Alberta Hansard — 25 May 1981, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 19, Session 3)

19810525

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

May 25, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 907 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Monday, May 25, 1981 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 234

An Act to Amend The Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund Act MR. SINDLINGER: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce

An Act to Amend The Alberta Heritage Sav ings Trust Fund Act. Generally the Heritage Savings Trust Fund is a good idea and has received good management to date. Even given the national energy program pricing

schedule we have in place now, the Heritage Savings Trust Fund will grow to about $50 billion in 1980 dollars by the year 2000. This Bill will correct an accounting inaccuracy or inadequacy which tends to overstate the size of the Herit age Savings Trust Fund. [Leave granted; Bill 234 read a first time] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. BORSTAD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the annual report of the Northern Alberta Development Council. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS DR. BUCK: Mr.

Speaker, I'm pleased this afternoon to introduce to you, and through you to members of the Assembly, 130 grade 6 students from Rudolph Hennig school in Fort Saskatchewan. They are accompanied by their teachers Lorna Hornby, Tim Bilou, Al Faubert, Gordon Templeton, and Bill Lopka; and parents Mrs. Van Triet and Mrs. Jesperson. They are in both galleries, and I ask them to rise and receive the recognition of the Legislature. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Legislature Grounds MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, my question to the Minister of Housing and Public Works is with regard to construction work on the Legislature grounds. I wonder if the minister could indicate whether any plans are being initiated to reduce the expectations of the grounds in light of some of the costs at the present time. MR. CHAMBERS: Mr. Speaker, I think it's fairly ob vious from looking around that work on the grounds is very far advanced indeed; in fact, we're looking at total completion about a year from this June. I might say that I'm especially pleased with it. We've kept on budget and on schedule.

Agriculture Building Renovations MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion to the minister. Has any consideration been given to eliminating phase seven of the project, the mirroring of the Agriculture Building, which with a change of priori ties could save millions of dollars that could possibly be transferred to other projects such as public transporta tion. Has consideration been given to changing phase seven? MR. CHAMBERS: No, Mr. Speaker. The building needs recladding, and it's still part of the long-term plan. MR. NOTLEY: Lower expectations there. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary ques tion to the minister. In terms of projected expectations and whether expectations should be lowered or not, could the minister indicate whether the $25 million to $40 mil lion projected cost of the project — and, more specifical ly, I think $39 million was the projected cost — is still in line, and is the project on budget? MR. CHAMBERS: Mr. Speaker, I have a bunch of budget material with me, estimate material, that I'll be happy to get into in detail later on, I think this afternoon.

But my recollection is that the current cost of completion is in the order of $53 [million] or $54 [million]; that's in as-spent completed dollars, which essentially is on target. The original number was '77 or '78 dollars. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a supplementary question to the minister. My constituents don't understand the need for recladding the Agriculture Building. What is the purpose of this recladding, and what is it going to cost? Why do we have to do that? MR.

CHAMBERS: Aside from the fact that I think it's one of the ugliest buildings existing anywhere and was designed under a previous administration . . . I don't want to comment further on that. MR. R. CLARK: Is that the only reason? MR. CHAMBERS: No, extensive renovations are needed to that building to make it more livable. [interjection] That's right, energy efficiency is one aspect of it. Furthermore, the building is to carry some mechanical components which are part of the whole grounds com plex. I'll say one thing: they may not have made them look very good, but they did make them strong.

The building will carry the mechanical components. Generally a fairly extensive renovation of it is needed. MR. R. CLARK: To the minister, once again from the same point of view. How is the recladding going to make the facilities in the building more livable? MR. CHAMBERS: Well, Mr. Speaker, there are lighting problems in that building now. It has always been a difficult problem in terms of adequate light, heat and

908 ALBERTA HANSARD May 25, 1981 cold, and energy efficiency. That cladding has never been satisfactory. Oil Sands Development MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the second question to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. It's with regard to the Alsands and Esso Resources plants and with regard to studies that have gone on with the effect, because in terms of the status and position of the negotiations at the present time, the Alsands and Esso Resources plants look like they will not go ahead.

Has the department studies which look at the implications in terms of dollars on the Alberta economy when these two projects will not proceed in 1981? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, some studies of that have been done. I'm not sure they've been limited to the Department of Energy and Natural Resources, and per haps my colleague the Minister of Economic Develop ment may wish to expand on my answer. MR. PLANCHE: Mr. Speaker, we have done a cost/ benefit study of the delay in those two plants, and it's presently in the department for assessment. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary ques tion to the Minister of Economic Development. Will those reports be tabled in this Legislature in total or in

summary? MR. PLANCHE: Mr. Speaker, that decision hasn't yet been made. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. Will the minister take on a commitment to present it in the Legislature or explain why it cannot be placed in this Legislature at a later date? MR. PLANCHE: Well, I wouldn't take on a commitment to the first, but I would to the second. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources or the Minister of Economic Development with regard to the policy position of the government at the present time.

Is the policy position in place that an energy agreement must be reached with Canada before any tar sands plants will proceed? Is that still the policy of the government as of today? MR. LEITCH: Yes it is, Mr. Speaker. Our firm policy is to not approve additional oil sands projects unless and until we have an overall energy agreement in place.

Members of the Assembly may recall our reasons for adopting that policy, one of which was simply that it was inequitable or unfair to expect Albertans to take on the risks and burdens — and there are major risks and burdens with those two large projects going ahead at the same time — if at the same time there was in place a federal energy policy and budget which was destroying thousands of jobs of Albertans in other areas of the industry. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources.

I'd like to ask how seriously the government has taken the Esso Resources July 1 date as the termination for their project. Are there any department studies that confirm that Esso Resources cannot extend themselves beyond July 1, 1981? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, we in the department wouldn't be making an assessment as to what Esso Resources could do with respect to keeping its project in place. As I understand the position of Esso Resources Limited, that is a financial matter for the company to decide.

As I recall the position, they were not willing to continue to spend large sums of money unless they had at least a reasonable anticipation or, better yet, an assurance that agreement would be reached and the projects would receive approval from the provincial government, and that the conditions as to price and access to market and taxation regime which they were requesting from the federal government would also be in place. But certainly we in the department would not make any judgment whether the company could continue working on the project for whatever period of time. DR. BUCK: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question for clarification to the hon. Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. I believe the statement was made at one time that Esso could go ahead. As I understand it, the company must receive permission from the Alberta gov ernment before they can proceed with their project. Is the minister in a position to indicate or clarify for me if that is the position as it stands? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure that my ex planation will remove the confusion that exists in the hon. member's mind, but I think it may have arisen in this way.

As I recall, not only with respect to the Esso project but also with respect to the Alsands project in Fort McMurray, we've said that we had no objections to their proceeding with certain preliminary work, and in fact they did so. So in that sense we had no objection to their proceeding and in fact we — when I say "we" I'm talking about the government — did some work particu larly in the area of transportation in Fort McMurray a year ago, and we had no objection to that work, which might be regarded as preparatory work, going ahead.

But to proceed with the construction of the projects requires approval from Executive Council, and we've said we would not give that approval. But we have no objection to anything up to that — any work that can be done without receiving that approval — proceeding. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased the minister made that clear, because we want to know exactly where the decision-making process lies. My supplementary is to the Minister of Environment. Last year I asked the minister if he was in a position to indicate how many tar sands plants can be built before we have a danger of acid rain.

Is the minister in a position at this time to indicate to the Legislature what studies he has in place to indicate the maximum loading limit: how many plants can be built in the Fort McMurray-Cold Lake area at this time without a problem of acid rain? MR. COOKSON: Mr. Speaker, I don't have this infor mation available, but we are doing a joint study with Saskatchewan and the federal government in terms of the present emissions in the general area. I was hoping I would have an interim report this spring, and it may still be available.

It deals primarily with the present emissions of the two plants, and my advance information is that as

May 25, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 909 yet there is no indication that there is any present problem insofar as SO 2 emissions. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources with regard to the future of the two plants we've been discussing, Alsands and Cold Lake. It all hinges on the success of the June 10 meeting. At this point could the minister indicate that the June 10 meeting will be a meeting to the end; in other words, so that we reach agreement? Is it a one-day or two-day meeting? What are the present plans and commitment? I know the provincial minister has cleared his

schedule to meet any commitments, and that's been said. But what is the federal intent at this time? Are they committed as well? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, the meeting for June 10 is planned as a one-day meeting. I would not expect our discussions on the energy negotiations to be concluded one way or the other in that one-day meeting. The energy matter has become much more complex today than it was prior to October 28, 1980.

The issues are numerous now and very complex, and I wouldn't anticipate that we would be able to do more than discuss some of them in detail and perhaps a number of them in general terms in a one-day meeting. So I think the short answer to the question of the hon. Leader of the Opposi tion is that I wouldn't expect the June 10 meeting to be conclusive one way or the other. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question to the hon. minister. MR. SPEAKER: Followed by a supplementary by the hon. Leader of the Opposition and a final supplementary by the hon. Member for Clover Bar. MR.

NOTLEY: Presumably there's been some initial dis cussion of commercial terms with the two companies, and I realize that commercial terms can't be completed until after the government of Alberta gives the go-ahead. However, my question: is the government in a position to advise the Assembly whether there has been sufficient progress in dealing on the question of commercial terms that that would not in fact be an undue obstacle to the two projects' proceeding once the okay is given by the government of Alberta after a national energy agreement is reached?

I'm asking if the minister is in a position to give the Assembly any information on the kind of time frame that may be possible from the date an agreement is reached and the okay is given. Are there any serious obstacles between the two companies involved and the government of Alberta on the question of commercial terms? MR. LEITCH: Mr.

Speaker, members of the Assembly may recall that I had earlier commented on the fact that shortly after I assumed the portfolio, we had worked very hard to be in a position with the two project developers to conclude agreements on the commercial terms between the project developers and the province if and when an energy agreement was in place. That work went on inten sively some time ago.

While one can never be sure how long it's going to take or what difficulties there might be between a particular point in the negotiations and con cluding the agreement, my impression of the nature of the discussions that have been held with the project develop ers and representatives of the government is such that I wouldn't anticipate any lengthy delay in concluding an agreement with the developers on the commercial terms, if and when an energy agreement with the federal gov ernment became a fact. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion to the minister, and a comment.

At this point I'm convinced that no agreement will be reached by July 1. But could the minister indicate whether any subsequent meetings are planned after this first meeting? Was that part of the discussion in arranging the format of agendas for negotiations in June or into July? Was this discussed with Mr. Lalonde, the federal minister? Is a sequence of meetings planned after the one on June 10? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, a sequence of meetings is not planned.

I would expect that during the meeting of June 10, and probably toward the end of that meeting when we have seen what has developed during the course of it, we will have a discussion as to future meetings. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, to the Premier. This is not meant to sound facetious, but has the Premier given any consideration to setting up a system the same as the papal selection system, where the Premier, the Prime Minister, and the two ministers get together and stay in that room until the white smoke goes up?

