Alberta Hansard — 6 March 1978, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 18, Session 4)

19780306

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

March 6, 1978 ALBERTA HANSARD 23 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Monday, March 6, 1978 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS MR. SPEAKER: I'm pleased and honored to be able to introduce this afternoon to members of the Assembly, a delegation from the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. They are headed by Mr. Harvey Schroeder, who is the Deputy Speaker of the British Columbia Assembly. With him are Mr. Howard Lloyd, the MLA for Prince George; Mr. Bill King, the MLA for Revelstoke-Slocan; Mrs.

Eileen Dailly, the MLA for Burnaby North; Mr. Gordon Gibson for North Vancouver-Capilano; Mr. George Mussallem for Dewdney; and Mr. Calder, accompanied by Mrs. Cal- der. Mr. Calder is the Member for Atlin. They are accompanied by our own Ombudsman, Dr. Ivany, and members of the Ombudsman staff, as well as Mr. Peter Freeman of the Faculty of Law of the University of Alberta, who heads the International Ombudsman Institute that has been established by that faculty. I would ask our guests to rise and to receive the welcome of the Assembly. head: NOTICES OF MOTIONS MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to give oral notice of motion to propose the following motion to the Assembly on Tuesday next:

Be it resolved that the Assembly adjourn at the earliest convenient opportunity and that upon the adjournment the Standing Committee on Public Affairs meet to receive the representations of concerned Albertans with respect to the building of a dam on the Red Deer River. MR. SPEAKER: Has the hon. Leader of the Opposition leave to introduce the motion? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: This is not a motion for an emergency debate. It is notice of a motion which I believe the hon. leader would like to designate for this Thursday. MR. HYNDMAN: He said Tuesday, Mr. Speaker.

It's the designated opposition motion for Thursday. Then, in the absence of the rules which we are about to pass, that's fine. head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 202 The Ecological Reserves Act MR. STROMBERG: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to intro duce Bill 202, The Ecological Reserves Act. The purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to reserve land suitable for scientific research and education.

These ecological reserves would include areas which are representative examples of a particular type of ecosystem or which contain rare or endangered native plants and animals, that they may be preserved in their natural habitat. Also to be included are areas modified by man. This affords us an opportunity to study the recovery of the natural ecosystem from such modification. [Leave granted; Bill 202 read a first time] Bill 208

An Act to Amend The Landlord and Tenant Act MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill 208,

An Act to Amend The Landlord and Tenant Act. The objective of Bill No. 208 is to encompass in legislative form the recommendations of the Alberta landlord and tenant advisory boards, listing 13 speci fied reasons for which a tenant may be evicted, including failure to pay rent or provide a damage deposit agreed to, causing undue disturbance, and damage beyond normal wear and tear. [Leave granted; Bill 208 read a first time] Bill 211

An Act to Amend The Age of Majority Act MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce a bill,

An Act to Amend The Age of Majority Act. If passed, this bill would raise the legal age of drinking alcohol in Alberta from 18 to 19. [Leave granted; Bill 211 read a first time] Bill 201

An Act Respecting the Right of the Public to Information Concerning the Public Business DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill 201,

An Act Respecting the Right of the Public to Information Concerning the Public Business. This bill is similar to bills submitted for consideration by a number of elected officials in Canada over the past several years, including the prominent Tory, Mr. Ged Baldwin, who I am sure is familiar [to] government members. The bill simply ensures that decisions which go into the development of public policy are made in public and become available to the public, unless adequate reasons can be given that specific information shall not be made public. [Leave granted; Bill 201 read a first time]

24 ALBERTA HANSARD March 6, 1978 head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, I beg your leave to table with the Legislative Assembly the answers to motions for returns 156, 173, and 175. MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table with the House the answer to Motion for a Return No. 169, and the annual report of the Alberta Health Care Insurance Commission for the year ended June 30, 1977. DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to file the return for Motion for a Return No. 225. MR. RUSSELL: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to file a status report dealing with certificates of variance issued by the Department of the Environment. DR. HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the response to Motion for a Return No. 153. MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table a brochure on anti-vandalism, produced by the province's crime prevention program. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure this afternoon to introduce to you, and through you to the members of this Assembly, 11 students from the Delia High School in my constituency. They are accompanied by their principal Mr.

Nelson Houghton, Mr. Don Herzog, and Mr. and Mrs. Sandy Laslo. I would ask them to rise and receive the welcome of the House. MR. SCHMID: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to you, and through you to the members of this Assembly, 18 students from one of Edmonton's finest high schools, namely St. Mary's. They are accom panied by their teacher, Mrs. Normington. I would like them to rise and be recognized by this Assembly. MR. TESOLIN: Mr.

Speaker, it is my pleasure today to introduce to you, and through you to the members of this Assembly, some 22 members of the Alberta Vocational Centre student body from Lac La Biche. Mr. Speaker, they are seated in the public gallery and are accompanied by staff members Ray Ewaskiw, Ed Mardell, Ed Benke, and supposedly Tom Hannon, but I can't see him. I would ask that they rise and receive the usual welcome of this Assembly. DR. WARRACK: Mr. Speaker, it is my very great pleasure today to introduce a grade 10 class from Dr.

Elliott School in Linden, Alberta, accompanied by teachers Herb Heidebrecht and Wayne Schneider. They are directly behind me in the public gallery. I would ask them to be welcomed in the usual manner, if they might stand. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, probably last but certainly not least, I would like to introduce to you, and through you to the other members of the Assembly, the 15th Girl Guide Company from Edmonton Highlands con stituency — Mrs. Clark and 14 of the Guides. They're seated in the members gallery.

I'd ask them to rise and be recognized, please, by the Assembly. head: MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Department of Hospitals and Medical Care MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce that effective July 1, 1978, about 168,000 additional Al berta residents living on lower incomes will benefit from entirely eliminated or reduced Alberta health care insurance premiums. Single and family Alberta registrants with no tax able income currently pay no premium. Effective July 1, 1978, single Alberta registrants with a taxable income up to $2,000 will pay no premium, a saving of $84.60 to these Albertans.

