Alberta Hansard — 23 February 1973, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 17, Session 2)

19730223

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

February 23, 1973 ALBERTA HANSARD 7-227 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Friday, February 23, 1973 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 o'clock.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair.] head: PRESENTING PETITIONS MR. R. SPEAKER: I would like to present a petition to this Legislature on behalf of 235 constituents of Little Bow, who are concerned with the repeal of the Communal Property Act. Mr. Speaker, on their behalf I humbly pray this Legislative Assembly to take such steps as necessary to alleviate their concerns. head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to introduce a number of people from southern Alberta who have been here to make a presentation to the Premier. I certainly cannot name all of them at the present time. Mr. Dave Mitchell was the person who presented the submission to the government and has had a very excellent hearing in the past hour. I would like to have those people who are here with that delegation stand at this time and be recognized. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I have an introduction to make.

But before making the introduction, I would just like to join with the Member for Little Bow in extending our appreciation to those who have come the distance that they have to present this petition and to make the representations on behalf of these citizens. I think it is unfortunate that perhaps more were not able to come into the Building, Mr. Speaker, or to the galleries, although they are through the Building. They are being served coffee in the first floor cafeteria and are on conducted tours. Perhaps through the course of the afternoon more of them will be able to come in.

I would like to make an introduction, Mr. Speaker, to you, and through you to the members of the Legislative Assembly, of five people who are attending the All Chiefs Conference here. First of all, Miss Vicki Crowchild and Mrs. Helen Gladue of the Treaty Voice of Women. Would they please stand up and recognized. And with them in your gallery, Mr. Speaker, are Chief Morris McDougall, Chief Art Potts, and Chief Peter Joyce. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Youth, Culture and Recreation, followed by the hon. Member for Macleod. MR. SCHMID: Monsieur l'Orateur et Honorables Membres de L'Assemblee Legislative.

C'est avec honneur que je vous presente le directeur du Conseil Des Arts du Canada, Monsieur Andre Fortier. En outre d'etre un conferencier renomme et un grand canadien, Monsieur Fortier s'est distingue dans les domaines des finances, de la mathematique et de la statistique.

7-228 ALBERTA HANSARD February 23, 1973 Monsieur Fortier a aussi rempli avec destination le poste de sous secretaire d'etat sous l'honorable Gerard Pelletier. [The translation of the above as submitted to Hansard is as follows: Mr. Speaker, to you, and through you to the Members of the Legislative Assembly, I have the honour to introduce the Director of the Canada Council, Mr. Andre Fortier of Ottawa. Mr. Fortier, prior to being appointed director of the Council in May of last year, was and continues to be a noted Canadian financier and lecturer in mathematics and statistics. Mr.

Fortier also served notably as Under Secretary of State to the Honourable Gerard Pelletier. ] As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the Canada Council is the vehicle through which the federal government has chosen to sustain, develop and enhance Canadian cultural development. I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to inform the House that Monsieur Fortier and I have met today, and will meet regularly in the future to set the course for a strong and decisive future of development in the arts in Alberta. I would like the Director of the Canada Council, Mr. Andre Fortier, to rise and be recognized. MR. BUCKWELL: Mr.

Speaker, an apology to Chief Morris McDougall. I'm sorry I can't introduce my group from Blackfoot, but I have great pleasure to introduce to you, and to the members of the House, some 35 army cadets from the corps at Fort Macleod and Pincher Creek. They are accompanied by their O/C Captain Chell, Lieutenant Frail, Reverend Ron Hunt, and their driver Gino Farrel. I ask that they rise and be recognized. MR. D. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce to you and through you to the members of the Assembly 45 members of the Coaldale-Lethbridge 4H Beef Club.

They are here with their leaders, celebrating their 50th anniversary of their organization. Their leaders are Mr. Sigamoto, Mr. Nicol, one of the original members since 1923, Mrs. Bound, Mrs. Vasalenik, Mr. Balview and Mr. Bowen. I would appreciate it if they would rise and be recognized. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with the hon. Premier and the hon. Member for Little Bow in welcoming the delegations today, particularly the delegation from the Drumheller constituency which is led by Alderman Reverend Grove of the City of Drumheller. I have great pleasure, Mr.

Speaker, in introducing to you and to the hon. members of this Legislature three Grade 9 classes from the thriving town of Strathmore. These boys and girls -- or young men and young women — are in the Social Studies class, and make it a point to study all aspects of social credit - - [Laughter] --Let me finish -- all aspects of socialism, progressive conservatism and liberalism. They want to hear the whole gamut and then make up their minds! In that connection I was very happy to welcome them to one of the pre-sessional meetings in Strathmore where they took a very active

part in questioning their MLA. This delegation is headed by Mr. Ternan, the enthusiastic teacher of Social Studies, and Mrs. Gray, also a teacher. They are accompanied by the following persons from the Strathmore area, Mrs. Demott, Mrs. Ternan, George Lougheed, Bud Binning, Ron Hendriks and Joe Thurston. I would ask them to stand and be recognized so we can give them an enthusiastic welcome to our capital city. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Land Use Regulations MR. HENDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Premier.

I wonder if he could advise the House as to whether a draft of the proposed land use regulations will be tabled in the House before March 1? And while I am on my

February 23, 1973 ALBERTA HANSARD 7-229 feet, could I also ask whether there will be hearings before the Standing Committee of the Legislature on Public Affairs, Agriculture and Education before the land use regulations are implemented? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I am not able to give an answer to the hon. Leader of the Opposition on that matter today. We certainly want to give due consideration to the representations that we have received today. We will be considering the matter over the weekend and we may have something further to say about the matter early next week. MR. SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Clover Bar, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary Bow. ADAPP Foundation DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question to the hon. Minister of Health and Social Development, and I would ask the minister if there are any provincial funds going out to the ADAPP Foundation. It is a drug rehabilitation centre north of Lamont. I wonder if he can supply any information? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for giving me advance notice of his question in order that I could look into it.

The organization in question is one that is fully funded by federal programs, and because of that, the province does not provide any portion, according to my information, of the funds they receive. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, some of the people, I've been told, who are on welfare are receiving provincial funds and are having treatment out there. This was my concern. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, unless I am missing the significance of it, it would seem to me that where they receive their treatment isn't all that important in the long run.

The fact that they're on a provincial program, as far as income support is concerned, is quite a separate matter from the question of treatment if they require it at any institution, be it provincial or federal. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary Bow followed by the hon. Member for Calgary Mountain View. Communal Property Act MR. WILSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Minister Responsible for Rural Development.

Does the government have any indication of how much Alberta land is presently under option by communal or corporate farmers for purchase, pending the announced March 1 repeal of The Communal Property Act? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered that in relationship to the same subject from the question of the Leader of the Opposition. That matter deals with the same matter of land-use regulation and I said we would have further to report on that matter over the weekend. MR. WILSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Indications are that there has been land optioned and I was asking if the government had any indication of how much land was under option.

7-230 ALBERTA HANSARD February 23, 1973 MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, the question still applies and my response is the same. That particular matter, to the extent that the government has information would be dealt with at the same time any response is made on the other matter. MR. WILSON: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely all questions relating to the repeal of The Communal Property Act won't be ruled out of order today? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has asked for a specific item of information. The hon. Premier has indicated that that information may be available, as I understand it, some time next week.

There is really no point of order that I can see in the discussion. MR. WILSON: Mr. Speaker, may I ask another question to the hon. Minister without Portfolio? How -- MR. SPEAKER: It is a supplementary, is it? MR. WILSON: It is a related question, yes Sir. How many -- MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps we should see how related it is. MR. WILSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. How many new communal or corporate farms does the government expect will move into Alberta from other provinces after the repeal of The Communal Property Act? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, the same answer applies to the last one. MR. SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Calgary Mountain View followed by the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview. Alberta Liquor Prices MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. minister in charge of liquor, whoever he is. In view of the fact that there was a $64.5 million profit in liquor from April 1 to March 31, 1972, I wonder if somebody on the government side could tell me the rationale that was used to determine the increase in sales tax on the liquor in this province? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, I really find it difficult to refer the question to a minister responsible for liquor, but I will be prepared to refer it to the minister who is responsible for the operations of the Alberta Liquor Control Board, and that is the Attorney General. MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I have the feeling there are some hon. members on the other side who may share some responsibility for liquor as well. AN HON. MEMBER: Agreed.

February 23, 1973 ALBERTA HANSARD 7-231 MR. LEITCH: I should say, Mr. Speaker, in connection with the price increase, or more accurately the mark-up increase, there was a price increase involving deposits and a price increase from the distillers which was passed on to the consumer. But primarily the increase is based upon the fact that in nearly all respects Alberta was charging less for all types of liquor than other provinces within Canada. These price changes brought Alberta more in line with other provinces. MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the hon. Attorney General.

Then his answer is that there was no real need for the increase in here except to -- MR. SPEAKER: Order please! The hon. member is not asking a supplementary; he is arguing. The hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview followed by the hon. Member for Pincher Creek-Crowsnest. MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, this was a supplementary for purpose of clarification -- MR. SPEAKER: Order please! The hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview, followed by the hon. Member for Pincher Creek-Crowsnest. Industrial Dispute - Red Deer MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Industry and Commerce.

On Tuesday of this week you indicated that Tartan Breweries had received a grant of some $500,000 on the Red Deer operation. My question to you is, can you advise the Legislature when this grant was paid, if it has been paid, and on what date? MR. PEACOCK: Mr. Speaker, the grant of up to $500,000 was awarded. It hasn't been taken down yet because the condition was that it had to be in production before the draw down could be taken. MR. NOTLEY: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the government considering any other form of financial assistance to Tartan Breweries in Red Deer? MR. PEACOCK: Mr. Speaker, no. MR.

NOTLEY: A supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Labour, Mr. Speaker. Can the hon. minister advise the House when the Industrial Relations Board will hold a hearing on the union request under

Section 102 of The Labour Act that the actions of Ginter constituted an illegal walk-out. MR. COOKSON: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. These questions were asked and explored at an earlier date and I am wondering whether in fact the member can raise these same issues at a later time. AN HON. MEMBER: The situation has changed today.

7-232 ALBERTA HANSARD February 23, 1973 MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I did not raise these specific questions at all. I raised other questions relating to the industrial dispute at Red Deer, but not these specific questions. Surely they would be in order. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, even if they had been raised before, the passage of time sometimes changes. But in this case the hon. member did not raise these questions at this session. MR.

SPEAKER: The Chair should really not be expected to weigh as to a nicety of changes which may take place with the passage of time, and I would have to rule that the question is in order. DR. HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, my report as of about 1:00 o'clock this afternoon is that the meeting will be convened within, but not likely before, two weeks. MR. NOTLEY: One final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Attorney General.

