in order to get the maximum. I am quite sure, Mr. Speaker, that this exercise has been engaged in, in 1975, within the Province of Alberta.

While we find many school boards now in a difficult position, it's not because they didn't know the amount of money they were going to get. It's because the groups which use a portion of that money and which are able to influence the amount, for instance in salary negotiations, have been able to use the knowledge, the certainty, of the amount the school boards are going to get to persuade the people with whom they are dealing that a larger portion of that than may rightfully belong to them did, in fact, go their way. When I say "rightfully belong to them", Mr.

Speaker, I use that to express the view that in the overall there may have been some idea, some proportion based upon the relationship of previous years, that should have gone, or has traditionally gone to personal services, for instance, which has been changed in a larger proportion of the total amount gone there this year. Mr. Speaker, I am aware that municipalities have the same problem.

As one who at one time tried to co-ordinate some exercises between school boards and municipalities, I know that the allocation and the certainty of a government grant inevitably leads to demands and pressures to spend all of that, and a little bit more. It doesn't matter whether it's to put it on streets, or whether it's to put it in salary negotiations, Mr. Speaker. The knowledge that there has been an increase of that amount suggests to many people that their proportion should be that much, and if they can get 2 or 3 per cent more they've got a good deal. Mr.

Speaker, that's what I think would occur if we had extended advance announcements to municipalities. What I think is more important, Mr. Speaker, for the planning of municipalities is their knowledge that inevitably their grant will be at least as large as the preceding year. Inevitably they will have the same, or likely the same, responsibilities they had the year before, and these may or may not have grown. They can predict that somewhat on the basis of their population and the group to which they must respond and provide services. This is what is really important because, Mr.

Speaker, I doubt any provincial government has really seen a local government go into bankruptcy as long as that government was proceeding in a responsible way. Mr. Speaker, I am therefore unable to agree with the (

b) section of this motion at all. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I'd like to reiterate that I see behind this motion a somewhat changed role for the Legislature were it to be adopted. I see, perhaps, an acceptance of responsibility by the provincial government which is not now general in Alberta, and I think not elsewhere in Canada, that is the fiscal responsibility in a broad way. Mr. Speaker, I think the motion is an attempt to bring within the purview of the Legislature more opportunities to review government programs than may now exist.

As I've already said, it's my view we currently have plenty of opportunity; the rules as amended this year provide more opportunity, and what the members of the Legislature really need to address themselves to is how better to make use of the opportunities at hand. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say a word or two, very briefly, on the resolution. I supported orders in council and special warrants when I was on the government side of the House, both in the House and out on the hustings. So I can't see why I should change my position because I happen to have changed my seat.

I think there's good and sound reason, as I said when I was on that side, for special warrants and orders in council. On the public platform outside, I argued many times the reasons for orders in council and special warrants. Consequently, I feel the same way about orders in council and special warrants. Without them we'd simply put handcuffs on the government, and they would be unable to fulfil the first function of democracy which is to carry out the things people want carried out. Because something comes up when the Legislature isn't in session doesn't say it isn't what the people want.

It may be very, very urgent. That brings me to the community hall and cemetery program last year. The Legislature wasn't in session, but I welcomed that program. I welcomed it because the people I represent welcomed it. They couldn't care less whether it was done by special warrant or included in the Treasurer's budget. They just couldn't care less. They were more concerned about getting their community halls fixed and their cemeteries updated. That money came in very, very handy, and did a tremendous amount of good to almost every community hall in my riding.

I suppose 90 per cent of the community halls in the province became much more comfortable and more usable, because the government initiated the program. I'm not going to condemn it now when I supported it. I was very glad to go to my people and say, this is a good program, let's use it on our community halls, simply because it hadn't been discussed in this Legislature first. The people I represent couldn't care less about where it was discussed first. They liked the program, and they made use of the program. I supported it then, and I support it now.

I'm not going to oppose it simply because it might be politically expedient to do it, and I doubt even that. When I was on the government side I found those who made much ado about orders in council, saying so many orders in council were passed, and this was bad. I always argued the other way. A typical example I used then I use now. In Highways, when several bids came in and the top bid, for some reason or other, was not considered suitable by the department or by the minister, then the minister, under our present legislation, couldn't

604 ALBERTA HANSARD June 10, 1975 award the contract to the second bidder. It had to be done by the entire cabinet, by order in council. That seemed logical to me. That's one typical example where an order in council is wise. The argument I make about orders in council and special warrants is that everything's above the table in an order in council and a special warrant. They're public documents. They go out to everybody. They go to the newspapers. Anybody can have access to them, so nothing's being hidden.

If a government was spending money not authorized by the Legislature without an order in council or a special warrant, then I would be very much concerned. That would be doing something under the table. That would be doing something completely wrong. But as long as a government does it, makes it public, and lets everybody know what it's doing, I say what is wrong with that? I said that when I was on the government side and I say that now. The government eventually will have to take responsibility for every cent it spends, whether it does it wisely or prudently, unwisely or recklessly.

The people of this province aren't illiterate. They'll come to the decision on what happens, what that money does, whether we get full value for the dollar, and so on. They're more concerned about that rather than the detail of whether it was discussed in the Legislature before or after the money was made available. So I say, Mr. Speaker, using the cemetery and the community hall program as an example, I think this is an excellent program. As a matter of fact, for years we tried to get some cemeteries in this province updated. They were a disgrace.

Many mothers and fathers wept over the sight of their cemeteries because just nothing was being done. Cattle were in them, the grass and the trees were growing, they weren't even fenced. I remember after months of struggle getting a little fence put around one cemetery in the Wayne district. I remember that little fence brought more happiness to one mother who had twin children buried there — a very, very sad event — during the flu years of Drumheller. The twins were born and they passed away, and she couldn't even afford a casket. She made their caskets out of apple boxes.

They buried them in that old Wayne cemetery. It's still there, but their graves weren't even marked. Cows and horses w

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19750610
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L18 S1 19750610 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	dee2f2d7bd0fa3ae9800aba79372b5ae27e7ef40

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