Alberta family registrants with a taxable income up to $3,000 will pay no premium, a saving of $169.20 to these Alberta fami lies. For example, this would correspond roughly to an earned income for a single person of $5,700, and for a family of four, to $11,000 earned income.* Reduced premium rates currently extend to single and family registrants with taxable incomes up to $500 and $1,000 respectively.

Effective July 1, 1978, these reduced rates will apply to single regis trants with taxable income between $2,000 and $3,000, a saving of $41.40, and to family registrants with taxable income between $3,000 and $4,000, a saving of $82.80. A much larger number of Albertans will also now benefit from lower premiums for non-group Alberta Blue Cross. Mr. Speaker, these changes make Alberta premium levels for lower income citizens by far the lowest of the premium-levying provinces in Canada, while pre serving the health insurance principle for those who can afford to pay. DR. BUCK: When's the election?

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD University Quotas MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd planned to direct the first question to the Minister of Education, since this is the start of Education Week, but I'll address a different question to the Minister of Advanced Educa tion and Manpower. The question flows from the matter of quotas which have been placed on the Faculty of Engineering and the Faculty of Agriculture at the University of Alberta.

Has the minister had discussions with the chairman of the Board of Gover nors of the University of Alberta with regard to the imposition of these quotas, and has the government expressed its concern to the University of Alberta at having to put quotas on those two areas? DR. HOHOL: No, Mr. Speaker, we have not discussed the matter of quotas in the context in which the hon. leader frames the question. We discuss quotas, en trance requirements, all the many things that have to do with the university community, but not quotas in the context of the question. *See page 188, right column, paragraph 3

March 6, 1978 ALBERTA HANSARD 25 MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, is it the intention of the minister to discuss with the chairman of the Board of Governors or the president of the University of Alber ta the specific question of quotas on the Faculty of Agriculture and the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Alberta? DR. HOHOL: Mr.

Speaker, the logistics of numbers, space, and other resources like professorial numbers and money — the allocation and appointment of these within an institution is quite the prerogative and the responsibility of the academic community and the management of the institutions and the boards of governors. There would have to be and could be an extraordinary reason for government or the minister to be involved or to take note. That has occurred and could, but not in this specific circumstance. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, then one last question to the minister.

In light of the importance of the non renewable resource industry and the development of Alberta engineering capacities, and of the impor tance, often stated by this government, of agriculture and its long-term benefit to this province, is the minister prepared to give an undertaking to the Assembly that at the earliest convenient date he will sit down with the chairman of the Board of Governors of the University of Alberta and discuss what things would have to be changed, perhaps what additional money the government would have to make available, so that in fact quotas would not have to be imposed in the areas of agriculture and engineering?

DR. HOHOL: The notion and fact of quotas is certainly not a current or recent invention of this portfolio or this government; it may be in this particular faculty. I simply repeat that unless the university, one or both, wants to approach the government or me and place the problem of quotas in that particular faculty in some relationship to funding or to some other num ber of factors that determine the fact of quotas, I would not interject myself into that kind of system.

So I'd have to say no, I wouldn't take the initiative to hold to account the board, the head of the faculty, or the engineering people to look at the logistics of space, of money, of other resources with respect to why engineering has a quota at this time. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, just one last supplementa ry question to the minister. Is the minister prepared to recommend to his cabinet colleagues additional funding for the University of Alberta specially desig nated so that the limit can come off the faculties of agriculture and engineering? DR. HOHOL: At this time I'm not, Mr. Speaker.

The tenor of the questions of the hon. Leader of the Opposition would lead one to believe that he is not that impressed with autonomy for boards and institu tions called universities. That is not consistent with our view. DR. BUCK: Wrong guy talking about autonomy. MR. CLARK: Who removed the Universities Commission? DR. HOHOL: So the notion of the quota in a particular faculty has to be placed in the context of the whole university. I'm quite prepared to look at the problem with the university, should the university take that initiative.

As I said today, unusual circumstances could lead me to take the initiative. That circum stance does not appear to be there. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a supplementary question for clarification to the hon. Minister of Advanced Education and Manpower.

In the discussions that either the minister or members of his department have had with officials of the three universities in the province of Alberta, can the minis ter advise whether or not there has been any sugges tion during the last year that the present financing arrangements with respect to university funding would lead to the imposition of more quotas in facul ties that have not normally had quotas? DR. HOHOL: Well, certainly that would be one of a number of discussions with respect to financing. But I want to point out, Mr.

Speaker, that the quota is something the universities look at in terms of not just a simple association of a dollar to a unit of education at that particular institution. It has to do with en trance requirements, with qualifications, with capaci ty to have professorial components in place, a whole host of things. It would oversimplify in the extreme to say that there was a direct relationship today in the institutions between quotas and the number of dol lars, which are not inconsiderable — which are by far the highest in the nation in postsecondary education. MR. CLARK: That's garbage. DR.

HOHOL: Well, you keep shovelling it; you get your figures turned around. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. Has the minister been advised by officials, or have officials of his department been advised, that the funding formula presently applied and the grant structure presently made available to postsecondary institutions will be a contributing fac tor to the imposition of additional quotas in additional faculties? That's specifically the question I would put to the minister. DR. HOHOL: Mr.

Speaker, I believe that quite some time ago the institutions represented to me and de partment officials, and I'm sure Members of the Leg islative Assembly on all sides of the House, that there would be some capacity for quotas in relation to funding. That's true. I'm saying that that is one of many factors and that the quota has been around for many, many years. In years when there was nearly an embarrassing amount of money for postsecondary institutions the quotas were there. We can name all the faculties that had quotas. Certainly they did not relate to money.