Is it true that the Liquor Control Board received a letter from the union concerning the concessions granted Ginter to sell beer produced in Manitoba at domestic prices in Alberta, and is it also true that the Liquor Control Board referred this letter to your office for consideration? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I can't answer that without checking. I am prepared to check for the hon. member and let him know at a later date. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Pincher Creek-Crowsnest followed by the hon. Member for Lacombe. Mobile Homes MR. DRAIN: My question is to the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Speaker.

I am wondering whether there is any consideration being given to increasing the obsolescence on mobile homes for municipal tax purposes or a downward revision of the assessment rate? MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, as some members may be aware, there was a downward revision made last year with respect to the assessment table relating directly to obsolescence, and that was only done last year. I think we would like to see how that operates at least for a year before we would consider another change. We have kept in fairly close contact with mobile home associations with respect to that and other matters. MR.

DRAIN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the hon. minister aware that because of the very high mill rate in the Crowsnest Pass trailer owners have to pay a very onerous amount, up to $600 or $700 on a trailer? MR. RUSSELL: Well, Mr.

Speaker, we are aware that not only in the Crowsnest Pass -- specifically Bellevue for example -- but also in some other parts of the province -- I think of the Town of High Level -- the very high local municipal mill rate does render a hardship, not only on mobile home owners but on all home owners, and of course, that is one reason why the property tax reduction plan is made applicable to both kinds of homes.

February 23, 1973 ALBERTA HANSARD 7-233 MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Little Bow followed by the hon. Member for Drumheller. Communal Property Act (Cont.) MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Premier. In light of the fact that a number of my constituents, and different people, are unable to be here in the delegation today, I would like to ask the Premier to respond to the four items of the brief today so that it can be in the record for their reading opportunity.

The question I asked the Premier is as follows: What is the government's reaction to the four items in the brief as follows: (1) the delay and repeal of The Communal Property Act, (2) that you enact an immediate temporary land freeze, (3) that you establish a land use commission, (4) that a committee be struck which could be heard on the floor of the Legislature after examining the problem that was presented. MR. SPEAKER: The nature of the question, without in any way belittling its importance, is clearly one which under the rules would require to be put on the Order Paper as a written question.

It is a long question and it may involve a long answer. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I think I can give a short answer. I would like to put on the record the same things to the word that I said on the steps of the Legislature. I am having that transcribed and after the weekend I will table the transcript. If the hon. members wish me to read it all out again I will do so, but I hope they will take it as an accurate transcript of what I said. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Drumheller, followed by the hon. Member for Olds- Didsbury . Wholesale Purchases MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Industry and Commerce. With reference to the excellent submission by Mr. Dan Taylor of Hussar, who is in our gallery today, have you given any consideration to restricting wholesale purchases by groups such as the Hutterian Brethren? MR. PEACOCK: No, Mr. Speaker. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I object to that question. I do think that question is exactly along the line of the former answer I gave. MR. TAYLOR: A point of order, Mr. Speaker, this is dealing with an entirely different matter. It's dealing with the purchase of wholesale.

If our ordinary farmers can't buy wholesale, why should this group buy wholesale? MR. SPEAKER: It's impossible for the Chair to say specifically that the question is in order because the reference in the previous question indicates that the previous question -- with which the hon. Premier has already dealt -- is of a very great extent and scope. May I suggest to the hon. member that after the transcript mentioned by the Premier has been provided, if that does not answer the question he is now asking that he might put the question again in the question period next week.

7-234 ALBERTA HANSARD February 23, 1973 MR. TAYLOR: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker. My question does not in any way touch on the point raised by the hon. Premier and the hon. Member for Little Bow. So I can’t see why we should wait for the transcript. MR. PEACOCK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to that question because it is commercial connotation rather than social problems that are involved. I would say that, at this time we have not taken it into consideration. MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, in connection with the same submission.

Is the hon. minister giving any consideration to having some type of inspection carried out on farm produce that is sold from door-to-door? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Olds -- MR. TAYLOR: Is there no answer, Mr. Speaker? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Drumheller is surely aware of the rules with regard to answers, and as to whether they are required and also as to whether a comment is permitted on an answer or no answer. [Interjection.] Order please. The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary Millican. Communal Property Liaison Committee MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. Will he be tabling in this Legislature, yearly, a report of the activities of the advisory committee, headed up by Mr. Platt -- the Communal Property Liaison Committee? MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, that is one of the things we are giving very careful consideration to. As you know the committee is just commencing its activities, and I think the point the hon. member has made is a good one with respect to the tabling of an annual report. MR. CLARK: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Has the minister appointed the other members of the committee, and has the committee already commenced to deal with the problems at hand? MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, the other members of the committee have been appointed; some have started to work, and some of them have not. Their official commencement date is March 1. MR. STROM: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the hon. minister. Have the guidelines been given to the committee so that they will know what is expected of them, or what directions have been given to them? MR. RUSSELL: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

There are guidelines which I think could be tabled in the House if the hon. members would be interested in our doing so.

February 23, 1973 ALBERTA HANSARD 7-235 MR. STROM: Would he undertake to table them at the earliest convenience? I would be interested in having them. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister. Were these guidelines -- MR. SPEAKER: Order please. For the record, since Hansard is unable to record gestures, it should be recorded that the hon. minister has agreed to the request that the guidelines be tabled. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Were these guidelines established by a negotiation procedure between the Hutterian Brethren and the government? MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that the guidelines are a result of the work of a special select committee of the Legislature that looked into the problem; specifically we recommended that such a liaison committee be established. MR. R. SPEAKER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister. Were these guidelines among the items which the Minister without Portfolio Responsible for Tourism requested should not be made public? Is this one of the items? MR.

RUSSELL: I don't think so, Mr. Speaker: not to the best of my knowledge. I see no reason why the work and objectives of the committee shouldn't be given the widest public distribution possible. MR. WILSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. Were any women considered for appointment to this committee? And if not, why not? MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I think that the member should bear careful attention to the process that was used.

Various organizations deemed to have an interest in the make-up of the committee were each asked to nominate and select their own members, and the government merely accepted the recommendations and the nominations from the various groups, the School Trustees Association, Rural Association, the Hutterian Brethren themselves, Unifarm, and I could go on down the list. In all cases their nominees were accepted. Now why they didn't select a woman, I could only guess. MR. WILSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. So I fully understand then from the Minister of Municipal Affairs that no women were nominated by any group?

MR. RUSSELL: Well, Mr. Speaker, just to make it very simple, so the hon. member can understand what I am saying -- the nominations were requested from the groups. We received their nominations, and appointed those nominees to the committee. Now, I don't really know what process they went through, or whom they accepted or rejected in their own various selections. MR. LUDWIG: A supplementary to the hon. minister. Will the minister be proposing legislation to approve the appointment of the Communal Property Liaison Committee or is it established legally on present legislation?

7-236 ALBERTA HANSARD February 23, 1973 MR. RUSSELL: It's established legally, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary Millican, followed by the hon. Member for Wainwright. Water Resources - Bow River MR. DIXON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question today to the hon. Minister of the Environment. Did the City of Calgary have an actual authorization from the province to commence work on the straightening out of the Bow River in Calgary? MR. YURKO: Mr.

Speaker, when work of such a nature is done, there is a requirement to obtain a permit from the Water Resources Division under The Water Resources Act. No such permit was obtained. MR. DIXON: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the minister has more or less put a stop-work order on it until studies are carried out. I understand that the City of Calgary has requested the province to -- MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member come directly to the question. MR. DIXON: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

My question is, that since the City of Calgary has requested that the minister reconsider his decision, has he made up his mind as to whether he is going to continue with the stop order, or reconsider his decision? MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, in regard to issuing a stop order, I want to inform the House that, in fact, I have issued a stop order, so that all work cease until certain matters are carried out, the first being an environmental impact study of the total project in regard to flood control over Bow River through the city of Calgary. The second is that the reports be finalized, and issued and made public.

These reports should be finalized by Montreal Engineering shortly, and will be released at the earliest opportunity. The third, of course, is that last November the government issued a policy in regard to cost-sharing of these types of projects. In this particular project, the provincial government would obviously be involved, so it is necessary for the provincial government to know the total cost of the operation and, in fact, approve funds if necessary for this total operation.

The fourth requirement was that when the information is all in hand, in regard to a policy established by the government, public hearings will necessarily be held. The people involved will know what, in fact, is being done, both by the city and the province. MR. DIXON: My last supplementary - MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary from the hon. Member for Calgary North Hill. MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary for the hon. Minister of the Environment. Was the City of Calgary proposing to widen the channel beyond the

February 23, 1973 ALBERTA HANSARD 7-237 recommendations of the consultants? Were they proposing, in other words, to do more to the south channel, than removing the fill layer placed on the south bank? MR. YURKO: Yes, that is correct, Mr. Speaker. The city was proposing to do some additional work on the south side of the channel in regard to the island. To my knowledge this work was not recommended in the draft report that was given to us by Montreal Engineering. MR. DIXON: My supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is that the stop order has resulted in considerable expense to the City of Calgary.

Is the province going to share in this expense caused by the delay? MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, whether or not the province will share in the expense is associated with the fact that the work has been done without a permit. All I can say is that when the entire package is reviewed, in regard to our policy established last November, the matter of cost-sharing and the degree of cost- sharing will be brought before government. It will be considered at that stage. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Wainwright followed by the hon. Member for Calgary Bow. Fuel Oils Price Increase MR.

RUSTE: My question is to the hon. the Premier. Has the government made any representations to the oil industry as a result of the across-the-board price increase in gasoline, oils and fuels, which, in effect, to many in the agricultural field, such an increase would be greater than the educational tax rebate? MR. LOUGHEED: Well, Mr. Speaker, I completely disagree with the conclusion of the question raised, and in fact, feel that the increase in the wellhead price is to the Province of Alberta.

The fact that 85 per cent of the production from this province is consumed outside the province is a tremendous benefit to the people of Alberta. MR. RUSTE: Supplementary question to the Premier. Does he not feel that the increase in the fuels will add up to a greater portion than what is rebated to the farming? I'm talking about the farming industry. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I absolutely don't and would welcome -- as I'm sure a number of others would -- a very good debate on that subject. MR. DIXON: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. I wondered if the government, Mr.

Premier, were going to interfere with contracts within their province that are selling at less than the wellhead price? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure I fully understood the import of the question, perhaps the hon. member could elaborate upon it. MR. DIXON: As an example, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Premier, the contract with Great Canadian Oil Sands is 10 cents a cubic foot. They don't expect it -- and, even with an increase, they don't expect it to go much above what we would be demanding or suggesting as a price at the wellhead. And would we be interfering with those contracts?

