Alberta Hansard — 10 April 1986, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 20, Session 4)

19860410

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

April 10, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 117 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Thursday, April 10, 1986 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES DR. ELLIOTT: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table the annual report for the Standing Committee on Legislative Offices for the 20th Legislature, Third Session, from March 14, 1985, to April 2, 1986. head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 219 Criminal Compensation Intercept Act MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill 219, the Criminal Compensation Intercept Act.

This Bill covers the situation where a criminal has injured a victim, either financially or physically, and where the victim is owed restitution. The victim will now be able to ask the Provincial Treasurer to withhold the criminal's tax return as well as any provincial grants payable to the criminal. [Leave granted; Bill 219 read a first time] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to file with the Legislature Library four copies of the Canada-Alberta north ern development agreement and four copies of the application guidelines for that subsidiary agreement. MR. HORSMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to table the 11th annual report of the Department of Federal and Inter governmental Affairs. MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table the most recent annual report of the Alberta Association of Registered Nurses. MR. STEVENS: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the Public Service Commissioner's annual report for the year ended December 31, 1985. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. STROMBERG: Today I have the honour of introducing 52 grades 5 and 6 students from the Callingwood school, which is located in Mr. Speaker's constituency of Edmonton Meadowlark.

The students are accompanied by teachers Mrs. Pierce, Mrs. Oko, and Mr. Viteychuk, and parent Mr. Brown. Mr. Speaker, your constituents are seated in the public gallery, and I would ask that they now stand and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. MR. PAHL: Mr. Speaker, it's my privilege to introduce to you and to members of the Assembly 31 grade 6 students from the Satoo elementary school, located in the constituency of Edmonton Mill Woods. They're accompanied by their teacher, who is a friend of mine and a friend of the Member for Barrhead, Mr.

David Fairfield, and Meryl Ellsworth, Janice Hudson, Mary Jane Saunders, Keith Stevens, and Joyce Leavitt. They are in the members' gallery. I wonder if they'd be kind enough to rise and receive the traditional welcome of the Assembly. MR. McPHERSON: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure today to introduce to you and to members of the Assembly what I hope will be 34 students in the public gallery. I regret that I was not able to meet with them just prior to entering the House this afternoon. My information, however, has it that we have 34 students from the G. W. Smith school in the constituency of Red Deer.

They are accompanied by teachers Mr. Rae Molzan, Mr. Robert Reed and principal Mr. Dick Hornby. I also am advised that we have five parents accompanying the students today: Mrs. Ladill. Mr. Rideout, Mrs. Morasch, Mrs. Wood, and Mrs. Fox. I know the principal is here; however, I'm not certain that the students are. If they are, however, I would ask that they rise and receive the recognition of the House. There they are. MR. BATIUK: It gives me real pleasure today to introduce to you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the members of the Assembly, 17 grade 6 students from the Ryley school, in the constituency.

They are sealed in the public gallery, accompanied by their teacher Mrs. Pepper and parent Mrs. Kope. It is worthy to note that Mrs. Pepper has been bringing her class annually for all the years I have rep resented the constituency. I would ask that they rise and receive the welcome of the Assembly. MR. SCHMID: Mr. Speaker, I think I have three special students from Ritchie junior high school in the public gallery, who are accompanied by Jan Wilhelm and Anna-Marie Stipdonk, an aide. Jan Wilhelm is the teacher. They're here today to visit the Legislature.

May I ask them to rise and get the recognition of this Assembly, if they are up there. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Husky Oil Upgrader MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the first question to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. I recall the government announcing to Albertans a couple of years ago an agreement that was signed, sealed, and delivered, dealing with $780 million loan guarantees and a $50 million grant. Now we have a $36 million engineering study.

My question to the minister: has the minister com municated to the federal government that this backing away on this agreement is totally unacceptable? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to respond to the incorrect allegation of the hon. Leader of the Oppo-

118 ALBERTA HANSARD April 10, 1986 sition. The fact is that we were able to successfully conclude on Tuesday last, after extensive discussions, an agreement which does a number of things. First of all, it ensures that during this time of oil price turbulence, when it is virtually impossible to make final decisions on major megaprojects, we will be moving ahead in a continuous way with that project.

We've made arrangements for the full financing that will be required from the start of the upgrader work to the definitive estimate stage to be provided and on a basis which sees the federal government as the major contributor of some 40 percent. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, it was part and parcel of that agreement that the existing rights and views of the parties to the agreement are in no way affected by this interim arrangement. In other words, it is on a completely without-prejudice basis.

Our view, which has been and continues to be that a deal is a deal and that that existing arrangement is still valid, is very much in full force and effect. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question. I'm glad that a deal is a deal. I agree. With that optimistic statement, will the minister tell us when the construction on this project will begin? Will it start this year? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know by now that the definitive estimate work will not be completed until approximately the first quarter of 1987.

That was the estimate provided by Husky and the basis upon which the necessary interim financing was arranged. It was also agreed during the course of the meeting, which was attended by myself and the hon. Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs, that during this time frame we are going to be working through the final details as to what the necessary fiscal regime will be to ensure that the project moves through to fruition. The atmosphere and the attitude in the meeting were extremely positive, with a view to the completion of the project.

What was recognized is the very obvious fact that at this time it's impossible to predict what specific fiscal terms will be needed, because the price of oil is so very uncertain. We believe that price situation will become much more clear as the year progresses. We're moving on this thing in a realistic way, and we're moving on it in a way that will see the project completed. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question to the minister. As he himself and the Premier have said, there's a five- to seven-year lead time.

My question is: why did they have to have this meeting and then come back with a further engineering study, if the former deal is still in place? MR. ZAOZIRNY: That's quite correct. They're moving on with the normal work that would be being pursued at this stage in the project development. What was recognized is that some circumstances have clearly changed since June 1984, when the original agreement — the original and binding agreement, in our judgment — was signed. We have to be realistic about this.

As was mentioned by the participants at the meeting, we're going to be exploring what additional approaches may or may not be required. That's going to become more clear as the year goes along. You can't simply stick your head in the sand, Mr. Speaker, and suggest that nothing has changed between June 1984 and now. But the concept that's embodied in the original agreement, the agreement itself, has been accepted as being very much alive and well, certainly from the standpoint of this government.

The agree ment that we put in place for interim financing recognizes that it is without prejudice to the respective views of the party, and that's the way we're moving ahead. That's the only sensible way to move ahead, Mr. Speaker. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question to the minister. Certainly times have changed, but as he himself said, a deal is a deal. What we're trying to do is look at a five- to seven-year pricing at that particular time. That's what we're looking at, not what it is right now. I suppose that point was made to the federal government.

My question is: what specific action did the minister try to take at this particular time to hold them to their original agreement that we'd move on with it now? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is somewhat repetitive. We took the position that we've taken throughout: a deal is a deal. There has to be at the same time a recognition that the world looks very different today than it did a couple of years ago. We want to see the project moving ahead. We've got an interim arrangement in place that will facilitate that.

Through the balance of 1986, we're going to be working, in our minds, within the context of that original agreement, to see that that project moves ahead to completion. That's exactly what has to be done. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question to the minister, Mr. Speaker. The Husky people have said that they are in need of equity partners. Did the minister attempt at all to get his federal friends to commit to equity investment in this project, since they seem to be leery of loan guarantees? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr.

Speaker, I don't know that the hon. member is correct in suggesting that they're leery of loan guarantees per se. There is a question, of course, of an appropriate balance as between debt and equity. Certainly there has been some general discussion about various approaches, including the infusion of additional equity and a number of other approaches which would be very helpful to the project. The point is, Mr.

Speaker, what has become very clear — and I have been involved in these discussions for a considerable length of time — is that it is impossible to pinpoint right now exactly that proper formula to see the project moving through to completion in the context of the world as it will appear as we move through these next few years. What we have to do is move in a staged basis, get through this oil-price turbulence, and be working very hard at the appropriate fiscal regime, which may well be the existing one. Perhaps it will require some enhancement; we'll see. We'll make the appropriate adjustments.

That's the way to do it. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Premier has said from time to time that we're prepared to go it alone. He has said that there is immediacy to getting on with this program. Now we seem to be getting a different story. My question is: was it raised with the hon. energy minister that because Alberta said that they would go it alone, they'd be quite prepared to let Alberta go it alone? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, how the hon. member can suggest that we're now changing our approach when we're

April 10, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 119 not missing a beat in terms of the project's moving ahead is beyond me. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question to the minister. The Premier has said that we want to get on with this project and announce it. He said that time and time again. Now, is not the federal minister telling us that times have changed and we're going to have to relook at it? Isn't that the bulk of what he's been saying in this question period? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, the hon.

Premier is not only very accurate in his statement that we should be moving ahead with these projects; he's also a very good negotiator. It worked well. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question. That's certainly a matter of opinion, Mr. Speaker. My question is: did this minister try in negotiations to press the federal government to arrange a special blended price that all Canadians would share to help support the upgrader? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr.

Speaker, there's absolutely no sense that that particular move, or a particular move, is the magic ingredient required to see the project making the component package that we need to see it go ahead. What I've said earlier is that we are looking at a range of approaches, which may or may not be required. That will become more clear as the year moves ahead. We're looking at this thing on a very considered basis but not exclusively to one approach, which happens to be a bit of a bugbear with the hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

It seems by the answers that we don't have much of an agreement. My question is: is one of the considerations, one of the options that we're always talking about, of the Alberta government — have they pressed the federal government that we may move the upgrader to the Alberta side instead of the Saskatchewan side? Is that one of the options that was discussed? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the hon. leader is working from prepared notes, which obviously are out of tune with the direction of the questioning.

The fact of the matter is that there continues to be a tremendous commitment to the project by the province of Saskatchewan as well as the province of Alberta, the federal government, and Husky. So why on earth would you be moving it? MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question. Precisely because the Premier said that we were prepared to go it alone. That was one of the options. Is that one of the things that was raised in the House? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, we don't have to go it alone; we're going it together. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question.

Yesterday in this House the Premier said that we'd still be prepared to go it alone. To the Premier: is that still the position of this government? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the hon. member's frustration, because the minister of energy has presented such an effective agreement. I think he's answered the very question the Leader of the Opposition is posing again. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question to this government that is full of options but no answers. My question to either one of the hon. gentlemen, whoever is running the government today — my question is a serious one.

Is it correct that the bottom line is that we have no agreement beyond the $36 million for the engineering study, nothing finalized? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is wrong in every respect. I can't answer it more completely. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question. [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I hesitate to interrupt this exciting exchange, but this will be the hon. leader's 10th supplementary. I've had a little difficulty the last few days trying to reach even a short list because of the many supplementaries. Might it perhaps be his last. I'm asking that it be his last. MR.

MARTIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My question is simply this: will the minister absolutely guarantee to this House that the construction phase of this upgrader will be started by 1987? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, that's a foolish question that doesn't deserve an answer. MR. LEE: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister of energy. Could the minister indicate the estimated number of jobs that this will maintain and/or create in Alberta, particularly in the head offices in the city of Calgary, as a result of the successful conclusion of this agreement? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, we're talking in the hundreds.

Oil Industry Debt Collection MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the second question to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. Of course, it has to do with the Esso royalty write-off and the memo. We want to know some of the answers, because the Premier has said that the minister would be forthcoming today. My first question on this: has the minister taken any action to reprimand the associate deputy minister for attempt ing to, and I quote: orchestrate a hidden arrangement which would be for insiders' eyes only? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, if I might seek your guidance on this matter.

I have reviewed the questions that have been asked in the House in the last couple of days on this topic. There are some 16 questions or supplemen taries, questions that have been put to the House for answering. That being the case, and this being a very complex matter, I have prepared a response to the questions which I think will be comprehensive. If it's acceptable to the House, I would be prepared to respond to those questions at this time. HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, I hope the House will provide some indulgence, and that you will, Mr. Speaker.

120 ALBERTA HANSARD April 10, 1986 with the somewhat lengthy answer, because it's a very complex matter and the questions have been numerous. I do very much wish to respond to the questions put by the hon. Leader of the Opposition during my absence from the House. Prior to those specific responses, based on briefings from officials with which I have spoken and met recently, I should make clear the context within which I feel I am able to respond. I must also at this time express some very deep concern about the hon. Leader of the Opposition's placing of this matter before the House and the way in which he did it.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the subject matter of the memo tabled by the hon. member involves an ongoing legal dispute between the government of Alberta and a company. That is obvious to anyone reading it. Notwithstanding this obvious fact and the equally obvious fact that its being made public may adversely prejudice the legal position of the government of Alberta, the hon. member chose to make it public. Moreover, he did so having received specific advance notice that I was in Ottawa at crucial energy meetings and couldn't be in the House to respond to questions.

By doing so, he has placed in the public arena serious allegations on a complex matter that could not be challenged in the first instance. [interjections] MR. MARTIN: On a point of order. MR. SPEAKER: I respectfully suggest that it is not essen tially germane to the question or the reply that opinions be expressed concerning the behaviour or the statements of an hon. member. I think that may be something that might be looked into through other means.

But at the moment, as I understood it, the statement which the hon. minister wished to make and which the House gave leave to be made at some length notwithstanding that we're in the question period, would relate rather to information and not to reflec tions on some of the things that led up to the answer. MR. ZAOZIRNY: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.

I do, however, feel that I have to make the House aware of the fact that this is a legal dispute that we are in the midst of, and as a result, certainly the responses that I give, given the irresponsible tabling of this memo by the hon. member, will require me to be limited. Getting on to the answers . . . MR. MARTIN: On a point of order. MR. ZAOZIRNY: I'll answer the questions if you'll just sit down. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The question period is not the vehicle for dealing with what I think is being implied by the hon. minister as being a breach of privilege.

A charge of irresponsibility made against another member of the Assembly is a very grave charge to be made and should not be made just obliquely in the course of answering a question. Such a charge would justify being inquired into just by itself, unrelated to any questions or answers, to see whether there was some substance to it. If it were found to have a great deal of substance to it, it might be a more serious matter. I would respectfully suggest that the hon. minister might reconsider this allegation and perhaps deal with it a little further. MR. ZAOZIRNY: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. It is so done.

I will deal specifically with the answers to the questions, if I may. The hon member . . . MR. SPEAKER: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. minister. Do I understand that the allegation or the implication is withdrawn? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Certainly, to the extent that it's viewed in a formal fashion by the Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: My suggestion is that under the circum stances the allegation should be withdrawn. I'm afraid I didn't quite assess accurately what went along with the withdrawal. MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, consider it done. Mr.

Speaker, in the range of questions there was a question about an under-the-table deal. I can advise the Assembly that there was no under-the-table deal, nor was such ever contemplated. Rather, there is very much an on- the-table and active legal dispute. Moreover, in the context of that question, there is not and was not contemplated any writing off of royalty obligation. In fact, if one reads the memo carefully, one will understand that what is in dispute is payment received some years ago by the company from the flowback fund from export sales of natural gas, which is shared amongst producers.

It is not a matter of royalty. If the legal position of the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission on this issue prevails, Mr. Speaker, the $19 million in question would not go to the taxpayers, and there was a question asked in this account. In fact, it would go to the producers, because it is the producers who are the recipients of the flowback fund, and that would include of course the company in question, as a producer. That's how the flowback fund works, in fact. So it's not a matter of any royalty giveaway, as was inquired about by the hon. member.

It's a matter of a dispute about an amount of funds from the flowback fund which goes to producers. Next in responding to the questions, there was reference in the questions to a cabinet-blessed document and an inquiry about that. There was some intimation that this constituted evidence of some sort of secret or sweetheart deal which would release the company from a debt of $19 million. In fact, Mr.

Speaker, this is a reference to a formal gas storage agreement entered into with the company by the government of Alberta on August 17, 1953 [interjections] by the then Minister of Mines and Minerals and Premier, the Hon. Ernest C. Manning. It was ratified by order in council 1130/53, and gazetted on August 31, 1953. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's mysterious cabinet- blessed document is a public one. Nevertheless, I'm hereby tabling a copy of it and the relevant excerpts from the Alberta Gazette. Moreover, I must reject out of hand the hon.

Leader of the Opposition's suggestion that former Premier Manning signed some sort of sweetheart deal. He's an honourable man and a great Albertan. He signed a straightforward agreement, a commercial one. That's the way we do business too, Mr. Speaker. [interjections] Mr. Speaker, further, there was a question with an allegation that debts are not being pursued by this government, that allegation being ostensibly based in part on an expression of opinion in the memo as to what the minister's position on litigation might be.

That opinion might be expected, of course, to relate to the prospects of success in litigation and the precedent implications of a lack of success if that

April 10, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 121 occurred. Moreover, it is clear from the memo that the minister will be the final judge of that. Furthermore, given the intensive nature of the current legal dispute, with outside legal counsel having been retained for some time, it is simply rather absurd to suggest that such debts are not being pursued by this government. They are, Mr. Speaker. Finally, Mr. Speaker, if the memo is read carefully, it is quite apparent that it does not contemplate the government giving up anything that it is legally entitled to.

That fact relates directly to another question with respect to an alle gation of a special deal for the company, one not offered to other in situ operators, of nonpayment of royalties for gas produced which is used for fuel. Again, if one reads the memo carefully, what was being discussed was a specific policy for all industry involved in in situ development. In fact, what was being considered was a more formal approach than the existing arrangement.

Under that existing arrange ment, there is a fuel gas royalty exemption currently avail able, but it is only available on specific application by an in situ operator. This is based on the long-standing government policy that we do not charge royalty on gas consumed to produce oil. In fact, Mr. Speaker, under the existing on- application-only arrangement, the only in situ operator that was not receiving a royalty exemption classification at the time of the memo was the company in question, because they had not yet made application. That's quite a special deal. That also very much relates, Mr.

Speaker, to the par agraph at the top of page 3, which was referenced even this afternoon by the hon. member and which is alleged to suggest orchestrating under-the-table deals. Instead, I am informed by the author that it reflected his view that to handle the situation otherwise than is outlined in that par agraph would, frankly, jeopardize our negotiating strategy and position, a fact which sadly was lost completely on the hon. member when he tabled the memo. Mr.

Speaker, on the question of ministerial role and responsibility, I can advise the Assembly that I've had no direct involvement in these proceedings by way of discussions with the company or the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission but have received a verbal overview as to the existence and nature of this complex legal dispute. Any final disposition of this matter would be expected to involve ministerial and likely cabinet approval and would be arrived at after having considered in-house and outside legal advice as well as a careful review of all relevant circumstances. Mr.

Speaker, at the outset I did mention that I have provided this response, mindful of a responsibility on my part not to compound the adverse legal impact of the hon. member's tabling this memo. I simply close my response by reiterating my deep concern about the action of the hon. member. Surely political expediency should not sacrifice our parliamentary responsibilities. [some applause] MR. MARTIN: Thank you, thank you. Mr. Speaker, first of all, on a point of order. It is our job to find out what is going on behind closed doors. That has always been the role of the opposition. [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: Order.

We've taken up a fair amount of the question period time. There are still some members wishing to ask their first question. I realize this is an important matter. What I would like to find out now from the hon. leader is: is he raising a point of order or is he expounding on one? MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I think I'll go on to the questions, contrary to the irresponsible actions of the minister in suggesting it. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh. oh. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I should say that the reference to an under-the-table deal has caused me some difficulty. I perhaps wasn't as alert as I should be.

I realize that the allegation did not directly concern a member of the House and would ordinarily not then be a direct responsibility of mine. But I have in the past mentioned that when something is said in this House which may affect the fair name or reputation of someone who is outside the House and is not protected by the privilege which members have when sitting in this Assembly, we must be very circumspect indeed, because those people are not here in the House to defend themselves and the damage, once done, may be very difficult, impossible in fact, to undo.

Now, bringing it more up to date and dealing with what just happened a moment ago, it's my understanding that the hon. leader has made an allegation of irresponsibility toward the minister, and what I said a moment ago. of course, applies equally. If such a charge is going to be made seriously, there are appropriate and fair ways to do it, rather than to toss it across the floor in the question period. I would respectfully ask the hon. leader to deal with that remark further. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I will retract it in the same spirit as the minister did. Now may I go on with the questions?

First of all, about the $19 million only going to the producers. Again, I'm going by the memo. It says, "they either owed the APMC approximately 19MM$ or they owed the Department a like amount." Mr. Speaker, I thought the department was part of government. My question is: no matter how you take it. the $19 million eventually was money that the Crown wouldn't have if we didn't get this $19 million. Is that not correct? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker. I am in some difficulty here, because we're getting to a matter of the negotiations that are ongoing. That's what this document very much refers to.

The member is dead wrong, but I am very leery of getting into too much detail, because there are outside legal counsel retained on this dispute. Could I get some guidance? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister has total discretion as to whether he wishes to answer at all. Of course, if he answers, then he has total discretion within the limits of the rules of the question period as to the extent to which he wishes to go in answering the question. Now, there is another rule that perhaps hon. members will have thought of.

If the matter is in litigation, then we must give very serious consideration to the sub judice rule, which would say we've got to leave it alone until it's dealt with by the courts. MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker. I do not believe legal proceedings and action have been commenced, but it's on the verge of it. That being the case. I'm simply going to have to say that the hon. member's assertion is incorrect. If he reads the memo further and considers it. I believe

122 ALBERTA HANSARD April 10, 1986 that is actually clear. Having said that, I'm not going to prejudice what may well turn into a lawsuit. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question. MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the final supplementary. We've had a great deal of time on the hon. leader's questions, and there are four other members who wish to ask questions. MR. MARTIN: Just one other question on this then, to follow up from the same line. It says in there that he didn't believe the minister would allow any litigation. Now we're told that it's on the verge.