I'm saying today that there's not a shortage of money in the institutions of the kind that would lead to quotas. What leads to quotas is rational planning and a systematic approach to the entry of people to postsecondary education. It's not a dollar to a unit of education correspondence. [interjections]

26 ALBERTA HANSARD March 6, 1978 MR. GOGO: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the minister. Has the minister or his officials ever refused to sit down with the presidents of the Alberta universities to discuss common problems? DR. HOHOL: Far from it, Mr. Speaker. We are in continuous discussion on a face-to-face basis, in cor respondence, by telephone. We are in constant con sultation through exchange of papers, visits. No question about that. Cold Lake Oil Development MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct the second question to the Minister of Energy and Natur al Resources.

The question is really with regard to Imperial Oil's recent perfection of a technique — I believe it's referred to as flexicoking — in which the feedstock for petrochemical development is directly produced from bitumen and heavy oil. In light of this new technology, is Imperial Oil's proposed heavy oil plant in the Cold Lake area really the first step of the development of movement toward a world-scale petrochemical complex in the Cold Lake area? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I couldn't answer that definitively right now. I know Imperial has made very marked improvements in the technology of flexicok ing.

However, whether they intend to carry it past the upgrading of heavy bitumen into oil and then further into petrochemical products, I'm not sure. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister, in light of the government's openness and responsiveness. Has the minister had discus sions with officials of Imperial Oil with regard to that possibility? MR. GETTY: Mr.

Speaker, I think I've had discussions over a period of several years with many oil compa nies, and I believe Imperial would have been one of them, in which I've urged them to consider carrying developments from the production from oil sands, or heavy oil, right through to the complete petrochemi cal process. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, we would hope the minis ter would have many discussions with many of our companies. Specifically, the question is: has the min ister had discussions with Imperial Oil within the last six months with regard to this proposition in the Cold Lake area? MR.

GETTY: Well, if I understand the proposition the hon. Leader of the Opposition is talking about, it's to have a fully integrated development from removing the heavy oil from the oil sands, or the Cold Lake type of oil sands, right through to a petrochemical industry also in the area. Is that the proposition? Mr. Speaker, in specifics, no; in general, yes. Court Credit Information MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the hon. Attorney General, and it concerns a recent statement by the Deputy Attorney General regarding credit information.

What is the rationale behind the recent notice given by the Deputy Attorney General terminating the public information given for a number of years on such matters as claims filed, judgments, et cetera? MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, a very important and very timely question, and I'm grateful to the hon. member for raising it. First of all, I should say that almost all files in court are public documents and may be viewed by any citizen by simple request and by paying a fee.

Our past practice in this province — and this goes back a number of decades — has been to make summaries of proceedings in court available to credit- granting firms, credit bureaus, and those in the busi ness of gathering credit information for the purpose of disseminating that information to credit grantors. Our objective is not to destroy that past practice whatever. We have as a common objective the hope fully speedy dissemination of information, or at least making available that information to these firms. The problem, if there is a problem, Mr.

Speaker, has been that in the past, first of all, we've been charging the credit firms 15 cents a file and not the 50 cents a file that the public has to pay. Secondly, we have been a little concerned about the liability of the Crown, so there are some legal implications which we've now had to address. We're a little nervous — and I don't want to go into it in detail — that the Crown may indeed be liable for misinforma tion which we give to these groups, since we are not giving it according to our own regulations and laws.

Thirdly, our concern is that this amount of informa tion, as you might imagine, is very, very considerable. As a result, we've had to assign staff to do this work. So we've made the proposal that in future we will not be providing the same kind of benefits to the credit information companies. There seems to have been an impression, or a miscommunication, that our ob jective was to deny them the information. That's not the case. Therefore, I'm glad of the opportunity to explain it.

There have been discussions between our court services staff and leaders in the credit information and credit bureau world, and we are expecting that we will receive from them a counter-proposal as to how this might be handled. I think that proposal, Mr. Speaker, if I may take a few more seconds, may go along these lines: the credit firms may be prepared to make a staff person available to the courts — for example, in Edmonton and Calgary — so they can have a look at these files quickly as the information is coming in hour by hour in the course of a day. We would certainly be prepared to discuss that with them.

In fact, we would be prepared to go so far as to make desk space available behind the court counters, and that kind of thing, and accommodate them. If they find the fee at 50 cents a file somewhat too high, perhaps we will negotiate that. So, Mr. Speaker, as usual I'm flexible and willing to negotiate. At the same time I want to assure the credit information community that we recognize the importance of having this information available quick ly, and we will do what we can to ensure that it's available. However, it will require some accommoda tion on the part of these companies and no doubt on our part as well.

March 6, 1978 ALBERTA HANSARD 27 MR. YOUNG: A supplementary to the Attorney Gen eral, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister could indicate whether his flexibility extends to the under stood deadline of March 31 and whether it means that in fact the March 31 deadline, as understood by some of these agencies, no longer applies until all forms of negotiation have been exhausted. MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, deadlines are very useful in the negotiation process. I wouldn't want to do anything today to suggest that that deadline doesn't exist, but perhaps I could just make a couple of comments.

The former government, I understand — and that I think was Social Credit before 1971 — tried to do what we're proposing to do on a few occasions. Each time they tried to change the system — and I've talked too much, perhaps, about changing the justice system — they met with a barrage of objections and nothing happened. So in this case we probably were a little too heavy handed. We went about it and said as of this date the system will change and it will change in this way. MR. CLARK: That's your flexibility. MR. FOSTER: That's my flexibility. So while we're in the course of negotiating, Mr.

Speaker, the March 31 deadline will remain there. I am quite optimistic that the firms and we will come to some reasonable accommodation before the deadline. Now if your supplementary question is what hap pens if we don't — and I see you about to rise — that's a hypothetical question, Mr. Speaker, and I'd be happy to answer it later. MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is not hypothetical but it does refer to the fact that I have some constituents who are very concerned about this matter and have been at me several times. Therefore my second supplementary to the hon.