Has the minister spoken to the Prime Minister to find out if the four people can get together for the sake of Canada and of Alberta? Mr. Speaker, I say to the Premier directly: has any considera tion been given to the four gentlemen sitting down and having that happen? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I don't know about the white smoke part of that, but perhaps we should look at the history.

Last year, when the first effort was made by the government of Alberta to negotiate a fair and equita ble energy agreement, the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources conducted discussions — I think he reported on November 3 that they could not be called negotiations — with the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Re sources. As we all know, they were unsuccessful. As a result an effort was made on July 24 and 25 of last year by me, as the Premier of Alberta, with the Prime Minister to see if we could reach an agreement.

It was obvious that we were very far apart when we began our discussions and that the ministers of energy had not been able to make any progress towards closing any gap, if you like, for the reasons that were very accurately described by the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources on November 3 in Hansard, as I mentioned. We all recall the negotiations during the 1970s, in which I was involved in a number of circumstances in concluding or finalizing negotiations with the Prime Min ister on energy pricing.

But at that stage of the game it was a matter of the Prime Minister and me, in essence, coming to a final agreement after considerable progress had been made by the ministers of energy. We would have to assess the progress being made by the two ministers of energy during the course of their discussion, to ascertain whether or not such a meeting between the Prime Minister and me would be productive. One has to reach the conclusion, too, that if such a meeting occurs and is unsuccessful, there is really no further step that can be taken.

910 ALBERTA HANSARD May 25, 1981 MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary. MR. SPEAKER: Possibly we might come back to this topic if there's time. A considerable number of members have not been given a chance to ask their first question. Stability in Livestock Industry MRS. CRIPPS: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture.

At the recent meeting between the provincial and federal ministers of agriculture, was the minister consulted by the federal minister prior to the announcement of the federal Agricultural Stabilization Act, which subsidizes hog producers in other provinces but not in Alberta? MR. SCHMIDT: No, Mr. Speaker. MRS. CRIPPS: Supplementary. Were any other prov inces affected by this discriminatory action? MR. SPEAKER: That apparently would be a matter of public record. MRS. CRIPPS: Supplementary.

If Alberta isn't the only province treated in this manner, does the minister intend to make representation to the federal government on behalf of Alberta's hog producers? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, there was no communica tion between Agriculture Canada and the provincial de partment, either before or after the announcement of hog stabilization as it affects producers across Canada. The information we have is the same information available to all hon. members through a news release. The indications are that each province is treated differently.

It was on the assumption of that information that a telex was sent to the federal Department of Agriculture suggesting and asking for the basis of the stabilization, the formula on how the payment is to be made, whether or not there will be discrimination province to province, recognizing various programs that exist across Canada and if Alber tans as producers will be recognized with the federal stabilization and, if not, why not. MRS. CRIPPS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

On May 12, Minister Whelan made a statement: while I can appreciate the desire of provinces to help their producers, in the long run — I hope we can get away from unequal treatment that makes it more advantageous to farm in one province than another. Is this a true statement? Are Alberta hog producers in an advantageous position compared to other provinces? MR. SPEAKER: With great respect to the hon. member, it would appear that this type of research might be done outside the question period. MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr.

Speaker, as a result of the problems we're having with the federal stabilization pro gram, is it still the minister's intent to put in place the stabilization program mentioned in the throne debate, and will hog producers in Alberta be able to take advan tage of that stabilization program? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, the information we have in regard to federal stabilization still leaves inequities to producers across the nation, one province to the other, recognizing the various programs that exist.

Of course if our producers within the province do not qualify for any federal stabilization according to the news release, the problem that exists amongst Alberta producers still ex ists, and some form of stabilization or assurance would have to be considered. MR. MANDEVILLE: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Have hog and cattle producers had a recent meeting with regard to getting together on a stabilization plan for hog and cattle producers in the province? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr.

Speaker, the two areas in the live stock industry, both cattle and hogs, have had the oppor tunity of an exchange of views on two separate occasions that I am aware of, and maybe more meetings. The last meeting during which we had the opportunity to hear the views of the Canadian cattlemen indicated that the last meeting that had been held with hog producers had ar rived at a suitable suggestion in regard to any form of stabilization as it pertained to the hog industry.

Of course what happened to the cattle industry had to be on a separate basis, recognizing that a program of hog support certainly wouldn't meet the total requirements of the beef industry. MR. MANDEVILLE: One final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister indicate what the loss is going to be to Alberta hog producers as a result of the federal minister not having the $8.96 apply to Alberta hog producers? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, the federal stabilization program deals directly with market hogs. It's approxi mately $9, and we produce about 1.6 million hogs.

I leave it to the hon. member to multiply it out. MRS. OSTERMAN: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Alberta Pork Producers' Marketing Board has asked that the federal government expose all forms of government assistance, either directly or indirectly. If that information isn't forthcoming from the federal government, would the minister undertake to assist the Pork Producers' Market ing Board in obtaining that information? MR. SPEAKER: Strictly speaking, the question is hypo thetical, but perhaps the minister could deal with it. MR. SCHMIDT: Mr.

Speaker, just to add some infor mation that would help in answer to the hon. member, it would appear that the program of federal stabilization will be dealt directly with each producer group or pro ducers, province to province. I can only assume that the question the hon. member asked would be answered by the federal Department of Agriculture in bringing forth some of the answers to the questions I know the hog marketing board has already asked the federal department. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a question to the minis ter. It relates to an earlier answer the minister gave my colleague Mr. Mandeville.

Is the minister in a position to indicate to the Assembly whether the hog stabilization plan, which was discussed by an official of the Depart ment of Agriculture at the hog marketing board's region al meetings during the early spring, is the program the minister plans to bring into implementation? And at what date does the minister expect the program to be effective?

May 25, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 911 MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the plan the hon. member is discussing is one of the basic plans presented. Recognizing an average return to producers across western Canada, the submission came close to the average. That, plus some alterations to various programs, are those that are under consideration. MR. R. CLARK: When will that be effective? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, it's difficult to say when it would be effective. It would depend upon the mechan ical aspects of the program itself.

It's a shared program, and the physical aspects of the deduction on a per hog basis would form part of the premiums. MR. R. CLARK: One further supplementary question to the hon. minister. In the course of those meetings, cer tainly the expectation was [given] to producers that in fact July 1 might be a date the program could be effec tive. Is that date reachable? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, it's difficult to set aside a specific date, but July 1 is usually a fairly good day. [interjections] Hazardous Chemicals MR. BORSTAD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Environment.

Some concerns regarding pesti cides and chemicals have been expressed to me. Will the owners of retail outlets across the province be forced to take courses in order to sell chemicals in the future? MR. COOKSON: Mr. Speaker, in recent months we have passed regulations under The Hazardous Chemicals Act designed eventually to upgrade the capability of all manufacturers, particularly retail or outlet operators in various degrees of training, to make them more able to handle these particular chemicals safely. MR. BORSTAD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has been deregulating a number of businesses that are affected. Will the small retail stores across the country selling these chemicals now be forced to license? MR. COOKSON: That's correct, Mr. Speaker. They will be issued a special licence under the Department of Environment. The licence is not a complex document in terms of requirement. I don't perceive it as a further government regulation that's going to make private en terprise difficult to operate, so I wouldn't see it as a counter-proposal to the Minister of Consumer and Cor porate Affairs.

Crop Insurance MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Agriculture. Could the minister indi cate whether applications for crop insurance have been on the increase this year? Are there more applications this year than last year? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, at present there's no indi cation that there's either more or less than last year. Last year we enjoyed a good, average year in regard to the number of farmers who took out all-risk crop insurance. It would appear that we're very closely following last year's numbers and the interest that's been shown. MR.

MANDEVILLE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister indicate whether he or the crop insurance board have had complaints from people indicating that crop insurance doesn't cover the input cost for farming today? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, the indications are that the cost factor has been taken into consideration. Last year the opportunity to insure increased to $100 per acre.

The comment made perhaps more often than others was a review in regard to hail insurance, as it pertained to the all-risk crop insurance package — that some of the areas should be updated, recognizing that in some cases the premiums were slightly out of phase with the private sector. MR. MANDEVILLE: One final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the minister's intent to change the policy so it will cover the increased cost and production of farming today? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr.

Speaker, certainly one of the ongo ing aspects and responsibilities of the board is to review both the coverage and the premium rates as they pertain so the true philosophy of all-risk is what it states. Rain Damage — Pincher Creek Area MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my question to the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs, re sponsible for Alberta Disaster Services.

I wonder whether the minister will be able to advise the Assembly whether he's received an assessment by Alberta Disaster Services with regard to damage caused in the Pincher Creek area by heavy rainfall last Thursday and early Friday, and whether residents will be eligible for compensation for damages caused by the heavy rain, whether it was surface run-off, flooding, or sewer back-up? MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, officials of Disaster Serv ices have analysed the situation.

Apparently there was an abnormal rainfall in the area that affected about 150 homes in the town of Pincher Creek, and perhaps as many as 20 in the municipal district. My most recent information is that it's likely that most, if not all, of the damage in the town of Pincher Creek was the result of sewer back-up, which is normally insurable. In that case, the residents would not be eligible for any disaster assistance.

For that reason, residents of the area are currently being advised to contact their insurance companies to determine if in fact they have sewer back-up insurance so they might entertain a claim with the insur ance company. For residents outside the town who might have been affected by the flooding of one particular creek or river, further assessment will be undertaken during the next few days to see whether or not they should be advised to apply for disaster assistance. MR. BRADLEY: A supplementary question, Mr. Speak er.

Can the minister advise whether a claims office will be set up in the Pincher Creek area to assist residents in filing claims?

912 ALBERTA HANSARD May 25, 1981 MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I would first of all have to determine whether or not the occurence of sewer back-up is the problem that really exists. That being the case, there would be no disaster assistance. I would see no need to establish an office to accept claims if we weren't prepared to make payments under the policies presently in effect. It would likely be towards the latter part of this week before I could determine whether or not there is a necessity of establishing a claims office. Social Allowance Rates MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to direct this ques tion to the hon. Minister of Social Services and Commu nity Health. It flows from food estimates based on the Calgary board of health figures, and is with respect to the shortfall in social allowance rates for food.