7-238 ALBERTA HANSARD February 23, 1973 MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, that is not a question that I think I can answer in the Question Period because it deals with an elaboration of the way in which our two-price gas system would operate. I would prefer that that matter be left, and I will take note of it so either the Minister of Mines and Minerals or myself can deal with it during course of debate. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary Bow, followed by the hon. Member for Drayton Valley. Cabinet Meeting Schedules MR. WILSON: I would like to direct a question to the hon. the Premier. When will the government begin to

schedule cabinet meetings throughout the province? MR. LOUGHEED: In October, 1972. AN HON. MEMBER: Big deal. Why didn't you get out there? MR. WILSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. the Premier. Would you consider scheduling a cabinet meeting in Vulcan? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt, because of the practice we have developed, that when we have the cabinet meetings in a given centre, such as we had at Grande Prairie in October, 1972, we will have those cabinet meetings.

The cabinet meetings will conclude at a particular centre, such as Grande Prairie, but it will be the intention of the cabinet to move in the entire surrounding areas. And when the time comes during our first term of office to have a cabinet meeting in the southern Alberta area, there is no doubt in my mind that I will look forward to the opportunity to visit Vulcan, among other areas. MR. BARTON: A supplementary question, I think, while we are talking about cabinet meetings. Would the Premier see that all newspapers in the area get copies of the advertising that goes out? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, we will do our best to accede to the hon. member's request. MR. COOKSON: A supplementary to the Premier. Are any cabinet meetings scheduled in the forseeable future in areas where cabinet meetings have not been held prior to this time? MR. LOUGHEED: Well, in the future we are going to be scheduling meetings throughout almost the entire province. It is our intention that we continue our practice of moving as extensively as we can throughout the province when the House is not in session, and in some particular cases that are of an emergent nature it may be necessary for us, Mr.

Speaker, to have a number of the ministers out of the House during the course of the session to meet any emergent problem. But we would be scheduling them throughout all of the province. Whether we will have an opportunity to return shortly to the Grande Prairie area is doubtful, because of the size. We did have an excellent series of cabinet committee meetings that went into the Fort McMurray area, and I think they made some considerable progress.

February 23, 1973 ALBERTA HANSARD 7-239 MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Premier. Are not the things the cabinet does more important than what the cabinet does not do -- MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. member is clearly debating. The hon. Member for Drayton Valley, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary Mountain View. Tourist Facilities Expansion MR. ZANDER: My question is to the hon. Minister of Tourism. Are there any expansions expected in the tourist facilities in the Province of Alberta during the year 1973? And if so, in what areas may we expect to find expansions? MR.

DOWLING: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would imagine there would be a great deal of expansion in tourist facility development throughout the province. Most of it, I would suspect, would involve private sector money and loans through ordinary banking institutions. But in addition to that, I understand from the Alberta Opportunity Company, in my very little dealing with it, that there are a number of applications pending now for developments that will take place in just about every area of the province.

The ones I am particularly excited about are the ones for the Peace River country and for the areas that truly need some facility development. So I look forward to an exceptional year, primarily because the people of Alberta are recognizing the value of their tourist industry as a service industry, a hospitality industry, vital to the economy of our province. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary Mountain View, followed by the hon. Member for Taber-Warner. Bill of Rights - Separate Schools MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. the Premier.

Has he received any representations from the Separate School Board with regard to their status in the province being affected by The Bill of Rights? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, it was my intention a couple of days ago to determine whether or not representations had actually come to my office. I would recognize that there is some correspondence on that regard. I would have to check that particular matter, and will try to report to the hon. member the first of the week. Amendments - The Bill of Rights MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, supplementary.

Is the Premier intending to propose any amendment to The Bill of Rights during this session? MR. LOUGHEED: No, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Taber-Warner not being in the House at the moment -- MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I think I should elaborate on that last question, because I have had a sense of some element of public confusion with regard to what might be implied in that question. If hon. members will recall, it isn't so much the question of an amendment to The Alberta Bill of Rights that is pertinent; it's the issue of whether or

7-240 ALBERTA HANSARD February 23, 1973 not other statutes should be amended to provide for a "notwithstanding" clause if deemed necessary. And so, for example, if a situation develops, and that matter is raised, the probabilities would be that rather than an amendment to The Alberta Bill of Rights, what one might see is an amendment to another statute that provides for something that might occur, notwithstanding The Alberta Bill of Rights. MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, supplementary. My question was not concerned with the reply the hon. Premier gave.

I was concerned about whether he was going to propose any amendment to The Bill of Rights dealing with ministers violating The Bill of Rights. MR. LOUGHEED: We’ve been waiting with bated breath for the hon. member to make that political move himself. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to the Minister of Education. Does the government plan on introducing amendments to The School Act that would deal with representation that was made by the Catholic School Trustees as a result of The Bill of Rights being passed in the last session? MR. HYNDMAN: Certainly no decision, Mr. Speaker, has been made on that.

A very effective representation was made by the Alberta Roman Catholic School Trustees' Association. However, it is my initial

interpretation that the historic rights with respect to employees, which have been available to the Catholic school system, indeed, since Alberta was a province in 1905, have not and will not be impaired by The Bill of Rights. However, we are having the law officers of the Crown give us an opinion on that. Depending on what their recommendation is, we then will look at whether any changes should or should not be made. MR. HENDERSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, back to the Premier.

I wonder if the Premier could advise us when the government's study into the desirability of inserting any "notwithstanding" clause into legislation will be completed? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I believe that would refer to the same series of questions the hon. Leader raised earlier with regard to a follow-up to the question from the Member for Hanna-Oyen. And if my memory serves me right, there is a motion on the Order Paper somewhat to the effect about when I am going to be in a position to table that report, or if the report exists.

I thought I said that I'd check back and try to give an answer because it relates to the question as to the status of the review we are undertaking relative to the possibility of any sort of amendments to other statutes arising out of The Bill of Rights. MR. TAYLOR: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Minister -- MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the last supplementary on this point? MR. TAYLOR: Supplementary to the hon. Minister of Education. Is the hon. minister considering any changes with reference to the rights of Hutterian children to an education in regard to private schools on colonies? MR.

HYNDMAN: That's a matter which I think we will be addressing ourselves to, and are continuously doing so, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Highwood, followed by the hon. Member for Drumheller.

February 23, 1973 ALBERTA HANSARD 7-241 Crown Grazing Leases MR. BENOIT: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Lands and Forests. It has to do with tendering on Crown grazing leases by a number of qualified lessee candidates in situations where more than one candidate qualified. Has the government given any consideration to the possibility of deciding on the disposition of Crown leases by lottery, instead of by tender, in order to prevent the high-priced tendering from unduly inflating surrounding land values? DR. WARRACK: Mr.

Speaker, no, as a matter of fact we haven't, but that strikes me as a suggestion that is worth some pretty thorough consideration. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Drumheller, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary McKnight. Hutterian Brethren - Land Acquisition MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address a question to the hon. the Premier. It is with reference to a broadcast. Is there an agreement between the government and the Hutterian Brethren regarding the acquisition of land? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, he was talking about a broadcast. I didn't get the import of that question. MR. TAYLOR: Mr.

Speaker, this morning there was a broadcast indicating there was some secret agreement between the government and the Hutterian Brethren in connection with the acquisition of land. My question is, is there an agreement of this nature between the government and the Hutterian Brethren? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I know of no such agreement and I'm not aware of the broadcast the hon. member is referring to. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for -- MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary then, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Minister of Tourism. Were the guidelines, as set out in your report, discussed in detail with the Hutterian Brethren?

MR. DOWLING: Mr. Speaker, these guidelines were developed in the report. I would imagine they were discussed by the members of the advisory committee on which are two representatives from the Hutterian Brethren. There is definitely, Mr. Speaker, no agreement between the Hutterian Brethren and the government regarding the acquisition of land. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister. In discussing the guidelines, was there any consideration given to having only two colonies per year established in the province of Alberta? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, I think that question reached the point on that last point that fits the answer to the very first question. We will try to have a statement with regard to the matter of land-use regulation at that time.

7-242 ALBERTA HANSARD February 23, 1973 MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary McKnight. Alberta Health Care Commission MR. PURDY: I have a question for the hon. minister, Miss Hunley, Minister Responsible for The Alberta Health Care Commission. Is there any decision forthcoming from the commission regarding the extension of Medicare coverage to other health services beyond those now presently covered? MISS HUNLEY: No, Mr. Speaker, there is not anything definite. It is a matter requiring extensive review and consideration; we receive many submissions requesting extension of services. MR. PURDY: A supplementary.

Have you had any response from the groups involved, to your suggestion in the speech to the Alberta Medical Association, that all groups involved in health services and delivery in Alberta meet to discuss changes in Medicare? MISS HUNLEY: Yes, I am pleased to answer that question, Mr. Speaker. I have had response. It has all been favourable. They are quite enthusiastic about sitting down with one another and discussing where we should be going in Alberta in the future. I think it would be very constructive. MR. HENDERSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if the minister responsible for Medicare could advise the House whether they are contemplating including the cost of the compulsory driver medical examination for the elderly under the Medicare program? I realize it is not shareable with the federal government, but are they considering it? MISS HUNLEY: It is one of the many benefits we have been asked to extend. If I say no, we haven't considered it, that would not be true. We have considered it, but it is not my intention to recommend it at the present time. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege arising out of the

article printed in this thing -- MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member wish to raise the point of privilege during the question period or -- DR. BUCK: I thought it was over. MR. SPEAKER: It will be presently. ORDERS OF THE DAY head: Motion to Adjourn MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to make a motion, seconded by Mr. Gordon Taylor, the hon. Member for Drumheller, for the adjournment of the Assembly for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, as per

Section 23, subsections 1, 2, and 3 of The Rules, orders, and Forms of Procedure.

February 23, 1973 ALBERTA HANSARD 7-243 In the interest of private landholders in many rural communities of Alberta, whose future may be jeopardized by the continued acquisition of large land holdings by groups of individuals, whether corporate or special status groups in Alberta, it is of urgent public importance for this Assembly to immediately discuss actions for the government to take to deal with this pressing problem. I give four reasons, Mr.

Speaker, for raising this matter at this time; firstly, we have had representation from a number of Alberta citizens with this question in mind; secondly, the rather casual approach taken at the present time with regard to the land-use policy in the Province of Alberta; thirdly, my information has it that there are a number of acres at the present time under option to real estate agents ready to form colonies and other large land units; and fourthly, the repeal of The Communal Property Act is to come forward on March 1 of 1973. MR. SPEAKER: I should like first of all to thank the hon.

Member for Little Bow for having given the Chair notice of his intention to ask for leave under Rule 23. I should say that there is some doubt in the mind of the Chair as to whether on a request for leave it is in order to give the reasons for requesting leave. Ordinarily those would come out in the course of the debate if leave were given. However, I have had an opportunity to consider the very important request of the hon. Member for Little Bow, and I must say that, as the House is probably aware, a debate under Rule 23 of our rules is a most exceptional matter. The rule, it is true, is there.

It is common, I believe, to most of the jurisdictions which follow the British tradition, but the history of the application of the rule, without wanting to be bound now by my assessment of the statistics, would be that perhaps an application of this kind succeeds once perhaps every 50 or 100 times. Nevertheless, the rule has its value. Now it isn't for me to say whether the rule is one that should be followed, or is good or not. My duty is to apply the rule as it is. And while acknowledging that the matter which has been raised by the hon.