Attorney Gen eral is to inquire whether some of the memoranda could be responded to from my office more promptly in order that I may assist in the negotiations in order that we may meet the inflexible March 31 deadline. MR. FOSTER: Well, Mr. Speaker, as always I will try to be accommodating and reasonable and rational, and I wouldn't want to create any more problems for MLAs, wherever they are in the House, than I ordinarily do. [laughter] But I ask the hon. member to have a little faith in me and give me the opportunity of working . . . DR. BUCK: This is going to be his last term. MR.

FOSTER: . . . something out with these people. I think we can. I said to the hon. Member for Drum- heller that we have a common objective to ensure that this information is available to these firms, that it gets into the hands of credit grantors and other interested parties in the province, and we will do so. MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary on the matter. Since the hon. Attorney General has asked that I should have a little faith in his office, as a final request may I again ask if the hon.

Attorney General would have a little faith in my office and in the people on the other side of the negotiating table and give serious consideration to an extension to the March 31 deadline if in fact the negotiations seem to be proceeding and there simply isn't time to collect the kind of information necessary to bring these to a reasonable and fruitful conclusion by March 31. MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, that's the kind of flexibility this government has come to be known as.

I wouldn't want to do anything to destroy that, and I'm sure you'll find me accommodating in the circumstance. [interjections] Northeast Road Construction MR. TESOLIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. After listen ing during the past few moments, I am hoping to ask a definite question and to get a definite answer. I'd like to direct my question to the Deputy Premier and Minister of Transportation; he usually gives a definite answer.

Could the minister inform this As sembly if we can look forward to real and early progress on an all-weather road between the Northwest Territories border, through Fort Chipe- wyan, and Fort McMurray? DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to be definitive on it, but substantial mileage is involved, over some very difficult terrain. However, I'm sure the House is aware that there was a very major study into the entire delta area by a joint federal/provincial group, and that material is available to our department.

We have had some preliminary looks at a route schedule, and that routing now looks as though the most appropriate way would be to go to Old Fort Point on Lake Athabasca, across the lake to Fort Chipewyan, thence to Fort Smith. I'm sure my friend the MLA for Lac La Biche-McMurray has been under some pres sure after his recent trip to Fort Smith. Anybody who knows the mayor of Fort Smith will know the kind of pressure he can apply. But we are working on it — we haven't forgotten about the northeast corner — and will continue to do so. MR. TESOLIN: A supplementary question if I may, Mr. Speaker.

Does the minister see any difficulty in naming this route the Muffaloose Trail, after some well-known supporters of this roadway? DR. HORNER: I'm sure we'll be able to consider that, Mr. Speaker. Wildlife Food Supply MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Recreation, Parks and Wildlife. What steps has the minister taken with regard to the starv ing antelope in the southern part of the province? MR. ADAIR: Mr.

Speaker, some days ago, I think it was two weeks ago, at the annual meeting of the Alberta Fish & Game Association, we presented to those clubs, which on their own initiative — and I'm speaking now of the fish and game associations in southern Alberta, provide some assistance on a cost- sharing basis with them to feed those antelope they had access to. One of the problems we have in the

28 ALBERTA HANSARD March 6, 1978 southeast part of the province is the fact that the wildlife, particularly antelope, are spread over such a large region, away from a lot of the roadways. It is a difficult situation. I should also point out that one of the other problems we have is that the antelope itself is really a sagebrush eater and not a hay eater, and it does have some difficulty adjusting to that. But some feeding is going on in co-operation with and through the various local fish and game associations. MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

In view of the serious shortage of feed for wildlife in the southern part of the province, will any other assistance be forthcoming? I'm thinking in terms of manpower or finances to prevent the loss of our wildlife. MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, the presentation we made to the Alberta Fish & Game Association was to assist with hay supplies, manpower needs, transportation, or whatever they should choose and may require. We have not had any other requests from them. MR. MANDEVILLE: One final supplementary ques tion, Mr. Speaker.

Has the minister or his department taken any surveys on the loss of antelope we have had in the southern part? MR. ADAIR: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have had the regional office in Lethbridge watching it daily. I can't give any specifics as to the number of animals we have lost at this particular point, but I probably could indicate that it appears that in the very southeast portion of the province there will be heavy losses. That would be in the region south of Cypress Hills Provincial Park, the Saskatchewan border, the Mon tana border, and back up to the west edge of the park.

That area appears to be the most seriously affected at this point. Secondary Road Program MR. LYSONS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct this question to the Deputy Premier and Minister of Transportation. It's relative to the piece in the throne speech about the secondary road program. I'm asking it in view of the fact that counties and municipalities are now finalizing their '78 road programs. Will there will be the usual co-operation between the depart ment and the municipalities? DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, this naturally is, to be specific, a budgetary matter.

I am scheduled to meet with the rural municipalities after the budget, and we will be outlining the program to them in some detail at that time. Blowout Personnel MR. ZANDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is addressed to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. Why do we, as Albertans, have to rely so heavily on United States expertise and manpower to control oil and gas well blowouts in this province? MR. GETTY: I guess, Mr. Speaker, it's because we don't have enough of them to keep them busy and making money. MR. ZANDER: A supplementary to the minister.

Would he like to comment on future government poli cy having regard to training of Albertans, so that we be on a par, and that these men and equipment be made available to such blowouts when they do occur? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if there is a role for government in the area of trying to train a specific person to handle an emergency when there are already experts in the field, whether or not they happen to live in Alberta. Calgary Civic Workers' Strike MR. KUSHNER: Mr. Speaker, I have had several seri ous inquiries from my constituency in regard to one of the top world surgeons . . . DR.