In determin ing social allowance rates, what assessment has been made of these Calgary board of health figures, which show that for one parent and one child, we're $10 below the minimum nutritional requirements; for one child under 12 and one under 15 years of age, $32 a month under the minimum nutritional requirements; and two parents and three children under 12, $66 under the minimum nutritional requirements? As a consequence of this information, what specific review has been made of the food component of social allowance? MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, in his

preamble the hon. member made reference to specific work done by the Calgary board of health. I'm not aware that that informa tion has been made available to or been assessed by the department yet. I'll certainly undertake to obtain an answer to that question. On the broader question of support through our social allowance programs, assessments are carried out by the department through both the income security and plan ning secretariat branches. Those have been increased from an annual review to a semi-annual review, and there will be adjustments on the same basis. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister with respect to the National Council of Welfare figures respecting our social allowance rates in the province and again showing the difference between our social assistance rates and the poverty line. In deter mining social allowance rates, what assessment is made by the department of the poverty-line yardstick, in view of the fact that we range here all the way from $140 a month to . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

The hon. member should ask his questions directly, instead of bringing in ex traneous information and making comparisons without simply asking the minister for the information. MR. NOTLEY: The information is necessary to ask the question. It's not extraneous information, because there is a difference between the poverty line and our rates. MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of or ganizations in this nation which from time to time study various social issues, including the amount of assistance provided to social allowance recipients in various prov inces. Mr.

Speaker, I can assure the hon. member and all hon. members of this Assembly that in the reviews of the needs of social allowance recipients in this province, which now take place on a semi-annual basis, we take into full consideration both the food, clothing, and shelt er needs and other basic needs of the recipients. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. The minister indicated there is a semi annual review. Who conducts that review, and what spe cific input is made by groups such as the National Council of Welfare? Is there any request for information from this organization?

How is the review conducted? MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, as I had responded in an earlier question, the review is a responsibility of both the income security branch in the department and the plan ning secretariat. We do receive input from the social allowance appeal committees, which are made up of lay people from across the province. Those committees have input directly to the minister. In both cases meetings were held within the last few months with representatives — the chairmen and vice-chairmen — from most of the appeal committees.

So in fact we are obtaining informa tion from those individuals, along with the professionals within the department, who are in the best position to know the needs. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. In view of the information the National Council of Welfare makes available with respect to the poverty line, has the government of Alberta ever develop ed a policy with respect to social allowance rates as they relate to the poverty line?

Is it the view of the government that they should be beneath the poverty line — as these figures seem to indicate — at the poverty line, slightly above? Has any policy been developed with respect to the poverty line as a bench mark? MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, we certainly take into ac count information provided by a number of organizations which provide us with that kind of input of their own volition. In his first question the hon. member made reference to the Calgary board of health. If not available now, I'm sure that information will be.

It will be given the same kind of consideration other material coming from other organizations is given. DR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister In his review I wonder if the minister would also confirm whether nutritionists actually review the food allowance to be sure the dollars provided are adequate to buy that food. If the minister knows that is a fact right now, I'd appreciate if he'd make that comment. MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, that's one of the advantages of receiving information and input from a variety of organizations which have an interest.

In addition to the two branches of the department I made reference to earli er, of course we make every attempt to assure ourselves, through our community health division of the depart- ment that the assistance provided is substantial and adequate to meet the needs of those who depend on our assistance. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister responsible for Workers' Health, Safety and Compensation would like to deal further with a previous question period topic.

May 25, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 913 Hazardous Chemical Spills MR. DIACHUK: Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of brevi ty in some of the questions I took on notice, I will just refer to them. On May 12, I received a question from the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview: "What steps . . . has the department taken to determine the level of danger to the workers involved" at the 1974 incident at Procter & Gamble? I wish to advise the Assembly that in 1974 there were no statutory requirements to report PCB spills.

However, it is known that only a small volume of PCBs were lost from the transformer as the result of an over flow. There was no rupture. The company has no record of injuries associated with the incident, nor of any claims with the Workers' Compensation Board, nor does the Board have any claims to date from that incident. On May 14, a question: will the department "take the initiative in attempting to find those people involved in the 1974 clean-up so there can be proper medical testing for their own health and safety?" I wish to advise that the company has been contacted; I have spoken to the presi dent.

The company has indicated that it does not have a list of workers who participated in the clean-up in 1974. In view of the time lapse since the spill — some nine years — and the uncertainty of the amount of PCB exposure respecting any individual workers, it would be difficult to associate any medical complaints at the present time with PCB exposure. However, the occupational health service at Procter & Gamble has been advised of the occupational health and safety division medical surveillance guidelines respecting workers exposed to PCBs, which were issued in 1979.

These require a comprehensive medical and work history with special emphasis on liver function, skin condition, and reproduction history, and a comprehensive physical examination with attention to the skin and liver func tions. These guidelines are analogous to those used by NIOSH. Plasma PCB levels have also been requested on the exposed workers. It is my understanding that the com pany has asked those workers who were exposed to PCB in 1974 and in 1978 to present themselves for medical examination.

Section 15 of The Occupational Health and Safety Act requires that a worker be medically examined by the director of medical service or a physician au thorized by that director to carry out the medical examination. On May 15 a question referred to the Stelco spill. I wish to advise that on March 10 this year Stelco officials discovered a small quantity of PCBs and were advised that less than 1.5 gallons, according to various estimates, had gradually leaked from a capacitator into an enclosed system containing some 12,000 gallons of water used to cool the equipment.

Analysis of the slurry sample showed the level of 128 parts per billion, which is lower than the 200 parts per billion concentration in the edible portion of fish allowed by Environment Canada. As a precautionary measure, however, the area of pos sible contamination was roped off immediately for clean up of all liquid material in the capacitator. Zorb-all, shovels, brooms, and rags were used by the six employees involved in the clean-up, who wore rubber boots, rubber gloves, and coveralls.

These clean-up procedures followed those outlined in the guidelines on central collection as storage facilities for waste materials, as per Environment Canada order. All material, implements, and clothing suspected of coming in contact with the possible conta mination were discarded in 45-gallon drums, sealed and identified with the Stelco label. The occupational hygiene branch of the occupational health and safety division has carried out an investigation of the incident and concluded that the workers did not receive excessive exposure, and no reports of illness among the workers have been received.

No adverse health effects would be anticipated with the level of exposure identified, and therefore no medical examinations are necessary. Mr. Speaker, one more question taken on notice was on May 21 with regard to the Suncor spill. The Suncor incident was no spill. On that occasion a transformer fluid vaporized as a result of internal arcing, and that vapor escaped through the bushings. The transformer was located in a building whose walls were coated with coke.

This would have had much the same effect as activated charcoal, which is used in the treatment of poisoning, in binding any PCBs that come into contact with it. The initial clean-up was conducted by six Suncor employees wearing personal protective equipment. Sub sequent cleaning was carried out by a contractor approx imately two months later. In the interim the transformer was held in a fenced, locked enclosure. The level of PCBs in the dust was very low and would have posed little hazard to the workers even without protective equipment.

The laboratory services branch of the occupational health and safety branch has completed analyses of PCBs in the blood of 16 workers with potential exposure to PCBs. None of the results were above the level of detec tion. Liver function tests have also been carried out on the exposed workers. The results of the liver function tests and the plasma tests will be reported to the workers individually. In accordance with existing policy of the occupational health and safety division, a copy of the report sent to the company will be made available to the local bargaining agent. In closing, Mr.

Speaker, I may indicate that the evi dence indicates that there have been no symptoms among workers involved in clean-up operations in any of the episodes described nor, with the levels of exposure and the precautions taken, would there likely be any health effects. All three companies concerned have occupational health services in place. Periodic health examinations are carried out on workers, and to date no health problems that could be related to PCBs have been identified.

The occupational health and safety division will continue to respond at the working level to requests from companies or the provincial or federal departments of environment for information concerning clean-up procedures, person nel protective equipment to be worn, and medical testing procedures to be carried out in the event of a suspected or known exposure to PCBs. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: May the hon. Member for Vegreville revert to Introduction of Special Guests? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS (reversion) MR. BATIUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's a real pleasure to introduce to you, and through you to the

914 ALBERTA HANSARD May 25, 1981 members of the Assembly, 32 grades 5 and 6 students from St. Mary's school in Vegreville. They are accom panied by their principal Mr. Spok, teacher Sister Cecilia, and bus operator Mr. Zubritsky. I would ask that they rise and receive the welcome of the Assembly. head: GOVERNMENT MOTIONS (Committee of Supply) [Mr. Purdy in the Chair] MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Committee of Supply will please come to order. Department of Housing and Public Works MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Has the minister any opening comments? MR. CHAMBERS: Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to take this opportunity to briefly highlight a few items in the budget, which I'm bringing before the Assembly for approval this afternoon. I know members are agreed that we're facing a critical time in the history of our province. The effects of the federal government's monetary and national energy policies have severe implications for Alberta's economy. The budget we'll be reviewing today is a particularly tangible indication of the efforts this government is making to offset the potentially disastrous effects of those federal government policies.

While it's true that the total amount of government capital works construction in the province is not a high percentage of all construction, nevertheless the spinoff effects of such a project in a community, particularly in rural areas, can have a tremendous impact on the econo my of that community.

The planning of my budget has addressed two important aspects: firstly, the economic downturn in our economy which could result from the delay in oil sands plants, caused by the national energy policy; and secondly, the need for Alberta to continue to diversify its economy in preparation for the day when our energy resources become severely depleted. As we review the projects for which I now seek your approval, you will note that these projects will enable construction to continue in essentially all areas of the province.

For example, the Minister of Tourism and Small Business recently announced plans to develop and construct an oil sands information centre in Fort Mc- Murray. This centre will not only provide visitors with an appreciation of the historical development of the oil sands region, but will contain a tourist bureau to assist those visitors who wish to travel further into the region. In the Cold Lake-Grand Centre-Bonnyville area, the Al berta Housing Corporation recently announced its inten tion to construct major affordable housing projects.

In Calgary and Edmonton renovation work will commence on both Jubilee auditoriums as well as major government office facilities; and in Calgary, a new remand centre. Members are undoubtedly aware of the tremendous job the Department of Agriculture has done in promoting Alberta products through the Buy Alberta advertising campaign. We are constructing a food processing facility in Leduc in support of this concept of encouraging small business to become involved in food processing in this province. I'm confident this facility will provide for fur ther diversification of our agricultural community. Mr.

Chairman, tourism in Alberta has seen tremendous growth during the last few years. We are continuing to promote that growth in southern Alberta through the provision of interpretive centres at Leitch Collieries and the Frank slide, and will be establishing a major new museum and research institution on the outskirts of Drumheller, which will be devoted to the investigation and display of dinosaur remains. Mr. Chairman, these are just a few of the interesting projects contained in this budget which I'm placing before you.

But before concluding these brief opening remarks, I'd be remiss if I didn't touch on the housing aspect of my portfolio. I'm anticipating spending by this government in the coming fiscal year toward the provision of housing for Albertans to be in excess of $1 billion. It is not only the greatest amount of money ever spent by the govern ment in one year, but it is greater than that spent by any other provincial government in that period of time. Our housing programs will continue to provide shelter for the elderly and for low-income Albertans.

In addition, we will continue to assist low- and middle-income Albertans to achieve home-ownership. Without this funding home- ownership would never be more than an impossible dream for many people. With those few remarks, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to entertain questions from the members. MR. MANDEVILLE: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I have a number of questions I would like to pose to the hon. Minister of Housing and Public Works. We all appreciate that there certainly are a number of programs under the Housing and Public Works Department. Some have been very successful and some weren't so successful.