Member for Little Bow is of the utmost importance, and I might even say of urgency, it is not the urgency of the matter which determines whether or not leave should be granted under Rule 23. As has been stated previously, and is apparent from many precedents, some in our House and many in the House of Commons in Ottawa, it is the urgency of debate. In other words, is it absolutely urgent that the matter be debated at this time, not is the matter itself urgent. There are many urgent matters which would be quite out of order for debate in the House regardlesss of how urgent they may be.

But the question is whether it is urgent that the matter be debated at this time, and unless that is clearly apparent it is the duty of the Chair to deny the request for leave, and I find that that is what I must do in this instance. MR. HENDERSON: On a point of order, has the Chair taken into account the statement the Premier has made that he would be announcing something on this matter in the House next week?

Is he taking into account the desirability of giving an opportunity for the members to place their views on record in order to expedite the government's action in this regard, the question of land-use regulations? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the point of order. From this side of the House, we would welcome these views during the course of debate on the Speech from the Throne as a specific reference to the matter is raised within the Speech from the Throne.

Members on this side of the House, and all members I am sure, would welcome during the course of debate, both this afternoon and through the early part of next week, extensive views expressed from the other side. I think the citizens of Alberta are very interested in the position that the official opposition parties may take on this matter regarding land-use legislation. We will welcome during the course of debate the expansion of their views, so that we might have an understanding of the position they take on this important matter. MR. TAYLOR: Mr.

Speaker, with respect on a point of order, I would submit that page 90 of Beauchesne indicates that the Speaker's responsibility is to determine if the motion is in order, and that there the Speaker's responsibility ends. I respectfully submit that it is not the function of the Speaker to decide whether

7-244 ALBERTA HANSARD February 23, 1973 it is urgent or whether it is not. He simply has to determine under Beauchesne whether the motion is in order, and if it is in order, then the House decides whether we proceed. I would respectfully submit this for your consideration. MR. SPEAKER: The point raised by the hon. Member for Drumheller undoubtedly is very interesting, but in determining whether the request for leave is in order, the paramount consideration for the Speaker is the urgency of debate.

And with great respect to the honourable and experienced Member for Drumheller I would suggest that the portion which he has cited from this particular annotation 100 in Beauchesne may not be taken by itself and out of context, but must be read along with

Section 3 of that annotation. Now with regard to the debate on the point of order, as was mentioned in this House last year when, I believe on the second day of the sittings, the hon. Member for Drumheller applied for leave under Rule 23, once the Chair has ruled on a point there is no way, regardless of the cogency or compelling nature of any argument which is submitted afterwards, for the Chair to deal with that ruling again. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I accept your ruling. It would appear that we have to try 97 more times before succeeding. MR.

SPEAKER: The Chair is unable to express its statistical opinion at this time. DR. WARRACK: Mr. Speaker, may I proceed? It's my very great pleasure this afternoon to announce an important program in the area of the preservation and expansion of something that we all value very much in Alberta, and that's the fish of Alberta, the wildlife of Alberta, big game, upland bird, the entire area of wildlife. I announce that a special Fish and Wildlife habitat development program will be implemented by the Alberta Government in this year, 1973.

The program will be known as "A Buck for Wildlife." The program will be supported by Alberta sportsmen through contribution of a buck -- one dollar -- on hunting and fishing licence fees. The funds will be utilized by the Fish and Wildlife Division to acquire, maintain and manage or otherwise preserve our diminishing fish and wildlife habitat. The program will include the acquisition of and/or improvement of critical wintering areas for a variety of game and other wildlife species. In addition - - [Interjections] Thank you.

In addition, the protection and development of streams and fishing lakes will be emphasized. The habitat efforts will be geared to result in maintenance and increasing the wildlife carrying capacity of certain ranges that can provide for reductions and prevention of winter mortality. Efforts will also be made to provide more sport fishing opportunities near urban centres. The "A Buck for Wildlife" program will allow the Fish and Wildlife Division to integrate development with agriculture, forestry, mining and water resource interests for the multiple-use management of Crown lands. Certain projects, Mr.

Speaker, will be designed to serve as demonstration areas to inform the public of the need and type of habitat work possible by the Fish and Wildlife Division of this government. The "A Buck for Wildlife" habitat development program allows the Fish and Wildlife Division to take the initiative in promoting and modifying proposed land-use changes in Alberta that protect and improve the fish and wildlife habitat. The fish and wildlife resources of Alberta will thereby be safeguarded. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. I would like to thank the hon. minister for the flattery --

February 23, 1973 ALBERTA HANSARD 7-245 MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if the hon. member would just yield for a moment. I guess perhaps the hon. Opposition Leader doesn't intend to comment. Would the hon. member proceed then with the point of privilege? DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if this exactly fits, but I think possibly it will apply. The point of privilege I speak on is that the news release we received today tells only part of the story, and so with the members' indulgence for a few minutes I would just like to enlarge on the portion that has been left out of this, especially to the hon.

Minister of Tourism, Mr. Dowling, because -- MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I submit with respect that we simply don't have a point of privilege here. DR. HORNER: [Inaudible] DR. BUCK: No, no, I'm just saying the news release, hon. Minister of Agriculture, does not tell the true story. I think this is a point of privilege because it affects my people. It will only take three minutes, and I won't give anybody a hard time, hon. minister. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

The hon. member appears to be, perhaps, preparing to debate the veracity of a certain news release, and as I understand the remarks he has made thus far, he alleges that that news release is unfair to his constituents. The Chair has no jurisdiction whatsoever with regard to the constituents of the hon. member, and only if this is a point which relates to the privileges of the individual members of this House and their capacities as members of this House, may it be raised as a point of privilege. DR. BUCK: Well, Mr. Speaker, the point of privilege is that the news release does not tell the entire story. MR.

SPEAKER: I must repeat, even if that is so and concerning that I can express no opinion, in order for what the hon. member is saying to constitute a point of privilege, there must have been something which interferes or in some way reflects on the duties or activities of the members of the House, as members of the House.

An announcement which is made by a minister in his capacity as a minister is not -- and it has been so ruled on a previous occasion in Ottawa -- a basis for a point of privilege unless it affects the members of the House, as members of the House. head: FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF HIS HONOUR THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR'S SPEECH [Adjourned debate: Mr. Ludwig] MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, when I adjourned debate last Wednesday, I believe it was generally conceded that this is an historic session.

Many new things have developed in this session that have not happened before, and I believe that we could probably call this session a session of apologies. It was interesting, Mr. Speaker, that when the hon. members opposite were over here they had an awful lot of instant solutions to a lot of serious problems. We have had the benefit of hindsight; we have had the benefit of debate: we have had the benefit of the appointment of a legislative committee to study the Hutterite situation in Alberta.

We have had the further debate in the House, and it is quite clear now that they have got caught between two bases, not knowing which way to go.

7-246 ALBERTA HANSARD February 23, 1973 The history of this whole issue is very interesting. First of all the hon. Minister of Agriculture suspended the legislation, The Communal Property Act, when it was in full force and effect. Then later on, the hon. Premier introduced a Bill of Rights which in fact killed The Communal Property Act. Then they proceeded to repeal The Communal Property Act. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. If the hon. member is purporting to debate anything in relation to the amendment which was proposed to the motion and reply, such debate has been concluded, and the matter has been voted on.

I would draw the hon. member's attention to the text of the amendment, "We respectfully submit to your Honour that this Assembly regrets and deplores the action of the Alberta government in violating the spirit and intent of the Alberta Bill of Rights," and I would also respectfully direct the hon. member's attention to annotation 148 of Beauchesne. MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, with deference to the Chair, I believe that I was entitled to rely on your previous liberal

interpretations as to the relevancy of debate, two or three of which have been made in the last several days. Notwithstanding the fact that a motion was debated on this particular point, this matter is in the Speech from the Throne, and I am submitting, for your humble consideration, that reference in other instances to matters which are specifically in the Speech from the Throne do not kill it entirely from future debate. I would appreciate your reconsideration of the suggestion you made, and that I be permitted to deal with the Hutterite problem not in relation at all to the motion of non- confidence, Mr.

Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Certainly anything which the hon. member wishes to debate in relation to the Hutterites or communal property is in order as far as the Chair is aware. All I am saying is a matter which deals with the spirit and intent of The Alberta Bill of Rights as such has been disposed of in disposing of the event. MR. LUDWIG: Yes, I appreciate your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I'm dealing with the human rights references in the Speech from the Throne. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I stated, Mr. Speaker, the history of The Communal Property Act is extremely interesting.

First of all there was a suspension, and a legal suspension by the minister. Then there was a Bill of Rights that, in fact, killed it, and then there was a repeal of the act. At this point the government got confused a bit, and they decided not to proclaim the repeal of the act after all of the wonderful speeches in the House. Finally they announced that they will repeal the act, or proclaim the repeal of the act, on March 1, and for no reason whatsoever, Mr. Speaker, they moved forward from March 1.

Whatever the purpose of all this juggling is, I don't know whether they are trying to fool somebody or whether they just don't know any better, Mr. Speaker. But the whole thing boils down to this: the people who are affected by this legislation and by these manoeuvres of the government are caught without any remedy. They are left in suspense. The Hutterites are not happy, the farmers in the south are not happy, the Lougheed government can't possibly be happy, and on this side of the House we are wondering what is going on. MR. CRAWFORD: So are we. MR. LUDWIG: Yes, yes.

We are wondering what is going on and obviously, if we want to find out, we'll never find out from the Conservative government, Mr. Speaker. We've tried, and it appears that it is the Premier's prerogative to beat around the bush no matter what kind of question we give him on this issue or any other issue. So the situation now is that the government is talking about some kind of dragnet legislation that they are going to pass to catch everybody, and I'm of the opinion that right now they really don't know what they are going to do, but they are stalling for time.

They've had lots of time and these instant remedies

February 23, 1973 ALBERTA HANSARD 7-247 that they had, all the answers they had to problems of the public in Alberta, are non-existent. They are now stalling and manoeuvring for time. And I believe that this issue can not be resolved now to the satisfaction of the people or to the satisfaction of anyone without holding and conducting some public hearings right in this Legislature. I believe that the government has had ample time. They are well heeled with a battery of lawyers.

They've had a committee study this thing, and now they are thinking of somehow not bailing the people out, but probably bailing themselves out of a mess that they got caught in. They are now going to try to do indirectly what was attempted before directly. While I'm on this topic, I wish to express regret about the fact that there were a great number of high school students and young people in front of this Legislature today shivering in the cold, and no one had the decency to invite them in or to let them come in if they wished to.

