June 5, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 449 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Thursday, June 5, 1975 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 1 5 The Alberta Property Tax Reduction Amendment Act, 1975 MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill, being The Alberta Property Tax Reduction Amendment Act, 1975. [Leave being granted, Bill 15 was introduced and read a first time.] head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS MR . LEITCH: Mr.

Speaker, it's a great deal of pleasure for me to introduce today to you, and to the members of the Assembly, 90 Grade 9 students from the St. Bonaventure Junior High School in the Calgary Egmont constituency. They are accompanied by 3 of their teachers, Mr. Dave Beatty, Mrs. Margaret Case, and Mr. Randy Miedswcki. They are seated in both the members and public galleries, and I would now ask them to rise and receive the welcome of the House. head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR . FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the answer to Question No. 129. MR. GETTY: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to table Motion for Return No. 121, ordered by the House; in addition, the annual report of the Alberta Oil Sands Technology and Research Authority, and a report on regulations made under the authority of The Coal Mines Regulation Act. MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table copies of the 1974 annual report of the Alberta Department of Agriculture.

450 ALBERTA HANSARD June 5, 1975 head: MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Department of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce a Government of Alberta mission which will visit Europe this fall between September 29 and October 13. There are a number of general objectives to be achieved during the course of the visit. The mission will stress trade and tourism, urban transportation, housing, regional planning, reclamation techniques, capital investment, and exchange of technology. The mission will also have a number of specific objectives, Mr. Speaker.

Included are: to encourage closer and increased trade relations between Alberta and the countries of the European Economic Community as a logical follow-up to the recent initiatives by the Prime Minister of Canada; to observe and study new modes of urban transportation, innovative housing, and advanced urban and regional planning; to study reclamation techniques in the mining of coal and other minerals found in European countries included on the tour; to invite the participation of European capital investment and technology in the expansion of Alberta's economy through the development of secondary industries and exploration for oil and natural gas; also to promote Alberta's abilities to provide equipment, systems, and consulting services for the drilling, servicing, and production of petroleum and natural gas.

In addition to these specific stated objectives, Mr. Speaker, the mission will display Alberta's outward-looking perspective — its willingness to learn from others, and to expand its international ties.

To this end, the Premier will be speaking to such international groups as the Royal Institute for International Affairs in London and the Mid-Atlantic Club in Brussels, as well as holding meetings with leading officials of the Commonwealth, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the European Economic Community, the International Energy Agency, and the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Members of the European mission to be headed by the Premier, accompanied by Mrs.

Lougheed, will include the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs, the Provincial Treasurer, the Minister of Business Development and Tourism, the Minister of Government Services and Culture, plus 6 senior public officials and approximately 20 to 25 representatives of various segments of Alberta life in the private sector. During the two-week mission members will visit England, Scotland, Belgium, France, Germany, and Austria. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, in responding to the announcement by the government today, we plan to ask a number of questions in question period.

We're somewhat puzzled that the announcement was made to the media this morning at 8:30 and in the Legislature several hours later. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Europe Mission MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs or to the Premier. In the course of the junket to Europe, what countries and areas will you be looking at specifically in the study of reclamation techniques in the mining of coal? MR. HYNDMAN: The mission, Mr. Speaker, will essentially involve the review of those techniques particularly in areas of Germany, and possibly France.

There is a number of innovative ideas which we think could be of use in the future planning of Alberta. MR. CLARK: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the minister. Of the six designated senior public officials, will one of the members of the Environment Conservation Authority be making the trip? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, no final decision has been taken with regard to those approximately six members. We'll certainly take under advisement the suggestion made. It would be a "maybe" situation with regard to that particular representative. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question to the minister.

In light of the concern expressed both inside and outside the Legislature regarding the eastern slopes, is the government prepared to consider adding the Minister of Environment to the group making the junket — unaccustomed as I am to encouraging more public expenditure in this area, but in light of the very important decisions the government has to make in this area in the next year?

June 5, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 451 MR. HYNDMAN: We'll take that under consideration, Mr. Speaker. Certainly the efforts made by the mission in acquiring new ideas and approaches will be used to reflect all those various areas where there are new policy developments. Appropriate ministers or officials and those in the private sector will be blended to assure that the most balanced approach is possible to achieve the objectives of the mission. MR. CLARK: A further supplementary question to the minister, Mr. Speaker.

What criteria will be used in the selection of the 20 to 25 representatives of various agencies or sections of Alberta life? What approach is going to be used in the selection, and have those selections been made? If they have, could you tell us who they are? MR. HYNDMAN: The question of a selection, Mr. Speaker, is still under close assessment at the moment. Certainly we would be striving to ensure that the people who come from the private sector are able to bring with them knowledge of a wide variety of Alberta business, industrial, and financial life.

Also, in going on the mission, they could bring back for Albertans in both the public and private sector information which would be of benefit in furthering government policies and the energy and work of the private sector. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question to the minister. In light of the minister's answer, will the government be going to various organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce and asking them to suggest individuals to go on the trip, or will the government in fact be making the selection itself? MR. HYNDMAN: No, Mr. Speaker, we wouldn't see proceeding in that way.

I think the selection will essentially be made on the basis of past and potential special personal contributions of people who have wide experience in the various public sectors. MR. CLARK: Further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister able to confirm the statements on QT in Edmonton that the projected cost of the junket to Europe will be in the vicinity of $300,000? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't be able to confirm something I haven't heard and which is still a problematical matter at the moment. But undoubtedly at a future date the costs will all be made available to the Assembly. MR.

CLARK: One further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister in a position to give an assurance to the Assembly that a rather comprehensive report of the trip to Europe and delegations met with would be filed with the Assembly? MR. HYNDMAN: Certainly there would be a report to the Assembly at a later date, Mr. Speaker, either verbally or, if it's preferred by members to also have one in written form, that would be done. The objective of the report would be to indicate in detail what has gone on and what was achieved by the mission. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

Will the 25 people include representatives from both the organized farm movement and the organized labor movement? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, members of the very important agricultural community in Alberta and the equally important labor community will probably be involved in the mission. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question. Among the six additional government representatives, will the Alberta Export Agency be involved in any direct way, either on the junket or in planning the tour? MR.

HYNDMAN: It's certainly likely the Alberta Export Agency, in terms of the work they've been doing, would be involved in some way, either directly or in a peripheral way but certainly involved, bearing in mind the activities they're carrying forward. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, one further supplementary question. In light of the examination of modes of transportation in Europe, can the minister advise the Assembly — I'm not making a brief here for the Deputy Premier — why the Deputy Premier isn't going along on this visit to Europe? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I think the Deputy Premier will be in charge of the government during the absence of the Premier, [interjections] School Renovation and Construction MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, on that rather reassuring note, my second question . . . [laughter ] . . . is to the Minister of Education. Is the minister aware of the concerns of students, teachers, and parents of the Eastglen Composite High School in Edmonton with regard to the needed capital renovations?

452 ALBERTA HANSARD June 5, 1975 MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, the matter of capital renovations, of course, is one which should be decided by the local school board and brought to the attention of the School Buildings Board under the Department of Education. MR. R. SPEAKER; Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister. Would the minister be prepared to contact the Edmonton Public School Board to discuss the need for increased capital grants for repairs and renovations to some of the Edmonton schools? MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the school boards would be able to make that decision, inasmuch as under

Section 91 of the act the provision of facilities for educational purposes is a responsibility of the school board. MR. R. SPEAKER; Mr. Speaker, supplementary to the minister. Would the minister or one of his representatives be prepared to meet with the students at Eastglen high school so they more clearly understand some of the problems which have just been elaborated, plus the position of the provincial government? MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, I, and I think members of the Department of Education, would be loath to interfere with the local autonomy of the school boards throughout the Province of Alberta. MR.

NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister. In light of this concern and of the minister's advisory committee noting they did not examine the construction grants for schools, is the government going to be reviewing the total question of construction grants under the school buildings branch? If so, when will a report be made to the Assembly? MR. KOZIAK: Mr. speaker, the practice has been to look at the support for new construction every six months. The support prices now in existence are for the period January 1 to June 30.

I believe the last adjustment in the support price was made some time in the very early part of this calendar year. The matter of support prices for the ensuing six months is presently under consideration, although I can't give the hon. member an exact time a decision will be made on the support prices for that period. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question. Can the hon. minister advise the Assembly what the criteria are for reviewing the support prices? I raise this question because the support price is falling rather sadly behind the actual cost of constructing schools in this province. MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. It would appear that a list of criteria governing a situation of this kind would be something that might be sought on the Order Paper. MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, if the House would permit me. Just as a matter of interest so the House won't be misled by the present state of affairs in construction, the present support price by the provincial government is $27 per square foot. My understanding is that the two most recent bids on core schools in Calgary came in at under $27 a square foot. So it's difficult to measure the trend at the moment. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, a further supplementary question. Will the hon. minister give an undertaking to examine school construction costs in northern Alberta to compare the assistance under the school buildings branch, the support program, with the actual construction costs? MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, this is in fact being done on an ongoing basis to determine support. As the hon. minister is probably aware, there is additional support to those communities which are, at various intervals in terms of space, from [not recorded]. Property Tax Rebate DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this question to the hon.

Minister of Municipal Affairs, regarding the provincial tax rebate formula for senior citizens on the guaranteed income supplement. Last year's formula, I understand, was $200 minus the school foundation tax. Could the minister elaborate on the formula to be used this year? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Calgary Bow advised me of the question, so I can probably handle parts of it, sir. With respect to The Alberta Property Tax Reduction Act, the minimum benefit claim is still $200, as the hon. member suggested.

The process is that, should the education tax reduction be less than $200, the individual has the right to have a $200 minimum benefit applied. The difference would have to be under application, and these forms have been circulated with the property tax notices. The application will be made directly to the municipality levying the tax.

June 5, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 453 Oil and Gas Leases MR. MUSGREAVE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address this question to the Minister of Energy. The other day in answer to a question raised by the Member for Calgary Buffalo, he suggested that the government is considering a new land tenure system for oil and gas leases. As the answer to the question indicated that perhaps large companies were holding large blocks of land, does the government anticipate having a different system of land leases for small companies versus the large? MR. GETTY: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not one of the alternatives we're considering. MR.

MUSGREAVE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister advise the House if he anticipates making studies, say for the last 5 or 10 years, of reserves discovered by company categories, which would give the government some indication in which direction they should move in the holding of land? MR. GETTY: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The previous Department of Mines and Minerals, and the present Department of Energy and Natural Resources has been conducting those types of studies.

They are matters which will go into our deliberations in determining the revised system of lease and land tenure in mines and minerals in the province. MR. MUSGREAVE: One last supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the government be prepared to have this data available to the industry before they develop a new policy? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, previously there was considerable discussion on this matter with industry. It is our intention to again have detailed discussions with them and the various associations representing them, during the course of this summer.