Is the minister saying that he is proceeding now with litigation, that that's where he wants it to be? That's different from the memo. MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, no decision has been taken on that matter. Solicitor General's Office MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Solicitor General. During the past few months there has been a great deal of controversy in this province concerning the legislative office of the minister in his handling of speeding tickets.

I'd like to ask whether the minister could indicate whether he has used his influence to attempt to have a police officer who issued a ticket fired. MR. SPEAKER: I have grave doubts about the propriety of that question. It implies a charge against the hon. minister. In some parliaments and, as far as I know, in historic times, to attempt such a thing would put the seat of the member who attempts it in jeopardy. I would respectfully suggest that if the hon. leader wishes to deal with that topic, there are better ways of doing it. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, on the point of order you raise, what I'd like to table for the Legislature are some letters indicating that item, which I certainly can do. I can leave them for the examination of the minister, and I am prepared to bring this question back again. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. leader knows as well as I do the rules with regard to tabling, and if he is within those rules, he's entitled to table. I'm not at the moment passing any judgment on what's being tabled, because of course I don't know what it is.

But I really suggest with all respect that, in fairness, this kind of implied accusation should not be made in this manner. DR. REID: Mr. Speaker, may I have your ruling as to whether I'm entitled to defend myself against that allegation that was just made? MR. SPEAKER: If there were any rule that would prevent the hon. minister from responding at this moment, I would say such a rule would have to be totally disregarded. DR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I am unaware of any controversy about my occupying the position that I occupy in this government.

I am unaware of any circumstances where I have used influence in any circumstances to have anything done that would be illegal, improper, unethical, or unjustified by any member of this Legislature. When I read the document, I will then answer it in this Legislature tomorrow. MR. SPEAKER: I can't perceive how there might be any supplementaries to a question of that kind. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, certainly at that time I would like the hon. member to look at the document I've tabled, which is correspondence to Dr.

Reid from the chief constable of the Hinton police force and which indicates the matter that I raise in here — that the chief was asked to discipline a member on the request of the hon. member. MR. SPEAKER: Unfortunately or otherwise, I haven't the material in front of me, but I would remind the hon. leader that ministers reply in the House to questions which relate to their ministerial responsibility, and certainly such questions would have to be limited to the times when the ministers are acting as such.

Now, I don't know whether it's ancient history or what it is, but I would respectfully suggest that we let the matter go now until, in fairness, the hon. minister has had a chance to look at whatever item is there. Extra Billing and Hospital User Fees MR. GURNETT: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care, following up on the discussions that I understand were concluded between himself and the federal health minister, in which the federal health minister indicated that he intends to uphold the Canada Health Act with respect to extra billing.

My question is if the minister would explain to this Assembly how this government now intends to both comply with the terms of the Canada Health Act and continue to permit extra billing and user fees in the province. MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I should correct an inference in the hon. member's question. He referred to discussions that had concluded yesterday. In my view they've just begun, and I expect they'll continue for some months now. It was a good meeting.

Both parties, the hon. federal minister and myself, agreed that our objectives are the same, and that is to get those penalties returned to the government of Alberta, where they belong. So we're working to the same objective. We both agreed that the method that is being used — that is, consultation on an ongoing basis among the parties concerned, the medical profession, the government of Canada, and the government of Alberta — is the best way to go, and we agreed to continue that.

The minister assured me that he will use the authority that is vested in him in the Canada Health Act to try to resolve this issue to the satisfaction of the governments concerned. So with that as a broad framework I had to come away in a very optimistic frame of mind. To answer some of the specifics that the hon. member raised, though, a study of the Act and the

definitions therein give a lot of flexibility to the provinces and to the federal minister. On that basis I'm sure we're going to be able to substantially improve the existing situation. MR. GURNETT: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes the minister's answers with regard to this subject sound a little bit like . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The hon. member has started on a path which ought not to be followed any further. MR. GURNETT: My question to the minister, Mr. Speaker, is whether or not he could give some indication of whether

April 10, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 123 the consultative approach that he talks about is in fact going to result in extra billing being voluntarily eliminated in Alberta, and if so, if he could indicate what date we could expect that approach to be successful. MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, the date to which we're working is very specific; it's March 31, 1987. That's the date in the Canada Health Act whereby the provinces must comply to get the accumulated penalties. That's our objective, and we realize that there may be lead time involved to undertake certain actions, so everybody is keeping this issue moving.

Again I want to emphasize the fact that there is a great deal of flexibility in the Act in the discretion given to the federal minister under the Act. He's indicated he will be very co-operative, that his objective is the same as ours. Just reminding the hon. members that when the Canada Health Act was brought in, we went on record as saying with respect to this issue that we would watch what the rest of the country did, and we're doing that. We're dismayed by what is going on in Ontario, and I think all the parties are in the same frame of mind.

Frankly, I think the method and the role that Alberta has taken in this is far preferable to what's going on down there as a result of the marriage between the NDP and the Liberals. MR. MARTIN: And the people, Dave. MR. GURNETT: A supplementary question to the minister, Mr. Speaker. Yes, the people are the winners if it's ended. I understand that one of the possibilities in this flexibility being considered is excluding certain classifications under the Alberta health care plan.

I wonder if the minister could outline which services he's considering excluding from the Alberta plan and when we could see legislation that would outline how those services would be excluded. MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, we're not considering exclud ing any services to citizens. I believe that what the hon. member may be referring to is what services we now provide must be included in the federal definition of health care.

That's one of the issues on which there's going to be discussion not only between Alberta and Canada but between other provinces and Canada, because that's very germane to the issue we're discussing. Certainly, if we follow that line and still maintain within our own province that very broad array of services — it's now the richest array of services of any of the provinces in Canada — but for purposes of complying with the Canada Health Act meet the minimum definition, then we have a great deal of flexibility at our hands. This is what the federal minister and myself and the medical profession are working on.

As I mentioned earlier, we all have the same objective. Frankly, I think that by pursuing the route we are, we're guaranteeing that Albertans are receiving the best quality health care of Canadians. MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the final supplementary on this topic. MR. GURNETT: Could the minister report on another aspect of this whole matter and indicate what progress has been made with his federal counterpart with regard to getting the $22 million that had been withheld by the federal government from the province to come to Alberta?

When will Albertans see that money coming to the province as part of a resolution to the situation? MR. RUSSELL: The penalties are cumulative, Mr. Speaker, and are being held in trust for all the provinces by the federal government until the end of the current fiscal year, March 31, 1987. They will accumulate until that time, and we have until that time to comply with the Act. Following that, the funds that are owing would then be returned to the provinces involved. Solicitor General's Office (continued) MR. CRAWFORD: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if I might be allowed, by way of a point of order, to raise something that I've briefly reflected upon since the question of the hon. leader of the Representative Party to the Solicitor General. You, sir, quite accurately, remarked upon the fact that the member who poses the question in such circum stances can, by tradition, very possibly create a situation where he has to maintain the charge or resign from the Assembly. I just want to cover that from two points of view.

The tradition in producing documents always is that the author, if that be a private citizen, in this case the chief constable, as I heard the hon. member say, of the town of Hinton — to obtain consent. In motions for return, that is always attached as a rider when the Assembly agrees to a motion: that the consent of the authors is obtained, and the motion is passed subject to that. I don't know the circum stances in connection with the hon. leader of the Repre sentative Party and his obtaining a consent from the author of that particular correspondence.

I want to say to him that when he proposed a few minutes ago to table the matter, the thoughts I've had since would be these. If a proper consent hasn't been obtained or for any other reason the hon. member would wish not to table the document, I have these two observations to make. One is that if he has already gone through the act of handing it to the page and it has found its way to the Table, we would certainly agree on our part as government members that he be allowed by unanimous consent to withdraw his tabling. The second point, Mr.

Speaker, is: after perhaps hearing the hon. member, I would suggest that maybe hon. members would like to allow you, sir, to consult with the hon. member prior to the tabling becoming officially entered, in the light of the willingness that we have to see him, if he wishes, voluntarily withdraw. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I didn't hear all of the opening remarks of the hon. minister, as I was responding to a question of the Leader of the Official Opposition in a private way here.

But as I understand the latter part of the comments, the request is to withdraw the tabling that I made, and the question was whether or not I had permission from the author of the tabling. Through my staff we had that approval to table the document. I asked that question when it was given to me: "Have we his approval to table that document?" The answer from my staff was yes, and on that basis I have tabled it here today. I agree with the hon. Attorney General, the House leader, that I should not table it unless I have his consent. I certainly agree with that. I would not do that under any circumstances.

If the circumstances are such — and I will double check

124 ALBERTA HANSARD April 10, 1986 that personally with Mr. Rhodes following question period today to assure myself that he did give that consent. But I had been given all assurance that his consent was given through to me to table it here, if necessary, during question period. MR. SPEAKER: Under the circumstances, I'm not aware of any initiative or any steps that are required to be taken by myself. I perhaps should mention in passing that there is no provision, and perhaps it is not necessary to have such a provision, for tablings to be scrutinized in advance by staff of the Assembly or by myself.

We're at the end of the time of the question period. I know there are differences of opinion whether points of order and other interventions should be counted toward the time of the question period. There are three hon. members who would still like to ask their first question. I'm in the hands of the House. We can leave them until tomorrow. Do you wish to proceed with the question period? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps we should not leave it wide open but agree on a time. Would the Assembly agree that we might have a limit of, say, 12 minutes? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

Apprenticeship, Training and Certification Act MR. PURDY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address a question to the Minister of Manpower. I'm concerned about the implications of the training legislation as outlined in the Apprenticeship, Training and Certification Act, which the minister introduced and was passed in this Legislature last spring. Can the minister indicate to this Assembly when the specific sections will be proclaimed that deal with work that people may perform? MR. ISLEY: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is aware, the Act received Royal Assent in the last sitting.

Updated regulations are currently being drafted. A lot of discussion is going on with employer and employee groups that are not as much concerned with Bill 35 but with the Manpower Development Act, which is the one that it was rewriting. Until those discussions are completed, we will not be proclaiming the Act. MR. PURDY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. Has the minister considered how placing restric tions upon the work which people may perform, as outlined in the Apprenticeship, Training and Certification Act, affect the labour market needs?

Does the legislation really reflect the economic reality of the day? MR. ISLEY: That, Mr. Speaker, is why there is considerable discussion in the workplace at both the employer and worker level. Keep in mind that the new Act is not bringing that legislation in place. That legislation is currently in place under the Manpower Development Act. MR. PURDY: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the minister. Does the minister not consider that the leg islation, which does not allow cross-crafting, conflicts with the competitive spirit of Alberta?