But they had guards posted at the front door saying, "You can't come in." This is the people's Legislature, and they were entitled to come in. MR. FARRAN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. The point of order is this, Mr. Speaker: I know the hon. Member for Calgary Mountain View is saying this in ignorance, because he would never dream of saying something that wasn't true, but there were -- MR. LUDWIG: What's the point of order? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Would the hon. member resume his seat and permit the point of order to be stated so that we may -- MR. LUDWIG: With all due respect -- MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

If the hon. member persists in interfering with the remarks of the Chair I shall have to name him. Would the hon. Member for Calgary North Hill continue with his discussion of the point of order. MR. FARRAN: Well, I just draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that a number of us were standing on the steps of the Legislature when the Premier asked the delegation from Vulcan and elsewhere into the building for coffee and conducted tours, and as many as possible were seated in the gallery. MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to your decision, what was the point of order that I was interrupted on so rudely?

MR. FARRAN: The point of order is that the hon. member said that this was not so, that they were left out in the cold and they were not invited into the building, which was untrue. I'm not saying that he is telling a lie; I'm saying that he is misinformed. MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, that is not a point of order. It is a mere interruption and he is attempting to debate. I consulted several people at the front door and I said, "Why can't these people come in?" And they said they had been given instructions not to let them in. I am speaking the truth, Mr. Speaker.

One of these men was a plainclothes RCMP; don't let anybody challenge this, because we can check it out. I am not at all telling you something that is not true.

7-248 ALBERTA HANSARD February 23, 1973 Lots of the high school students were shivering outside and they were given the impression they should not come in. This was an orderly group. They were entitled to come in, but there was some resentment to having them come in en masse. I deplore that fact and certainly, Mr. Speaker, since I started speaking on Wednesday, I have been improperly interrupted by points of order for the sixth time. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Any hon. member has the right, if he considers it appropriate - - and concerning this the Chair is not in a position to impugn anyone's good faith -- to raise a point of order and to be heard concerning the point of order. There can be no question of manners or rudeness in such a thing. That is completely irrelevant. The hon. member has a right to raise the point of order and to have it dealt with. I would therefore respectfully suggest to the hon.

Member for Calgary Mountain View that he desist from further discussion of that line of complaint and that he revert to the debate of the point which is before the House. MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, I dealt briefly with the Hutterite issue. An interesting issue that has developed in this province is the matter of government advertising. I have in my hand here "A Progressive Conservative Government of Alberta Cabinet Meeting." It is a big ad, it is about three times as large as was needed for the purpose of making an announcement.

And I submit that an honest and proper thing to do with these political ads in the future is to put at the bottom "This ad is paid for by the taxpayers of Alberta." I submit, Mr. Speaker, if this was done, that the taxpayer would realize perhaps his money should be spent a little more wisely. But this ad that appeared in The Edmonton Journal about the cabinet meeting at Grande Prairie was extremely large and political, paid for by tax revenues. Mr.

Speaker, in dealing with the matter of cabinet meetings, I am rather impressed with the fact that the Premier is awfully anxious to take firsts -- to proclaim that what he did is first and historic. In this case, the Premier once more got caught in the confusion as to his own credibility. There have been cabinet meetings held by the previous government in other parts of the province, and the first people to do that were Social Credit. I believe that the Premier can probably check the record and stand up and admit that he tried to grab something that wasn't rightfully his.

Often when I watch the government trying to put its brand on something that Social Credit did, it reminds me of bygone days when, if you were caught putting your brand on someone else's steer, they would hang you. But nowadays it is popular for one politician of a party to come around and say, "Oh, no, we did it. They deserve a little bit of credit." I am making specific reference to the opening of the Court House in Edmonton. One of the serious issues confronting the people of this province is the matter of costs and inflation. I am sorry that the hon. minister Mr.

Miniely is not in the House; I wanted to impress upon him that in view of the fact that the provincial government is extracting more revenue from the oil industry, and we support that policy, it is only natural that the industry will attempt to pass some of the additional cost to the consumer. That is standard practice throughout Canada. It is standard practice here. But we are going to be getting more revenue from gas, more revenue from oil. Our coffers will be swelled, but already the consumer of Alberta is footing that bill.

He has, in fact, been hit by an indirect tax from one to two cents per gallon on gasoline. Here is a tremendous opportunity for the hon. members on both sides of the House to make an appeal to the government to pass some of the benefits of the extra money they are going to get directly to the people of this province. I urge the hon. minister, and the ministers in the front line, to give serious consideration to reducing the fuel tax sufficiently to alleviate or take away the increase which was passed on by industry to the consumer. This is an indirect tax and it is expected more of this will follow.

The theory that if the government takes more money from whatever industry, that that industry will pass the increases to the consumer, is well established. It is known practice. Therefore, the government has an opportunity of showing whether it can, in fact, pass the money on to the consumer rightfully from increased revenue, or whether the increased revenue will be lost by increased government expenses, by growth in government, by inflation in numbers -- for instance, in the Agriculture Department -- by taxing the people, by increased costs of government to the tune of many, many millions of dollars.

February 23, 1973 ALBERTA HANSARD 7-249 Before I finish, Mr. Speaker, I wish to impress upon the hon. Attorney General, and he is also not present -- apparently there are very few of them interested in the affairs of this province today -- that the matter of the facilities in our prisons in Alberta has become a very serious matter. I am going to urge upon him to bring forth some kind of program that shows there is concern for what is going on. Last, Mr.

Speaker, I wish to bring to your attention a problem I find extremely surprising, and that is dealing with the increased rates in Jubilee Auditoriums, for high school students' graduation ceremonies. This is indeed something I am surprised at. I have communicated with the high school students. They will be letting the Minister of Culture, Youth and Recreation know their stand -- they already have, to a certain extent -- but the issue is far from resolved. High school students don't get many opportunties to use these Jubilee Auditoriums, and when they do, they do not have to be hit for increased rates as the hon.

Minister of Culture, Youth and Recreation has done. It is amazing that the young people of this province were appealed to during the election, but they have not got a Conservative voice in this House. The voice of the Calgary and Edmonton high school students on this issue is not heard by the Conservative government. In fact, when I wrote to the hon. minister, Mr. Horst Schmid, that I would like to have him review this issue, he went to the press and told them that my campaign to upset this rather ridiculous decision would fail.

I'm also saying that this talk about input, input from the people, is just so much nonsense. The government is not interested in listening to the students. The government really is not interested in listening to the farmers today. The government is not listening to a lot of the labour problems on unemployment. The government is too busy doing its own talking. Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is a serious responsibility of this opposition -- bearing in mind the way the government is going -- to keep alert, to expose whatever we feel is not right at every instance, and not to let them get away with anything.

There are efforts made on perhaps close the lid -- keep the lid on some of behalf of this government to the issues the people want to know about -- for instance, AGT, government spending, many other issues the government would like to hush up a bit. They haven't been in office long and they are still blowing off about open government, but the relationship between what they say and what they do is very contradictory. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to state that we will continue to keep the government honest, if that is possible.

We will continue to see that the Premier means what he says -- doesn't say one thing in Calgary and one thing in Grande Prairie. We will continue to try to expose some of the things they are trying to cover up. We will also not accuse the government of playing pork- barrel politics. We are going to do our best to see that they don't get an opportunity to do so. MR. COOPER: I am pleased at this opportunity to speak on the Throne Speech -- MR. SPEAKER: I believe the hon. Member for Calgary McCall was on his feet first, followed by the hon. Member for Lacombe. MR. HO LEM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In rising to speak on the Speech from the Throne, I join with previous speakers in offering congratulations to the mover and the seconder. I do appreciate their efforts, made under a somewhat handicapped situation because of the lack of material in the Throne Speech, but I do offer them my congratulations at this time. I suppose, in our parliamentary system, that over the years we have come to expect and accept the fact that the Speech From the Throne would be a document which could be regarded as an outline of some of the governmental policies for the ensuing year.

I am surprised at the Throne Speech, in the main, comprised of inane statements, of generalities, of ambiguous statements, and something totally lacking of specifics. If it was intended to project a great cloud of confusion

7-250 ALBERTA HANSARD February 23, 1973 as to the actual intent and projection of government policies, let me say, Mr. Speaker, it has succeeded in doing just that. At this time, I do not know whether I should offer congratulations or condolences to the author of this year's Speech From the Throne, whoever that person might be, for his outstanding ability to carry on the present government traditions, and come up with 12 brand new pages of statements of vague astracts and generalities. The very first reference to legislative priorities is in the field of human rights.

Perhaps the government feels it has done a great thing for the people of Alberta in proclaiming The Alberta Bill of Rights and The Individual's Rights Protection Act. I must say I certainly agree with these bills, but I ask, really, how effective have they been? I do not intend, Mr. Speaker, to mention the Slave Lake incident to bring up my point because there are too many other examples of violations that affect many, many more people. I believe that in line with protecting the rights of our citizens, we cannot overlook the ever increasing problems of the growing and expanding official government bureauracy.

If we are to be honest with ourselves, we will admit that the elected representatives of the people are unable to fulfill their duties effectively in many, many instances because of red tape and

interpretation of legislation that has slipped through our fingers into the hands of the many, many growing government bureaurocrats. We must again make it possible for every citizen, regardless of what stage in life or what business they're in, to have a direct avenue to the source of complaint against government, whether we like to agree with them or not. We must establish with firm clarity, once and for all, that the servants of the government are the servants of the people, and not the reverse.

Government bureauracy has grown to the point where the citizens of Alberta would seem to be subservient to their dictatorship. If we are really serious about individual rights, and really serious about providing personal initiative and resourcefulness without undue governmental interference, we must insist and insure that the explicit wishes and intents of the Legislature are carried out; not only by the employees of the government, but indeed by the elected representatives of the people. I am more than a little concerned that our labour legislation may not be compatible with The. Alberta Bill of Rights.

Not all workers in this province have the same rights as to bargaining positions. Not all workers have the same right to withhold their labour. Not all workers have the same right to continue working if they so wish. Many of our labour force do not have the same right to withhold support of a trade union and still keep on working. Some of our labour force, it would seem; will not have the legal right to join a union in the first place. If we are to provide everyone with equal opportunity in this province, we must provide everyone with the same set of rules under which they must live and work.

We cannot have several sets of rules in effect at the same time and expect no reaction from labour. Civil servants, for instance, cannot be expected to have to work under less protection and fewer rights than other people in our labour force. To make my point, Mr. Speaker, I bring to the attention of the House an open letter addressed to Premier Lougheed. This letter is submitted by Branch 1, Civil Service Association of Alberta. It begins by saying: Civil servants are being had! We were promised cake and all we receive is crumbs. In August, 1971, Mr.