I'm sure this matter will be one of the positions discussed. School Programs — Safety MR. HANSEN: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Education. A few years ago we had a tragic drowning in our district on a school program which entailed canoeing. I see in the paper that M.E. Lazerte Composite High School has a project to go down the Saskatchewan River. According to the pictures, they have no life jackets on. What safety regulations has the school got for a program like this? MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, this project is taking place outside the school and outside the normal school grounds?

MR. HANSEN: Yes, it is, but it's under the school program — outside education — and it's directed by the teachers. MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, I'm not knowledgeable about the particular project to which the hon. member refers. I would like the opportunity to look into the matter and report. Auto Insurance Board DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of Consumer Affairs if the so-called watchdog committee established by a legislative committee on automobile insurance is functioning — the committee that was supposed to have MLAs and other people on it to monitor increased auto insurance rates? MR.

HARLE: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member might expand on that question. He has given me a note which referred to 1969 and 1970. Is this the subject? DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, that is the year the legislative committee brought in its report and made the recommendation that there be a watchdog committee set up called the auto insurance board. I would like to know if that watchdog committee is functioning. MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the hon. member knows that there were appointments to the Alberta insurance board. That board consists of an insurance agent, an accountant, and a lawyer. DR. BUCK: Mr.

Speaker, have there not been any MLAs on that watchdog committee? MR. HARLE: There are no MLAs on that board. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, does the hon. minister contemplate having MLAs on that board, as recommended by the committee?

454 ALBERTA HANSARD June 5, 1975 MR. HARLE: I will have to look at the recommendations of the report to which the hon. member is referring, Mr. Speaker, and I will consider it. Comfort Allowance MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Social Services and Community Health. In view of the recent proposed increase for senior citizens to $255 a month, is the minister considering increasing the comfort allowance of a dollar a day allowed to patients in the nursing homes of Alberta?

MISS HUNLEY: I'm assuming the hon. member is referring to those who are not over 65 but who, through their misfortune, are forced to be patients in a nursing home and as a result have special needs. We have attempted to meet that. I believe a program was instigated about two years ago. It was not previously in existence. It's a dollar a day, as the hon. member indicated, Mr. Speaker. I do realize that inflation catches up even to those who are in nursing homes. At the present time I have the matter under consideration.

But I have no funds in my budget — which will be discussed — which would make an increase possible at this particular time. Rehabilitation Institute — Calgary MR. KUSHNER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct this question to the Minister of Social Services. Would the minister advise the House what progress has been made in regard to the Vocational & Rehabilitation Research Institute, a special training school for students in Calgary that is running into financial problems in developing their future programs? It may even be curtailed if assistance is not forthcoming.

MISS HUNLEY: I have met with the board of VRRI, Mr. Speaker, and listened with appreciation to the problems they expressed to me, due once again to inflationary costs. The budget has allowed some money for inflation. They indicate to me that that is not adequate for their needs. We are attempting to assess exactly how great the need is and what the problems are. We will do the best we can to help resolve them. Beverage Container Disposal MR. LITTLE: I will direct this question to the hon. Minister of Environment.

Would the hon. minister inform the House what success has been achieved by the provisions of The Beverage Container Act in combatting litter problems? MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I think we are fairly pleased with the results accrued from that program. In reviewing the most recent statistics, we're looking at literally — didn't mean that — virtually millions of dozens of bottles, pop containers, and liquor bottles being returned. Many citizens have commented on the improved state of our roadside ditches and traditional areas where litter has collected in the past.

I know there are still some exceptions to that rule. It's interesting that I'm getting comments from citizens asking if the program couldn't be expanded to other kinds of containers. We'll be looking into that. Coal Royalties MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct this question to the hon. Minister of Energy. It's a follow-up to a question posed last week on coal royalties. My question is: has the government set out guidelines or criteria yet to determine what is a fair coal royalty? MR. GETTY: No, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what the government is presently considering in our deliberations. MR.

NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question. Are any studies taking place at the present time as to international market prospects, Canadian market prospects, as well as profitability and cost of production in the coal industry? MR. GETTY: I'm sure there are within the coal industry. We are also doing studies of this nature ourselves, Mr. Speaker. MR. NOTLEY: A further supplementary question. Can the hon. minister advise the Assembly who is doing the review on coal royalties? Is this done by a committee of Executive

June 5, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 455 Council, or is there a special task force already set up? To what extent is there input on the coal royalty from both the owners and the United Mine Workers? MR. GETTY: There is an interdepartmental committee within the government, Mr. Speaker, which is preparing the various options the government will consider at the cabinet committee and Executive Council level in establishing coal royalty policy and guidelines. We have constantly had discussions with the industry, and recently I've had some discussions with the United Mine Workers of America.

However, I'm not certain as to the meetings the interdepartmental committee may have had with the union officials. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question. Has the government given any consideration to the proposal of the Alberta Fish & Game Association that the royalty for top-grade bituminous coal be $5 a ton? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, we're always pleased to assess and evaluate suggestions and recommendations by individuals in Alberta or groups of individuals with a particular association.

The representation to which the hon. member has just referred is one the government obviously will consider as well. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question for clarification. Is the government considering coal royalties as high as $5 a ton as one of the matters specifically under study? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, my answer was to the effect that we were considering all options, including the representation from the group the hon. member mentioned. MR. TRYNCHY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister.

Is the minister considering exchanging or trading our coal to other countries for other materials, such as phosphate rock from Mexico for fertilizers? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, that would not be something the government would trade. It might be something an alert company within the industry might consider advantageous. Land Tenure — Stoney Indians MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Attorney General and ask if he could advise the House on the status of negotiations or the court case, whatever it may be, between the Stoney Indians and the Government of Alberta regarding the land tenure question in the Rocky Mountain House area? MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, I'll have to take that question as notice. U.S.S.R. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address my question to the hon. Premier. Mr. Premier, traditionally, before a man moves to higher office, he makes a world tour.

In light of the fact that the cabinet is going to Europe, I'd like to know if the Premier will be fulfilling his commitment. A year or two ago he made a promise to go to Russia. Has that been delayed, or is he going through with it? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I don't recall it being placed in the nature of a promise. It was one of the factors we were considering.

We decided not to proceed with that trip, even though we thought it would have important benefits to the province in terms of an appreciation of some of the things which are going on in Russia today relative to coming to grips with northern climatic conditions. We were at that time involved, as the hon. member recalls, with the scheduling of the Western Economic Opportunities Conference. For that reason, that particular mission or trip was deferred and indefinitely postponed. DR. BUCK: A supplementary to the minister responsible for energy.

Can the minister indicate to the House if his department has had any correspondence or information traded back and forth with the Russian government as to drilling in the northern regions? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure whether there could have been correspondence in that regard in the past, whether industry may be carrying on that type of information exchange and providing the department with copies, or whether the Alberta research council or one of the various agencies of government is involved in that. However, I think it would be wise to acquaint myself with it and report back to the hon. member.

456 ALBERTA HANSARD June 5, 1975 Europe Mission (continued) MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct this question to the hon. Premier. I note in the ministerial announcement the suggestion of increasing our international ties. Is any consideration being given by the government to developing any kind of formal relationship with the European Common Market or with any of the countries you propose to visit? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, no, that would not be the approach of the Government of Alberta.

It would be our intention in the federal state to work with and through the federal government in terms of any formality regarding international ties. It's the view of the government, as expressed during the 17th Legislature and reflected again that by the very nature of the economy and social diversity of this province, we will have a stronger province if we spread our perspective on an international basis. It's with that objective in mind, as the hon. Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs pointed out, that we consider one of the prime purposes of such a mission. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, a further supplementary question. Will there be any consultation between Alberta officials and either the Department of External Affairs or the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce before the tour is made? MR. HYNDMAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There will be consultation at a number of levels through both departments. Indeed, there has already been that degree of consultation, and it will continue in the months ahead as the organization for the mission proceeds. DR. BUCK: A supplementary to the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs.

In the announcement and in the news story which came out this morning, there was supposed to be some consultation with some of the OPEC nations or the Arab leaders. There has been no mention of that. Can the hon. minister inform us if there will be consultations with the people of the OPEC nations? MR. HYNDMAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I noted, there will be meetings with leading officials of a number of groups, five or six at least, including the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Grasshopper Control MR. HYLAND: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Agriculture.

In view of the recent statement by Dr. Neil Holmes of the Lethbridge Research Station that southern Alberta could be in for the worst grasshopper infestation in 13 years, what is the Department of Agriculture prepared to do to help farmers combat the grasshoppers? MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, the pest control division of the Department of Agriculture has some 32,000 gallons of insecticide available, which is sufficient to treat approximately half a million acres. In addition, we have assurances from the private chemical trade that an amount sufficient for another half million acres is available.

This leaves us with enough chemical to treat a million acres, which is equal to the worst grasshopper outbreak experienced in Alberta up to this time. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that officials of my department are involved in trying to make sure there is co-ordination of available aircraft in the event large-scale aircraft spraying operations are required. Oil Industry MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy. Last week the minister indicated he would do some checking with regard to problems small Alberta companies were having.

I wonder if the minister has any figures to indicate whether small Alberta- and Canadian-based companies have, in fact, had to give up some of their land tenure in the last short period of time, also some indication of the geologists unemployed in Calgary? And — perhaps those two to start with. MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, there has not been a report from the department yet. However, I have asked them to look into the matters which we discussed during the question period last week.

June 5, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 457 Rehabilitation Institute — Calgary (continued) MR. KUSHNER: Mr. Speaker, once again I would like to direct this question to the Minister of Social Services. Is the minister in a position to give some indication to the people in the Calgary rehabilitation research institute of the latest date the money would be forthcoming, so they can plan? MISS HUNLEY: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, I'm aware they have a problem. They've been advised of the amount being allocated in the Estimates to their particular project. This is the only information I am able to give at this time.

Cow-Calf Loans MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture and ask whether he or his department has written or contacted bank managers recently with respect to the cow-calf loans. MR. MOORE: No, Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware we've made any contact with respect to collections. As hon. members would be aware, the cow-calf loans were made on the basis of one year interest-free from the date of application, or until the animals in question were sold. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question to the hon. minister.

No letter or communication has gone out asking for the leans to be paid within 60 days of the expiry of the year then? MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, not a general notice to all individuals involved. However, I should take time to check that out and make sure. I could report to the hon. member, perhaps tomorrow. MR. NOTLEY: Further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is any consideration being given by the government to writing off a portion of the cow-calf loan? MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, no consideration has been given to that at this time.