A pro gram that I think is meeting with the most success is the Alberta family home program. It has certainly been most beneficial for many of the areas I've been in or any concerns I've had. However, we do have some complaints as far as the Alberta home family program is concerned. Number one is when an application is made. I've gone up to Calgary myself, sat down, and helped work out appli cations, and they certainly could be simplified. I think they should be streamlined to make it much simpler for a family to purchase a home under this program.

Many changes could be made as far as the applications are concerned, and we wouldn't get so many complaints in that area. Another area of complaint that I hear many times is our single-parent family, a widow. Under the family home program there is really no help to assist this type of person. One of the concerns of many people who have their applications approved is what's going to happen when their subsidy period runs out. How is this going to be handled? Another program that has certainly met with a lot of enthusiasm is the senior citizens' self-contained suites.

I certainly appreciate the work that's been happen ing in my own constituency. We have them in the ham lets, the small towns, the villages. They've certainly been working out very well throughout the province, and I appreciate the ones that have been approved and com pleted in my own constituency. I don't think some of the programs under Housing are working as successfully as the two I just mentioned. One program I'd like to ask the minister about is the commu nity services program grant. It was discontinued approx imately 11 months ago.

I see that it's a joint federal/ provincial program and that we have budgeted some money in this area. I'd like the minister to indicate what this is going to be spent on, how it's going to be spent, and whether the federal government is anticipating get

May 25, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 915 ting involved in the community services program in the future. One program I thought was good when it first came out was the home conversion program. However, I have seen very few applications in this area. I would like the minister to indicate why more people haven't been using this. Is it that a lot of our areas are zoned so they can't develop their basements and get into the program? If the minister has the figures on the rural mobile-home program, I would like him to indicate the arrears on the number of mobile homes that have been rented out to different people.

The farm home lending program: again, I think it's a good program, but there have to be changes in the type of homes our farmers can put up. I see that last year there were only 15 or 20 loans in this area. I would ask the minister if he's considering any changes in the design of homes for our farm home lending program, or if they're considering changing so the applications could be handled exclusively through the Alberta devel opment corporation. Another program that I don't think is used very much is the shell housing program. I don't know how good it is.

I'd like the minister to indicate how extensive this is. When your home is 75 per cent completed, you take it over without interior fixing and take over the project. I would like the minister to indicate how successful this program is. Finally, I look at administrative support, up 21 per cent; policy and program development, up 33 per cent. I think the minister should be taking a really good look at some of these mortgages that are coming up for renewal, where the applicants certainly can't make the payments and won't qualify for mortgages when these mortgages are renewed.

I would like to see the minister take a good look at getting involved, putting some of the heritage trust fund money — I realize that they're spending over $1 billion at the present time, but maybe we could be putting some more money into some of these renewable mortgages on a short term, to save some of our families from losing their homes. DR. PAPROSKI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too would like to make a few very brief comments. I compli ment the minister and the department for the excellent work they're doing, for the intense interest and activity in housing.

As the members of the committee recognize, housing is one of the key factors in the standard of living. I suggest that Alberta is second to none in North America and the world in the number of houses per capita that are being built and are present in our society. I understand some 1.3 million housing units will be needed by the year 2000. I wonder if the minister has any figures to indicate what percentage of those homes now being built are by the private sector versus the public sector.

I raise that because a concern is expressed that maybe we as a government are putting too much empha sis and undercutting the private sector, which actually has been and is doing an excellent job — not to deter from all those programs which allow literally any first-time home owner, a single parent or a family, to buy a home under the various programs, whether they're earning $13,000 or $31,000. I think it's really important that those types of programs continue. But a concern is expressed that the balance is shifting too far to the public sector.

I'm merely saying that is a reflection of some builders in our society. Would the minister also expand on the land banking programs for the Edmonton area in particular. Is any thing new and fresh going on now in that area, and is land banking still a continuous program to bring on cheap or more affordable lots? Echoing the comments I made on interest the other day, I would like to make a pitch that maybe the department or Executive Council would consider a 5 per cent rebate on interest rates for conventional mortgages that are now being renewed, say up to $50,000 or $75,000.

I'm talking about an interest rebate not to go below, say, 14, 15, or 16 per cent for at least one year, to get those who are renewing their mortgages over the hump of this high interest. When they're renewing their mortgages, it's almost prohibitive for some to maintain their houses. Frankly, Mr. Chair man, I think it would be better for them to stay in their homes rather than leave them. Maybe some consideration for that kind of rebate program would be in the depart ment's activities over the next month or two. MRS. CRIPPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have one brief question to the minister.

In the case of separa tion, assuming that the wife has guardianship of the children, an agreement has been reached where she would retain the family home, and the home is already financed through Alberta Home Mortgage Corporation, has any consideration been given to allowing the wife to refinance the home in her own name through Alberta Home Mortgage Corporation? MR. BATIUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to spend much time, but I would like to say that I'm very happy with the housing programs, particularly those for the senior citizens.

Seeing that the Vegreville constituency is one of the most heavily senior citizen populated areas in the province, every year when I look at my priorities, I have to consider the senior citizens. I think the time is quite close when accommodation for them in the constit uency is going to be adequate. I'm just going to speak of the area I represent. I think the senior citizens are one of the happiest bunches of people — at least they express those views whenever I discuss it with them.

Many times in and out of the Legislature, concerns are expressed that senior citizens are on fixed incomes and that makes it very difficult. I don't know whether this is the case in cities. However, in rural areas senior citizens seem quite happy with the care they are getting. With health care, subsidization for renters assistance, and so forth, they are some of the happier people in town. Many times I wish we would maybe take a stronger look at those on minimum wages. I think they may be finding it more difficult.

When I think about the deficits the towns and munici palities have to pick up, I wonder whether senior citizens shouldn't be contributing a little more towards rental fees. I recall very well when I was on the Lamont foundation, we had the official opening of the senior citizens' lodge in 1968. About 100 people were waiting for the official opening. At that time the Leader of the Opposition was the minister of health and welfare. Even though he came an hour late, he apologized because he and his colleague from Clover Bar were golfing that morning. But this has nothing to do with it.

I was going to stress that at that time the old age allowance for senior citizens was $70 per month. The rent in Lamont lodge was $65 per month. A few senior citi zens had no other income whatsoever. All they had left for themselves was $5 per month. I know there was a community organization that helped some of these indi viduals. But today when they pay barely more than $200 or $230 rent for senior citizens' lodges and their benefits

916 ALBERTA HANSARD May 25, 1981 are close to $500, I wonder whether they shouldn't be paying just a little bigger portion for their rent rather than have the municipalities pick up the tabs. I think there are less and less requests for these lodges because some smaller municipalities find it difficult to bear that extra rent. So I have just those few concerns. Otherwise I'm really happy with housing. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, to the minister. First of all, I want to make some comments on the direction of the housing program and how the minister sees it at the present time.

When I examine some Canadian statistics and look at Alberta's place relative to other governments, we're spending a lot of money on housing; we're involved very directly. We're intervening in the housing industry and the building of condominiums, high-rises, et cetera in the province of Alberta. I'd like to give some statistics indicating that and, secondly, talk about the implications of the way we spend our money in Alberta and the way it affects the housing and shelter industry.

For example, if we look back to 1973, Alberta was spending 22 per cent of the total of all housing budgets of the 10 Canadian provinces. But if we look at 1980, when Alberta has 8.6 per cent of the Canadian population, we are spending 76 per cent; that's three-quarters of the total Canadian expenditure on housing in Alberta. As well, when we look at 1974, we find that the province of Alberta financed 12.7 per cent of all housing starts. If we look at available financing at the present time, 1980, we're financing 55.2 per cent, over half the housing starts in Alberta. As we all know, Mr.

Chairman, when you inject money into the economy, no matter how you do it there are always strings attached, there's a certain frame of re ference, there's control by government, and it directs the industry. So we have intervention by government. I would like to examine that for a few moments. One question I want to raise with the minister, to have him reflect upon in this discussion, is whether he is satisfied that this intensive intervention by the Conservative gov ernment in the housing industry is working to the best interests of Albertans. Will we see this type of involve ment continue in the future?

Or will there be a change of policy that supports the free market place and the private housing industry in the province of Alberta? We can also look at other tables and other points of reference with regard to the province's involvement in the housing or shelter industry in this province. For example, per capita spending on the capital housing budget stands at $396.57 in Alberta, compared to $6.83 in Ontario, $12.23 in Saskatchewan, and $12.15 in British Columbia — a significant difference in the amount of dollars we have in that private industry.

In relation to that, I'd like to know what specific studies the minister has undertaken to determine the effect on the housing market in Alberta of such a high volume of housing coming under govern ment regulation. Does the minister know the kind of housing mix the government has created because of this intervention at the present time? Does the minister know the effect of this program on homes which do not come under subsidies at the present time?

As I look at some things happening in relation to those questions I just raised, I find some 8,000 units are subsi dized in Alberta through various programs of the de partment. I feel the following situation has been created. For example, we have put a limit on a home for assist ance through, I believe, the Alberta home mortgage pro gram. It was $70,000, and I believe it has just changed to $73,000. From the best information I have, I find that this limit or amount has become the minimum for most builders across the province.

That's the target they aim at and build according to, so the person qualifies for that amount of money. What we have in these circumstances are many homes built in that category. But just beyond that category, in the middle income or persons who would qualify for homes above that level, finances be come much more difficult. And anyone who builds a home, builds a more expensive home. So you have a group of people who fall in between on that system. Secondly, in terms of what I've just said, I think it has some effect or possibly quite a bit of effect on the quality of housing in the province.

Because of the restrictions, I would say there's some unimaginative housing. And we have subdivisions set up with certain house-design restric tions created by finances made available by this govern ment. That's the second thing I see as an effect. The third thing is that I feel the amount of $70,000 — now $73,000 — has prevented single-family homes being built in Calgary and Edmonton. That amount has pre vented them from qualifying. What it has done to many people who wish to have their own home so they can build up an equity is force them into condominiums.

I understand the condominium market has flourished quite rapidly in the last while. So we've caused people to live in a different environment because of that fixed sum of money of some $70,000. We've pushed them into condo minium living, a different kind of environment which, if they have to raise a young family, they look at as their future homes. I think that's a shortfall in this program at the present time. I'm not sure whether the government knows the kind of mix that is out there, and that's why I raised the question to the minister before I went into the statements.

Does the minister have studies as to the implications out in the field? Does he really know what is happening out there, or does the government just continue the program, push the money out, and not realize how it's controlling the shelter program for the private citizens of Alberta? If we as a government are doing that type of thing, I think that is a little unfair to Albertans. People in Alberta should be able to determine their own type of shelter and way of life. I think there has been some effect on house prices generally.