Does it not stifle the growing aspiration of many employees to perform diversified work? In other words, a millwright should be able to do a welder's job on the same plant site. MR. ISLEY: Mr. Speaker, there's a significant difference of opinion out there on that issue. MR. PURDY: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, and the minister alluded to it in the first question that I asked him regarding the organizations that are working with the minister's office. I'm glad to see that that process is ongoing.

I'd like to know when we can have some final decision between the minister and the interested groups that are working on this particular legislation so we can finally draw it to a conclusion and have the regulations in place. MR. ISLEY: As I indicated earlier, Mr. Speaker, as soon as discussions with the interested groups are completed. My best feel for that at this point in time would be within a few months. Oil and Gas Industry MR. LEE: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of Energy and Natural Resources.

Could the minister indi cate, as a result of the meetings this week with his federal counterparts, whether he has been successful in advocating the position of this government that the PGRT should be removed and that there is urgency in seeing the removal take place? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, during the course of the meeting in Ottawa on Tuesday of this week, in addition to the arrangements in respect of the important Husky project and discussions on the Syncrude expansion as well, there was a very lengthy discussion with both the minister of energy, the hon.

Pat Carney, and the federal Minister of Finance, Michael Wilson, on the state of the industry. At that time, the province of Alberta, with the strong support of the provinces of Saskatchewan and British Columbia, formally placed before Ottawa our call for an outright elimination of the PGRT, which is namely an excess-profits tax by any other description. I can advise the Assembly that the response received during this meeting was not a negative one.

There was not a defensive approach taken by the federal government on that issue and on the related broader question of the overall state of the industry and what measures of government working together may be required. In fact, we expect to hear a decision from the federal government on the PGRT question within a very short period of time. Without wishing to overstate the case at all, I am frankly very hopeful that we are going to see a positive response by the federal government on this matter.

I express that view because I was impressed with the recognition by the federal ministers that the state of the energy industry, the oil and gas industry in particular, is very much a Canadian issue. We need a strong Canadian energy industry in the oil and gas sector, and there was a clear recognition of that. My second reason for feeling very hopeful is the fact that there was a recognition that this is an emergent situation, a situation that requires prompt action by government.

We'll have to see what events come our way on this subject in the next number of days, but we feel very good about the outcome of the meeting.

April 10, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 125 MR. LEE: A supplementary. Could the minister indicate, in terms of timing, whether he would look forward to an announcement prior to the OPEC meeting of April 15 or after that or by the end of the month? What would be the deadline the minister would have in mind? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, I really can't comment on that except to make the observation that a decision would likely be tied to a meeting date of the federal cabinet, because it's a decision of that magnitude. MR. LEE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I know the minister has been away, but could the minister indicate if he has had an opportunity to review the recommendations of the Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors, in which they recommend that if the PGRT is in fact removed, a portion of it be linked to activity? In other words, the association has recommended that 25 percent of the rebate or the benefit be applied to investment in additional drilling activity. MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr.

Speaker, I am familiar with the submission of that association and a number of other asso ciations on these important issues and certainly understand that association's desire to see measures which are specific to their part of the industry. Having said that, I should make it clear that our view is that the PGRT should be eliminated in an outright fashion with no strings attached, because it is an excess-profits tax, because it has no place in the current very difficult circumstances of the industry, and because the industry has indicated in the past a very strong commitment to reinvestment.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, clearly this government — and I think it's appropriate on a province-by-province basis because of the provincial ownership of the resource — is examining measures and has already instituted some measures which are designed to ensure that along with restoring a healthy measure of cash flow to the industry, there is a good measure of specific activity whereby all sectors of the industry can work through these difficult times. We're examining those alternatives at the same time. MR. LEE: A supplementary.

During those discussions, could the minister indicate if there was any response or any discussion at all with respect to potential federal government involvement in some form of cash flow stabilization program for producers? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, we made the point that there are really three areas in which the federal government can work with the industry and with the producing provinces in these times. The first, of course, is in the area of any front-end taxation. That's PGRT, and that's got to go. The second area which was discussed is the area of the tax system.

We would like to explore and have called upon the federal government to work with us in determining in what ways the tax system can be utilized to assist in this time and, even more specifically, to try and ensure that it is not a disincentive, that it doesn't work against specific initiatives brought in by the provinces. The third area, of course, has to do with the cash flow side of it, if we can describe it in that manner.

I think there is a recognition that depending upon the outcome of the upcoming OPEC meeting and the direction of the price of oil thereafter, there has to be consideration of all the options, which includes cash flow enhancement. The point that was made, and I think it's a very fundamental one on this matter of cash flow, is that in the course of the last 12 years the producing provinces and industry have built up a credit of some $50 billion in the Canadian system. If there's a need in the industry to draw upon that credit, we think that's entirely appropriate. MR.

SPEAKER: Might this be the hon. member's final supplementary. MR. LEE: Mr. Speaker, to the minister. In view of the projections by the CAODC with respect to drilling activity in the remaining part of 1986 and in view of the difficult time junior producers particularly have had in terms of retaining their leases on Crown lands, I would like to ask the minister if there is consideration being given now, particularly in the last week and a half or two weeks, to the possibility of a moratorium on lease expiries for a two- year period, given the condition of the junior oil producers? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr.

Speaker, the hon. member asked a similar question on a previous occasion, and my answer is the same. Certainly we're prepared to look at all the options and ways in which to assist the industry. On that particular one, there must be a recognition that in fact if there is no obligation to undertake work, that works against his thrust in the earlier question of encouraging activity. So it has to be a well-thought-out, balanced approach. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton Gold Bar. MR. HIEBERT: Mr. Speaker, in light of the time I'll forgo my questions until tomorrow morning. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR.

SPEAKER: May we revert to Introduction of Special Guests? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS (reversion) MR. McPHERSON: Mr. Speaker, this is my second oppor tunity this afternoon to introduce to you and to members of the Assembly a group of students from the constituency of Red Deer. Once again, I'm at some hazard to be sure if they're here or not, but I hope they are. Seated in the public gallery this afternoon are 24 grade 6 students from the Piper Creek school in the city of Red Deer.

They are accompanied today by two teachers, Miss Jean Tatlow, and also teacher and principal and one of our erudite city councillors in Red Deer, Mr. Larry Pimm. I hope they're seated in the gallery. If they are, I'd ask that they please rise and be recognized by the House. MR. KOWALSKI: Mr. Speaker, this is a grand day for 116 grade 6 students from Barrhead elementary school. They're seated in both the members' and the public galleries. They're full of enthusiasm and dynamism. They're accom panied by four outstanding teachers: Florence Wallace, Janice

126 ALBERTA HANSARD April 10, 1986 Klenke, Maureen Tansowny, and Don Roblin. As I ask my young friends to rise, I would certainly ask my colleagues in the Assembly to afford them the traditional welcome. head: MOTIONS FOR RETURNS MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, on the matter of Orders of the Day, Motions for Returns, I'm somewhat at a loss since several of the motions are under the name of the hon. Member for Little Bow. I'm wondering if arrangements had been made for somebody else in the opposition to move the motions? No? [interjection] Well, under those circum stances then I guess we will have to hold some of them.

I guess they're all by members of the Representative Party, and therefore we can't do anything about them except to move that they all stand and retain their places on the Order Paper. MR. SPEAKER: They automatically stand, and they fall to the bottom of the Order Paper. The only question is whether they should retain their priority, but since they're the only ones, I don't know how they can lose it. head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 205. Moved by Mr. Martin:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the Pres ident of the Executive Council not to seek the prorogation or dissolution of the 20th Legislature nor to advise Her Honour the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor to prorogue or dissolve the 20th Legislature until after such time as a budget for the 1986-87 fiscal year has been introduced and examined in the Committee of Supply and the consequent appropriation Bill has received Royal Assent. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I will be short and to the point today. [applause] I knew that would get a good reaction from the Members of the Legislative Assembly. MR.

TRYNCHY: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I'd like to go back to the questions on the Order Paper. I have the answer to Motion for a Return 135, and I'd like to table that today, if I may. MR. SPEAKER: Of course, the hon. minister is free to table anything he wishes that comes within the requirement as to tabling, but I think it would be a little difficult to contrive a reply to an order for a return before the order is made. MR. MARTIN: I take it I can go ahead now. I was getting paranoid: a point of order, and I hadn't even started yet. If I may proceed, Mr.

Speaker, this motion is straight forward, as I said. The reason we brought this to the attention of the Legislature is that we thought we had to do it relatively quickly, by some of the talk around the province about an impending election. I would make a point that seems self-evident: we as MLAs, regardless of our political stripe, were obviously elected to do the people's business. Part of the people's business, a big part of it, is examining and looking after the budget, going through it, scrutinizing it, and then eventually passing it: a very impor tant part of all of our roles.

That's a collective responsibility that all of us have, whether we're in the cabinet or we're on the government side or the opposition side. I would point out that in the last year we did not have a fall session. There were other reasons given, but I think we know it was because there was a Conservative leadership convention. We have not been in session since around the end of May, so it's almost 10 months, and almost a year since we passed the last budget. In that time since we passed the last budget — and we'll know the full story tonight — we've passed the figure of at least $1 billion in special warrants.

Special warrants: that's decisions cabinet makes behind closed doors. I recognize that from time to time there are circumstances that arise when the Legislature is not sitting and that the cabinet has to have that power, but I do not believe it was ever meant to be looking at $1 billion in special warrants. Frankly, I think that that is abusing the principle of the Legislature controlling the purse strings. That is a lot of money: $1 billion.

Not only that, we're told — I believe it was April 26 or somewhere in that vicinity — that another $4 billion in special warrants had been passed by cabinet to go into the next part of the year. Mr. Speaker, that is a total of $5 billion. The government may say, "We'll check this later; we will come back with an appropriation Bill," and they will. But the reality is that it's still against the democratic principles of British parliamentary democracy. We are to scrutinize the Bills ahead of time, scrutinize the money, and $5 billion is approximately half a full year's budget.

I say to you that we are in danger of basically flying against the very important principle that the Legislature controls the purse strings. As I recall history, in England there was a king that was beheaded because he didn't like this principle. Maybe he should have come to Alberta in 1986. He might have solved his problems a little better. But, of course, it is a fundamental principle I am talking about. We are slowly, slowly drifting, if I may say so, to government by special warrant, by the cabinet behind closed doors.

Let me say to the members here in the Legislative Assembly, although I will not hold my breath, that by passing this motion, we would be doing something that was very worth while and very special for the people of Alberta. I believe we would be saying that the Legislature is supreme, that we're all elected to do this, that it is an important job, and that we want to get on with scrutinizing the budget. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me — the hon. Premier is here; I appreciate that — that the only possible reason we wouldn't follow this motion is that we're going to dissolve the House and have an election.