We expect the improvements that have come about in recent weeks with respect to the feeder cattle and calf markets will be of the nature to make everyone realize that the decision of last fall to provide interest-free loans will leave those cow-calf operators in a much better position than had they sold their calves last year. We are hopeful all of them will be able to meet their payments and retire those debts. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, one final supplementary question. I hope the minister's encouraging words are true.

My question, however, is: are any contingency plans being prepared for the fall in the event the market situation does not improve? MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I'm a farmer and, therefore, an optimist. I think the question is difficult for me to answer because I don't know what the market's going to be next fall. I certainly have a number of things in my mind with respect to contingency plans that I've discussed with officials of the Department of Agriculture and others. But I'm not in a position now to be able to discuss those in the Legislature.

We're not, in fact, in a position where we're able to announce any plan with regard to a market that may be good or bad next fall. MR. SPEAKER: There's a request by an hon. anonymous member to revert to Introduction of Visitors. If he identifies himself, may he do so? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS (reversion) MR . MILLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. At this time it gives me great pleasure to introduce to you, and through you to the members of this Assembly, 34 students who are with us today from the Lloydminster Public School. They are a Grade 7 work study group.

They are accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Butcher and Mr. Isaac, and their bus driver, Mr. Latimer. At this time I would ask that they stand and be recognized.

458 ALBERTA HANSARD June 5, 1975 ORDERS OF THE DAY head: GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 2. Hon. Mr. Hyndman proposed the following motion to the Assembly:

Be it resolved that the Assembly adopt the following Standing Orders to be effective until the prorogation of the first session of the 18th Legislature: 9.1

(1) The Leader of the Opposition may, by written notice, designate a motion to be the first item for consideration of the Assembly when Motions other than Government Motions are called on Thursday afternoon.

(2) The motion designated shall be from those set down under Motions other than Government Motions on the Order Paper for the preceding Monday.

(3) The motion designated shall not be a motion that has been previously debated during the session, nor shall it be a motion set down by a government member.

(4) To be effective, such notice must be given by 4:00 p.m. on the said Monday to the Clerk who shall cause it to be inserted in Votes and Proceedings for that Monday. 36.1 Notwithstanding any established precedent to the contrary, a member not being a government member may have two notices of motion in that member's name on the Order Paper at the same time. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to move Government Motion No. 2 on today's Order Paper. The motion essentially concerns private members' days. My remarks will be brief, because I believe the motion is essentially self- explanatory.

By way of background, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to point out that if the Assembly were to review the time available for private members' activities across Canada, in the other provinces and the federal government, it would find the Province of Alberta and the Legislature of Alberta provides the largest amount of time, in terms of hours, of any jurisdiction in Canada.

In fact, I think if a review were made of those jurisdictions in the world operating under the British constitutional system, it would show that few, if any, other countries in the Commonwealth provide as much time for private members as the rules of this Assembly. Approximately one-third of the time of the House, as reflected in the rules, is for private members in Alberta. In most other jurisdictions, members' time for debate of private members' resolutions is about 5 to 10 per cent of the total. This motion, Mr. Speaker, extends special privileges to the opposition in the Assembly.

It provides new and extra opportunities for its participation in private members' day. The changes involved in the resolution are essentially three in nature. As the rules now stand, on Thursdays from Orders of the Day until 4:30, the opportunity for debate on motions is afforded to members of the opposition and other private members. By this motion, the members of the opposition would have a special opportunity to use that roughly one hour on Thursdays.

The second major change involves the option, given to the Leader of the Opposition by the resolution, of a choice of the resolution to be debated by the entire Assembly on any given Thursday. This provides an opportunity for issues of a more current nature to be brought forward by him, in consultation with opposition members. The third aspect of the motion, Mr. Speaker, is the second part of it, which changes the present rule allowing only one resolution on the Order Paper by a member at any given time.

That opportunity is doubled for opposition members and allows each to have 2 resolutions on the Order Paper at any time, for a total of 12. Other items which might be mentioned are, first, the fact that the resolution provides that the change in the Standing Orders is not permanent but simply temporary, effective until the prorogation of the first session of this 18th Legislature. I think the purpose of that is clear to see. It will be important to assess the workability of these changes in the months ahead, and whether there should be modifications for the course of the other sessions of the 18th Legislature.

The final comment I'd like to make, Mr. Speaker, relates to the requirement of notice. I think most hon. members would feel it appropriate, as the motion does reflect that there be a requirement for notice by the opposition leader of whatever motion the opposition intends to bring forward for debate on Thursday, in order that all members can have an opportunity to assess the motion, deliberate upon it, arrange their arguments, and end up with a debate on Thursday that is effective and current and useful for the Assembly and the people of Alberta. MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, in speaking to the motion before the Assembly, let me say that I welcome the move being made by the government on this particular occasion. I concur in the statements by the Government House Leader with regard to the time available to private members. Tuesday and Thursday afternoons have been available to private members during at least the 14 years I've had the opportunity to be in this Assembly. I think it indicates the importance this Assembly, over a period of years, has placed on private members.

June 5, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 459 Secondly, Mr. Speaker, might I say that it’s my intention to ask my two colleagues to my right -- one of whom is, generally, to my left -- to designate to me the motion they would feel appropriate to come forward in accordance with the proportions, small as they may be, on this particular side of the House. Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, might I say that should this Government Motion No. 2 be passed today, it will be our intention that a new motion dealing with municipal finance will be on tomorrow, sponsored by my colleague, the Member for Clover Bar.

That's the motion we would advise the Clerk on Monday that we would call next Thursday. [The motion was carried. ] head: WRITTEN QUESTIONS 143. Mr. Taylor asked the government the following question: With reference to supplementary mill rates for school purposes as at March 31, 1975;

(1) How many municipalities have no supplementary mill rate?

(2) How many municipalities have a mill rate of 28 mills or more for supplementary requisitions?

(3) How many municipalities have a mill rate under 28 mills but over 10 mills?

(4) How many municipalities have raised their supplementary mill rate since: (

a) April 1, 1973, (

b) April 1, 1974, (

c) April 1, 1975?

(5) What was the total amount of money requisitioned for school purposes during the fiscal year ending: (

a) March 31, 1973, (

b) March 31, 1975? MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, I've consulted with the hon. Member for Drumheller who placed this question on the Order Paper, and discussed with him certain amendments which I would now like to make to the question. The amendments would be as follows: one, by striking out the words, "as at March 31, 1975" in the

preamble and replacing the same with the words, "for calendar year 1974"; two, by striking out the word "municipalities" wherever it shall appear and replacing the same with the words "school districts"; three, by striking out the word "since" in Clause 4 and replacing the same with the word "for"; four, by striking out the words "April 1" in Clauses 4(

a) and 4(

b) and replacing the same with the words "calendar year"; five, by striking out the words "April 1, 1975" in Clause 4(

c) replacing the same with the words "calendar year 1975 to date"; six, by striking out Clauses 5(

a) and 5(

b) in their entirety and replacing the same with "(

a) calendar year 1973" and "(

b) calendar year 1974". With these amendments, Mr. Speaker, we would be prepared to accept the question. MR. SPEAKER: Does the Assembly agree that the question may be amended in that manner? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. 149. Mr. Taylor asked the government the following question: What was the total cost, to the public treasury, of the general election held on March 26, 1975? 150. Mr. Taylor asked the government the following question:

(1) What is the total amount of money paid out under the Crimes Compensation Act, since its inception to March 31, 1975?

(2) Was any amount of this total sum not recommended by the Crimes Compensation Beard?

(3) What percentage of the amount paid in each fiscal year since its inception was because of: (

a) the use of alcohol, (

b) the use of drugs? MR. FOSTER: I accept the question, Mr. Speaker. 151. Mr. Clark asked the government the following question:

(1) How many complaints about job discrimination were received by the Alberta Human Rights Commission between April 1, 1974, and March 31, 1975?

(2) Of these complaints: (

a) How many have been investigated? (

b) How many were deemed to be justified? (

c) How many have been rectified and what compensation has been made in those considered justified? (

d) How many are still under investigation by the Alberta Human Rights Commission?

460 ALBERTA HANSARD June 5, 1975

(3) Of the 64 cases which were listed as "still under investigation" in Sessional Paper 167/74: (

a) How many were deemed to be justified? (

b) How many have been rectified and what compensation has been made in those considered justified? (

c) How many are still under investigation by the Alberta Bights Commission? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have only a slight amendment to propose to Question 151. It's otherwise agreed to. I'm sorry the hon. Leader of the Opposition isn't here just now in order to hear what I have to say. But I regret that I didn't have time to give him a call just before the House opened this afternoon to discuss this with him. In any event, the first one proposed is that in the first paragraph three months be added, in effect, to the time period covered.

This is a request of the Human Rights Commission, based on the fact they are switching from a calendar year last year to a fiscal year in the coming year and would like to report for 15 months instead of 12. The only other one, again at the request of the Commission, is in paragraphs two and three. They believe that complaints being "rectified" is a matter of judgment over which parties may well differ even after the event, and have asked that that word be changed to read "resolved". MR. R. SPEAKER: We agree to those changes. MR. SPEAKER: Does the Assembly agree that the question may be amended in this way? HON.

MEMBERS: Agreed. 156. M r . Clark asked the government the following question: (

a) How much money is forecast to be spent by the Alberta Export Agency in the 1974-75 fiscal year? From which appropriation in the 1974-75 estimates have these funds come? (

b) What amounts on what dates and to and from what persons, agencies, and sources have moneys been paid from Appropriation No. 1159? MR. DOWLING: Mr. Speaker, yes, we accept the question. head: MOTIONS FOR RETURNS 146. Dr. Buck proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing:

(1) Total number of hours logged by Lands and Forests Aircraft CF-AFD (King Air) from January 1, 1973 to December 31, 1973, for transportation of: (1) cabinet ministers and assistants, (2) deputy ministers and assistants.

(2) The number of flights and hours legged for each lands and Forests aircraft during the period of January 1, 1974 to December 31, 1974, for the purpose of transportation of: (1) cabinet ministers and assistants, (2) deputy ministers and assistants, (3) all other government personnel. [The motion was carried.] 152. Mr. Clark proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an Order of the Assembly do issue for a Return showing:

(1) The total amount of debts written off by each department of the Government of Alberta during the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74.

(2) The total amount of debts written off by each agency of the Government of Alberta during the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74. [The motion was carried.] 153. Dr. Buck proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an Order of the Assembly do issue for a Return showing:

(1) The titles of all reports commissioned by the Government of Alberta since September, 1971, regarding the development of a petrochemical industry in Alberta.

(2) Copies of all reports which have not been previously tabled in the Legislative Assembly.

(3) The name of each person or agency responsible for each of the reports mentioned in (1) .

(4) The cost of each report mentioned in (1) .