While the $70,000 maximum has turned out what I feel to be maybe a poorer quality house, it has had some effect on the unsubsidized middle-priced homes where, as I've already mentioned, I'm sure it has pushed the price up significantly. I also find from talking to persons that builders haven't built for the medium-price range, which I understand has pushed up homes further. I'd like the minister to comment on that if the depart ment's studies have found the same. My colleague has raised the matter of the Alberta home mortgage program and the fate of the subsidies that expire after 30 months.

My question to the minister would be: for those who have mortgages, what happens to those subsidies after the 30-month period? As well, what happens to mortgages that must be renewed? The minister indicated in the Assembly the other day that there was no consideration of renewing mortgages through the Department of Housing and Public Works. After the five-year period people were on their own; they have enough equity in their home that they now have to go out on the open market. But the weakness of that argument, Mr. Chairman, is that incomes of people do

May 25, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 917 not change. They may have the equity, but the cash flow to meet increased mortgage payments is not there. We've got them out into the field, and if we drop them at that point I'm sure we're causing hardships on many families across this province. There is no indication at the present time. The Provincial Treasurer tells us repeatedly in this House that he doesn't find any bankruptcies in the prov ince of Alberta, the farmers aren't in trouble, people who are lending money from the treasury branches are doing fine; everything's great in good old Alberta.

But maybe we're at the stage where interest rates, mortgage rates, are just starting to take their toll. In the debate in the Legislature the other day when we talked about mortgage and interest rates, my colleague said that it's time for this government to put in place some prevention programs and try to prohibit the forma tion of a list of bankruptcies that we'll read about in the Legislature this fall. At that time we'll say, now that so many are bankrupt we're going to rush out and do something. We'll fail to act quickly enough to meet our responsibilities.

Hopefully the minister will comment on how the department and the government are going to handle that problem now and in the next few months. One hon. member said, where would we move in a program such as this to help the private sector at this time? One, I think we could be less involved in building government houses, less involved in some of the subdivi sion work going on. We could provide capital to Alber tans so they could plan and do their own job.

I think one of the best ways at the present time is to put in place an interest shielding program, so the private sector could continue to build homes and interest would not be a significant cost in the capital of those homes. As I see it at the present time — and I hope the minister will show me differently — the programs of government are not undermining the free-enterprise sys tem in the area of housing. All figures indicate that we're so involved and have our hand so much in the system that we are having an effect and are changing the whole housing industry because of that involvement.

Possibly we could be supportive as a government, provide the capital, provide interest shielding and, on that basis, stay out of directing traffic out there in the private sector. With all the capital we have in this province, that might be a better way to handle the situation. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to raise one other item at this point with regard to the matter I raised in question period a number of times. This is either the lease, purchase, or rental of property outside the province of Alberta.

I would like to suggest to the minister and this government that that type of property should be handled exactly the same, hopefully, as we handle property in the province of Alberta: either tenders can be put out or persons can give offers for leases; that when this type of thing is done there is a procedure within the department to check the validity of the lease, to assure ourselves that the lowest possible lease or rental accommodation has been obtained, or that we have a fair purchase price of any kind of capital facility — office, residential, or whatever it may be.

We were very alarmed on this side of the Legislature when we found that the Minister of Federal and Inter governmental Affairs seemed to take the London resi dence and office buildings in hand. He was over there, showing off what a great province we have — we've got lots of money back home in Alberta, and he could make a decision and spend $1 million of taxpayers' money for a man and his wife to live in London because we have to talk about the constitution. The lease is 53 years. If the constitutional debate lasts that long, this government had better fold its tent and do something different.

I'm sure that by July of this year we'll have lost the constitutional debate and it'll be over. So they ought to find something different to do over there besides the constitutional de bate. For three or four months we're trying to buy lots of office space and . . . [interjection] I'm not; that's what the minister said. Read Hansard. That's exactly what he said. He said we had to have this fine residence for $1 million, and office space as well, so we could have people over in London to meet with the British government, to wine and dine.

These are the Agent General's own remarks: he had to have this residence to wine and dine the MPs over in Britain while he talked about the constitution. If I can recall his other words quoted in the article, he wanted to use tax-free booze to look after the wining and dining of these MPs over in Britain. That's what he said; it's quoted verbatim. If that was the purpose of spending $1 million and that's the purpose of an agent general, that's a very sad situation. But the question I raise with the minister is how he handles these kinds of lease, rental, or purchase agree ments.

Up to the present time, the way the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs handled it: one, he didn't justify it to anybody, and two, he's making a big fellow of himself over in London. I think we should be making big fellows of ourselves back in Alberta for Alberta taxpayers. So I'd like the minister to make a remark or two with regard to that policy of government and the use of public funds. DR. CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wonder if the minister would comment on whether any policy change is contemplated within the department with re spect to senior citizens applying for housing subsidized by Alberta Housing Corporation. The present system is that the potential resident comes in and makes a declaration as to the amount of money he has in the bank and so forth. The same thing also holds true for residents with the renewal of their leases. The senior citizen must bring in his pension cheques and all the rest of it and have them photostatted.

As a follow-up to a private discussion with the minister last week, I'm wondering if we realize that the majority of our senior citizens are so honest that perhaps we could do away with this provision in the department of having all the cheques xeroxed. I think a considerable number of our senior citizens take this as an affront to their integrity. MR. GOGO: Mr. Chairman, I have several questions I want to put to the minister. First of all, I'd like to make a comment with regard to the policy of the government in terms of housing in general.

From all parts of Canada, I think it's pretty evident that when the government of Alberta made the policy decision that there was really one of two routes to go — one, we could go the route that some other jurisdictions have chosen, that multifamily housing is the housing of the future. Initially that looks fine, but if one looks at areas of Canada such as Toronto, Montreal, Hamilton, Winnipeg, and Vancouver, in 15 or 20 years it turns into slums. So I think the government made a very wise decision in forming the Alberta Home Mortgage Corporation to provide a medium by which they could channel mortgage funds.

I think that was a very wise decision. Under the family home ownership program — and I have raised this now for two years; this is the third year. I

918 ALBERTA HANSARD May 25, 1981 put the question again to the minister. The sole purpose of the home corporation is to provide affordability in housing. As I understand it, that's why it exists. Very clearly, when you look at the number of mortgages in the total picture, it is the money lender in the province of Alberta.

This concerns the situation whereby if a citizen wants to buy a house from a vendor whose mortgage is with the Home Mortgage Corporation, the normal trans action would be that they would make an offer to purchase that house, come up with the difference in money in the agreement, and purchase the house. How ever, they're prevented unilaterally from applying for one of the most important ingredients of our housing pro grams, and that is the subsidy program. That person is not allowed to purchase that house and apply for subsidy.

What has to happen at present is that the mortgage must be paid out and a new mortgage must be created, with all the attendant legal fees, including a survey plan. Where we in principle have endorsed a program of affordable housing, we've made it quite the opposite. In effect we've made it almost double the down payment requirement.

So I'd like to pose to the minister the question of a year ago: from a policy point of view, have we addressed that question whereby we can allow new purchasers of exist ing homes that presently have Home Mortgage Corpora tion mortgages without having to float a new mortgage and apply for the subsidy program? Secondly, Mr. Chairman, a question to the minister. Three out of five marriages in Alberta are now ending up in the divorce courts. A couple with two children is divorced. Each receives custody of one child. The wife with the child retains the home.

That home is presently financed by the Home Mortgage Corporation, but they're clearly divorced. The husband wishes to apply for and receive a mortgage from the corporation. He has one child so he qualifies in terms of a single parent. Can that person qualify, either in the present location or in another location in Edmonton where he's transferred with that child? My understanding is that he cannot. Mr.

Chairman, with regard to the core housing incen tive program — that program where half the suites are rent controlled on the basis of a person's income — from my perception, certainly for the constituency I represent, it's been a very, very successful program, with those long-term, low-interest mortgages and the condition to that of designating suites and having rents based on people's incomes.

When we compare that to the self- contained senior citizen suites, I'm wondering if somehow we couldn't allow the private sector that does the con struction under the core housing incentive program to do some self-contained suites for senior citizens. My under standing at present is that all our self-contained suites in the province of Alberta are cost-shared in some way with Canada mortgage corporation. I don't know if that's true.

I'd like the minister to comment on that, because it seems to me we're creating greater and greater disparity between those who can get into self-contained suites and those who can't. It could well be that an increase in the private sector creating affordable housing, between the senior ci tizen self-contained suite program and the core housing incentive program, would allow many more Albertans to get into affordable housing. I would like to comment, Mr.

Chairman, that I think the success of our self-contained suite program through the province is in direct proportion to the housing au thorities that have been appointed. All over Alberta we have groups of volunteers who give freely many, many hours of their time, without compensation, not only to run the affairs of the housing programs in their commu nity with both community and senior citizen housing but to carry out studies with the municipal authorities to determine the requirements for new housing. In Leth- bridge we are very fortunate — and I'm sure it's common through the province — with the chairman, Mr.

Mon tgomery, and his board in doing just an excellent job with, I think, about 350 suites presently under their administration. The final two questions, Mr. Chairman. I understand the government leases perhaps a third or better of the downtown office space in the capital city. I don't know what the lease rates are, but it seems to me that with the increase in costs we now have lease arrangements which are net, net, net, or triple net. Obviously operating costs of those buildings are a very, very significant factor. That brings up the question of conservation.

We have not only buildings that are built to code but energy efficient build ings. Where the Alberta government undertakes an agreement to lease a given space over five, 10, or 20 years, whatever the case is, even before its construction, does the Alberta government insist on certain standards based on conservation, such as heating costs and other operat ing costs? Obviously the government as the lessee is the group that is going to pay that. Finally, Mr. Chairman, the minister announced last week the increase in the income level for the pioneer home repair program from $12,000 to $13,500.

Although I've read the press release, I didn't see when it was effec tive. Would the minister respond as to when it is effective, if that date has been announced, and if not, if it's on the basis of approval of his estimates? Thank you. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: That completes the list of members who wish to participate. Would the minister like to comment? MR. CHAMBERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been trying to make notes on quite a diversity of ques tions. I hope I will be able to cover them. If I miss anything anybody asked, I assure you it's inadvertent and please ask it again.

The Member for Bow Valley mentioned application forms. Perhaps they can be simplified. I'm sorry he isn't here right now, but I'm sure he'll get the word. If he has any suggestions as to how we can simplify them, we'd be happy to listen to them. I would point out, though, that we are spending a lot of taxpayers' dollars, therefore the Home Mortgage Corporation has to be especially careful in terms of checking out its application forms, as com pared to somebody in the private sector. By the nature of government spending, we have to be extra careful.

But that doesn't mean to say improvement isn't possible, and we're always happy to entertain suggestions. The Member for Bow Valley mentioned no help for a single parent family. I think maybe he was talking about singles, because obviously there are a lot of single parent families who are assisted and require housing under the programs. I've been asked before in this House about mortgages for singles. I've always pointed out that it's really a question of priorities. I think most members would agree that the first priority has to go to housing families.