BUCK: Provincial or federal, John? MR. KUSHNER: . . . who in fact has not yet received hospital privileges. Mr. Speaker, I am directing my question, that a serious situation has developed, to the Minister of Labour. Since the strike has come about in Local 37 in the city of Calgary, has your department, sir, been involved in helping to reach an agreement between the city of Calgary and Local 37? MR. CRAWFORD: Yes, Mr. Speaker. MR. KUSHNER: I wonder if the minister would inform this Assembly in what area the negotiation has bro ken down.

Was it a question of working conditions, or in fact dollars-and-cents and bread-and-butter issues? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, in responding to a question like that I would only feel comfortable to follow the traditional course, which is the best course, and that is to say I don't believe the parties will be assisted in any way if the hon. member and I enter into such a discussion in the Chamber. None of these negotiations are free from difficulty. There are always — if not always, certainly on many, many occasions — more than one or two principal issues involved.

If I were to say anything more to the hon. member than that the Department of Labour officials have worked consistently with the parties and will continue to do so to the extent that the parties wish them to be present at any of their deliberations, I think it should be left at that. MR. KUSHNER: A supplementary question to the min ister. Is anyone from your department, sir, present at this time in the city of Calgary, standing by? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, it's not difficult to respond to that. The answer is that I don't know if an official of the department is available to the particular

schedule of the parties, should it be required today. What I can say is that from the excellent staff of the Department of Labour either in the city of Calgary, or,

March 6, 1978 ALBERTA HANSARD 29 if desired by the parties, from Edmonton, help is as close as either downtown Calgary or the airbus. Rent Decontrol Program MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address this question to the hon. Minister of Consumer and Cor porate Affairs, and ask whether the minister could advise the Assembly whether the department has had an opportunity to review the rent decontrol program. I believe a report of the Rent Decontrol Board was prepared in mid-February; has the minister had an opportunity to review that report? MR. HARLE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. MR.

NOTLEY: A supplementary question to the minis ter. In view of the minister's statement of January 10 that the government would be prepared to tolerate rent increases designed to bring apartment rents up to "proper market value", is the minister in a position to advise the Assembly what criteria the minister's office is using in defining "proper market value", and what a tolerable rate increase represents? MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the conclusions mentioned by the hon. member go a considerable extent further than what was said.

I think the impli cation of increases is quite evident from the nature of the decontrol mechanism that we incorporated in The Rent Decontrol Act, and that was to bring rents more in line with what might be considered to be market rents. I think we have to realize that there has been a considerable drop in the volume of work handled by the Rent Decontrol Board, which would tend to indi cate that there are in fact fewer applications for increases.

For example, the report I received from the chairman in mid-February indicated that there were approximately 19 buildings where there were actual complaints in the city of Calgary, and 11 buildings in the city of Edmonton. The indication is that rents generally are finding their market levels as more accommodation becomes available. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister.

In light of the CMHC survey of last October or November, I believe, which showed a vacancy rate of 0.1 per cent in Edmonton and 0.2 per cent in Calgary, my question to either the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs or the Minister of Housing and Public Works is: is the government giv ing any consideration to the rent decontrol legislation passed during the 1977 Legislature, in light of this very tight market situation?

Related to that question, what is the specific information that the government has used to conclude that there will be a 3 per cent vacancy rate in the two major cities by the end of this year? MR. HARLE: I'd refer the specifics of the housing situation to my colleague the Minister of Housing and Public Works. MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, quite a few different figures are floating around these days with respect to vacancy rates.

Vacancy rates are dynamic rather than static figures, and Central Mortgage and Hous ing Corporation has tended to measure a vacancy rate that may be considered to be six months old; in other words, they have been measuring units that have been vacant for a period of six months or longer. As a result, the very dynamic aspect of the industry in Alberta and the vast number of units coming on stream have tended to give a false impression of the actual vacancy rates.

More appropriate figures are now coming out to indicate that with respect to new units in both the apartment and row housing areas, the vacancy rates are considerably higher than the ones published some months ago by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Depending on what basis the survey is made upon, one can arrive at almost any vacancy rate running anywhere from 1 per cent to 7 per cent or even higher.

Generally, we are finding that the vacancy rate is fairly high and, in fact, reaching percentages as high as 5 and 6 per cent in the two cities on the newer types of units where the rents are fairly high and are beyond the rent regulation act. But in areas where rent regulation is in fact in force — that is, in areas where the rents are very reasonable — the vacancy rate is still quite low, indeed in the region of 0.5 per cent to I per cent. So in one area where the rents are very high, we have an accumulating and increasing vacancy rate which has reached fairly high figures.

In the other area we have low vacancy rates. In connection with the projection of 3 per cent by the end of the year, we have of course taken into account the shortfall in housing over the last several years, the almost explosive rate of housing starts in the last two years, and the continuing starts in January of this year.

It has become fairly routine to project reasonable vacancy rates by the end of the year, and we have established the fact that the vacancy rate across the board — that is, throughout the entire vacancy spectrum — will be of the order of 3 per cent in both Edmonton and Calgary by the end of this year. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs again. I hope the Minister of Housing and Public Works meets his target, but these projections have been wrong before. Mr. Speaker, to the hon.

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, in light of the comment of the Minister of Housing and Public Works that the tight situation — that is, the low vacancy rate — is in your middle-income housing and low-income rental ac commodation as opposed to the newer type and the higher rental accommodation: is the government giv ing any consideration to amending The Rent Decon trol Act? Because the levels set for decontrol are relatively modest and will mean that a number of units will be going off rent control at a time when there is still a very tight market situation. MR. HARLE: Well, Mr.