Lougheed, when you were seeking election and needing votes, you promised to Alberta's civil servants

an act "which would give the members the same basic bargaining rights enjoyed by organized labour in the province." In February, 1973, as Premier now, and in a position of power, you said in a television interview that you have stated in the Legislature that you do not support "the full right to strike and the full bargaining authority" for the Public Service. Why the complete revesal of position? Binding arbitation is, as you say, a step forward, but it is not what you promised us. Your "crumbs" of legislation are poor substitutes for the

February 23, 1973 ALBERTA HANSARD 7-251 "cake” of the election campaign. In the light of your complete change of attitude, would it not be in order for you to again use the Civil Service Association news to explain your present position? and so on. I read this, Mr. Speaker, not to try to embarrass anyone. This letter makes it abundantly clear that more needs to be done to provide equality for all employees but above all -- [Interjections] Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to have the floor.

But above all, more work needs to be done to eliminate the source -- [Interjections] If other speakers would like to speak, I would give the floor up and let them say what they have to say, but I think they should grant me the courtesy which I have granted them when they were speaking. This letter makes it abundantly clear that more needs to be done to provide equality for all employees, but above all, more work needs to be done to eliminate the source of so much of our labour unrest. The people of this province are still our most valuable and basic resource. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The hon.

Member for Calgary North Hill has a point of order. MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, is the hon. Member from Calgary McCall reading his speech? If so, could he give us a copy? MR. HO LEM: Mr. Speaker, I am doing exactly the same as the hon. minister had done on February 20, referring to notes on the script which he had presented to the House. Another hon. minister over to the left did the same thing. I am following the same procedure. [Interjections] It must be embarrassing to the people to listen to this because of the number of objections that I am receiving from the other side.

Now on the subject of The Property Tax Relief Bill. I would like to say that this plan is both welcome and timely. It is gratifying to see the present government carry on with the concept that was first introduced by the previous government many years ago. This tax rebate comes as a direct result of our fortunate position in the field of natural resources, which do indeed belong to all the people of this province.

In former years the Social Credit government used various ways to distribute this wealth to the people of Alberta, such as is seen in the Jubilee Auditoriums in Calgary and Edmonton, in building what is the best highway system in Canada, if not in North America; providing the best of school facilities, colleges and universities for our citizens; in creating a climate for private investment to thrive and flourish to a point where Alberta's economy has been the envy of all Canadians from coast to coast.

What we have been getting now, as we have been getting in the past, is a result of many, many years of careful planning and management. You may recall that not too many years ago we were literally unable to give away our oil and gas. Wells were capped and markets were non-existent. But through the direct efforts of the government of the day, pipelines were built and markets were gradually developed for our resources. Today we can see the proof of the wisdom and the foresight of the government of that day.

During this time of depressed market conditions the former Social Credit government provided encouragement and incentive to stimulate even further exploration of our oil and gas resources. As markets grew and were developed, we were able to receive the benefits of this foresight. Today we have an unprecedented demand for our oil and gas at higher prices than ever before, and ever imagined. We can sell all that we can produce, all that the pipelines can carry. Therefore, it is only right that we receive our fair share of the increased revenue.

7-252 ALBERTA HANSARD February 23, 1973 However, I'm disturbed that in view of the facts that our resources are going to market in record amounts, that our government is bringing in more money than at any other time in the history of our province, they still have not been able to balance a budget. In past years Social Credit governments were not only able to distribute tax refund, operated on a pay-as-you-go basis, but also were able to build up a substantial reserve on considerably less revenue.

Therefore, I am extremely concerned with the present policy of spending all we can get, and going deeper and deeper into debt each year. We should be building reserves and planning towards the day when our economy will have to be based on something other than oil and gas. This is a non-renewable source that will one day be exhausted. Maybe the government will be well advised to re-invest some of these golden eggs.

I would suggest that the government put a little more effort and concentrate a little harder in making sure that our energy resources remain in our control before making all these elaborate plans as to what we are going to do with the money. If we do not take a much harder line with the federal government, we will soon find out that we will have no say in the matter whatsoever.

I would suggest to the federal government that if they are really concerned about our ability to produce enough oil for all of Canada, they should agree to take all the synthetic crude being produced from the tar sands at not less than the cost of production. I would hate to think that we would be forced to sell our immense production now at less than international market prices, and that some time in the future see the citizens of this province have to rely on more expensive oil from the tar sands production. If this happened you can be sure Eastern Canada would go back to buying the cheaper imports from abroad.

Again, I say that if the federal government is so worried about energy resources, let them help us develop our tar sands and buy the products of that development to protect our future reserves. Let us make sure that our reserve will be used in such a way that we may reap the maximum benefits and security for now and for the future. On this issue we, as opposition members, see no compromise; on this there must he no compromise. Mr. Speaker, I would like now to deal with urban affairs and urban problems.

I would like to refer to the last paragraph on page 7 of the Speech from the Throne where the government, through legislation, programs, policies and dialogue with the citizens, intends to reflect its concern for our environmental management. If this really means what I think it is supposed to mean, the government has been neglecting some of the intent of this statement. I'm sure the residents of Calgary Vista Heights community will be surprised to learn that the government's approach to their particular problem is being labelled as a dialogue with our citizens.

Not only did our Minister of Environment decline to give them reasonable reasons for allowing a livestock marketing complex to be built in their midst, but also he gave no encouragement for receiving a delegation to meet with him to carry on the exact kind of dialogue mentioned as government policy, although he had no hesitation in meeting with a group of people representing the developers of the Agrimart. If this has been an example of government dialogue with the citizens, I would think that we would be much better off to take matters in our own hands, and ensure ourselves of our rights in our own way.

The continuing problem in Vista Heights is a glowing example of government abrogation of responsibility to ensure that a small working-class community receives the same consideration as a large, affluent community, and the same rights as big business. Perhaps I am being too hard. Perhaps the government only intends to start this dialogue with the citizens now that the policy has appeared in the Throne Speech. If so, I am sure that the residents of Vista Heights will be more than pleased to sit down and carry on their part of the dialogue.

While on the subject of citizens' rights, we might bring up the matter of the citizens' right to access to some of the land surface that the government is promising to protect for its people. The Bow River, winding its way through the heartland of southern Alberta, is not accessible to the public for almost its entire length. Vested and personal interests, some of them represented right here in this Legislature, have been effective in denying the public a right to use its own recreational areas. The Bow River, west of Calgary, is almost totally closed off to public use and enjoyment.

If we are to give our citizens certain rights as to land use, let us give them the right to use what is legally theirs to enjoy. It is

February 23, 1973 ALBERTA HANSARD 7-253 true, when talking about waterways for recreational areas, that we must be concerned about possible pollution effects, especially in a river such as the Bow which provides much of Calgary's water. I would suggest, however, that people, indiscriminate as they may seem at times, are probably a little more discreet as to pollution than are cattle, which are presently being allowed to wander all over the river banks and the river area. Still on the problem of urban areas, I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, about the government's apparent oversight in the field of education.

This point was mentioned by one of the hon. members opposite. Surely with the wealth and prosperity that we enjoy, we could provide kindergarten facilities for our pre- school-age children. At the present time we are still living under an antiquated rule that says a child is not eligible to attend school until he reaches a certain age specified by the government. Could we not, in our society, take this into consideration and provide for the children in the pre- school learning period?

Could we not provide for children who are ready to attend elementary schools at age five, or make allowances for those who are not ready to attend elementary schools until they are older than five or six? Are these young citizens of our province not being discriminated against? In the Speech from the Throne we learned that the government is going to provide maximum opportunity for personal initiative and resourcefulness. Does this apply only to those persons of an age or capacity who are in a position to contribute to our coffers?

I would like to think that basic human rights should and will apply to all Albertans. Let us re-examine our priorities to make sure that we provide equality for all of our citizens, be they adults, the aged, or children. And still on the subject of urban development, we must also reassess our basic priorities in the field of new highway construction. There is a point at which new highways, especially in urban areas, interfere with the citizens' rights to enjoy a clean and pleasing environment. The extension of the Blackfoot Freeway in Calgary is one such example.

This new piece of road will completely eliminate one golf course, and permanently destroy the peaceful surroundings of another. It will damage and destroy a good portion of the river front. At some point we are going to have to draw a line. At some point we are going to have to make up our minds if roads and freeways should take precedence over the rights of citizens to enjoy the peace and quiet of parks and green belts, and river frontage within our cities.

I can appreciate the fact that we all like to drive on a good, fast highways and freeways, but we must ask ourselves if highways are more important to us than the rights of our citizens to relax in and enjoy the natural havens of solitude which nature provides. There would seem to be little rhyme or reason to the government's very welcome policy of establishing new provincial parks in urban areas if we allow, at the same time, the provincial highways department to destroy already existing parks and green areas. Where is the economy? And where is the sanity of this policy?

Is it not a question of which is more important, roads or people? I would like to think that our people are still more important to us than all the highways and roads that we can build. This area of urban development must be one of imperative and insistent concern to the provincial government. The root of the problem can be found in our population shift from the rural areas to the urban centres. We now have nearly over one-half of our population concentrated in the two areas of our province.

The time is now overdue for some positive steps to be done to assist the urban centres in the field of urban growth and development. The record of the present provincial government in working with the urban centres is sadly lacking. It is not that good, although the areas of responsibility and concern are clearly made out that it should rest with the provincial government.

To me the quality of life can be measured by the availability to the average working man of things like adequate housing at costs he can afford, educational facilities for his children, transportation facilities to take him to and from his place of employment, parks and recreational areas, health care, police and fire protection, an overall environment of security for his family and an opportunity for him to enjoy the things that he is working for. At the present time housing is a major area of concern. The cost of housing today is far above the resources of most of our working citizens.

They cannot afford the price and still have any hope of being able to enjoy some of the other amenities of life. In recent years one of the major increases in the

7-254 ALBERTA HANSARD February 23, 1973 price of homes has been the cost of land. This is a factor that is dependent on a supply and demand situation. Make less land available for development and the cost of available land soars. The land developers and the project builders advise that one of the major factors today and one of the major problems is in trying to get sufficient land ready for development because of a complete lack of co-ordination between various departments of the city and the provincial government.

They can draw up a plan for developing a tract of land, then find that the highways department hasn't decided on their requirements in that area. And this might hold things up for months, or even years, removing that available land from market for quite some time. In short there does not seem to be any definite long-range plan as to land use and requirements between the various civic and provincial departments. We must have something done in this area immediately if we expect to see our urban population grow in an orderly fashion.

An example of this is the freeze on the development of the land adjoining the newly announced park along Fish Creek in Calgary. I want to make it clear that I do not oppose this new park. I think it is an outstanding contribution by the government, and one that will benefit the people of Calgary immeasurably for years to come. However, the kind of problem it raises is in the field of long-range planning.

Land that had been slated for development in this area is now in limbo, thus removing that land from the market and consequently putting more pressures on the price of other available land in another area of the city. I urge the government to do all possible to correct this direct influence on our housing costs. Further, and along these same lines, is the area of transportation. We do not seem to have any long-range plans as to transportation requirements in given areas. Does the provincial government, for instance, have any plans for the forthcoming development of the Saddle Ridge area in Calgary?