I would say that at a certain point — we're three and a half years into the mandate, from 1982. We weren't in a hurry to push the House. What I've said is that we should have come back in January if we wanted an election at this time. Frankly, we can live without it. We could do the job. The election could be called in two or three months. It's not even four years yet. By law we can go five, although I think I would agree with the Premier that that would be too long, especially without a mandate. It seems to me that we do not need the election now. Let us finish our work in the Legislative Assembly.

Let's go through. We have the budget tonight. Let's have the estimates presented, and let us debate those estimates in the needed time — at the absolute most it can only be 25 days that we debate this — and then, if the Premier so decides, go to the polls. If we go to the polls without passing this, we don't know when we will get a look at the budget. We don't know when the Legislature will be called back.

April 10, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 127 In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I say to Members of the Legislative Assembly, regardless of which political stripe, that I think we're talking about a very fundamental principle, and I would ask the members here to vote with their conscience and not according to whether there's going to be an election. The Legislature, at least on paper, is supreme. It was set up this way. So I would ask the members here to support this motion.

We'll get on with the business of the House, we'll pass the budget in a certain period of time, and then the Premier can decide whether it's in his best interest to call an election at that point. I think that's what the people of Alberta expect from us, at least that's what I hope they would expect from us. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate on designated Motion 205, I have to admit to being somewhat perplexed. I sat here last Friday when the hon.

Leader of the Opposition with great gusto and, in fact, some eloquence presented a resolution to this House calling for an emergency debate on the issue of energy prices. Frankly, although I agreed with your decision on that date — that in fact the emergency debate wasn't appropriate — I had a lot of sympathy with the topic raised, because that's the major one of importance to my constituents.

Today, the first day the Leader of the Opposition has an opportunity to present a topic of his choosing to this Legislature, we're faced with a motion that has nothing to do with the price of oil or the difficulties with agriculture or the other issues important to my constituents but with some nebulous motion which, in fact, seems to be based on rumours and thoughts of when an election will be. If the hon. member is looking for rumours, I heard one this morning that the election will be in September.

That's probably worth about as much as other rumours that have been going about the province in the last few months. I have some difficulty with the motion itself, though frankly I'm not sure it's the best way we could be spending our time this afternoon. I do appreciate the words of the hon. Leader of the Opposition in terms of the supremacy of the Legislature, the traditions of Parliament, and the history that's involved. I agree and support all of that.

There's no question that I think any of us in this parlia mentary process gains a firm respect for the process and the needs of that process in protecting the people of the province, but I fail to see how this motion accomplishes that kind of protection. First of ail, throughout history I can't recall another motion of this sort, though I haven't checked all parliaments and all motions. But in all cases in British parliamentary history that I'm aware of, the prerogative of calling an election has been that of the Premier.

I don't know where there is a more ultimate judge should that happen during a budget process, which it has on many occasions — I think in this House in '75 and '79 — than the public judging the budget that comes down. I don't suggest that the leader is feeling that he is superior to the public of Alberta in making the recommendation that, indeed, he and this House judge the budget rather than the public.

I can't understand why he would suggest that democracy was being undermined if that happens, rather than our examining this budget first in the House rather than after the public has had a chance to judge a government on that basis. All of that, though, is hypothetical. When the date of an election will be is a question which none of us knows, except perhaps one person. As I said, September sounds like a good date. I've heard May or June. We could potentially go through two full budget debates before we have an election. Mr.

Speaker, in dealing very briefly with the question of special warrants, I agree that all such warrants should be subject to the scrutiny of the Legislature and, indeed, the scrutiny of the Official Opposition, which is there to scrutinize government, as we are as individual members, and to make sure that all expenditures are done in accordance with the will of the people. Those special warrants, though, that have been presented have been essential for the operation of the government.

I guess I'd challenge the hon. leader to indicate to me which of the programs that have been funded by those special warrants he would prefer that we did not proceed with, whether it be social assistance for those who have no income, widows' allowances for widows without funding, or some of the programs for our small businesses or agriculture. Which ones would he prefer we had not proceeded with in terms of this House? The one answer the hon. Leader of the Opposition seemed to imply in his speech this afternoon was that in fact we could have called the House back earlier to cover those responsibilities.

That's an argument that has been made in some of the newspapers and, indeed, by the hon. leader on occasion.

My personal feeling is that this government and the Treasury Board of the province would have been less than responsible had they called the Legislature back into session without having a full chance to go through the estimates one by one, as representatives of the public, and judge how they wanted to present those estimates to this House, rather than some haphazard way of putting together a budget and then asking this House to approve something that did not have that day-by-day scrutiny, the time that was required. It took a great deal of time between November and this particular sitting. Mr.

Speaker, although we have been 10 months without sitting, I don't think that's been an inordinate amount of time given the events that have taken place in this province. Frankly, I believe my constituents would rather that I debate the issues of oil prices and agriculture than a motion which deals with rumours of possible elections and with the potential of finishing a budget debate.

I haven't had one call from one constituent that said, "Boy, you'd better not call an election before you finish debating that budget in the Legislature." I don't expect to get one, although the hon. leader may receive calls that I don't. It may well be, and it's perhaps even likely, that we'll finish that budget discussion before the Premier calls an election. I personally couldn't lend my support to the motion, which is restrictive on the traditions of the parliamentary process and, as I said, which I am quite ambivalent about in terms of its importance to the Legislature at this point.

I suggest that perhaps we might look at adjourning this motion so that the hon. leader might have the opportunity sometime this evening to assess the budget and think again as to how much he would want to debate it. Perhaps he's saying by this motion that he thinks it'll be such a great budget that there'll be no need to wait very long or to ask the people what they think about it. One can only speculate, because it is a hypothetical motion which presumes upon the traditions of parliamentary democracy. Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't be inclined to support the motion at this time.

Perhaps other members have other points of view in that respect. MR. NELSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to address the motion that's before us. First of

128 ALBERTA HANSARD April 10, 1986 all, I am somewhat perplexed that this motion would even be placed before us at this early date. In the constituency that I represent — I'm certain that my constituency isn't totally different from most in the province, especially in the urban communities. To consider debating whether or not the Premier is going to call for a writ is in my opinion something that under our parliamentary system is not nec essarily the most important topic we should be discussing in this Legislature today.

I, too, would like to suggest that the item be adjourned in a few moments so that we can get on and discuss some of the issues that are really in our communities. Some of those issues, of course, are relevant to the economic times, the education of our young people, agriculture, the social needs of some of citizens who are underprivileged, day care issues, and so on. Mr. Speaker, we in the Legislature, whether we are sitting here or endeavouring to work in our communities, do so for the good of the community and the good of the public.

In so doing, we have to sometimes rely on the information we may present to our ministers in the cabinet for assistance in the community. It's interesting to note, when the hon. member starts talking about the number of special warrants that have been issued regarding supply throughout the province over the last number of months — I'm just wondering whether the hon. member would be making such a motion if he really knew what all these warrants were for. For example, there's $1.8 million for street assistance programs.

There's money spent for programs to offer the cities of Edmonton and Calgary automated fingerprint identification systems and money for the Oldman River dam project, a very important project for the farmers of Alberta. Warrants for lump-sum payments to the Workers' Compensation Board on pre-1974 pensions: certainly we're not going to disadvantage those people who may already be disadvantaged.

Moneys for sour gas plans: on the east side of Calgary we certainly have concerns about sour gas and the development of same, and I would certainly not like to see that restricted when we have some concerns about that particular development. Day care operating allowance program: because of increased demand of some of our working mothers and fathers — single parents — surely to goodness we're not going to slow down the process to assist these people that need it. How about extended health benefits in the Alberta aids to daily living program?

Are we going to tell these people, "Look, I'm sorry, folks; we don't agree, because the Legislature isn't sitting"? That's absurdity. Twenty-five million dollars was put in as a cash requirement for urban hospital projects. Are we going to stop development of hospitals and other projects when in fact the opposition is standing there and telling us we want more jobs? Are we going to cut off jobs because they don't want special warrants issued? Goodness gracious, Mr. Speaker, we can't talk out of both sides of our mouths all the time. Mr.

Speaker, $6.3 million provided for special employ ment programs: again, making every effort to employ people in this province, and we're sitting here saying: "Look, folks, you can't issue special warrants. It's too much money. You don't have my permission." Who do people think they are? We've got people out there who are in need. Do we say: "No. I'm sorry; you can't have that need, because I'm not sitting in the Legislature"?

For the Alberta assured income for the severely hand icapped program, $6.1 million: are we going to tell our handicapped citizens and senior citizens that they cannot have that money because we're not sitting in the Legislature? Are we going to tell our agricultural friends, "Look, folks, I'm sorry; we know you're in trouble, but we're not going to be sitting in the Legislature for a little while, so you can't have those moneys to assist you in your farming operations." What about the public service that works for the government in Edmonton and other parts of the province?

Are we going to tell those people that they cannot be paid because we are unable to get approval for those moneys? How about crop insurance claims for our farmers? Are we going to tell them they can't claim on crop insurance because we're not sitting in the Legislature? It goes on and on, Mr. Speaker. Farm fuel distribution allowances, because the government said, "We're going to double the amount of money to assist you, Mr. Farmer, but unfortunately we can't do it until — the opposition says we've got to sit in the Legislature." Mr.

Speaker, the federal parliament in our parliamentary system has issued special warrants since 1891, and it is a common practice. The provincial legislators have done a similar thing. We still have the opportunity, in debating the budget and the estimates, as to which items or elements of those estimates we wish to reject. Certainly I have to agree with one thing: $4 billion or $5 billion is a considerable amount of money. At the same time, it is not conducive of the complete budget of the government of this province for the full year.

Therefore, we still have that opportunity to reject or turn down certain elements of those estimates. I do not agree that we should be restricting the parlia mentary process, no matter what the objectives may be. We will have the ability to view and review the complete budget and the estimates that will be presented by the hon. Provincial Treasurer this evening. Let's remember that the Legislature is supreme, and we all will scrutinize this budget. I would suggest again, Mr.

Speaker, that in looking after the interests of the citizens of this province — be they farmers, be it the energy and gas industry, be it our underprivileged or our handicapped, be it our school systems or our municipalities — our ministers and Executive Council must be allowed the ability to concern themselves,

whereas others may not deem that concern at the same degree that we on the government side of the House do. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this motion be adjourned at the earliest possible moment so that we may debate and discuss issues of concern in our communities — those being our economic concerns, agriculture, educa tional needs, the social concerns of our community, and other important matters — other than matters that under our parliamentary system have been open to leaders of the governing party for many years.