Speaker, there is no present intention to make any change. However, I think it would be fair to say that, as I indicated earlier, there has been a drop in the board's volume of work. In some locations throughout the province, in fact, we simply are no longer operating and need not, because those vacancy rates have apparently indicated to lan dlords that there is a much better market; therefore choice is available to tenants. If anything, I think the

30 ALBERTA HANSARD March 6, 1978 approach would be to expand the number of decon trolled units. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question to the minis ter. As the minister has perused the report of the Rent Decontrol Board in mid-February, is he in a position to outline to the Assembly what average rental rate increases were monitored by the board, and how those rate increases compare to the 6 per cent guidelines the government has set for public employee increases during the current year? MR. HARLE: The increases for those units vary.

They tend to be at the top end of the rental spectrum; in other words, all the units are at least over $311 in the majority of cases. There are some, in the Calgary situation, for example, where complaints actually came in for an 8 per cent increase to somewhere in the neighborhood of 48 per cent. In the case of Edmonton, for 11 buildings they ranged from a 10 per cent increase to around 25 per cent. Cooking Lake Moraine Study MR. BATIUK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my ques tion regarding the Cooking Lake moraine study to the Minister of the Environment.

Could the minister advise whether it is his intention to act on that study in the near future? MR. RUSSELL: No, Mr. Speaker, I think the govern ment's made it quite clear that that's been pushed so far back on the stove it isn't even cooking anymore. Oil Sands Development DR. PAPROSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. I wonder if the minister would indicate to the House what the policy of this government is regarding direct financial involvement in the next tar sands plant; for example, Shell Oil and consortium. MR. GETTY: Mr.

Speaker, at present we have no intention of becoming directly involved in the equity financing of a next tar sands plant. DR. PAPROSKI: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister would indicate whether his government or the department has any information which would indicate that other provinces or the federal government will be involved. Or is he encouraging other governments to be involved in a direct financial way? MR. GETTY: I assume again, Mr. Speaker, that it is in the area of direct equity financing the hon. member is asking. I'm not aware of other governments as such.

However, I know that Petro-Canada, which is a Crown corporation of the federal government, is interested in an oil sands plant investment sometime in the future, but I have not heard any other govern ments expressing an interest. DR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary on the same topic to the Minister of Labour. I wonder if the minister would indicate to the House what the policy of this government is regarding Alberta workers' and native workers' priority for jobs in the next tar sands plant. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr.

Speaker, one of the notable features about the development of the second tar sands plant at Mildred Lake was a high degree of co-operation between the government of Alberta and the Canadian government through Canada Manpow er, as well as the general contractor, the owners, and the trade unions involved, in developing a very good local-hire policy. It would be my expectation that in future cases of major developments in Alberta some thing as close to that as possible would be followed again. DR. PAPROSKI: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if the minister would indicate to the House whether there is a policy in regard to use of union or non-union labour. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, those matters are in the hands of the people letting the contracts. DR. PAPROSKI: A question on the same topic to the Minister of the Environment, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister would assure the House that environ mental and pollution control for the next tar sands plant will be as good as, or in fact better than, that for Syncrude? MR. RUSSELL: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I believe we can say with a fair amount of confidence that pollution- control technology will increase with each plant as it's developed. There's no question that great im provements are being made with the development of each plant, and it would be the policy of the govern ment to insist on the latest technology available being used. DR. PAPROSKI: A supplementary on this topic, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Housing and Public Works.

I wonder if the minister would indicate to the House whether he has prepared or is preparing for the needed housing, or planning in that regard, in Fort McMurray regarding a new tar sands plant. MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, I think one could project without too much difficulty that eventually there will be a third oil sands plant, and as a result some planning is important and necessary in several areas. Certainly planning with respect to community devel opment is going on, both in Fort McMurray and in the examination of possible new townsites.

With respect to Fort McMurray, there is not much slackening in the pace at which geotechnical surveys are being done, the pace at which the new areas in area 5a are being opened up. In fact we are looking at the possibility of an addition to the mobile home park, as well as doing geotechnical surveys on area 5b. In addition to that, geotechnical surveys with the Department of Munici pal Affairs are being considered for some areas with respect to a new townsite. Trade Negotiations MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. It arises from the first ministers' confer ence.

At that conference, there was an indication

March 6, 1978 ALBERTA HANSARD 31 that the federal minister and the Prime Minister would make available to the Premier the proposals of United States and Canada. I was wondering if those proposals with regard to the GATT negotiations have been made available, and has the Premier or the government responded? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I've asked the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs to follow up on that important matter, and I refer the question to him. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, we have not as yet received that information, but we're continuing to press for it. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister. Has there been any assurance — or perhaps I could put this to the hon. Premier. My understanding of the conference was that the federal government had agreed to make that information available on a confidential basis. My question is for clarification. Is that an understanding as a result of the first ministers' conference or not? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, it's certainly mine. I think the record of the transcript — I believe the hon. member was there — would indicate that that under taking was given by the Prime Minister.

We just feel that it's very difficult for us to evaluate whether or not these proposals made by the United States meet sig nificantly some of the requests we've made for ad justment in the tariff positions. It's alleged — and certainly on the visit of the Vice-President of the United States here in January it was alleged by representatives of that group that they were very important offers and that they were offers that would go quite a way toward responding to the concerns of the Alberta government and the Alberta people.

But again, we can't evaluate that until we've seen the document or, at least, an extract from the document. I don't know what to say except that I thought we had a clear undertaking from the Prime Minister there. I believe the record would show that. MR. R. SPEAKER: A supplementary to the Premier or the minister. When the documents are provided for the government, is it the intention of the government to make public the position they have taken with regard to a number of matters or the presentation they make to the federal government?

As I look at the thing, the confidential paper would be the one pre sented by the federal government in the negotiations. I was wondering if there is any reason the provincial position relative to matters could not be made public. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, a very significant question I think it's difficult to answer right now. Certainly at some stage I believe the provincial gov ernment will have to evaluate, and publicly evaluate, the assessment it makes of the offer by the United States.