In the next few years, plans call for the population of an area of 100,000 people, three times the size of Red Deer. How are they going to get to their jobs? What plans for major freeways and other roads do we have to have for this development? Are we going to experience the same re-occurrence of having the highways department decide, after the homes are built, that they have to put a road through, close to residential areas, or through a park or golf course? These are answers that we must have, and have well in advance.

We must have a closer co-operation between the various levels of government as well as various departments of government. We do not need any more of the kind of thing that happened in Calgary over the widening of the Bow River alongside the zoo. We have one department of the provincial government knowing that the work is going to be done, and another department of the provincial government putting a stop to further work because it has not made up its mind. This kind of lack of co-ordination is costing the people of our province a lot of money and a lot of concern. And something needs to be done about it, now. MR.

YURKO: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the hon. member a question? MR. HO LEM: Mr. Speaker, after I have completed I will welcome questions. We must also examine our policy in the field of urban renewal. Just because the federal government has withdrawn from this problem, seemingly because of the lack of funds, is no reason why the provincial government should also wash their hands of it. The areas of our cities are subject to urban renewal projects, and we all know which areas they are -- the area around Chinatown in Calgary, the area around our city hall, both sides north and south.

We should have the right to expect some long-range planning to provide them with a measure of security and assistance. Just because our government doesn't seem to worry about what the future holds for these areas, does not mean that the residents are all that short-sighted. They would like to know what is going to happen to them and rightly so. We must keep in mind that in urban development, in urban re-development, we are dealing with people, with citizens of Alberta, and they have certain rights which we cannot ignore. And still on urban development. I would like, Mr.

Speaker, to urge the provincial government to take immediate action in the following areas:

February 23, 1973 ALBERTA HANSARD 7-255 (1) to strengthen local autonomy by developing a system whereby more responsibility for collecting revenues and expenditure of same rests with the city government.

(2) A fair and satisfactory formula should be worked out and established long in advance with the municipalities for the distribution of revenues from our natural resources.

(3) Consultation be established with urban municipalities to review the present cities acts with a view of effecting structural changes, if necessary, in the organizational structure within which the urban municipalities are compelled to operate at the present time.

(4) In consultation with the urban authorities, review The Election Act to provide for a uniform system of election in all Alberta cities.

(5) To ensure that the quality of life is enhanced in Alberta by taking positive steps in the area of providing adequate homes at prices people can afford, adequate educational facilities, parks and recreational areas, health care, police and fire protection, and so on. All these are basic needs which should be dealt with by the government in consultation with urban authorities -- and I repeat -- in consultation with urban authorities.

(6) And finally, with the overall view to ensure that the environment of security is maintained for our people to enjoy the things that they are working for. I therefore, at this time, criticize the government for the lack of policy and leadership in not providing alternatives to the urban municipalities so that they may better cope with their own specific problems. I suggest that a committee be set up to develop a proposal for alternatives comprising members of the municipalities, along with government legislative committees.

For instance, the following topics could be discussed: 1. ceiling on mortgage rates particularly as they apply on smaller homes; 2. mortgage availability for lower-income wage earners; 3. lower cost of lots; 4. examine the principle of cost-sharing and road building, urban renewal programs, and other programs like it; 5. to take a look at the rates that the apartment dwellers are compelled to pay in relation to other costs of living. These, Mr. Speaker, are only a few of the basics that the people of Alberta are waiting for the government to act upon. In conclusion, Mr.

Speaker, the emphasis on the Speech from the Throne, as I see it, involves a lot of rights: the right of people to enjoy good government, the right of people to share in our natural resources, the right to help and care for those in need, and the right for all Albertans to live in a province where human dignity and aspirations will be respected. Above all, we should have the right to partake fully of the wonderful natural heritage that is our Alberta.

I urge this government to continue in the already-established tradition of providing for Albertans the best life available in the country, the most freedom to enjoy this good life, and to be able to pass on to generations of the future a heritage we can all be proud of. MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the hon. member a question? Mr. Speaker, for clarification, the hon. member mentioned two departments involved in regard to the widening of the Bow River in Calgary, one supposedly knowledgable of the affair, and the other one refusing to give a permit.

I wonder if he might indicate to the House what two departments he was referring to.

7-2S6 ALBERTA HANSARD February 23, 1973 MR. HO LEM: Mr. Speaker, I am not referring to two departments, I am referring to two sets of understanding. The first understanding is that they should proceed because of the flood dangers, and secondly the refusal. MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman specifically mentioned two departments, and he should be aware of this. DR. PAPROSKI: May I also ask a question, Mr. Speaker? Will the hon. member permit a question? Hon.

Member for Calgary McCall, is the hon. member aware that the urban problems that exist in urban areas in this province existed during the previous administration, and we took over those problems? MR. LUDWIG: Are they all solved yet? MR. SPEAKER: May I draw the hon. member's attention to the scope which is permitted in questions to a member who has spoken.

The purpose of such questions is strictly limited to the clarification of what the hon. member has said, and in the reply in the same citation it is plain that nothing new may be added by the hon. member to his speech except what is essential for the purpose of clarification. Has the hon. Minister of Tourism a question? MR. DOWLING: No, Mr. Speaker, I will follow the hon. member since he is first up. MR. HENDERSON: On a point of order you just dealt with, Sir, I was wondering if the contribution just made by the hon. Member for Edmonton Kingsway can be taken as representing his contribution to the Throne Speech?

DR. PAPROSKI: I'm coming. MR. SPEAKER: It possibly comes dangerously close to that. The hon. Member for Lacombe had been recognized by the Chair some time ago. MR. COOKSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise and say a few words on the Speech From the Throne. I have enjoyed the debate on both sides. I have read some of the Hansards on the debate. While some compliment some of the speakers, I was rather disappointed in the area covered by the hon. Member for Calgary Mountain View -- MR. LUDWIG: Hear, hear! MR. COOKSON: - - who I must say covered about four pages in Hansard.

It was one of the most disjointed speeches I think I have ever read. He continued in that manner today and I can only attribute it to some of his disjointed thoughts. AN HON. MEMBER: Agreed.

February 23, 1973 ALBERTA HANSARD 7-257 MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I would like to ask the hon. member a question. Was he aware of the fact that I was interrupted 15 times while I spoke? That's a question. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary Mountain View is complaining about 15 interruptions by engaging in a further interruption. MR. COOKSON: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons for rising on points of order is to try and clarify some of the points made by the speakers. If you look through the gentleman's speech, you will find that it is difficult to clarify.

To touch briefly on a few points -- and I don't want to overlap and repeat what has already been said -- but I would, Mr. Speaker, like to compliment our new government in some of the areas that have been referred to in the Speech from the Throne, and hope that progress will be made further in these areas. It is always strange to me why, for example, the former government could not see itself fit to make some concessions to our senior citizens in the province. DR. BUCK: What? Oh, come on! MR.

COOKSON: Of course we were, as a new government, able to remove the foundation program in education from senior citizens in a way which would give them a better break with regard to their taxation. One of the words that the former government, the opposition today, just doesn't seem to comprehend, with all due respect, is the word 'decentralization'. It is one of the things that our party campaigned on and one of the things we're carrying on throughout the province. While we haven't been able to complete this program, it will be an on-going thing.

I can assure the gentlemen opposite that rural Albertans will not forget the contribution that the new government is making on decentralization. Certainly government is one of the fastest growing industries in the province. It always has been and I don't expect it to change too fast. I think that the whole province deserves a share of the pie, so to speak. The area of agriculture was touched upon in the Speech from the Throne. I repeat some of these things because the opposition has a short memory. Under the very capable leadership of the hon.

Hugh Horner, we have been able to accomplish a new thrust in agriculture. No one can dispute the effect that these things have had on the economy thoughtout Alberta. Farm people are enjoying probably one of the best years that they have had in a good many years. Marketing is one of the words that wasn't in the vocabulary of the former government. Today it is understood by all Albertans and particularly by farm people who are very enthusiastic, and if you read the literature and follow the farm organizations, they are behind this new government 100 per cent.

In the area of taxation we had a report under the capable leadership of hon. Roy Farran and his task force. This was touched on in our first Throne Speech. Everything is here for the opposition's perusal, and if they are interested I am sure they have read it. This report was brought into this Assembly, it has been discussed with the people of Alberta, and it has been initiated in a very, very short time. I suppose we could have employed some high-priced person to do a study of this. But the important thing is that it is not hard to do a study. The biggest problem, as you know, is to initiate the study.

I want to compliment Roy Farran, the hon. Member for Calgary North Hill, and his committee for the work that they have done in helping to assist the economy of the province. I want to compliment, while we are in a complimentary manner -- [Dr. Buck applauded.] Thank you, sir. I want to compliment hon. Bill Dickie and his department for the work that they have done in opening negotiations with regard to oil and

7-258 ALBERTA HANSARD February 23, 1973 gas in the province, initiating new contracts, putting a thrust into this area, and coining up with millions which have been, in turn, channelled back to the taxpayers of the province. DR. BUCK: How about the increase in natural gas? MR. COOKSON: It is always strange to me, Mr. Speaker, why the former government continued -- MR. HENDERSON: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question either now or later. It is his choice. MR. COOKSON: I think, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to continue because we have another speaker who has to spend considerable time clarifying some of the issues that the former government initiated, and could possibly entertain a question. MR. HENDERSON: Would you entertain a question at the conclusion of your remarks then? MR. COOKSON: If it is intelligent. MR. HENDERSON: I would hesitate to leave the definition of intelligence to the hon. member, but I would be pleased to leave it to the Chair, Mr. Speaker. MR. COOKSON: Mr. Speaker, having reviewed briefly some of the accomplishments of our new government, I want to deal with a specific

section from the Throne Speech this year, 1973. The

section is on page 8, and I want to expand just a little bit in this area because I think it is of importance, not only to the members of the Assembly, but certainly to all the people of Alberta. Page 8 refers to the new approaches to the growing concern over land use in Alberta, particularly from an agricultural point of view, and they are in the process of review and evaluation. Now that has much more of an impact than perhaps it would seem to have in print.

To point out what I want to say about this, perhaps I can go back to the short history of the province to a time when there were no regulations; to a time when our fathers and our grandfathers were able to acquire land and move freely throughout the province; to a time when the native people roamed the province and country freely, following their nomadic life style in a search for food, and then relate the past to the situation that we have today.

Now at that time there were no problems with fences, no problems with roads, no problems with vehicles as we know them today, no problems with large populations, no problems with the abundance of water and no problems with the source of food. Today, after a generation or a generation and a half of history, we are faced with a new situation. We have in the province two of the fastest growing cities in Canada. We have a population rising on or above a million and a half people.

Most of the land that is arable has been taken up by people, although we have a vast area in the north that would be classified today as not arable that is still owned by the province. This has created some pretty serious and complex problems,as indicated today -- for example, the frustrations of some of our people and their concerns about the future direction that our province wishes to take. We have the problem of this great growth of cities.