I guess one could fairly say that we're probably the most overhoused people in the world. If you look at the density of persons per house, it's something in the order of two. If you get into priorities, obviously you're housing more people more efficiently if you have two per

May 25, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 919 house than if you have one per house. That doesn't mean to say it should be ruled out. From time to time it is reviewed by the corporation, usually about once a year. However, to this point, the priorities are with families rather than with singles. He mentioned the subsidy and when it runs out. Inci dentally that period is 20 months, not 30 months. After that period of time they're evaluated, regardless of wheth er the circumstances have or haven't changed. If the subsidy is still warranted, then it may be obtained.

So I'm not so sure the member totally understands the program in that regard. Community services turned out to be a short-term program of the federal government. At a housing minis ters' meeting with the federal minister in Toronto three years ago, we were sure it was a permanent program. As it so often does, the federal government unilaterally can celled it last year. So other than winding up what's in process, the program has been discontinued. We have a meeting of the provincial and federal ministers scheduled for, I believe, June 2 and 3.

From my own standpoint, and I think the standpoint of my other provincial col leagues, I know that many if not most of us believed that the community services program was one of the better programs the federal government had, that they had made a firm commitment to it, and that it should not have been unilaterally cut. Many provinces have faced significant difficulties over having that program chopped upon very short notice. I hoped that home conversion would have gone a little better than it has to this point. We knew there'd be a number of difficulties in getting it under way.

Zoning requirements, building by-laws, fire codes, and so forth are perhaps natural hindrances to the program. But I hoped it would have had faster take-up. I'm still hopeful that it will gradually catch on and expand, because it's certainly a useful way to accomplish a couple of things: one, to help people in a given circumstance pay their mortgage — in other words, more income, more afforda- bility — and to make more efficient use of housing. Another program he mentioned was the shell housing program. It has not had much take-up either, but I'm still hopeful it will.

In talking with industry people the other day, I think they're becoming generally more optimistic with regard to that program. Look at the success of the co-operative housing action program where we're build ing something like 1,000 units. This is generally self-help. People get interested and take a course on how to become their own contractor, or builder for that matter, or at least how to go about selecting a contractor. They get personally involved in the construction of their home. So there is a do-it-yourself attitude out there.

I think maybe the shell housing program is something the builders should concentrate on more, because there is a market for it and potential sales there for them. With regard to mortgage renewals, I wasn't totally sure of the question the member was asking. Under the Home Mortgage Corporation, the mortgage comes up for five- year renewal, then its 40-year amortization is renewed at the current rate, which today happens to be 13.5 per cent. Now if he's talking about private mortgages, of course that's a different aspect.

In response in the question period, I've indicated that the policy of high interest rates that's resulted in this country having such a rate of infla tion is a federal government policy. They've set that policy and they're pursuing it. Therefore they should take the firm and full responsibility for it. Recently I made that point to the federal minister, and I intend to do it again at the next meeting. It's not the job of the provinces to bail them out. They created the mess. It's their full responsibility to solve it. The Member for Edmonton Kingsway . . . I wish I could read my writing a little better.

He was asking me about land banking programs. Of course, as a matter of routine, we have banked for years all over the province for a number of different reasons: institutional purposes, public buildings, industrial banks, and residential. So that's a program that is carried on in a normal way across the entire province. Again, I think I've addressed his question with regard to the mortgage in as positive a way as I can. The Member for Drayton Valley: if I understand the question, the one spouse can stay in the home and assume the existing financing — if that's the response that was requested.

The response to the Member for Vegreville with regard to lodges: we did change the lodge program a few months ago. There's a four-year formula, a phase-in to somewhat higher rates. The Member for Vegreville quite correctly pointed out that — I think 20 odd years ago the pension cheque was less than what one paid in the lodge. Today it's something less than half.

A study we commissioned a couple of years ago that involved a number of departments and the Senior Citizens' Homes Association concluded that people could pay 55 per cent of income on lodges and be very comfortable indeed, because it is a hotel type of accommodation: meals, linen, and the whole aspect. I think this formula will achieve that. In fact if you take the renters assistance, it will really work out to about 50 per cent of income that the senior will pay. I think that's very well accepted by seniors. But those increases also help the foundations responsible for operating these lodges.

We also improved the contribu tions to the mill rate situation. So I think those two changes will make it much more viable for the founda tions. The response I've had from the foundations on the changes have been very positive. The Leader of the Opposition raised a number of points. I'll have to admit that on the one hand I thought he was telling me that we were doing too much in housing and should get out of it. On the other hand I thought he was telling me that we were not doing enough and should be pouring more money in. I wasn't sure what side of the fence he really stands on.

As far as housing mix, sure, we evaluate the housing mix. By the way, we didn't raise it to $73,000; it's $70,000 for a new house and $56,000 for used. Those levels are reviewed on a periodic basis by the Home Mortgage Corporation. A good criterion for whether they're too low or not, I suppose, is when the demand falls off. If we start getting a reduced demand, that's a pretty good indication that the levels are too low and probably should be adjusted. I think all members would agree that what we're after here is affordability and the greatest value for the public dollar.

We're talking about very good accommodation — 1,100 square foot houses. If you look at all the families in this province who were brought up very successfully in houses 800 square feet or less, I think the criterion we have for house size is very good indeed. With servicing and land costs today, there's no ques tion that the name of the game in the future just has to be higher densities. It's the only way to improve affordabili ty.

Through our municipal incentive grant system, we're certainly encouraging municipalities to become more aware of that, to recognize the facts of life in the future and go for higher densities. There's nothing wrong with

920 ALBERTA HANSARD May 25, 1981 good town housing, link housing, row housing. It has had a bad name at times in the past. I could take you up to Fort McMurray and show you some beautiful projects that are extremely attractive indeed — zero lot-line con cepts and varying setbacks — extremely attractive high- density housing. The Leader of the Opposition says, are we too far into the business of housing? Well, I'd like to be less involved. I'd like to see the private sector doing more. Of course the private sector is building all the housing.

Through the housing corporation, we build for the disadvantaged — 4,000 units in the budget this year. But the Home Mortgage Corporation work is financing. We're in there because of need. Over the past few years, Alberta has been in the position of having to provide energy supplies for Canada. We've tried to do that job, and I think we have done it extremely well. That's meant providing infrastructure. For example, the Syncrude plant means a lot of people come in for the construction phase and the permanent employment phase. There are many spinoff effects, and that infrastructure is expensive.

We had something like 7,000 people a month coming into Alberta last year. I think we've had to respond to a need, and we've done that through a massive investment in housing. I hope the rest of Canada appreciates the investment we've made in this infrastructure to produce energy for Canadians. I really look forward to the day when the private sector will take up the slack and do more of the building. Hopefully that will occur in the future to a greater extent. In question period the other day, I think we had our debate, if you like, over the Agent General's residence. That can be deemed a difference of opinion.

I think the residence is a very good purchase and necessary for the fulfilment of the duties to be performed by the agent general. It's not just short term. It's long term. I think agents general have been around for a long time, have performed extremely useful roles, and will continue to do so in the future. Our activities in London are to the extent that they require additional office space and conso lidation. Space costs are high in London — no question about that — and probably will continue to escalate if inflation in that country continues at the present rate. Those are facts of life. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Chairman, to the minister. I used that as an example and maybe elaborated on the example extensively. The question I really raised was the policy in the department in terms of leasing, renting, or buying facilities outside the province, use of tenders, and use of professional people in the department for making those arrangements for leases, rentals, or purchases. MR. CHAMBERS: Mr. Chairman, in the case of the residence, we utilized the federal government appraiser who was there. Of course we also do in-house appraisals.

If you've been there, London is not a city in which there are great open land tracts that can be developed. It's a case of redevelopment, and there's a high degree of busi ness activity. Not much property is available at any given point in time. It isn't a case of, say, having 15 different properties, or maybe two, that you can look at and evaluate differently. A property comes along; you ap praise it as to whether it's good value or not. If it's what you need, you take it. There isn't the free market situa tion that exists in other places in the world. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Chairman, the minister still didn't answer the question. Specifically, is there a written policy within the department on handling of leases, rent als, or purchases of property outside the province or internationally? Is there a government policy, or is each one done by the ministers of respective departments? Or when a minister of another department makes a request for lease, rent, or purchase of some property outside Alberta, they go ahead and do it on their own and report back? Is there a formal procedure which goes into effect, or is it done on an ad hoc basis?

Maybe this one wasn't done that way, but that was the feeling I got earlier. MR. CHAMBERS: Mr. Chairman, I don't think that much property is acquired outside the province, but Housing and Public Works is responsible for leasing and construction of accommodation. When property is to be acquired or constructed, my department does it. MR. R. SPEAKER: There's no formal procedure. It's done on request to the minister. At that time the minister puts in effect any type of policy he or she feels fit.

So there are no checks and balances, no definite routes of appraisal, no definite assurances in writing or whatever to assure us on this side of the House, and I'm sure Alber tans are certainly interested in this one. For example, I'd appreciate very much if an appraisal were done of the personnel from the federal government in this London one — I believe that would be a public document. Could that be tabled in the Legislature as an example of how it was handled? Could investigations of the hon.

Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Af fairs in his formal written report to yourself, as minister responsible for this purchase, be tabled in this Legisla ture? Are there some checks, and is there something on record that shows us a good assessment was done? We can argue the justification for the house, but it's still a million dollars over a long period of time. It's a long-term commitment of this government and successive govern ments.

Let's say 10 or 20 years from now, when someone looks back and asks why we are paying so much to keep this house in operation over in London, they will know why because it's documented and a good, formal proce dure was followed. If none of those pieces of evidence are available, I guess we have to accept that, but on the other hand, certainly be critical of it. MR. CHAMBERS: Mr. Chairman, there are ways of acquiring space. It can be done by tender. If you have a good buyers' market, I suppose you can describe the space you need and go out and tender it.

That's often difficult because you have specific space needs; then you use appraisers. We have very qualified in-house apprai sers and we also use consultants. We follow very specific guidelines in terms of how we appraise property, whether in-house by our own people or through the use of consul tants. We have an appraisal committee that sits down and evaluates each of these, and they're done in a very bu sinesslike way. In the end, though, I suppose it's a judgment factor. You can go over and say to me that you don't think that was a good deal. I can tell you that I think it was.

I don't know where we go from there. I think five or 10 years from now, when you look at inflation over there, those acquisitions are going to look very, very good indeed. If somebody got property 20 years ago, probably it was cheaper than property ac quired today. Property acquired today is going to look very inexpensive compared to property acquired 20 years

May 25, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 921 from now. But it becomes a question of judgment. In the department we follow firm procedures for appraisal and evaluation. I don't know what I can add to that. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, outside of debating the merits of the purchase, all I'm saying is can the minister table some of that documented proof so we are assured here as legislators — that's my responsibility, as I understand it, when we're discussing estimates of expend iture in this coming year. When things like this happen again — that happened to be a special warrant decided outside this Legislature.