There is no reason to have any restriction on the parliamentary process that has been evident in this country for so many years. Mr. Speaker, I ask that we immediately adjourn. No, I guess I won't ask that. There may be another person who wishes to speak on this motion. I would suggest that at the earliest possible time, we turn this motion aside and get on with the business that I have indicated is necessary to be discussed for the betterment of our province. Thank you. MR. GURNETT: Mr.

Speaker, I was getting a little con cerned there for a moment, because there are certainly some thoughts I want to share with the members about this motion. I'm pleased to have the opportunity to do that, to perhaps re-focus the motion to a certain extent on the real direction that it is pointing and bring it out of the fog.

April 10, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 129 As I see it, Mr. Speaker, in this motion we're certainly not looking at a matter of whether or not this Assembly should be spending any money. I think it's more related to a more significant issue, which is the way we go about functioning. I think that's where we need to focus as we look at the motion. Mr.

Speaker, if we're going to talk about matters that are of importance, this motion touches very, very closely on the whole area of parliamentary democracy and the democratic process and reminds us, by the very fact that we're looking at it and considering reasons why we should support it, that unlike many places in this world, we're not living in a totalitarian state but in a state that has a process of representative democracy. I want to emphasize particularly that people need to have a sense that we recognize that we're functioning within that context, that we are not an irrelevant or a puppet kind of Assembly.

It's not necessarily enough that the reality say that's what it is; we have to make sure, by our actions and by the way we operate, that we're communicating to the people in this province that this is an Assembly that recognizes that situation. We've already heard this afternoon that we've had a long period of time when the Assembly has not met; there's been no sitting. We are elected to represent people within the process of democracy in this province. What tends to happen if we're unable to fulfill that responsibility is that the job has to be picked up in a less adequate way by others.

This motion is indicating that we continue with the process of looking carefully at the budget and the estimates and moving through to that point where we would decide to approve them or otherwise. Mr. Speaker, I'd suggest that during the period of time that that debate and that consideration of estimates was going on, the matters that have been raised by a couple of other members would be well covered in that we would certainly have ample oppor tunity to also debate many other issues and continue many of the other important discussions that need to be happening.

However, we have to address the perception of many people in this province that there has been an excessive use of the privacy of cabinet to make decisions. People feel, Mr. Speaker, that there hasn't been adequate public examination and opportunity for public discussion of deci sions that are being made, and that has to be addressed by the Assembly fulfilling its responsibility and carrying through its work. I've explained many times to my children and to other schoolchildren, as I've worked, that that's a funda mental part of our responsibility here.

As we look at the budget estimates, there are certainly going to be many opportunities to deal with the urgent concerns and issues that people want to hear debated and discussed by their elected representative.

Issues like employ ment and the unemployment crisis we're facing, particularly as it faces young people, like what's happening with oil prices and the energy industry in this province, the many issues in agriculture, the debt load our farmers are facing, the input cost side of things: these are all subjects that would be looked at in careful detail as we worked our way through the estimates, as well as the whole area of services that we're offering to people. So, Mr. Speaker, we need that careful examination of the estimates.

We need to be able to reassure people that they have a budget that has been approved by this Assembly and that as the government continues to operate, it can do so with the sense of confidence that people know that those people they have elected to serve them — to serve them in part by making sure that the expenditures of this government are acceptable and proper and that those estimates have been carefully looked at and then approved. Mr.

Speaker, in supporting this motion, I want to remind all the members here that in our approving this motion, what we are going to do is in a sense calm the rumours, reassure the people that the calling of an Assembly that many people suspect may last only a few days is not going to end up being a wasteful and expensive exercise but that in fact this Assembly is going to continue to carry out its responsibility.

I think that if we provide that reassurance, there's going to be a great deal of confidence restored and people are going to say: "Yes, that process of democracy that makes this province so special and this country so special is intact, it's healthy, and it's carrying on there. We're not living in a regime where a few people, in privacy, behind closed doors, make decisions about how money will be spent, about what legislation will be passed, how people's lives will be affected.

We're in fact living in a situation where we participate through our elected representatives in the directions that this government takes." Mr. Speaker, I certainly urge all members of the Assembly to give their solid support to Motion 205. MR. KOWALSKI: Mr. Speaker, as I look at the Orders of the Day and through all the motions that are before the hon. members of the Assembly and at Motion 205, I view it as a very important item for debate by all hon. members in this Assembly.

There's no doubt at all in my mind that a fair amount of activity has occurred in this province over the last year, and I for one would like to know why certain things have occurred and how come it is that this government has moved, and moved quickly, in dealing with this series of matters of urgent public appeal to the people of Alberta. In particular, I noted that when the hon.

Leader of the Opposition moved the motion, he alluded to the fact that certain special warrants had been exercised in the past fiscal year, and I for one had not really realized that we had been that active in terms of responses to the many concerns of the people of Alberta. There's no doubt at all in my mind that as we sit here, there are a number of questions that hon. members certainly have to ask with respect to this. By way of further amplification of the importance of the motion put forward by the hon.

Leader of the Opposition, I think it's important that as I participate in this debate, I ask certain questions as well. I note that only a few days ago, on March 26, 1986, there was a special warrant of $4 billion to provide interim supply for the 1986-87 fiscal year, pending the voting of supply by the Legislative Assembly. I think it's important to those hon. members who might not quite understand it. If such funds are not in place as of the beginning of a fiscal year, then really all operations of the government come to a quick halt.

It's important to recognize that the expenditure level of $4 billion effective as of April 1 allows many of the very much needed services that we have in the province of Alberta to continue and to carry on. There is no doubt at all in my mind that I would prefer our coming here and sitting down and talking about a budget and perhaps finally approving it who knows when. I know that my hon. colleagues like to get involved, and we all have the responsibility of being involved, but what would happen if we really didn't approve the budget till, say, April 14?

I suppose in theory no government operations would have occurred from April 1 through to April 14.

130 ALBERTA HANSARD April 10, 1986 I look at the listing of some other activities that have occurred with respect to recent public expenditures: a special warrant of $129 million to provide interim supply for the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund, capital projects divi sion.

I was fortunate to serve the Legislature in the previous session as the chairman of the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund committee, and by golly, it seems to me that as I recall all the meetings we've held in this Assembly, most of the hon. colleagues have come forward with sug gestions to move on certain projects: "Let's get some action on it. Let's just go with it.

Let's accelerate these projects." Certainly the public scrutiny we've had as hon. members of this Assembly, through some 30 days of meetings in this particular room that we're in right now, to talk about needed expenditures under the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund were extremely important. In retrospect and reflection I think that the opportunity was not denied to any hon. member at any time to raise any question with any witness or respondent before us in that committee. I recall the hon.

Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care responding enthusiastically to all the questions put forward to him by my colleagues from all parts of Alberta with respect to a number of these very important expenditures under the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund. These questions are important, Mr. Speaker; they're very, very important for all of us. I look at other expenditures, and I want to get some of these answers. I want to have the opportunity to have my hon. colleague stand before me in this Assembly and tell me why the Yellowhead Gas Co-op Ltd. gets another guarantee of additional borrowing of $107,950.

When we first brought in this natural gas price protection plan in the province of Alberta and the co-operative marketing asso ciations and rural utilities guarantee way back in the mid- 1970s, there were a lot of people who criticized this government, Mr. Speaker. There were initial problems with the type of pipe that was installed in the ground, the quality of the pipe, the need of ministers and MLAs and repre sentatives of our government to go back to basically ensure the effective productivity of that system. Well, here we are in 1986, Mr.

Speaker, and I was very delighted just recently to attend the annual meeting of the Ste. Anne gas co-op, where I found that this has now become one of the most efficient and effective gas co-ops in the province of Alberta. There are upwards of 60,000 to 70,000 to 80,000 rural citizens today who have benefitted from that particular program. I'm certain the intent of the motion put forward by the hon. Leader of the Opposition today is to find out why it would now be necessary to guarantee additional borrowings to the Yellowhead Gas Co-op Ltd. of $107,950.

I know the system in place is a very good one, a very efficient one, and a very effective one. There are important questions that hon. members have to have an opportunity to raise, Mr. Speaker. My list of questions and the types of questions that I think are important have to be amplified by example: $117,000 required to initiate public hearings on the recycling of wastes in this province.

Now, I recall that it's been some time since hon. members have had an opportunity to be here in the Legislative Assembly, and I recall certain public events being raised through the late fall of 1985 and the early winter months of 1986 on the subject matter of wastes. Let me tell you that as the MLA who has within his constituency the new special waste management plant, located in Swan Hills, I have a fair number of questions that I want to raise with respect to this matter. I want to know exactly where that $117,000 is going to be expended and why.

If we're prepared as a government to initiate public hearings on this question, then I say that's great. But I want the hon. Minister of the Environment to stand in this House and tell me exactly what he's going to be doing, because I have a fair number of constituents who have been asking me questions, and while I feel fairly comfortable in asking most of these questions, I recognize that as each day goes by one is always in a position to learn more.

If one has the opportunity to ask questions, one can of course simply compound the information base and the knowledge base that he has and the opportunity to go on and try and look knowledgeable on certain question matters. Recently a $102,175 special warrant was approved for the Western Premiers' Conference. We have not yet had a reporting in this House from the Premier and the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs with respect to that conference. I want to know, in terms of value expended, whether or not we in fact did get full value for this expenditure.

I think it's very important, recognizing the leadership role Alberta plays in western Canada, that the western premiers would in fact meet in this province. I think that's; very significant.

If we lived in another province of western Canada and our Premier had to go to Alberta, I suppose the citizens there might ask the question, "Well, why is it that you're always leaving Manitoba to come to Alberta to get wisdom and understanding, and to really find out how a progressive government can handle the concerns of the people?" There's no doubt at all but our Premier at that time and the Minister of Federal and Intergovern mental Affairs might also have had an opportunity to pick up a little bit of wisdom.

I think it's important that all members of the Assembly should have an opportunity to raise questions with respect to this important new data base that has been covered. I see that the hon. Mr. Moore, the Minister of Trans portation — $1.8 million to cover insufficient funding to accommodate demand under the streets assistance program. I recall talking to the Minister of Transportation last year and pointing out that I had a number of towns and villages in my constituency and I wanted to get some special assistance to cover some of the concerns that they'd raised with me.

I was so-so successful, but I do not recall, subject to checking my files, if I was able to get all the funding that I requested. If the Minister of Transportation is coming back with $1.7 million to cover the streets assistance pro gram, I would certainly hate to be in a situation of having my constituents come to me and say, "Look, Ken, you told us you were working really hard on our behalf in that big city, and we understand that another village or town in a neighbouring constituency got this money and you were unfortunately not successful in getting it." I'd be very disappointed, Mr.