June 5, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 461 MR. DOWLING: Mr. Speaker, in addressing a few words to this motion, at the outset I would like to urge the House not to approve it. All members will know that the petrochemical industry is a very complex one, and such minor questions, or questions that immediately appear to come forward are: the type of feedstock we should use, whether it should be one which produces a single material, or a number of materials.

We have been examining our policy relative to petrochemicals, and there have been substantial changes in external factors since we first started to examine the development of a policy. The prices of oil and gas, and transportation costs have risen; the petrochemical market has softened then hardened again; inflation has had its effect on both construction and labor costs; there are still substantial delays in some areas in filling orders for production equipment. These factors and others, Mr. Speaker, give rise to an extremely fluid situation in the petrochemical industry.

The position as established some six months ago may not necessarily apply today. As a result, careful consideration of all factors, all forecasts of change and alterations of any kind must be constantly reviewed. In order to establish a final position on petrochemicals, it is obviously extremely vital that we understand totally the situation on a daily basis. Mr. Speaker, studies using consultants from the private sector have been commissioned, and this is in keeping with a stated policy of the Premier some time ago.

These private consultants utilize data and statistics furnished by the private companies on a confidential, privileged basis. The studies obviously assist in defining the parameters of the problems associated with the petrochemical industry in Alberta. In some cases, they present alternative solutions to the problems, discuss cost benefits, and the difficulties associated with many of the alternates. The policy of commissioning these studies through the private sector is, as I said, in keeping with an earlier announced statement.

The results of these studies are of benefit not only to government, but eventually to all the people of Alberta, and enhance the expertise available to Albertans in one of the indigenous business sectors. In having background studies undertaken, the government does so with a clear understanding with the firm engaged and the companies whose data is used that the content of those studies will remain confidential and privileged; that the information in the main is obtained from those companies operating in the private sector.

Information obtained, I said, is there clearly on the understanding that it is privileged and confidential. Information released to the public could seriously prejudice the competitive position of any company involved in supplying that information. If information contained in these documents, which could have some effect and influence on the eventual outcome, were made public — bearing in mind the source of the information — those sources would eventually dry up.

There’s also the possibility that if we made these documents public the consultants, in taking on a study of any kind, whether it be the private sector or otherwise, would establish a rather subjective view on how they should deal with the subject, rather than being objective. So, Mr. Speaker, it is our belief that these documents should not be tabled. However, that doesn't preclude any member of the House from discussing and debating the decisions once they are made. Once government makes its decision, we would welcome debate.

Even prior to that debate, we would welcome alternative proposals from any member of the opposition or the government side. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure it is pretty obvious that the government's position in a competitive international marketing situation would be truly jeopardized if documents such as this were made public. It is not, in my view, in the best interests of Alberta or Albertans. I would urge all members to defeat the motion. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question? Would that preclude me from engaging in the debate? Mr.

Speaker, the question I would like to ask the hon. minister is: would he consider tabling 1, 3, and 4 and permit me to look at

Section 2 in confidence? MR. DOWLING: Mr. Speaker, our position is fairly clear. I believe the motion should be defeated in its entirety and it should not be tabled. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, rising to say a word or two on this motion, I would have to suggest that if we had private sector involvement strictly on its own, which risked money raised from the private sector without any shielding of natural gas prices, without any other commitment, either direct or indirect, from the public treasury of Alberta, I think the comments made by the hon. minister would be valid.

It certainly would not be the business of this House to ask for detailed information or studies where, in fact, the private sector was doing the job exclusively on its own. However, Mr. Speaker, that is not likely to be the case. If we are to develop a petrochemical industry in Alberta, there will have to be substantial public involvement. Mr.

Speaker, bearing that in mind, it seems to me pretty self-evident that for the Legislature to make any decision or, indeed, for the public as a whole to render a valuable judgment on whether we should get into the petrochemical industry, pertinent information must be made available. The government can argue all it likes about the risk to the competitive position of Alberta, but I really question whether we, as members of this Legislature, can sit idly back and allow decisions to be made of far-reaching importance to the province and then

462 ALBERTA HANSARD June 5, 1975 debate after the fact, or perhaps attempt to debate beforehand, but without the information on which to base a sound or solid judgment. Mr. Speaker, if the Legislature is in fact to control the expenditure of public funds, which is one of the historic rights of any Legislative Assembly in our parliamentary system, we need information. There may be the occasional report which is so sensitive that on both sides reason would dictate that that information not be disclosed. But surely an amendment can be proposed by the hon. minister to make allowance for that.

I'm sure most of the reports which have been done in the petrochemical industry would not injure either the competitive position of the companies involved, nor for that matter make any meaningful difference to the competitive position of the petrochemical industry in the province. That being the case, Mr. Speaker, the proposal in Motion for a Return No. 153 is, in my judgment, simply to obtain the information which is absolutely crucial if Albertans are to be able to render an objective judgment on whether a petrochemical industry is worth the cost involved. It may well be worth the cost involved, Mr.

Speaker, but we have a right to know what we're getting into before vast expenditures are made. When will this government learn, Mr. Speaker, and when will governments, period, learn that the public has a right to know before major decisions are made? We had the example of the former Conservative government, headed by Mr. Roblin in Manitoba making a commitment to a pulp and paper mill in The Pas, refusing to table any of the documents. He said it would injure the competitive position of the Province of Manitoba in the pulp and paper industry. By the time the pieces were picked up, Mr.

Speaker, the Government of Manitoba and the people of Manitoba found they were sucked into a deal that cost more than $100 million of public funds. I submit that because this is inevitably going to involve large amounts of money, either through cushioned natural gas prices, through relocation grants, or through equity or debt financing in whatever world scale petrochemical industry is developed, we have a right to this information. Mr. Speaker, I would hope the government could reconsider its position, table the information, and allow the motion for a return to pass. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, in making a remark to this particular motion for a return, the hon. member who made the request for the return has indicated that we want some very basic or bare information: titles, the name of each person or agency responsible for each one of the reports, and the cost. Now really, I can't understand how that would ever affect the petrochemical industry in such detail as the hon. minister has indicated this afternoon.

There is just no way I can see that information would be harmful to anybody, but certainly it would be helpful to us, as a group, to understand what kind of research went on, what kind of background work is available. Following that, if there are certain reports we feel we would like to have a look at, we could make a request for the copies to be tabled in the Legislature, or review the reports on a private basis and look at the details in confidence with the minister. I see no problem with that.

So for the minister to stand up and just give us a flat no — knowing well he has that kind of power, that many people behind him will stamp that big speech he made which really, I don't think, was totally on the topic, and sort of knock us out of the road and give us nothing — certainly he can do that. But I think this would be a time for him to be a little more diplomatic and understanding, and change his mind. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker . . . MR. SPEAKER: May the hon. member conclude the debate? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. DR. BUCK: Mr.

Speaker, it's becoming quite obvious that we are being asked more and more to debate after the fact in this Legislature, and this seems to be a trend which has developed in the last four years. It's very similar to the occurrence in this province when the decision [was made] to allow advertising on radio and television of liquor, wine, and beer. It was an after-the-fact case. The report came in in the spring session. He asked, was there going to be a debate, and the government assured us there would be one. Then the House dissolved. We had summer holidays.

The order in council came through giving the media the opportunity to advertise liquor, wine, and beer on radio and television. It was a fait accompli. In the fall we asked, why was there not an opportunity? The Premier, I remember, said to me, put it on the Order Paper, bring it in as a resolution. What in the world is the point of debating something after it has been in effect for four months? That's just exactly what is happening here. We have heard rumors around this province that the government is going to be involved, directly or indirectly, in the petrochemical industry. Now are they, or are they not? MR.

GETTY: Wait for the decision. DR. BUCK: Wait for the decision, Mr. Speaker. MR. NOTLEY: In the dark. That's where they want it.

June 5, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 463 DR. BUCK: That's right. In the dark is exactly right, Mr. Speaker. Surely we, as responsible members of this Legislature — and even when you speak to government backbenchers, they don't know what's going on. So if they don't know what's going on, how are the taxpayers supposed to know? How are we supposed to know? It's fine for the new Minister of Housing and Public Works to sit there smugly and smile, because they've got the numbers.

But for a government which professes it is going to bring open government to this province, it is going to bring the action back to the legislature, I just don't know how the hon. minister, in all conscience, can sit there and even smirk. Mr. Speaker, the information we ask is for the benefit, we feel, of the industries and the taxpayers of this province. That is what we are all here for, not to run a tight little dictatorship. Our concerns and our desire for information are sincere. The first order says, "The titles of all reports commissioned by the Government of Alberta . . .".

That, in case the hon. minister doesn't know, happens to be the taxpayers' money. The government over there loses sight of that fact. They try to bamboozle the people in this province into thinking that we are going to give you some money. Well, "we” just happens to be all of us collectively, the taxpayers of this province. The government had better not lose sight of that, because I would hazard a guess that within four to eight years there is going to be a new premier sitting there. It is not necessarily going to be my friend from Spirit River, but there is going to be someone sitting in that chair.

And it is not going to be the party in power, because I know where the man who should be sitting in that chair is going to be. But that's another question, [interjections] The Deputy Premier isn’t going to be in there either; it doesn't look like it. Mr. Speaker, all facetiousness aside, our requests are sincere. We feel there are public funds involved. Because of the continuing rumor that there is going to be involvement of taxpayers' money in the petrochemical industry in Alberta, we feel this information should be available. If it is not available, Mr.

Speaker, I submit this is strictly a mockery of the parliamentary system. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. [The motion was lost. ] MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, relating to tonight's business. I would just like to advise the Assembly of a change. Previously I had indicated to members that we would be proceeding in Supply at 8 o'clock with the departments of Attorney General, and Advanced Education and Manpower. The hon. Opposition Leader has indicated he will be absent from the House this evening and wished to hold those departments. Accordingly, there will be a change in tonight's business.

At 8 o'clock, after doing Government Motion No. 3, which is a routine one, we'd proceed, in Supply, to the departments of Social Services and Community Health, and Hospitals and Medical Care. 154. Dr. Buck proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an Order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing:

(1) Copies of any agreements or contracts made between the Alberta Export Agency and Canadian Cane Equipment Limited from May, 1973, to the present.

(2) Copies of all correspondence between the Alberta Export Agency and Canadian Cane Equipment Limited from May, 1973, to the present. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister has asked that there be an amendment, adding at the end of

Section 2, "with the concurrence of Canadian Cane Equipment Limited". Mr. Speaker, I would like to move that amendment. MR. SPEAKER: We have a somewhat difficult situation with the hon. member moving an amendment to his own motion. Perhaps we could do it in a different way, either an informal agreement of the Assembly or a motion by the minister. HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. DOWLING: Mr. Speaker, I move that Motion 154 be amended by adding at the end of

Section 2, "with the concurrence of Canadian Cane Equipment Limited". MR. SPEAKER: Having heard the amendment, does the Assembly agree? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. [The motion as amended was carried.] 155. Dr. Buck proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing:

(1) The date or dates since 1971 on which Mr. Walter J. Levy entered into a contract or contracts with the Government of Alberta or any agency of the Government of Alberta.