We haven't even approved that expenditure yet, so I haven't had a chance to talk about it, only through question period. But when situations like that occur, isn't it incumbent upon the minister to be able to validate it by written proof in this Legislature? The minister can give me a verbal description, but in a formal appraisal, if there are formal procedures, just put the document on the table and I'll be satisfied. That's number one. Number two, in this specific incident, if that's available, put that on the table and I'll be satisfied. All I want is a commitment. I don't want to debate the issue.

That's not the point I'm trying to make. MR. CHAMBERS: Mr. Chairman, I think I can proba bly do that. I'm perfectly happy to check and see if I have an appraisal that can be tabled. I wouldn't want to dump on members wheelbarrows full of the appraisals we have on all properties. I don't think you'd want them. But I'd want to check that there is no reference in the appraisal that might be breaking some kind of confidence that shouldn't be broken. I think I can probably table that appraisal. I will endeavor to do so. MR. BATIUK: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could pose one question to the minister.

I think I raised it earlier: making monetary provisions for home-owners to renov ate or otherwise. I have had people inquire about that. It seems that money is available to build a new home, but some homes need renovations or expansion. I know that even the city sells homes where there is development or something at almost giveaway prices. Yet to move them and put them on foundations costs several thousand dol lars. So I wonder whether a program of this type, to look at many of these older homes, would not be worth-while.

Even if they are old and need some renovations, they were probably built with much better lumber than they are today and could last a good length of time. I wonder if the minister would advise whether he's looked at that program of his, and whether it would work? MR. CHAMBERS: Mr. Chairman, if I understand the member's question, we don't have such a program. But we're always willing to listen to advice and certainly would be happy to give it consideration. I hope I answered all the questions the Leader of the Opposition asked. If I didn't, I'm sure he can remind me of them.

The Member for Calgary Millican pointed out the honesty of senior citizens, and he's certainly correct. I believe the housing authorities have recently lifted the limit on interest they need to be concerned with to something in the order of $500. Seniors are very honest. If they get a shift in interest rates, they tend to be right in to report it, causing additional administrative effort. I think the point is certainly valid. The Member for Lethbridge West and I have had an ongoing argument over the payout on mortgages. He has one view and I have another, and they don't reconcile.

I think there's no reason the payout of mortgages should be any different than a private mortgage. There are in herent costs in doing so. In my view our Alberta Home Mortgage Corporation will continue to pursue the same practices in that area that we always have. With regard to leasing of space, that is an important factor. About five years ago I think, sometime around '74 or perhaps '75, the department did a study on energy efficiency, using models of different buildings large and small, and found out some very enlightening things.

We could achieve energy savings of 50 and maybe even up to 80 per cent in some cases, not through the insulation route but through proper control mechanisms such as the dimming of lights when they're not needed, fan controls, and mechanical aspects of that type. This sort of energy- efficient program has been carried out by my colleague the Minister of Government Services in essentially all our government buildings, with the result that large savings in energy are involved and done in a very cost efficient way. These changes are not capital intensive.

We do lease a lot of space, especially in the major metropolitan areas. When we evaluate buildings we take into account the energy efficiency components of those buildings. In other words, that would enter into the evaluation. We look very hard at that. We don't want to have high energy con sumption buildings leased for extended periods of time. I think landlords are certainly becoming more and more aware of that as well. They have to have a competitive product. Therefore they are looking more and more at energy efficiency when they build. Our department cer tainly takes that into account.

I think the Member for Lethbridge West asked me about cost sharing. That varies of course. CMHC comes out with a number and then usually adjusts it upward later in the year. If some provinces don't take it up, more are available, but one is never sure at this point in time how much might be available. For example, we're look ing at building 3,170 units in this budget, 2,000 self- contained and 1,170 community housing, and out of those CMHC is proposing to cost-share 900, which means we'd have to finance the rest 100 per cent unless we can talk them into doing more.

In the past they have been pretty good about raising the number of units they'll cover. Hopefully they'll cover more again this year. MR. GOGO: Mr. Chairman, just for clarification. I'm much assured that a great deal of thought goes into the energy conservation of office space leased by the govern ment. I'm sure we've all heard criticism of government buildings appearing to leave lights on all night and that type of thing. I'm very pleased to hear that when leasing space the government considers energy conservation be fore they lease it, because obviously that is a factor in the operating cost.

Just to come back very quickly to the mortgage ques tion, I hope the minister didn't misunderstand. If a person owns a house with a mortgage on it from the Home Mortgage Corporation and wants to sell it, as I understand it now a purchaser can come along, buy that house through an offer, so long as they are acceptable to the mortgage corporation, and everything's fine. That's a normal transaction. The mortgage is not paid out at all; it's just assumed. That's my understanding.

What I'm getting at is that because of his income level, that same person wants to apply for the subsidy, which I understand is distinctly separate from that, except it re sults in a lower mortgage payment. For the life of me, I

922 ALBERTA HANSARD May 25, 1981 have great difficulty understanding why, when we enter tain that on a new mortgage, we can't do it on the same mortgage, because the property really exists and hasn't changed. So there are two distinct transactions the one way. The minister is telling me that the way it is now, the mortgage has to be paid out, a new mortgage has to be created. A person who would qualify for purchasing the house in the first place is no different; it's just a question of the subsidy. If the person is eligible (

a) for the mortgage and (

b) for the subsidy, I fail to understand why the mortgage has to be paid out and a new one created on the same property. That's really the concern I have. Quite frankly, recognizing the number of people in the subsidy program, I think that if we're going to continue to provide affordable housing to Albertans, that's a very, very important point for many Albertans. MR. CHAMBERS: I accept the proposition put forward by the member. We've discussed this for a considerable period of time. I think it's a point of disagreement. He's entitled to his point of view, and he may well be right.

I guess I'm entitled to mine, but that's where it has to sit. MRS. CRIPPS: Mr. Chairman, for clarification. Mr. Minister, referring to the housing situation I asked you about, I was talking about when the remaining partner has to buy out the other partner's share, then they are ineligible to refinance. I think that when a mother with children is left, it's a real hardship if she has to sell the house and move to another house, as opposed not just to taking over the mortgage; she has to buy out the other partner's share, because in most cases they don't just say, well, the house is yours. MR.

CHAMBERS: I don't know if I can respond to that any further than I have, Mr. Chairman. MRS. CHICHAK: Mr. Chairman, I just want to raise a couple of points with the hon. minister. With regard to facilities being leased or tendered to the government for leasing, which provide various government services, does the minister have a policy in place on the provision of at least some minimal parking and ramping included in the original design of the building to accommodate handi capped people who may require services that might be offered within such buildings?

That is, when any govern ment department requires new office facilities and has advertised for such and the private sector submits ten ders, when consideration is being given to those tenders, do they include in there as a specific criterion the kind of access, egress and ingress, for handicapped people? I would like the minister to indicate whether that's a basic policy requirement in consideration of tenders for leasing of buildings. The other is with respect to lodges, particularly in rural areas.

I recognize that lodges generally are constructed for seniors in the smaller rural centres when the commu nities or the municipalities have requested such facilities. Alberta Housing Corporation has accepted the applica tions from municipalities within a very close proximity. We've found that in a number of areas it has taken an inordinately long period of time, and in some instances these lodges just are not being filled; they are perhaps 40 or 45 per cent vacant.

Would the minister review the policies in place, consid ering the procedures followed in considering the applica tions and agreeing to construct a lot of these lodges? Is it being considered to have in place first of all a criterion to determine whether the proximity of the facility to others within the region is such that there would be substantial vacancies for inordinate periods of time? I won't use this opportunity to identify any of the locations, but I believe that has been brought to the minister's attention on a number of occasions.

Perhaps he could comment on how there is a more thorough screening of whether some of the lodges ought to be built in some of the areas they are, particularly when they're very close, within 10, 15, or 20 miles of one another. I would like to suggest to the minister another point: that he might take into consideration for future policy development, because I know it does not exist at this time, making mortgage funds available to communities, parish organizations at preferred interest rates for the construction of churches.

Currently such communities must go to conventional lending institutions and pay an extremely high rate. I recognize that churches are exempt from paying property taxes, and that has been considered one of the benefits derived by the community. But if we take into consideration people who serve or work in the various communities, the volunteer service provided by them, and the constant support, both financial and physi cal, given to offer counselling or various social programs, not only spiritual but other social services, provided with in the sphere of the parish . . .

Most of them have what we call auditoriums. Very often without charge, or ex tremely minimal charge, they offer social programming for seniors or younger people of the community. And to have the very same people pay an additional amount to obtain mortgages where new churches are being built or where there are requirements for renovations or conver sions to enable them to get better utilization of the facili ties for the community . . .

If the minister might take into consideration formulating some policy to provide mort gage funding with preferred rates for those kinds of applications, they would not be so significant in numbers. However, they would help a good number of communities. MR. CHAMBERS: Mr. Chairman, with regard to provi sions for the handicapped, yes. In all our construction, whether through Crown corporations or the departments, that's a factor and has been for a long time in terms of ensuring adequate ramps, parking stalls, and so forth for the handicapped. That is a substantial criteria that we have and follow.

The question on lodges: I think one difficulty is that we have a few vacancies here and there, as the member pointed out. Probably one reason has been the success of the self-contained apartment program. Many, many peo ple find they would rather have a self-contained apart ment than be in a lodge. Perhaps that has caused some vacancies. Some older lodges that were built 20 years or so ago had double rooms. Social habits are changing. Today most people prefer single-room accommodation rather than double. So we changed policy in that area and allow utilization of double rooms by one person.

They pay somewhat more, as the member is aware. But it's an important point. When we annually assess the number of lodges we're going to construct, we have to look very carefully at where we put them and whether they will be filled. While you can put in four units of, say, self- contained apartments and that will be economic, obvious ly a lodge with a hotel type of accommodation has to be of a certain size and occupancy rate to be a viable

May 25, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 923 economic enterprise for the foundation. It's a very good point. Agreed to: Vote 1 — Departmental Support Services: 1.0.1 — Minister's Office $196,600 1.0.2 — Deputy Minister of Public Works $186,400 1.0.3 — Deputy Minister of Housing $109,900 1.0.4 — Administrative Support MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Chairman, in most of the votes I see administrative support staff is up: in Vote 1 up 25 per cent, in Vote 3 up 45 per cent, and in Vote 4 up 23 per cent. Could the minister indicate why the increases in all administrative support staff? MR. CHAMBERS: Mr.