Speaker, if I were to find that out from any source other than the hon. Minister of Transportation, who should rightfully stand in this Assembly and defend himself and answer those questions for all hon. members, but in particular for the hon. Member for Barrhead, who of course would have to be responsible for any negativism that would be incurred as a result of this special warrant expenditure of $1.7 million under the streets assistance program. Many of my constituents have told me that they're really concerned about criminal investigations and identification of criminals in the province of Alberta.

I see here a $1 million special warrant to provide $500,000 each to the city of

April 10, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 131 Edmonton and the city of Calgary towards the purchase of an automated fingerprint identification system. I believe that the people who live in rural Alberta should have equal opportunity to get the same protection under the law as the people of Edmonton and Calgary. Until I have the hon.

Solicitor General here before me in this Assembly and have an opportunity to ask him certain questions with respect to what access the people of Barrhead have to this new enforcement system, what access the people of the village of Onoway and the summer village of Alberta Beach have to this program, until I get those answers, I simply don't know what I can tell my constituents. I think it's really important that the hon. gentleman, the Solicitor General, have an opportunity and be before the hon. members of the Assembly to answer further with respect to that.

I note that in the early part of March 1986 a special warrant for $14 million was approved with respect to the capital projects division of the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund for expenditures other than for the purchase of land associated with the Oldman River dam project. I recall, Mr.

Speaker, the meetings of the select standing committee on the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund, which I repeat were held in this Assembly last summer, and interviews with the Minister of the Environment inquiring of him as to the funding procedure and the funding responsibility with respect to the purchase of land associated with the Oldman River dam project. At that point in time the hon. Minister of the Environment indicated that the matter was under review, as I recall. Now I find that in fact the expenditure was made by way of special warrant, I think quite legiti mately.

I have a number of questions that I can certainly ask of him on behalf of my constituents. Hon. members will know my interest in the environment from having heard me raise questions previously on such diverse topics as the Paddle River dam project and the Special Waste Management Corporation. It comes as a result of very important concerns. Mr. Speaker, $1.5 million to provide funds for lump sum payments on pre-1974 pensions: I think that's partic ularly important.

I notice that the hon. minister of workers' health and safety is out at a very important meeting this afternoon, and I can't ask him the question as to who this applies to, but I certainly do know in looking at my mail that there have been more than two or three people who have written to me in the last five or six years saying, "Look, Ken, what are you going to do about these pen sions?" If we've got $1.5 million, I think there is a responsibility on behalf of the minister of the Crown to be here to be answering those questions.

Again, I think that there is some merit in the motion put forward here to really get a handle on it. Mr. Speaker, $815,000 under the jurisdictional respon sibility of the Minister of Agriculture to provide additional funds for the Canada-Alberta subsidiary agreement on nutri tive processing assistance: that's very important to me. I think agriculture and the enhancement of agricultural pro duction in this province are really key to economic devel opment.

It was only just recently that a small flour mill in a little community to the east of the town of Barrhead, a place called Manola — which, as all hon. members know, is really at the confluence of the two important rivers, the Paddle River and the Pembina River — got under production. If fact, a former member of this Assembly, a very, very aggressive member of this Assembly, my mentor in many ways, Dr. Horner, was involved in that little project, and he now has on the market a new flour product called Dr. Best. It's now in many stores located throughout the province of Alberta.

It's nutritive and has no additives added to it. But I simply don't know, because my predecessor has never ever talked to me about any application that he might have made under the Canada-Alberta subsidiary agreement on nutritive processing assistance, and if he had not, I wonder.

I can't believe that he would have forgotten about this particular program being in place, but it may very well have been the case that it would be incumbent upon me as the MLA for the constituency of Barrhead to bring to his attention the additional number of dollars that are involved in this program and to ensure that he would not ignore filing an application for a project and a program of agri cultural enhancement which I think is really important to the province of Alberta. With the hon.

Minister of Agri culture in the House, I've got an opportunity to raise those questions, get those answers and dutifully respond to my constituents about the availability or the nonavailability in terms of his particular view. The Minister of Social Services and Community Health: $4.75 million required in the day care operating allowance program as a result of increased demand. Again, Mr.

Speaker, I recall certain issues being raised by certain people saying, "What is the government going to be doing with respect to day care operating allowances?" I find that we've now passed an additional $4.75 million in terms of the day care operating allowance program. I have day cares in the constituency of Barrhead. I don't know those details, and I think we've got to have the minister before us to talk to us about this particular matter. I see $3.5 million added to the extended health benefits in the Alberta aids to the daily living program as a result of increased caseloads.

I've talked to a number of these people in my constituency, and I know that they have talked to me about the need to see additional funding for it. I'm delighted to see that it has been approved and is now in place. But once again, what does it really mean to people who live in the constituency of Barrhead? I think that's fundamental and very important, and I think it is crucial that we know all about that. Wildlife crop damage compensation is a very important subject matter in rural Alberta; $1.52 million has been approved.

I've talked to the minister through 1985, and I've said to him on many occasions that my constituents are worried about these deer, elk, and the other kinds of wildlife that cause damage to their crops. Some urban members may not really empathize with this. If the hon. minister were here in the Assembly, and all hon. members had an opportunity to raise important questions of him with respect to this program, then in essence what we do is accomplish a double-barrel objective.

First of all, we find out exactly what the initiative is and, secondly, we're in a position to elucidate to all of our urban members the importance of this very important program. Of course, there are certain people who say, "Why don't you just shoot the animals?" You can't do that, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, there are so many things that have to be raised before various ministers of the Crown, and I'm not really sure that even this afternoon I will have an opportunity to raise even the few questions I want to raise among my colleagues in support of this very important motion.

Three hundred grand, emergency water assistance program; $6.34 million for special manpower programs; $835,000 for the Alberta vocational training centre; $5.3 million to provide a grant to the Alberta Microelectronic Centre for the purchase of microchip design and fabrication technology. I want some answers; I need some answers.

132 ALBERTA HANSARD April 10, 1986 Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it seems I'm not even going to have an opportunity this afternoon to conclude the speech I want to make on this particular motion, so in view of the time, I beg leave to adjourn the debate. MR. SPEAKER: I would respectfully suggest that the hon. member's motion to adjourn the debate might have come a little late; he was beyond the time limit for his speech. Under the circumstances, unless the House agrees otherwise, we would have to conclude that the debate has not yet been adjourned. MR. MARTIN: You won't get in it again, Ken. head: PUBLIC BILLS AND ORDERS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Second Reading) Bill 201

An Act to Amend the Landlord and Tenant Act MR. OMAN: Mr. Speaker, going from the ridiculous to the sublime here, I am pleased to move second reading of Bill 201, which is a Bill that I think would redress some inequities that have come about in our society in the last two or three years simply because of the march of ongoing events, particularly as reflected in the setting aside of the Lord's Day Act by the Supreme Court of Canada. I want to make it clear from the beginning. Mr. Speaker, that this is not a Sunday shopping Bill as such, although it certainly has some relationship to that.

There is nothing in this Bill that says that stores should be closed on Sunday. But when the Lord's Day Act was set aside, some inequities were put into motion which I think ought to concern us. That's why I bring this Bill before the Assembly today. I have been taken aback a little by some events in the last little while about my ability to persuade such an august body as this. Some of you know, of course, that I conduct services at the church in Calgary. We have recently decided to tape those services for a number of reasons.

Sometimes people who are sick and shut in would like to share in them, and the other thing is that I find it's good to sit down and criticize oneself and see if they can be improved. It was a couple of weeks ago when I sat down to listen to one of these tapes. Having gone through the first part of the service, with the invocation and the hymns and so on, I thought perhaps I should listen to myself and see if I had any ability to change people's lives. So the sermon started off as it should. About 20 or 30 minutes later when I woke up, I found that we were at the close of the service already.

I've tried to smarten up my act a little bit, but we shall see. Actually, this Bill is about freedom, as I see it, because what has happened is that certain store operators, not owners so much as operators, have signed tenancy agreements indicating that they would stay open at all times when the mall owners designate that the stores should be open. At the time those agreements were made, they never dreamed that the Lord's Day Act was to be set aside.

The result has been, as I think members of this Assembly well know, that a good number of store operators are now being forced to stay open seven days a week against their will. This has indeed subjected them, in some instances at least, to con siderable personal hardship as far as time and expense are concerned. Many of these businesses are family businesses that are operated by a husband and wife. They really don't take in the kind of incomes that allow them, in many instances, to hire extra people.

And just because they are open seven days a week doesn't mean that their incomes have increased accordingly; in fact, they have simply spread out and increased their expenses, but their sales remain somewhat on the same level. My question is: do these people not have a right, do they not have the freedom, to close the doors one day a week if they should so choose? That seems to me to be a right that any store owner should have, and because of the inequities of the system which was brought on by unforeseen events, they do not have this right at this particular time.

I want to call to the attention of the members of this Assembly that there is no mention in this Bill of religion. There is no mention in this Bill of what day a store owner should be closed. In fact, the Bill specifically says that the store operator may choose what day he wants to be closed, and he does not have to close one day a week; he may open seven days a week if that is his desire. On the other hand, if he wants to close one day a week, I think he should be given that opportunity, and at the present time in many of the shopping malls of our province he cannot do that.

When this Bill came out last year, when I first tabled it in the Legislature, Mr. Speaker, I was amazed at the almost universal support I received from all across the province really — unsought support, but it was a live issue at that time, because that was the moment when the full effects of the setting aside of the Lord's Day Act were being felt. I beg your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, because I realize it's not necessarily the custom of the Assembly to allow long matters to be read.

This is not very long, but it gives you a sample of a letter and it speaks more adequately than I could of what is happening out there in the mar ketplace. This lady writes to me to this effect: My husband and I are forced into a position where we, as store owners, will work seven days a week. This happened in December when we were open for Sunday shopping. Counting the last week of November, we worked over 30 days straight without a break, were closed Christmas Day, and were back at work on Boxing Day. Personally, we found this

schedule (includ ing late night Saturday shopping) to be very exhausting. (In addition to being open regular mall hours, our working day begins at 6:30 A.M.) In our type of business (fast food/bakery), Sunday shopping is not a "12:00 to 5:00" operation. On Sundays, we are in the store by 9:00 A.M. (we need this advance preparation time as all of our food is . . . fresh . . .) and [we get through about] 6:00 P.M. Consequently, Sunday becomes a long work day, and as I experienced in December, this

schedule was incom patible with my right to worship on Sunday mornings. It is very difficult to find enough qualified and trustworthy staff to work on their own. I work in the store every day, partly because I find that the quality of our baked product tends to suffer if I don't monitor the daily production. I have had a "HELP WANTED" sign up for some time now, but so far I have been unable to find an alternate baker who can work without my supervision. I am continuing to look for responsible

April 10, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 133 staff, but notice when taking job applications, some people are starting to stipulate that they will not work Sundays. This makes it harder to hire, as I believe that all my staff should share the work load on Sundays. Also, the City Transit System is not geared to Sunday work schedules. Some of my staff at Christmas were unable to get to work unless they took a cab, which was expensive and often did not make it worth their while to work that day.