464 ALBERTA HANSARD June 5, 1975

(2) The date of each trip made by Mr. Walter J. Levy to Alberta and the names of those members and/or representatives of the Government of Alberta or any agency of the Government of Alberta he met with on each occasion.

(3) The date of each trip made by members and/or representatives of the Government of Alberta or any agency of the Government of Alberta to places outside of Alberta to meet with Mr. Walter J. Levy including, for each trip, the names of those members and/or representatives.

(4) All remuneration paid to Mr. Walter J. Levy, including that for expenses, from the beginning of his employment by the Government of Alberta.

(5) Any information held by the Government of Alberta relating to present or former employment of Mr. Walter J. Levy by: (

a) The Government of the United States of America, (

b) The government of any state in the United States of America, (

c) Any corporation incorporated in the United States of America and/or any state in the United States of America which is engaged in exploration for oil or in the production of oil-based products.

(6) The names of any other candidates considered for the consulting position held by Mr. Walter J. Levy.

(7) The criteria used in the selection of Mr. Walter J. Levy. [The motion was carried.] MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I will table Motion 155. DR. BUCK: Nice to see you've got a job. 157. Mr. Notley proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an Order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: A copy of all studies which the government has in its possession regarding the economic feasibility, the environmental impact, and the social impact of a hydro- electric dam on the Peace River at Dunvegan subject, in the case of those not commissioned by government, to the concurrence of the authors. MR. RUSSELL: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to offer a slight amendment to Motion No. 157, by adding after "authors", the last word in the motion, "and/or the owners", merely getting the concurrence of the owners of such reports. They might be in the hands of third parties. [The motion as amended was carried. ] 158. Mr. R. Speaker proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an Order of the Assembly do issue for a Return showing:

(1) All delegations which came to Alberta, upon invitation of the Government of Alberta, to examine Alberta cattle, during the fiscal years 1973-74 and 1974- 75.

(2) The government agency, minister, or civil servant responsible for having arranged the visit of each delegation to Alberta.

(3) An explanation of the general reason for the presence of each delegation.

(4) An itemized itinerary for each of the above delegations, including specifically the names of all agricultural businesses, including farm operations, which they visited, and the exact order in which they made such visits. [The motion was carried.] head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 1. Moved by Mr. Mandeville:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the Government of Alberta to make available to municipalities grants to finance the servicing of residential lots. [Adjourned debate: Dr. McCrimmon] DR. McCRIMMON: There are just a few other points I wanted to bring out with respect to this motion. Although I again state I'm in favor of the principle of the motion, I fail to see how it could possibly work. It may create some inequities, rather than cure the problem.

One of the difficulties with this motion as it is written — lots within a town or a city that are already in a serviced area, where lets change hands and are not built on. It would be an inequity in a situation such as this. I can see where the motion would work in the case of new subdivisions, but in the case of lots within a town or city, I see where it would cause difficulties.

June 5, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 465 A similar situation is that a person purchases an old house on a lot and tears it down to build a new home. This would again be an inequity, causing him to be in a situation where he wouldn't be eligible for the grant under the municipality that a person building a new home on a newly serviced lot would be. There are other difficulties that would come in under this. One is the change in local zoning, the difficulties with zoning and problems in this respect.

Although I do agree with the principle behind the motion, I'm afraid I can't go along with it as it is written, because I can see it creating too many problems as far as our towns and cities are concerned. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. JAMISON: In speaking on this resolution, Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. Member for Bow Valley for bringing this subject to the Assembly for discussion and debate. It is a matter of significant importance to the policy of this government which encourages decentralization and dispersal of our citizens more equally throughout the province.

That is a wise policy, I think, Mr. Speaker. There is no doubt whatsoever. I am delighted that the Third World conference to be held next June in Vancouver will consider human habitat as one of the questions on the agenda, how to reverse the emigration of people from larger cities. The resolution before us deals with a situation facing far too many of our small municipalities, which is a serious impediment to growth. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, any community which cannot provide adequate water and sewage disposal is doomed to a slow death.

If we agree decentralization is the right policy, the ability of municipalities to provide proper sewage and water systems is an important factor in carrying out that policy. I think, Mr. Speaker, we have a number of points to consider. I would like to raise a few. Number one, would the grant proposed in the resolution encourage or discourage initiative and sound business management by municipalities?

In the 22 years I have been in business, I have never been able to understand why municipal governments have consistently and persistently set monthly water and sewage bills at rates far too low to provide a reserve fund for expanding these 2 absolutely essential services. Presumably, it was done because periodic increases would have brought some flak from ratepayers. Surely, Mr. Speaker, there are situations in which governments must lead in long-term financial planning. Realistic water and sewage charges, with built-in reserves for future needs, could be explained to ratepayers to gain their acceptance.

I was, therefore, pleased to note recently that the City of Edmonton saw fit to raise both water and sewage rates. When the M.D. of Sturgeon, the County of Strathcona, and the towns of Fort Saskatchewan and Redwater combined their resources some 10 years ago to put in what is known as the northeast water line . . . DR. BUCK: The former government. MR. JAMISON: The former government — primarily to provide a water supply to the fast- growing towns of Fort Saskatchewan and Redwater. Behind the thinking of the municipalities, Mr. Speaker, was that future industry could locate along this water line.

It was a wise move, in my estimation. I recall, Mr. Speaker, going to an annual meeting of the council of the M.D. of Sturgeon when it heard flak from its ratepayers as to why it was involved in a $750,000 water line that wasn’t going to be of any value to them. Mr. Speaker, this water line has never cost the ratepayers of the M.D. of Sturgeon one nickel. It is paid by the user, and in its first year of operation showed an $18 profit. Mr.

Speaker, [because of] the wise foresight of this council and the councils of the County of Strathcona and the towns of Fort Saskatchewan and Redwater, this line is now paying off in great dividends. It's going to supply the fast-growing centre of the Village of Gibbons. The water line is to be constructed this year. Industry is badly needed in the M.D. of Sturgeon, for additional assessment. The M.D. of Sturgeon has the lowest assessment of any of the municipalities in the greater Edmonton area. As an example of that, the County of Strathcona has an assessment base of $129 million.

The County of Parkland has approximately $87 million. The M.D. of Sturgeon, where high taxes are paid by the ratepayers, has a measly $24 million assessment. This foresight in setting up a water line, Mr. Speaker, is now proving to have been the right thing, as it is going to locate industry and give the additional assessment to this municipality. Mr. Speaker, in my estimation, rates for water and sewer are just too low. I can't understand the thinking of municipal governments which control water and sewer.

Why is the cost of water and sewer to a resident, a very essential service, sometimes as low as $7 a month for the two services, when you consider that today you can't even buy a bottle of good whiskey for $7? I wonder, Mr. Speaker, would further grants, as proposed in the resolution, cause this unrealistic approach to continue? The second point I would like to raise, Mr. Speaker, is how far should the government go in providing grants for specific municipal services? We now have what I consider a good program to aid municipalities to put in sewage systems. I refer, Mr.

Speaker, to this pamphlet: Municipal Sewage Treatment Assistance Program, which was initiated by the Hon. Bill Yurko two years ago. I can assure you it's a good financial set-up for municipalities and I can't see why more aren't taking advantage of this tremendous program.

466 ALBERTA HANSARD June 5, 1975 The St. Albert constituency, Mr. Speaker, has both kinds of municipalities recognized in that program as having magnified difficulties: rapidly growing communities, such as St. Albert, Morinville, Bon Accord and Gibbons; and very small communities facing declining populations. The residents of the Hamlet of Vimy, with a population of only 135, showed considerable initiative and good management in solving their problem.

They were faced with a report from the public health inspector that they could no longer use their present inadequate sewage disposal system, which consisted of septic tanks not functioning properly, overflowing into the streets. In some cases raw sewage was reported in the ditches of the streets. This provided a very unhealthy situation. I'm pleased the residents of Vimy took the responsibility, in conjunction with the reeve of the M.D. of Westlock, the health inspector, Mr. Ken McAmmond, their MLA, and the Department of Environment. A delegation from Vimy, almost two years ago today, Mr.

Speaker, visited the Town of Marshall, Saskatchewan, to investigate that centre's low-cost sewage system, a system which did in fact save a dying community. Marshall today is enjoying healthy growth as a satellite of the big City of Lloydminster. [interjections] Thank you, Mr. Miller. With the help of the Department of Environment, the Hamlet of Vimy installed a plastic pipe sewage disposal system and a lagoon capable of accommodating a population of 1,500, at a cost of less than $60,000. Mr.

Speaker, this is compared with the estimated cost of $194,000 for a conventional tile system from an engineering firm from Edmonton. Presently the Vimy system is under a 2-year observation by the Department of Environment. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the members of this Assembly take a look at the system in Vimy. If it proves to be satisfactory, I think we've come up with a low-cost sewage system which could be used in roughly 400 hamlets in the Province of Alberta. I mentioned this project, Mr. Speaker, to raise three points.

Had a government grant been available, would this initiative have been shown by the hamlet and the M.D. of Westlock? Would the cost have been held at such a low figure, less than $60,000? Thirdly, could this project be copied in other small centres to save expensive and time- consuming studies? This brings me to the third consideration I'd like to mention regarding the resolution before us, Mr. Speaker. Studies in providing adequate services to residential and acreage lots will, I believe, enter the picture. I think the government can come to the assistance of municipalities.

We have larger resources in this area. Particularly, when we request a study, we should pay for it. The cost of studies, consultants' fees, and the delays which add greatly to the cost of the project because of inflation concern me, Mr. Speaker. For example, as the hon. Dr. Buck mentioned, 67 studies were done by the previous government, on the Sturgeon River. Yet, Mr. Speaker, there wasn't one inch of work done on that river. Where studies are in fact needed [interjections] let us be sure no research is repeated. I believe also, Mr.

Speaker, both municipal and provincial governments should do careful shopping around to get studies at the best cost, compatible with the degree of competence required. The fourth point I would like to make on this resolution has to do with the thinking behind government grants to municipalities. With this resolution, we move into an area traditionally the responsibility of municipalities. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the role of senior governments should be to create a healthy climate in which municipalities, business, industry, and the people as individuals can manage their affairs sensibly and responsibly.