We have to face possibly somewhere along the way some type of restricted growth, no matter how unpalatable it may seem, and I pose these questions to the members of the Assembly. If we are faced with some types of land use and regulations the question is, I suppose, are our people really ready for this? In other words, are they prepared to have organized growth with regulations, or are they prepared to have

February 23, 1973 ALBERTA HANSARD 7-259 no regulations and unorganized growth? I think the members of the opposition on the other side have a responsibility to direct some type of guidance to the government in this area. I have my own personal opinions about the direction I will be going, may be going and should be going, based on some of the experiences that have happened in other countries of the world. I would like to ask the question of whether the farm people are really ready for it.

In other words, if a farmer is ready to retire and wishes to live in his own home in the country, wishes to subdivide his property so that he can perhaps claim tax concessions, is he prepared to accept some of the restrictions with regard to land use? Ask the question about the cottage owner at the lake. Supposing the lake is zoned for recreational use, he is unable to sell his cottage because of this fact. A company comes in and plans an airport on some farmer's property. The farmer is restricted from selling this property.

The man who has been free to move whichever way he wants all his life suddenly is required to obtain a permit to construct a hog barn, because perhaps it is close to a waterway. Again, Mr. Speaker, these are just a few of the problems that I think our government is faced with. I think we have to direct ourselves towards them. I have a feeling that in the next year or two the pressures will become great for this type of land use in Alberta. I personally welcome the thoughts and ideas of any groups, individuals or organizations, such as the one we had this afternoon, about the problems of land use.

I have great admiration for the way in which the select committees, the task forces, worked this past year in the areas that they were assigned. I would suggest to the government that they might consider this type of approach to the orderly development of the Province of Alberta. MR. HENDERSON: I will refer to this very briefly. Could the hon. member indicate exactly what oil and gas contracts or sales have been negotiated by the Minister of Mines and Minerals that he was referring to? MR. COOKSON: Well, perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I was misunderstood.

I am simply referring to the fact that we are acquiring approximately $50 million to $75 million more per year into the province through contractual arrangements, and this is of benefit to everyone in Alberta. MR. HENDERSON: You are referring to royalties, hon. member, and not contract sales? MR. COOKSON: Royalties? OK. MR. DOWLING: Mr.

Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to participate in the debate on the Speech from the Throne, and in particular to make reference to that portion of it dealing with the goals and objectives of our government which begin on page 4 of the document, and makes reference to the priorities for native people in Northern Alberta, provincial parks, financial assistance for business, and, of course, our continuing priority for rural Alberta. However, before I make my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate both the mover and the seconder of the Throne Speech, the hon. Member for Edmonton Calder, and the hon.

Member for Stettler. I would also like to say how very much I look forward to this session, Mr. Speaker. Aside from the very interesting business of the House, I particularly enjoy your good humour from the Chair, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the way in which you have skilfully guided the business of this House. At this time I would, therefore, like to review briefly some of the policy and programming that Travel Alberta has developed and carried out in the period of time since this administration took office. Mr.

Speaker, I would like it understood, as a commitment to the people of this province, that our policy on tourism both now and in the future, will not depart from the principle that is paramount to this government. That is, Mr. Speaker, that Alberta is first of all for Albertans.

7-260 ALBERTA HANSARD February 23, 1973 By this I do not mean to suggest that we will be parochial about this situation and suffocate ourselves within an isolationist policy; but I do mean, Mr. Speaker, that we will continue to recognize the fact that a viable tourist program must depend upon many other natural resources and physical facilities, such as fish and wildlife, recreational land, historic and cultural sites, provincial parks, campgrounds, and other accommodation facilities.

It means further, that within this framework we will recognize recreational and tourism requirements of the people of Alberta as a first priority, and that we will refuse to allow this resource base to be consumed and depleted at the expense and needs of Albertans. Parallel to this philosophy, Mr. Speaker, another major objective is to encourage more Albertans to see more of Alberta. Indicative of our intent in this regard is the change of name Alberta Government Travel Bureau to its present title Travel Alberta. It serves, perhaps, as an on-going reminder of our intention in this regard.

There are few, if any, provinces in Canada that contain the variety of geographical features, the potential for tourism development and recreational enjoyment that we have in Alberta. However, as is the case with many tourists, too few of these sights are enjoyed by too few people. During the past five years prior to this administration taking office, almost 60 per cent of the visiting parties declared their primary destination to be that of the national parks located within our borders, or the cities of Calgary and Edmonton. This emphasis, we feel, must be changed.

It should not, however, be misunderstood as an attempt to penalize those areas, such as the two major cities and our national parks who have worked hard to promote tourism in Alberta and whose contribution to our program cannot be bypassed without my recognition to them in this House. Rather, it is a program direction that parallels the very spirit and platform of this administration, in which the people of the province expressed their confidence a short time back, and which we will continually feel committed to honour. Mr.

Speaker, I refer to one of our primary objectives; to the matter of balanced development for Alberta, and our commitment to the rural areas of our province. In this respect tourism is a natural to emphasize.

The expanse of the east-central Alberta prairies adjacent to the heart of the Badlands, the lake country in north-eastern Alberta, the Crowsnest and David Thompson corridors, the Cypress Hills area, and the virtually untapped tourist potential of the Peace River block are all regions that, to visitors and Albertans alike, have in the past been somewhat submerged by the prominence assumed by our national parks and major metropolitan areas.

To be more specific, if we were to increase the tourist travel to the non- urban areas of Alberta by just one per cent of the total tourist revenue brought into the province, it would mean that an additional direct revenue to these areas would be something like $3 million, and that the economic impact of those direct expenditures would be in the area of $4.5 million. And these, Mr. Speaker, are not just high-sounding phases or idle objectives. We have been, and we are continuing to pursue these objectives for two reasons.

First of all, because the people of the province believe in these objectives, and secondly, because we believe in these objectives. And there is no difference in the priority of those reasons, Mr. Speaker. We count them to be one and the same. The destiny of the people of Alberta and our destiny are inseparable. As an indication of our commitment to these goals, Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to a number of matters. First of all, a reference to our Tourism Loan Program.

There has now been a total of some $10.5 million loaned by the Alberta government to tourist developers -- a tremendous vote of confidence to the tourist industry of Alberta. And perhaps more important is the fact that of all the loans that have been processed by The Alberta Opportunity Company, only four have gone to the two major cities of Edmonton and Calgary, two to each.

The remainder have been processed for other areas of the province, and to cite but a few of the locations, they include Sangudo, Peace River, Calling Lake, Swan Hills, Grande Cache, Fort Vermilion, Slave Lake, Hythe, Manning, Nordegg, Drumheller, Forestburg, Red Deer, Rocky Mountain House, Medicine Hat, Bragg Creek, Taber, and Waterton. Mr. Speaker, this is a tremendous vote of confidence in rural Alberta. It has always been our policy to encourage Albertans to participate in the development of the tourist industry and tourist facilities in this province.

The information I have just given to this House is indeed an indication of the confidence that the people of the province themselves have in their own future here in Alberta, a confidence that this administration is not about to betray.

February 23, 1973 ALBERTA HANSARD 7-261 A second item relative to our government's objectives for a balanced development of the province is the increased emphasis that we feel must be given to Northern Alberta. In this respect it is important to point out that two new tourist zones have been established in the past year, bringing the total from 12 to 14, and both of these are in Northern Alberta. A new Zone 13 has been established covering the areas of Fox Creek, Valleyview, Grande Prairie, Beaverlodge, and the Saddle Hills, and is known as the Game Country Tourist Association.

The second one is Zone 14, known as the Midnight Twilight Tourist Association covering Barrhead, Westlock, Athabasca, Swan Hills, Slave Lake, and the High Prairie area north to Wood Buffalo National Park. These changes, together with a completely revised financial assistance program for the zones, based on a budget by program and priority concept rather than the previous 60-40 split grant structure, will assist us in our over-all objective of balancing some of the deficits in tourism emphasis that have occurred in the past in various areas of Alberta, and as a result, Mr.

Speaker, will help to generate a better distribution of the economic benefits of tourism for all of the province and the citizens resident in those areas. Under the new program each zone will receive automatically a minimum grant of $2,500 to cover administrative expenses of the zone, and additional funds may be allowed to zones that can demonstrate a need to a review board established to guide and direct the development of the program. As well, each zone will annually prepare a budget for the programs it wishes to undertake and will consider and establish priorities on those programs.

Budgets from each of the zones will then be considered by a review board consisting of two representatives from Travel Alberta, the executive secretary of the Travel Industry Association of Alberta, the private sector part of the organization, and three other representatives of the Travel Industry Association of Alberta to be elected at their annual meeting. At this stage the programs will be assessed from a standpoint of tourism priority on a provincial basis, in keeping with our objective to allow for a greater amount of local autonomy in the decision-making process.

The industry association itself, which is well represented on the review board, will be in a key position to influence and assist in the development of the travel industry of the province. A final ratification is retained by the minister's office, Mr. Speaker. This has been done since the accountability for public funds and the integrity of the program must be maintained. We expect that the option to decline, change, or reverse a decision of the review board would be exercised only if it became apparent that the objectives and priorities of the program from a provincial standpoint were not being adequately met.

A tribute to the Travel Association of Alberta and those who are on its executive or are affiliated with it is not only appropriate but also necessary at this time. I know that their commitment to the purposes and direction of the development for the travel industry for Alberta is just as strong as mine -- and ours -- and I know that this kind of commitment today will in large measure be reflected in the accomplishments we mutually attain in the future. The association is an integral part of our program.

And with the initiation of this new funding agreement which was in fact designed in consort with them, that role will be even more pronounced. A third area in which there is yet much to be done, Mr. Speaker, but one in which we will be persistent in our determination to accomplish is the diversification of the tourist industry.

Diversification not only in the sense of geographical areas, of which we have already spoken, but also in terms of the kind of vacation experiences available and the promotion of tourism to span more adequately the calendar year, and develop that which we refer to as the shoulder months of the tourist season. Family farm vacations are but one example of the type of vacation experience that is just now beginning to come into its own - - one in which children, adults and families can join in fishing, hiking, horseback riding, and observe and participate in farm and ranch activities.

One further significant matter relates to the overall organization of the Travel Alberta program. It was a commitment of our administration to establish an identity for the tourism program and to accelerate the impact that the travel industry could have on the economic development and diversification of Alberta. As a priority item, therefore, we undertook to enlist the assistance of the private sector, in order to inject a greater degree of professional expertise into the program and organizational structure of Travel Alberta.

7-262 ALBERTA HANSARD February 23, 1973 We have, as a result, secured on a contractural basis the services of an executive director for Travel Alberta who was the vice-president of the Brewster Transport organization and was a resident of Banff. Three other senior positions have been established to direct the operations of: 1. marketing; 2. planning and development; 3. travel information and counsel. One of these positions was filled fr

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19730223
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L17 S2 19730223 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	f2cbf6629749f6200bc1e26b3e59b93715650a79

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