When our lease was originally signed in 1981, I believe that both parties signed in good faith to abide by the existing mall hours of operation, and that neither anticipated Sunday becoming a regular working day. As it stands now, the law is undecided as to the legality of Sunday shopping. However, the major malls in Calgary have decided to ignore the objections of most of the tenants to have the option to remain closed [one day a week]; they appear to be pressuring them into remaining open.

We feel that these tactics are unfair, can only lead to poor tenant/landlord relations, and are an infringement on tenants' rights to open on the day that they choose. Mr. Speaker . . . MR. SPEAKER: It's true; the hon. member is hesitating. The length of the quotation was causing me some concern. The only justification I can see for a quotation of that length would be the possibility that the hon. member's correspond ent might be able to express the matter more succinctly than the hon. member himself MR. OMAN: That's precisely why I read it, Mr. Speaker. I had another letter, which I shall not quote verbatim.

It was from the other side of the fence, from the Building Owners and Managers Association, which objected to the Bill. They said that in effect building owners were fair- minded people and, therefore, they could work out the problems with their tenants very easily. It wasn't very difficult to send a copy of this particular letter right here back to them. I indicated to them that at this point at least the mall owners had not demonstrated that degree of fairness and, for the most part, had forced these people to be open against their will. I don't think I have to spend an awful lot more time, Mr.

Speaker, because it seems to me so obvious that this Bill is right and that this is the right time for it. I can't see any real objections. I can't even see any political objections to it, because I think it would be so universally popular. There are a number of people in our province who have criticized this government because it failed to act on the Sunday shopping issue. Even though I happen to be in the ministry, I have never been of the opinion that the state needs to back up the church as far as Sundays are concerned.

It's always been my opinion, and I think experience has proved this, that the church isn't very largely affected by Sunday blue laws or whatever. Where they have been taken out, I'm sure the churches will survive because they're bigger than that. They don't need the government's support. I think there is an advantage in having a common day of rest in society on which you do things together. There's a sort of binding force in society when that happens. That's why we have our national holidays.

To have one day a week, whether it be Saturday or Sunday — and there I suppose the majority would tend to reign — I think has advantage for recreational, for restful, and for worshipful activity. So in that sense, yes, I have some prejudices that way. But I don't think it's for the necessity of supporting religion as such. I think that particular aspect isn't either needed or good for the church or society. Nevertheless, the government has failed to take any action on this, except they have allowed the municipalities to do as they wish.

Because there is such an obvious inequity that's been perpetrated by the setting aside of the Lord's Day Act, it seems to me that here is where we need to move in. There is an inequity; there is unfairness. If government is involved with anything, it ought to be involved with justice and fairness. That's why I recommend this Bill to the members of this Assembly. I hope you will pass it. Thank you, sir. MR. PURDY: Mr. Speaker, in rising to say a few words on this particular Act, hon. members will know that in previous years I put forth the retail business Act in this Assembly.

In fact, the first Bill was for closing of retail outlets except for certain sizes on Sundays. Then the Bill was amended to get away from the political connotation of it and put it in there that there could be days when the various businesses would be allowed to close on their own; however, it would limit them to six days a week. In my surveys over the last little while, I guess right now I'm at the juncture where the marketplace is dictating what should be open and what should be closed and how it should be done. Should it be done through a special Act of the Legislature as a retail business Act?

Should it be done through the Act the hon. member is promoting today, amendments to the Landlord and Tenant Act, or should it be in other ways? Visiting some of the areas in my constituency where Sunday opening is now a fact of life, I find that amendments to the Landlord and Tenant Act would be of no use to the individuals I represent. Many of these people are proprietors that own their own building and their own establishment, so they're outside the mall concept.

Because of other events that have taken place, such as West Edmonton Mall and other areas that have followed, they have chosen to stay open on the seventh day, be what it may. I don't know if legislation can be introduced to reverse the trend we now have. There are two sides to the coin, Mr. Speaker. At times when you talk to owners in various malls, maybe at Capilano or wherever it is, they are locked into agreements where they must stay open for seven days a week. Some of them tell me that they're slowly not making any money on those particular days.

The seventh day they stay open is one that is not profitable for them. Because of overhead, payment of wages for extra employees, just the many things that go into operating a business, it's nonprofitable for them to be open seven days a week. If we accept this particular piece of legislation, it would then be against the entrepreneur that maybe builds a small mall with four or five outlets.

I would imagine that maybe the small mall owner does not have restrictions and lease agreements where you have to stay open seven days a week, but we certainly know that it's seven in places such as West Edmonton Mall and some of the other malls in the city of Edmonton. How do you curtail that? Do you curtail it by this particular legislation? If you do, you will have the various entrepreneurs saying that you are then infringing on their rights to run a business and to sign lease agreements for seven days a week.

134 ALBERTA HANSARD April 10, 1986 I think that what we have to wait for in this Assembly before any real judgment or decision can be made is the final decision from the Supreme Court of Canada to see what they're going to do with that seventh day of shopping. As members know, I've questioned the Attorney General in this Assembly a number of times where that particular decision is at, and to my knowledge there has still been no decision reached for the seventh day to be restricted. I don't think there's much more I can say on the Bill now. In closing, Mr.

Speaker, the Bill presented by the hon. member, which has amendments to the Landlord and Tenant Act, is a bit premature right now. I believe we should wait until the Supreme Court of Canada makes their decision, and also wait for the Ontario decision to see how well they fare when that particular piece of legislation comes out of the court system there. Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to adjourn the debate. MR. WEISS: Mr. Speaker, I imagine there are other hon. members who would like to speak in regard to . . . MR.

SPEAKER: I'm obliged to put the hon. member's motion for adjournment, but of course the matter is then in the hands of the House. Having heard the motion by the hon. Member for Stony Plain for adjournment of the debate, would the members in favour of the motion please say aye. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. MR. SPEAKER: And those opposed, please say no. SOME HON. MEMBERS: No. MR. SPEAKER: The motion is lost. MRS. EMBURY: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to speak this afternoon to this Bill,

an Act to Amend the Landlord and Tenant Act. I would like to commend my colleague from Calgary North Hill for bringing this forth. It seems now, looking back, that there's been quite a quiet period, shall we say, in the cities since this was a really major issue. It's even hard for me to believe that the member introduced his first Bill last spring. It seems to me it was more like last fall, but of course we weren't here in the Legislature.

This particular issue that is the major premise of his Bill, of course, was overshadowed at that time — there's no doubt about it — by the larger issue of what was Sunday opening or Sunday closing of stores, so maybe to some people it didn't have as much of a hearing as it should have had. I really do admire the member for reintroducing it, because now maybe it seems a little ludicrous. The issues have certainly quietened down a lot, and by that I mean that I for one am not being very, very heavily lobbied on this issue like I was. There were hundreds and hundreds of letters from both sides.

A lot of people in Calgary North West, of course, wanted all the stores to be closed on a Sunday, not only for themselves — a family day and to attend church — but also they were worried because a lot of their children who wanted to seek part-time employment would have to work on Sunday. This concerned the parents. But on the other hand, there were just as many people expressing the other side of the coin. They felt it was their individual right to choose if they wished to work on a Sunday. As I said, that issue has certainly quietened down in my riding. My malls are open on Sunday.

I must admit they're doing a very fine business at this time. They didn't start out that way, but I've certainly seen a growth in the number of people, and I understand there have been some public statements to the fact that they're doing very well with their Sunday opening. This was a particular issue, and that's why I think the member did a lot of research into identifying this issue and then looking at some solution to this issue. I think that the basis I would support this Bill on is the very fact of: do we or do we not want to support our small businessmen or women or families or persons?

Because this is exactly what happened to a constituent of mine who had a men's clothing store in a large mall. Of course, he was absolutely forced out by the lease he had signed previous to the Lord's Day Act being changed in the Supreme Court. As a result of that he refused to stay open for the seven days including Sunday, which was an extremely difficult situation for him because that left him absolutely no time to be with his family.

He had one or two other employees, but it was still very difficult to rotate that small number of staff throughout the seven days and evenings and also to look at a small profit margin. Times haven't been that great over the last little while in Calgary, and someone in that type of business was really struggling. So it was a very, very difficult situation for him. There did seem to be some anomalies in these mall openings and closings. Not all stores had to be closed. This was very interesting. Exactly how long some could stay open seemed to vary.

I must admit and I will confess that you might wonder why I would support this Bill. I can now very happily tell the Assembly that this gentleman has gone into another newer area which has more individualized stores, although I suppose one would still call it a shopping centre, and is very pleased with the move he's made. His business is doing all right, so at least it does have a happy ending, but it did create a lot of turmoil for him at the time. It was a difficult situation, just as the Member for Calgary North Hill said, due to a circumstance that had changed since they signed the lease.

I can't help but believe, though, that there must be lots of other circumstances in life that change. You can buy a house on what you assume to be a very quiet street with assurances that it won't change, it won't become a major artery, and we know that that can certainly happen. So that does give me a little concern, to think that the Legislature can always patch up every situation that comes along. But basically, I would support this Bill, and I would urge the members of the Assembly to at least give it that consider ation. I will look forward to hearing other comments from other members. MR. WEISS: Mr.

Speaker, I too would like to speak with regard to Bill 201. When I heard the hon. Member for Calgary North Hill present it and having presented it before in the Assembly, I wasn't sure whether it was a Sunday sermon or a Sunday omen that I was being spoken to on. I found it very interesting, though, and in particular would like to point out some of the other sides — the other side of the coin, as it was referred to by the hon. Member for Stony Plain.

There are some long-term lease arrange ments that generally have been made by some of the proprietors and the mall operators, and some of these rental arrangements are based on percentage of gross sales. This, of course, would present a problem if only part or the minority of the stores were open, and I could see rental

April 10, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 135 decreases to the mall owners as well. So I think those things would have to be reviewed and reconsidered and perhaps new lease arrangements looked at. As well, of course, there are some other costs that are borne by all the merchants in a mall, in particular such things as, in the common area, the janitorial services. I would hope that the hon. member would be able to address those and ensure that all store owners within the mall would share those common costs whether they be open or not.

I could see in particular some smaller person asking why they should have to pay that percentage of janitorial costs on a Sunday when they weren't there. I think that in fairness to all the others that has to be on a prorated basis. There are also the advertising costs, which generally are calculated on a per-square-footage basis to the overall number of merchants. Location is one that's very important. When I say "location", Mr. Speaker, I'm referring to the dif ferences

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19860410
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L20 S4 19860410 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	f73a6d883d58ca0748f73db1bd019a2baf2fd335

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