This government is, I believe, doing much to create such a climate through the municipal Sewage Treatment Assistance Program, the roads and street improvement program, transportation assistance, supplementary taxation legislation, low-cost borrowing for municipalities — 8 per cent money from the Alberta Municipal Finance Corporation, possibly the lowest interest money today in Canada — removing a large portion of our education cost from property owners, hospital tax, STEP and PEP assistance programs, preventive social services programs of which 80 per cent is paid by the government, the new program for recreation facilities, the long-range benefits which will assist municipalities under the decentralization policy of this government, and joint federal- provincial programs such as DREE.

This is not to refuse recognition that probably every municipality in Alberta and Canada wants more assistance from senior governments and does not want to come hat in hand for it. I feel, Mr. Speaker, the spreading of industrial and commercial development into municipalities throughout the province is going to produce the answer. As this development proceeds, the municipalities will have a taxation base on which they can manage their own affairs with autonomy. If we are to offer further assistance now, Mr.

Speaker, I would suggest it should be by way of aid to service property situated in industrial parks, a self-liquidating program. Grants for servicing residential lots would, I am certain, be a grave mistake on the part of this government. I cannot see how such grants will make any real difference in the cost of a home. Today, Mr. Speaker, developers are paying their fair share of the servicing of residential lots. I'd hate to think we were taking this away from the developers, who in many, many cases are good corporate citizens. Once the government starts such a grant program, it could get locked into it.

Let's not make that mistake. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to refer to Department of Environment Appropriations 2936 and 2939, headed Municipal Pollution Control Assistance and Municipal Water Supply Assistance, which we discussed in Committee of Supply the other night. I would suggest to the members that these two programs would solve a lot of problems that we are facing today in the small municipalities.

June 5, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 467 Thank you. MR. MUSGREAVE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few brief comments on this motion. I would like to suggest to the hon. Member for St. Albert that some municipal politicians make sure the citizens of their cities pay for goods and services on the basis of use, not on some emotional debate which may or may not occur at city hall. The intent of the motion, Mr. Speaker, may be to make more financial help available to municipalities by way of servicing lots. But in my opinion it overlooks the present situation.

For example, in some areas right now there are grants available in municipalities to service lots in residential areas. In some areas you can also receive the total cost of primary sewage plants. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation allows for large loans for larger cities with forgiveness clauses and lower rates of interest than the current 8 per cent for secondary sewage disposal plants. We have, as the hon. Member for St. Albert pointed out, low-cost loans through the Alberta Municipal Finance Corporation at 8 per cent.

We also have subsidized programs through the federal Winter Works Program which allow for works to be undertaken by municipalities at reduced cost. But I agree that the grant philosophy runs against the grain of many civic elected officials. They resent the paternalism which was exhibited for many, many years by the previous government of this province: the system whereby the rich father in Edmonton always knows best what the local level of government should or should not do. I would hope this government would get rid of that system.

In so doing, we have to make a very careful examination of financial services to municipalities of a wide nature. For example, Mr. Speaker, we have to know what tax sources are available to the cities. We have to know whether the cities are discriminatory. The Member for St. Albert said that some cities increase the water rates based on the costs of the service. But I would point out that some cities increase the costs of utilities to multipurpose housing versus the single-family home. I think this is a most unfair practice and one that we, as a senior government, should try to eliminate.

We should also make sure whether the actions of the local level of government are in conflict with the fiscal policies of the Alberta government. We should also appreciate whether local labor unions will, in effect, lever some cities one against the other to get higher wage settlements to the detriment of the whole province. Mr. Speaker, I agree it’s a very complex situation. I agree that on the surface it looks like a desirable thing helping particularly first-start families get their first home.

But I suggest that we could be getting into the same predicament we are already finding ourselves in with regard to health services. We have total funding by a senior government with the operation being run by the local government. There is an abandonment of responsibility. I think we should try to avoid this at all costs. As long as the local levels of governments can run to Edmonton for handouts, they will continue to do so. As I mentioned earlier, I think it's a very complex and very urgent problem. But I would suggest, Mr.

Speaker, it's the kind of problem that should be examined by the Provincial Municipal Finance Council. I would hope that this council will be commencing its work very soon and will be reporting back to the House on a continuing basis with interim reports. But I really feel that the matter should not be debated any further here without more information available to all members. Therefore, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to move an amendment to the motion, and I would suggest the amendment should read: "Be it resolved that we refer this motion to the Provincial Municipal Finance Council so they can consider the integration of a grant system to finance the servicing of residential lots." MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have copies for the two House leaders as well as for the Clerk and the member whose motion it is now suggested be referred? Are hon. members prepared to proceed with the debate on the motion to refer, or do they wish to wait until the Chair is able to read it to the Assembly?

Are you ready for the question? Is there anyone who wishes to speak on the motion to refer? As hon. members know, any debate on that must be strictly relevant to that motion. Are you ready for the question on the motion to refer? [The motion was carried. ] 2. Moved by Mr. Taylor:

Be it resolved that this Legislative Assembly urge the Government of the Province to make representation to the Government of Canada to amend the Criminal Code to provide that:

(1) A sentence of death passed by a judge which is not reduced on appeal shall be duly carried out unless a recommendation for mercy or clemency is given by the judge or jury in which case His Excellency the Governor General in Council shall have the authority to commute such sentence.

(2) A sentence of life imprisonment shall mean imprisonment for not less than 20 years. [Adjourned debate: Mr. Musgreave] MR. MUSGREAVE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to comment on a few points I think are worthy of consideration that were brought out in the debate by various members.

468 ALBERTA HANSARD June 5, 1975 Quoting from the McRuer report on the treatment of the sexual offender, the following points were made: there is no known form of medical treatment of the sexual psychopath or the sexual pervert. But the commission did recommend that these prisoners should be kept in . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I apologize to the Assembly. We perhaps should not have dealt with the previous motion until after the Chair had received a copy. There may be some difficulty with regard to this motion. It doesn't seem clearly, on reading the text, to be a motion to refer.

I'm not sure whether it's an amendment either. The wording of the motion is: "that we refer", and I assume that means the Assembly, "to the Provincial Municipal Finance Council" the "integration of a grant system to finance the servicing of residential lots". It would seem to me the motion would have to be clarified in some way before it could be dealt with. Taken in its broad sense it might even be a money motion.

The intention is that Resolution No. 1 under Motions other than Government Motions be referred to the Provincial Municipal Finance Council, then if that's the intent of the Assembly, I'm sure the Clerk can arrange an appropriate text. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, that was the intent we agreed to. MR. SPEAKER: [Not recorded] provide an appropriate text. MR. MUSGREAVE: I apologize to the House, Mr. Speaker. That was the intent of my motion, but I was trying to write it and speak at the same time.

Going back to the McRuer report, I would like to suggest that the treatment of psychopaths in a mental hospital can greatly interfere with the well-being of the psychiatrically sick patients. As a result, the attitude of the nursing staff towards the psychopath and the psychotic is very different, and it is most difficult for the staff of nurses to change from one situation to the other.

Unfortunately, some medical people feel that there are some illnesses for which medical science can do nothing and, regrettably, the money spent on mental health has been very small over the years, so the necessary research has not been carried out to enable the medical person to treat some of these illnesses. Now, one hon. member suggested that castration would be effective in reducing the crime rate of sexual repeat offenders. But it is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that the socialistic countries of Europe were the first to introduce castration, led by Denmark in 1929.

It is also in effect in Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands. A study of the European experiment has indicated that castration, whether voluntary or not, may produce physical changes that complicate the problems of the deviate and increase his danger to the community rather than reducing it. The McRuer report, in commenting on Canadian views of civil rights, says of castration that it has not removed the risk of new crimes, or at least considerably reduced crime by this method of surgery.

While many feel that hanging or incarceration for 20 years, as recommended in the motion, would help our society, it should be remembered that there has been no successful psychiatric or medical treatment for any type of delinquency. As Dr. Michie, who supervised the Ponoka mental institute in this province for 30 years, once stated, no criminal was ever successfully treated for criminal tendencies in his years of service at that institution. So, Mr.

Speaker, I again return to my original position: without research, without study, without a lot of talk with citizens, without knowledge and feeling and understanding, we cannot vote wisely on this matter. Mr. Speaker, this matter is not in our prerogative as legislators. We are wasting the time of everyone here when we should be discussing matters of concern to this province, matters of concern to the citizens; health, housing, education, and the development of new jobs and business opportunities in our province. These are our concerns, Mr.

Speaker, and we should get on with the job of looking after our responsibilities. Therefore, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, we would be very wise to vote on this bill and get on with the proper business of this House. MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a comment or two about the resolution proposed by the hon. Member for Drumheller. I sat and listened to members from both sides of the House in the debate. Although I was of firm conviction as to how capital punishment should be treated, if treated, I have begun to waver a little bit. I begin to wonder about the intent of the resolution.

For example, I don't see where in the resolution the word "hanging" is mentioned. I don't see where "capital punishment" is mentioned. I get the impression, Mr. Speaker, that the prime motivation of the hon. Member for Drumheller in making the resolution is really one of frustration. In my knowledge of him, he obviously has wisdom far greater than I as to the procedure one takes in making the proper authorities aware of the shortcomings, if any, of the system. I can only get the feeling, Mr.

Speaker, that he's become extremely frustrated at the way law and order, or the appearance of law and order in Canada, particularly with those responsibilities related to the federal government, have been eroded over the quarter-century or longer he's been in this Legislature.

June 5, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 469 I myself have some rather firm convictions, as I mentioned at the outset. Although I don't really think it is a matter of discussion for this House, I do appreciate and feel very sincere about the feelings of the hon. member who moved it. We've heard expressions by the hon. Member for Calgary McCall, and statistics, and an admission that even should we discuss it, the statistics based on Canadian experience are really inadequate. We've heard other members saying that total rehabilitation is to be found in hanging because then you are not concerned with the problem again.

To me, Mr. Speaker, it really boils down to something far above the responsibilities and jurisdiction of this House. I'm referring mainly to the royal prerogative and the basis of our country and parliamentary system. As far as I can see, the royal prerogative involves the government of the country commuting a sentence of death. Although we may or may not agree with the actions of the central government in the past 13 or 14 years, they are a fact of life. I do not believe them to be the responsibility of this Legislature.

So I have to agree with the hon. member who spoke before me, that they are not within the jurisdiction of this House, although I don't believe that's any indication as to how this House itself should feel on the question. In

summary, Mr. Speaker, I'd simply say that it would appear to me the motion we should be discussing is whether we should be adhering to the royal prerogative, which has been the basis of our parliamentary system. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, it's been a pleasure to listen to some of the extremely good debates we've had on this motion. However, I have been distressed, as a member of the provincial Legislature, to find that the provincial legislature is, in my opinion, presuming to or being encouraged to intrude upon affairs which are rightly the responsibility of a higher body. Mr.