The dilemma I see in responding at this time is that until we have a better understanding of the nature of the material, we're perhaps not going to be in a position to respond publicly, except in general terms. But I'm sure we're all aware of the signifi cance of this matter, and if it can be made public it certainly will be our intention to do so. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary to the Premier. I understand the Prime Minister will be in western Canada in the current week. Would the Premier make it a point to raise this matter with him? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, I've had a fairly signif icant number of meetings with the Prime Minister recently. It wasn't my intention to go to the town hall meeting on Thursday night and direct that question. I'll refer to the record of the first ministers' confer ence. I think the record and the undertaking are there. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question to either the Premier or the hon. Minister of Federal and Intergov ernmental Affairs. This again is for clarification. Has the federal government received the offers list?

Are we awaiting receipt of information which the federal government has and isn't making available on a con fidential basis to the provinces? Or is it a case of it not formally obtaining the offers list yet from the United States government? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, our understanding is that the federal government has and has had for some time the offers list. The question is getting the information, all or part of it, for Alberta and that's what we're continuing to press on. Environmental Research Contracts MR. KIDD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is directed to the hon. Minister of the Environment.

In view of the available and growing expertise within our province concerning environmental matters, can the minister provide justification to this Assembly concerning the hiring of a German firm to perform environmental work in the McMurray area? MR. RUSSELL: I think I know which contract the hon. member is referring to, Mr. Speaker. The German firm involved is working as a subconsultant for Tech- man, which is an Alberta-based company. By public invitation we asked any number of firms how they would propose to carry out the study we were interested in, insofar as materials handling is con cerned.

I suppose it was almost inevitable that the German firm in question, because of its leading world expertise, would have a very attractive proposal by teaming up with a local Alberta-based company. So that's the attitude we've taken. We feel we're buying the very best technology and information available, and the fact that they've already had experience with the GCOS project in the Alberta oil sands area will be very helpful to the government. MR. KIDD: Supplementary. Do we have information concerning the degree of expertise shown in their work for GCOS? MR. RUSSELL: Mr.

Speaker, they were involved in some of the equipment design for GCOS. When the government's mission to Europe was undertaken, some of the members also visited those works and met officials of the company. That was followed up by a return courtesy visit of some of their principals to Alberta during the time the Camrose-Riley debate

32 ALBERTA HANSARD March 6, 1978 was under way. I'm pointing out that there's been very good preliminary exchange of information and viewpoints with the company. I think they can serve us well by carrying out their role as a subconsultant to Techman. ORDERS OF THE DAY head: GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 1. Moved by Mr. Hyndman:

Be it resolved that the Assembly adopt the following amendment to Standing Orders, to be effective until the prorogation of the Fourth Session of the 18th Legislature: Standing Order 8 is amended by striking out suborders (2) and (3) and by substituting the following: (2) (

a) The order of business for the consideration of the Assembly on Tuesday afternoons shall be as follows: Written Questions Motions for Returns Government Designated Business Motions other than Government Motions Private Bills Public Bills and Orders other than Gov ernment Bills and Orders Government Motions Government Bills and Orders (

b) When Government Designated Business is called the Assembly shall consider any item of business which the Government Whip has designated by written notice to the Clerk prior to 12 noon on the previous Thursday from those on the Order Paper for that Thursday under Motions other than Government Motions, Government Bills and Orders or Government Motions. (

c) The Clerk shall cause any designation pur suant to clause (

b) to be printed in Votes and Proceedings for that Thursday. (

d) A motion that has been designated under this suborder may not be designated a second time. (

e) Debate on Government Designated Busi ness shall not continue for more than one hour. (3) (

a) The order of business for the consideration of the Assembly on Thursday afternoon shall be as follows: Written Questions Motions for Returns Motions other than Government Motions Public Bills and Orders other than Gov ernment Bills and Orders Government Motions Government Bills and Orders (

b) On Thursday when Motions other than Government Motions is called, the Assem bly shall consider the next such motion on the Order Paper unless the Leader of the Opposition has designated by written notice to the Clerk prior to 4:00 p.m. on the pre vious Monday a motion from those set down by other than Government members on the Order Paper for that Monday under Motions other than Government Motions, in which case the Assembly shall consider that motion first. (

c) The Clerk shall cause any motion designat ed pursuant to clause (

b) to be printed in Votes and Proceedings for that Monday. (

d) A motion that has been designated under this suborder may not be designated a second time. (

e) Debate on Motions other than Government Motions shall not continue for more than one hour. MR. HYNDMAN: This motion has been approved for three years running, Mr. Speaker. The only change from the wording of previous years is the fact that, in respect of government designated business and op position designated business, one more day — three days rather than two days — is required for notice. This should enable members more thoroughly to con sider the resolutions when they do come forward. [Motion carried] 2. Moved by Mr. Hyndman:

Be it resolved that the Assembly adopt the following amendment to Standing Orders, to be effective until the prorogation of the Fourth Session of the 18th Legislature: The following standing order is added after Standing Order 36: 36.1 Notwithstanding any established precedent to the contrary, a member not being a Government member may have two notices of motion in that member's name on the Order Paper at the same time. MR. HYNDMAN: Again, Mr. Speaker, there's no change in respect of the wording of this motion from that put forward and approved over the last three sessions. [Motion carried] 3. Moved by Mr. Hyndman:

Be it resolved that the Standing Orders of the Legisla tive Assembly be amended as follows: 1.

(1) Standing Order 46(1) is amended by adding the following after Clause (e) (

f) The Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund Act, consisting of 15 members.

(2) Item 1(1) shall be deemed to have come into effect upon the commencement of the Fourth Session of the 18th Legislature. 2.

(1) Standing Order 46(1) is amended by adding the following after Clause (f) (

g) the office of the Auditor General, consisting of 9 members.

(2) Item 2(1) comes into effect on April 1, 1978. MR. HYNDMAN: This is a new motion, Mr. Speaker, but it simply reflects the fact that there are two new committees to be appointed at the opening of each session: The Heritage Savings Trust Fund [Act] Com mittee and the Auditor General Committee.