Chairman, I guess it might help if I give you a detailed breakdown. For example, on 1.0.4 there was an increase of five permanent positions; three conversions form new man-years for $105,000. The gen eral manpower price increase is $124,800; the increase in consultants required for records management and systems branch, $55,000; the increase in materials and supplies for printing construction jobs, $22,000; and the increase in supplies and services related to new man-years and gener al price and volume increases, $49,600. That makes the increase of $356,400. Alberta is a growing province.

As I pointed out earlier, 7,000 people a month were coming in last year. The need for more services; the capital works we have going on require more people; inflation is a definite factor; and of course the systems, machinery, and people to handle this growth cost money. In a nutshell, those are essentially the basic reasons for the general increases.

Agreed to: 1.0.4 — Administrative Support $1,782,400 Total Vote 1 — Department Support Services $2,275,300 Total Vote 2 — Operation and Maintenance of Waterlines $1,074,100 Vote 3 — Planning and Acquisition of Accommodation: 3.1 — Administrative Support $4,330,800 3.2 — Provision of General Purpose Space MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Chairman, I might have missed . . . I notice the Member for Lethbridge West was discussing provision of general purpose space. Could the minister indicate — or if it's in Hansard, I'll accept that as the answer. I see 82.8 per cent.

Is that a result of more space needed for offices in the big cities, or is it in some smaller centres as well? MR. CHAMBERS: Again because of the percentage in crease in this case, it might be helpful if I give the Member for Bow Valley some detail. Price and volume increases in lease costs amount to $18.18 million. I think members are aware of the substantial increases occurring in lease costs in recent times. The price and volume increase in tenant improvements, including project con sultants, is $18.1 million. The price and volume increase for furniture for government departments is $3.8 million.

I guess that totals $40.8 million, which is the percentage difference shown there. Agreed to: 3.2 — Provision of General Purpose Space $88,500,000 3.3 — Grants in Lieu of Taxes $12,550,000 3.4 — Telecommunications $18,547,000 Total Vote 3 — Planning and Acquisition of Accommodation $123,927,800 Vote 4 — Planning and Implementation of Construction Projects: 4.1 — Administrative Support $9,567,440 4.2 — Advanced Education and Manpower $13,332,000 4.3 — Agriculture MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Chairman, I see a drastic reduction here of 64.7, and I think that's for the lending program for building farm homes.

Would the minister indicate the interest they have with the applications? Do they get a number of applications for farm homes that don't qualify? What is the reason for the small number of applications that have been approved? Is it that applica tions aren't coming in, or that they don't qualify? MR. CHAMBERS: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be fair to say we haven't been getting that many applica tions. However, from the applications that have been processed, I think the program has helped those people who have utilized it. I've often been curious as to why it hasn't had more take-up.

Perhaps one reason is that alternatives are available either through treasury branch borrowing or other. In any event, to my knowledge it isn't a question of turning them down; it's that the number of applications hasn't really been that great.

Agreed to: 4.3 — Agriculture $332,000 4.4 — Attorney General $46,025,000 4.5 — Tourism and Small Business $2,385,000 4.6 — Culture $6,329,000 4.7 — Energy and Natural Resources $15,025,000 4.8 — Environment $2,174,000 4.9 — Executive Council $9,988,000 4.10 — Government Services $1,921,000 4.11 — Education $2,025,000 4.12 — Labour $649,000 4.13 — Recreation and Parks $16,822,000 4.14 — Social Services and Community Health $18,862,000 4.15 — Solicitor General $18,187,000 4.16 — Transportation $5,256,000 4.17 — Housing and Public Works — Multiple Use Facilities $81,446,000 4.18 — Hospitals and Medical Care $ 1,000,000 4.19 — Multi-Departmental Services $1,000,000 Total Vote 4 — Planning and Implementation of Construction Projects $252,325,440 Vote 5 — Policy Development and Financial Assistance for Housing: 5.1 — Policy and Program Development $1,474,900

924 ALBERTA HANSARD May 25, 1981 5.2 — Housing Assistance MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the minister for bringing in Bill 33. I think it was certainly a step in the right direc tion, and I'm hopeful the minister will get together with the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care so he will bring in a Bill to take care of some of our people who fit into this same category as far as extended health care is concerned. I'd like to ask the minister a question on this.

Many senior citizens fit into the category where they're between 60 and 65, are a spouse, have lost their provider, and weren't able to take [advantage] of the senior citizen home program. What method will the minister be using to get back to widows in this category, to see that they realize they now qualify for the senior citizen home repair program? MR. CHAMBERS: For one thing, Mr. Chairman, we will be changing the brochure. Of course these are widely available throughout the province. Asking the question today hopefully will help advertise it as well, and certain ly every member here can pass the word.

Generally though, I think seniors watch these proceedings and are aware of changes we make in programs. Hopefully the word will get out there and those who are able to take advantage of that will quickly find out about the change.

Agreed to: 5.2 — Housing Assistance $3,427,600 5.3 — Financial Assistance for Housing $66,699,000 Total Vote 5 — Policy Development and Financial Assistance for Housing $71,601,500 6.1 — Program Support $13,504,000 6.2 — Staff Housing $39,000 6.3 — Subsidized Housing for Low Income Albertans $50,220,000 6.4 — Land Assembly and Development $6,805,000 Total Vote 6 — Housing for Albertans $70,568,000 7.1 — Program Support $8,050,000 7.2 — Mortgage Lending ($11,125,000) 7.3 — Subsidies $29,975,000 Total Vote 7 — Mortgage Assistance $26,900,000 Department Total $548,672,140 MR. CHAMBERS: Mr.

Chairman, I move that the votes be reported. [Motion carried] MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could in formally ask the Acting Leader of the Opposition if the Legislative Assembly estimates and the members of the Members' Services Committee are ready to go at the present time. That's not a government item, so I'm not aware of the situation. MR. MANDEVILLE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'm sure they are. I'm sure they're prepared to go ahead with the votes each individual member is responsible for. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Is it agreed that we move forward with Legislative Assembly? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

Legislative Assembly Agreed to: 1.0.1 — Administrative Support $2,802,002 1.0.2 — Members' Indemnities and Allowances $2,906,851 1.0.3 — Speaker and Deputy Speaker — Office Services $119,948 1.0.4 — Government Members' Services $514,479 1.0.5 — Opposition Members' Services $528,507 1.0.6 — Legislature Committees $235,280 1.0.7 — Legislative Interns $129,058 1.0.8 — Hansard $599,301 1.0.9 — Legislature Library $739,045 Total Vote 1 — Support to the Legislative Assembly $8,574,471 Total Vote 2 — Office of the Auditor General $7,530,862 Total Vote 3 — Office of the Ombudsman $622,319 4.1 — Administrative Support $288,805 4.2 — Electoral Support $159,430 Total Vote 4 — Office of the Chief Electoral Officer $448,235 Legislative Assembly Total $17,175,887 MR.

MANDEVILLE: Mr. Chairman, if you desire a motion that the vote be reported, I so move. [Motion carried] MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Chairman, I move the commit tee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. [Motion carried] [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] MR. PURDY: Mr.

Speaker, the Committee of Supply has had under consideration certain resolutions, reports as follows, and requests leave to sit again: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982, sums not exceeding the following for the departments and purposes indicated: Department of Housing and Public Works: $2,275,300 for departmental support services, $1,074,100 for the operation and maintenance of water lines, $123,927,800 for planning and acquisition of accommodation, $252,325,440 for planning and implementation of con struction projects, $71,601,500 for policy development and financial assistance for housing, $70,568,000 for housing for Albertans, $26,900,000 for mortgage assistance.

Legislative Assembly: $8,574,471 for support to the Legislative Assembly, $7,530,862 for the office of the Auditor General, $622,319 for the office of the Ombuds man, $448,235 for the office of the Chief Electoral Officer. MR. SPEAKER: Having heard the report and the re quest for leave to sit again, do you all agree?

May 25, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 925 HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, on Friday I indicated to members that second readings would be scheduled for this evening. Although there are a few minutes left, just in case some members who are not present now had in tended to be present for second readings, I think we should stay with that

schedule rather than move to them now. [The House recessed at 5:14 p.m. and resumed at 8 p.m.] head: GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Second Reading) Bill 1 The Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1981 MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I move Bill No. 1, The Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1981, standing in my name on the Order Paper. This is truly an administrative matter.

Part 4 of The Provincial Court Act deals with small claims matters. Service of documents and proof of service are covered by sections 43 to 46. Service of documents upon corporations for small claims proce dures should be the same as service in other cases where corporations are involved, such as in The Companies Act. That's the purpose of this amendment. [Motion carried; Bill 1 read a second time.] Bill 3 The Livestock Diseases Amendment Act, 1981 MR. HYLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move second reading of Bill No. 3, The Livestock Diseases Amend ment Act, 1981.

The main purpose of this Bill is to put in an appeal committee for those who have their licence refused or suspended under the livestock medicine regula tions. At present there is no appeal committee. With this Bill, we'll put that committee in and enable these people to appeal upon the suspension or removal of their licences. [Motion carried; Bill 3 read a second time] Bill 6 The Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1981 MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill No. 6, The Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1981.

As is typical of a Bill which contains a number of amendments to a number of Acts, relatively minor proposals are involved, nevertheless they are of impor tance and have primarily two objectives. In The Notaries Public Act and The Commissioners for Oaths Act, for the first time the change is introduced that members of Parliament and members of the Senate who are resident in Alberta at the time of their appointment, and retain that residence, are automatically commis sioners for oaths and notaries public pursuant to our legislation, which is the same as for members of the Legislative Assembly.

That is an intentional courtesy ex tended to those elected people from this province, and that is the sole purpose of that change. The other change, which covers several statutes, relates primarily to the jurisdiction of the Master in Chambers, and makes it more flexible in the sense of the ability of a Master to deal with routine applications without having them heard directly by a judge sitting in court.

Those are procedural or uncontentious types of applications under The Possessory Liens Act, The Execution Creditors Act, and The Motor Vehicle Administration Act. [Motion carried; Bill 6 read a second time] Bill 14 The Interprovincial Subpoena Act MR. KOWALSK.I: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill No. 14, The Interprovincial Subpoena Act. This Bill is aimed at a problem which has existed for some time. Currently there is a great deal of difficulty in securing the attendance of witnesses in civil suits from outside a province.

This Bill allows the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta to adopt, as an order of the court, a subpoena issued from a court outside Alberta if certain conditions are met. The Act makes it clear that the Court of Queen's Bench shall not adopt a subpoena unless the immunity provision contained in our

Section 6 is part of the Act of the issuing province. The teeth of the Act are found in

Section 4, which provides that if the person fails to attend he may be found in contempt of court. The Act also provides that a party to a proceeding in Alberta can use the same process to obtain witnesses from provinces with the same legislation. [Motion carried; Bill 14 read a second time] Bill 18 The Alberta Property Tax Reduction Amendment Act, 1981 MR. WOO: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 1

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19810525
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L19 S3 19810525 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	f53d2db31b1a99fd5a8cf4473a3ebcfdc03ccdea

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