Speaker, I have to support the point of view which says the resolution should be defeated, inasmuch as I, for one, sitting in this House would not wish the federal House to make a motion to direct us to do something in this House. I think we have responsibilities which are sufficiently broad and grave that we do not need to be directing in an area which is clearly a federal matter and a federal responsibility. Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, I have appreciated some of the very good points of view.

They are some of the best debates on this subject that I have heard since this debate commenced in this particular Legislature. But when I am asked to vote to make a representation to the Government of Canada to do something, I am just not of the opinion that that is what we should be doing. I think we have sufficient matters within our own jurisdiction. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to advance another aspect of this to members of the House.

I realize the members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition may disagree with me on this, but I would submit that for this House to pass this resolution, when it is well known that we are largely of one political party which is a party quite different in view from that in the majority in the federal House, would surely be construed not only as intervention by a provincial legislature into the responsibilities of the federal Parliament, but perhaps intervention by one political party in the affairs of another political party, and an attempt to create some political embarrassment. Mr.

Speaker, I'm not above creating some political embarrassment for the federal government of the day, but I just don't think on a matter of this nature that is something we should even seem to be trying to do. So, Mr. Speaker, on two counts I have very severe reservations about approving this resolution. I want to make it clear, Mr.

Speaker, that my hesitation and, in fact, what will be my negative vote on this resolution, are not related to anything other than what I construe to be directing the federal Parliament in an area which is clearly the responsibility of the federal government and the members elected to that parliament by all the citizens of Canada. By our constitutional division of powers, it is beyond the responsibility and powers of this Legislature. MR. SPEAKER: May the hon. member close the debate? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. members would read the resolution.

This resolution does not deal with capital punishment. It is not asking for the restoration of capital punishment. It is simply asking that the Criminal Code be amended in two respects. One is that life imprisonment be made to mean at least 20 years. The other is that when a sentence of death is passed by a judge, without clemency being recommended by the judge or the jury, it be carried out. I have difficulty following the arguments of a great number of the members who have gone all around, but have not touched the two items mentioned in the resolution.

Again, I want to make it abundantly clear that when the hon. members of the House vote for this resolution, they will be voting for or against life imprisonment of 20 years, and/or whether they want the Criminal Code amended so that when a judge issues a sentence of death, without mercy or clemency recommended by the judge or the jury, death will be carried out. It says in the Criminal Code now that the penalty for killing, murder, is death. We're not changing that. We're simply saying that when people go through the process of our laws, and a judge finds them guilty, that then be carried out.

470 ALBERTA HANSARD June 5, 1975 A jury made a recommendation to a judge a short time ago about another Criminal Code offence, and this was presumed to be changed by a higher court unheard of before. All we’re asking is that we don't make our courts a mockery. If we're going to continually have the courts make a decision, and then the Parliament of Canada change it, we're simply creating a spirit of disrespect for the courts. I don't think there should be disrespect for the courts. The courts hear the evidence — not the federal cabinet, not anybody else — the court hears all the evidence, the judge and the jury.

Then they find the man guilty or not guilty. If a man is found guilty of murder, outright murder, so bad that the judge or the jury wouldn't even recommend clemency or mercy, we say that man should meet the penalty laid down in the Criminal Code of Canada. No one should change that. If there's some doubt about it, or circumstances that were considered, then the judge or the jury makes a recommendation for mercy, and it becomes a different matter, because then the cabinet would be able, under this amendment, to change that death sentence to one of life imprisonment. But it wouldn't be for 2, 3, or 7 years.

It would be for at least 20 years. I think even one of the great statesmen of Canada, the former Prime Minister Mr. Diefenbaker, has strongly urged that point a number of times. Laws are not respected by the man on the street, because they hear somebody has a life sentence and they see him out in a very few years, sometimes seven years, and sometimes less. As a matter of fact, sometimes they see them out on day parole in a matter of two or three years. If we expect our courts to be respected, then orders by those courts have to be carried out. In my view, this would simply help that decision to come about.

There's another point which has been mentioned by a number of members, and I don't know why they're using it. Time and time again, this Legislature, and every Legislature in Canada, has made representations to the federal government. The federal government listens to the representations of the representatives of the people of a province. We all represent quite a number of people. I think we help the federal members when we pass a resolution saying something definitely should be done, or something definitely shouldn't be done. I refer to the resolution which follows mine by one — issued by the hon.

Member for Calgary Mountain View, Mr. Kushner — which is asking the federal government to amend the Old Age Security Act, and properly so. The federal government today would probably be far behind where it is now had it not been for representations of various provincial legislatures and provincial governments on various items. I can't see an argument at all why people would say we have no right. After all, the people of my constituency — and I expect the others have their own decision from their people — my people haven't any wishy-washy opinion on this.

As a matter of fact, they want a federal referendum on this matter they're so concerned about. They've asked, if the federal government isn't going to do something about it, why can't the Alberta Legislature at least let their wishes be known? I think we can — legally, properly, and constitutionally -- as the representative of the Crown and the right of the province, make representations to the Crown and the Dominion of Canada. I see nothing wrong with that, nothing irregular, nothing out of the usual. It's done time and time again. During the life of this Legislature, it will be done time and time again too.

So I don't think we should argue that this isn't our jurisdiction. The old age pensions aren't our jurisdiction either, but we can certainly feel for the people who are not getting enough, and ask the federal government to increase them. The matter of more for our crippled can certainly be improved by the federal government. It goes beyond what we're doing here, but after all, we are Canadian citizens first. I don't want at any time to go to any part of Canada and find the conditions so bad that they are a disgrace to every Canadian.

There's no reason legislatures shouldn't make representations to the federal government any more than a municipal government shouldn't make representations to the provincial government — even though they are the children of the provincial government. Their thinking represents a distinct set of thinking of a segment of people who want certain things done. That should be welcomed by any provincial government, because it does help it to make a decision in line with the majority of the people. That's another thing I want to mention. We're talking about disrespect for Parliament and for legislatures.

There are a number of things going on today building that disrespect. It was debated in the House of Commons the other day. A number of members there on both sides of the House are concerned how Parliament and the legislatures are coming into disrespect. A couple of items were mentioned. Here we have a mess in our post offices and mail not being delivered. In spite of the fact that the Postmaster General is trying to do something about it, it's still a mess and has been a mess for several months. We say, who is running the country, those working in the post office or the Government of Canada?

The federal government finally took a decision the other day in regard to the strike, going on for weeks there, that is affecting a great number of people. This at least will build some respect, even though it may make some people angry. I want to cite another instance. Time and time again, the people of Canada, particularly the Prairies, have suffered. Through this Legislature we have asked that certain things be done by the federal government so our wheat can be delivered and we can be creditable among the people who are buying our wheat and barley.

Members on both sides of the House have asked that this be done, and properly so. There has been little or nothing done in regard to stopping the wildcat strikes, and the strikes which lead to

June 5, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 471 boats sitting in the ocean waiting for our wheat to be put into them. We have lost barley markets that we never regained, and we'll be very lucky if we don't lose 20 or 30 per cent of our wheat market. No wonder Prairie farmers are saying, what's the use of going to Parliament or the legislatures. Are you going to ask me that we shouldn't ask the federal government to do something about that? This is in the same category. People feel strongly about this matter. This is a matter of justice.

This is a matter of what is going on right in our streets in Edmonton, in Calgary, in Drumheller, and Grande Prairie. These people are . . . I'm sorry. I have several other things to say, but in the interest of time I'll say I feel strongly that this resolution should be passed. I ask the hon. members to think clearly and carefully before voting against it. [The motion was lost. ] head: PUBLIC BILLS AND ORDERS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT ORDERS (Second Reading) Bill 205 The Alberta Health Care Insurance Amendment Act (No.1) MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, in speaking to second reading of Bill No. 205, The Alberta Health Care Insurance Amendment Act (No. 1), I would like to say that I feel this bill is very timely and certainly of much interest to the people of Alberta. As I've travelled in my constituency and to many towns I have found many, many people saying this is a priority area for consideration at this point in time. I think with the opportunity of revenues, with the opportunity of a growing and stable economy in Alberta, Albertans are prepared to take this particular step.

The principles of Bill No. 205 are to make available all dental services for children under 7 years of age. It also supports the procedures that are used by the Alberta Health Care Insurance Commission at the present time. So there would be no administrative changes beyond adding this type of health care for the people of Alberta. One other thing this bill does, Mr. Speaker, is add to the present

Section 46 of the health care insurance bill, which is already operative for the present health care services. It adds dental service to

Section 46. This is one area I have been very concerned about in the last while. For example, in my constituency I have a family that has a hereditary dental problem. The children have the capability to inherit dental defects from the parents, and some have. To cure these defects costs the parents $600 a year for a period of 3 years. There are 5 children in the family. This could mean a sum of $1,800 times 5 for that particular family. Now, by bringing in this amendment to include dental care in the Alberta health care program,

Section 46 would also include the possibility of taking care of situations such as that, where there are foreseen or undue burdens of cost on the family. I think that's very, very significant and important to many Albertans at the present time. At present I have no knowledge of any legislation or government programs that have that particular capability. I think it's time we add that capability to our health care program. Now, what are some reasons for dental care?

The Hall Royal Commission on Health Services in 1964 said this: "Dental disease is one of the most common of all kinds of illness, and one that causes a good deal of pain and misery, inconvenience and economic loss." In a study in the United States at St. Louis, of 119,000 school children, 51 per cent had dento-facial abnormalities, of which 80 per cent could have been prevented if early treatment was available. People say, well, we could have done this as individuals. But other studies have taken place to show that there are three factors which depend on and determine whether individuals receive dental care.

First is income, second is education, and third is the urban and rural setting, or their environment or community. When locking at these 3 areas, the studies show that persons receiving dental care were usually in the high- and middle-income groups. These people received two and a half times as much dental care as the low-income groups. This was especially predominant for children under 15, where it was shown that 4 times as many children in the upper-income group received dental care as in the low-income group. What are some of the reasons that showed lack of dental care in that group?

The main item was cost to the parent. The second thing indicated in the studies was the group values on where the money was to be spent. It was shown that families who did have the funds placed dental care as a very, very low priority. Dental care was only sought in emergency situations. I think, Mr. Speaker, those types of studies indicate to me that certainly dental care at an early age, and an opportunity through the health care program, could be of great benefit. What about the administration of the program? I think there are some questions that can be answered.

I would urge that even after passing this kind of legislation, the government should set up some kind of commission, hearing, or body that could study the matter further, hold public hearings across the province, receive some briefs and take recommendations, because I think there are some basic questions to he answered.

472 ALBERTA HANSARD June 5, 1975 One, what about the expansion of the program? How should it be expanded? Should it stop at 12 years in the next step? Should it go further? Many studies feel this is a bad time to stop and that we should have across-the-board care for dental services. What about personnel? Should dental hygienists be used? Should there be encouragement of more dentists, more dental training facilities, at the present time? What about administering the program in schools, in mobile clinics? How can we better use present facilities to meet the dental needs in the province?

What will be the cost to government? Studies must be done for government to be able to predict the cost and its responsibilities, to be able to know, to have good data. I think that type of thing should be carried out. We should ask the question, should coverage of orthodontic and prosthodontic care be made available? In special circumstances, how would we deal with this? Could a board be established, so that where that type of care is necessary the board can make some kind of judgment on an application in that specialized area? I feel, Mr. Speaker, that we need to place an emphasis on prevention.

Certainly this bill, I feel, is an initial start in that direction. There can be some other things to go along with that, through educational programs and the urging of government. We can look at the area of water fluoridation, and certainly support that particular concept. Custom-fitted mouthguards can be used by children who are involved in many of our contact sports. As I observe children in their competitive activities in many communities, this is becoming part of their equipment, which I think is a very, very good idea.

We could look at the possibility of removing a number of the distributing machines for refined carbohydrates from the school systems, because we're finding that, in turn, causes a lot of dental decay. Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, I have found that my constituents and many people I talked to desire this kind of program. What is better evidence? During 1974, and during the time of the last Legislature, four or five of us, as members, put together questionnaires and surveyed not only our constituencies, but other areas of the province, the cities of Edmonton, Calgary, and rural constituencies.

We found, in my own personal survey -- 67 per cent of my constituents surveyed, and that was about 300 questionnaires sent out — that 67 per cent of them favored a denticare program up to the age of 12. In the constituency of Olds-Didsbury, we found that 69.5 per cent of them favored denticare. In the constituency of Sedgewick-Coronation, 78 per cent of those constituents wanted provincial denticare. In the constituency of Calgary Bow in Calgary, 85 per cent of the constituents there favored denticare for all Alberta residents. To me, Mr.

Speaker, that is excellent evidence that people at this time in our social growth and our social responsibility, the people of Alberta, the grassroots, are saying it is time we bring forth a denticare program so that type of service can be made available to Albertans. I think that's the kind of information we have to listen to. Ten years ago I'm sure I couldn't have been convinced of the position I'm supporting at this point in time. But Albertans are giving us that kind of direction, and I think we have to listen to that grassroots response at this time. Mr.

Speaker, I'd urge all of the members to support the idea of this bill, and I certainly support it in second reading. Thank you. MR. PLANCHE: Mr. Speaker, if I may vary from this topic just for a second, in my previous presentations to this Assembly I have been remiss in not paying tribute to my predecessor, Bill Dickie. I would like to indicate to the House now that his whole constituency is grateful for his tireless contribution over three terms and is genuinely sorry to see him withdraw, as I'm sure the rest of the members of the House are. [applause] I'd like to give thanks, also, to the hon.

Member for Little Bow for bringing to our attention his concern for the child dental care problem. I don't pretend to be an expert in the child dental care area. My remarks will be fairly brief, and based mostly on whatever research I have been able to do since this bill was introduced. My information is that the House wrestled with this problem in 1965, and again in 1970. At present, Canada's position is that four provinces, Mr. Speaker, intend to introduce some type of legislation; two have already introduced some type of legislation; and four, at this time, seem to have no intention of doing so.

Alberta's policy is one of comprehensive dental care for senior citizens, coverage for social assistance recipients, and pretty comprehensive public health preventative programs. I see the improvement areas without a broad brush program as being concentrated in education of parents for the use of these preventative programs. I see the province perhaps being in a position where they are going to have to actively support fluoridation. It's my information also that there is a study available on the statistics between the results in Edmonton and Calgary on fluoridated water.

I think we can also look at the presence of rotating teams of dental technicians going out on a regular basis, particularly to outlying settlements. I think we should, perhaps, concentrate more on the use of schools as a focal point of gathering in the children for regular dental inspection, rather than leaving it as a responsibility of the parents. The one thing the program has going for it is that it's easy to administer. You simply give money. On the other hand, the opinions of the experts are, or seem to be, that money is not necessarily the only solution to this problem, that those who can afford

June 5, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 473 it now are not always sending their children for dental care. But if they are, and can afford it, then we’d simply be subsidizing those people. For those who can't readily afford it and are sending their children, it wouldn't improve the situation by affording them more money. So it seems to me, the first step we have to take is to advertise the facilities we have, make a clear definition of what basic service is required under the plan, and see to it that the program is applied where most needed, that is to the children who aren't presently getting it.

The costs of this program, from what I'm able to read, vary considerably according to your source of information. Quebec appears to indicate that the costs are around $16 a child a year, based on 1975 costs. The best information I have for Alberta's estimate is that in 1971 they estimated $42 per child 6 and under. We seem to have a population of around 220,000 people, Mr. Speaker. If you expand the program into age groups up to, say, the age of 12 or 16, and take into account the inflationary factor, the numbers are absolutely mind-boggling.

This is another place where money seems to be in a position to be committed forever, because I've never seen a provincial plan, a dental plan, or a medical plan anywhere back down when, in fact, the future of our revenues is not that certain over a long period of time. On that basis, I can't support this scheme. It seems it would be an abdication of our responsibility as legislators simply to give money to a full spectrum of cases, when I think with some detailed study we can get the money and the technical care to where it should be. Finally, I would like to say, Mr.

Speaker, that if parents don't have some kind of financial participation in the problems of their children, it would seem to me there is not much possibility of them maintaining their children's dental health on an ongoing basis after their ages cause them to leave the plan. Thank you. MR. McCRAE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take this opportunity to offer a few comments on this subject. I think the bill is a timely one, I think it's well-intended, and I'd like to compliment the mover on sponsoring the bill at this time.

I'm a little surprised to hear the number of people in his constituency, and in others, who supported the bill, or the concept of a denticare program: upwards of 65 per cent in some of the constituency. I have to think, Mr. Speaker, that the support may be similar to the experience the Member for Drumheller had recently when he spoke to some of his constituents about the feasibility or the concept of a heritage fund.

As I understood his remarks, his constituents indicated to him that they did support the concept of putting oil and gas revenues away into a heritage fund for future projects for the benefit of future generations of Albertans. They supported the concept, but then immediately each of them came forward with a recommendation or suggestion for spending the money at this particular time, which of course derogates from the concept of a heritage fund. I suspect that is the reason so many of the hon. member's constituents and others support the denticare program. It sounds good. We would all like it.

We would all like to be relieved of the responsibility of the cost, but we don't know the cost of the denticare program. True, if we had a program we wouldn't individually have to pay for it, but the overall cost of a denticare program, I suspect, is beyond the capacity of the province or the provincial Treasury at this time. I say that, Mr. Speaker, because of the present high costs of health, hospital medicare, and the social services and community health care plan. These costs are so high, Mr. Speaker, that they caused comment in the Speech from the Throne this year.

If I might just read from that: . . . my government is increasingly concerned about the rapidly escalating costs of health services, and their impact in the years ahead on our tax paying citizens. Accordingly, a new Ministry of Hospitals and Medical Care will be proposed — it will seek to ensure quality in health services at reasonable cost. I don't think the bill is bad, Mr. Speaker. I just think it's premature. We don't have any idea what the cost would be, not only for the total population, but even for those under 7.

I think we can agree that if we get into a universal care program the cost would be astronomical. The first thing we would need would be a survey of the potential costs. We could do that. It wouldn't be difficult to find what the cost of a program for those under 7 would be. I think the population figure for those under 7 is suggested at 120,000, and I'm sure we could project the cost of a denticare program for them.

In any event, I understand that the Department of Hospitals and Medical Care and the Department of Social Services and Community Health are presently undertaking some sort of study, or will be in the near future. When we have that it will be more opportune to discuss a bill on this question. We are already, Mr. Speaker, having extreme difficulties in financing our present care programs for different categories of people who have handicaps of one sort or another. In Alberta we already have the highest standard of social benefits anywhere in Canada. Our recent budget expanded on that.

We have a $255 assured income program for senior citizens. We have expanded programs for the workers under the disability program. We have the lowest income tax in Canada. We have the lowest gasoline tax. We have a host of other social benefits here. So I don't really think there is the extreme concern in the denticare area. Might I comment, Mr. Speaker, that we do have a denticare program for senior citizens. They are already adequately covered. Also, there is a program available for those under social assistance. It's the in-between group we have to be thinking of when we get onto

474 ALBERTA HANSARD June 5, 1975 this topic. I know it's easy to be in support of a bill like this. None of us would like to close our hearts to a denticare program if it is feasible. The critical question is, is it feasible at this time? I don't think it is without a complete study. Many industry groups do have programs right now. They set up a volunteer insurance program where you pay a premium and denticare programs are made available to you. I think that's quite a common practice in the United States, and I am sure it will catch on and expand here.

I think that's one opportunity citizens have for getting involved in a program like this without involving the government. I don't think there's any doubt at all that if we embark on a program like this it's just one step towards a total denticare program. I am sure that comes out from the hon. member's remarks, because not only does he suggest a program for those under seven, but he then projects it going into the area of those who have continuing and very high medical or dental bills.

I can sympathize with him in wanting to extend it into that area, but I think we have be cautious, because once you get going on these programs there's just no stopping them. I appreciate that he would keep the administration of the program to a minimum by having it administered through the present health care plan. But again, regardless, it would take extra people and would cause enormous extra costs to the province.

I think some of the things we can do to prevent dental problems would be to give a little more encouragement to this type of thing: dental hygiene in the Early Childhood Services Program, which is substantially funded and financed by the government. I think if we encouraged the use of the toothbrush and dental hygiene programs on a regular basis among these young people, we would have far, far fewer dental problems than we have right now. Also, I think in the elementary schools there could be great encouragement given to the youngsters to carry out their own dental hygiene programs.

When I was a youngster that was the common thing. We were asked daily to stand up and identify whether we had used our toothbrush that morning. I think those kinds of programs should be encouraged and will be beneficial in reducing the health problems in this area. Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate that I could support this program; it's the kind of thing that does touch a sympathetic chord. But until we have a handle on our present health and medical care costs — they're consuming far in excess of 25 per cent of our budget — I think that is too much.

We don't want to deny anyone medical or hospital care, but we do have to understand where we're going. With our increasing population, with inflation in all areas and with particular inflation in those areas of hospitals and medical care, I think it would be irresponsible of us not, as I said, to get a handle on those costs, and then project what a denticare program might cost for various age categories before we attempt to go any further in this area. And so, Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to support the bill. But I cannot, in good conscience, do it at this time.

I think we need the costs, surveys, before we go any further at all. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. LITTLE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a few remarks to this subject. I would like to congratulate the hon. member for introducing this bill. It's certainly something we must all be in favor of. However, I can see many problems in instituting it. We have little experience, and lit