March 6, 1978 ALBERTA HANSARD 33 [Motion carried] head: CONSIDERATION OF HIS HONOUR THE LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR'S SPEECH Moved by Mr. Gogo: That an humble address be presented to His Honour the Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor of Alberta as follows: To His Honour the Honourable Ralph G. Steinhauer, Lieutenant-Governor of the province of Alberta: We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly, now assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech Your Honour has been pleased to address to us at the opening of the present session. [Adjourned debate March 3: Mr. Clark] MR.

CLARK: Mr. Speaker, in leading off the debate from this side of the House in this Fourth Session of the 18th Legislative Assembly of the province of Alberta, I'd like to say at the outset that I associate myself completely with the remarks in the Speech from the Throne in that first paragraph dealing with the visit of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II later on this summer. I feel confident that Albertans, whether they are at the Commonwealth Games or in northern Alberta, will share the traditional Alberta hospitality with Her Majesty when she's here in the province of Alberta. Mr.

Speaker, I also would like to take the opportuni ty very briefly to say that I would hope all Albertans are looking forward to the Commonwealth Games here in Edmonton this summer. I would hope and I am confident that Edmonton will do a splendid job of holding the games. In my judgment there's no ques tion about that at all.

I would encourage Albertans to look at the Commonwealth Games being held in Edmonton as Alberta's Commonwealth Games also, and that really the success we have in these Com monwealth Games from the standpoint of Edmonton will in fact be a very excellent opportunity for the people of Alberta to put their good foot forward on a worldwide basis. I feel confident that Edmonton and Albertans will certainly put that good foot forward. I want to say to the hon. member who moved the reply — the hon. Member for Lethbridge West — also to the Member for Calgary Glenmore, that I enjoyed their remarks very much.

Where I wouldn't agree with everything the two hon. gentlemen spoke about, from the standpoint of quality of debate I thought those were two of the best speeches we've had for some time in leading off the debate on the Speech from the Throne. Mr.

Speaker, just before I become involved in my more accustomed role, I would like to say to members of the Assembly that I have chosen this afternoon not to deal with any aspects of the very important ques tion of education, really for two reasons: the minister not being available today; secondly, that I would hope later on during this session there would be an oppor tunity perhaps for a fuller debate in that area. Also, the question of national unity: suffice for me to say, Mr.

Speaker, that I think it's sometimes too easy for Albertans, far too easy, to underestimate the seriousness of the problem in the province of Quebec. I would think that either at this spring session or the fall session this year, we might do well as an Assembly to put aside a period of time for a rather earnest and straightforward debate on this question of Canada and national unity. Now, Mr.

Speaker, to move on to the speech itself, I rise in response to this year's Speech from the Throne with the sincere belief that the throne speech should always be taken seriously as a major state ment of the government's general principles and spe cific programs. It is with this spirit in mind that I attach particular significance to two statements of principle announced near the beginning of that speech. The first expresses the concern for those Albertans who are not enjoying fully the benefits of our general prosperity. The second expression of commitment is a commitment to open and responsive government. Mr.

Speaker, I think these two principles come pret ty close to defining what we should really be working for in this Assembly: a society or a province of Alberta where, as far as we humanly can, equal opportunity is provided, social justice is afforded, and accessible government is available. These principles define what a government should be doing, Mr. Speaker. They do not, though, define what this government is doing in a large number of areas. Mr. Speaker, in speaking today, it is my plan to refer to several areas of government non performance.

I shall indicate now how this govern ment is failing to meet the needs of Albertans today, as seen not only by us in the official opposition, but by Albertans themselves and as measured against the standards announced in the government's own throne speech of this year, the standards, really, of equal opportunity, social justice and political accessibility. We've been assured, Mr. Speaker, that the gov ernment will continue its efforts to ensure that Albert ta farmers are able to market their products at a reasonable return. It is one of the early areas in the Speech from the Throne.

I'm all in favor of Alberta farmers marketing their products at a reasonable return. Who wouldn't be? For just this reason, though, I'm saddened to hear that the government will continue its efforts on behalf of the farmers. The government's so-called efforts have in fact been almost non-existent. I therefore urge the government to discontinue or throw out or discard this pathetic non-effort and, instead, to finally make a real effort to assist our farmers in this province. Let no member of this Assembly think for one moment that the farming and agricultural situation in this province is not in tough shape.

Let's just review a few details. During the past 15 years, agricultural costs of production have risen, on the average, 223 per cent. At the same time prices paid to farmers have risen by only one-quarter to one-half of that amount. That's in 15 years. During 1977 alone, farm machinery costs went up at least 9 per cent. During the last two years, using the Department of Agricul ture's own figures, farmers in Alberta have had a 20 per cent reduction in their income. In today's times of rising prices and falling dollars, consumers may feel that there is nothing cheap anywhere. That's not quite true, Mr. Speaker.

Rela tively speaking, the Canadian consumer is getting a real bargain for his or her food dollar. In Asia today, some 82 per cent of disposable income goes to food.

34 ALBERTA HANSARD March 6, 1978 In the Soviet Union, some 53 per cent, and in England and Japan, 25 per cent of people's disposable income goes to food. In Canada, it's 18 per cent if we include the cost of dining out, where one is really paying for the service. Canadians spend, on the average, 13.6 per cent of their disposable income on food pur chases, a real bargain regardless of how we might look at it. The result of skyrocketing costs, along with creep ing prices that people in agriculture have been get ting, is that the family farm is simply losing its economic viability.

During the past four years, farm ers have been leaving farms in Alberta at the rate of three per day. Three farmers per day are leaving farms in this province. If this government's to do anything for the farmers, it's going to begin by having more face-to-face contact with the farmers. It's going to have to get government out of the board rooms and into the barley fields, basically. I realize that a number of people in this government are somewhat antagonistic, and not all that im pressed with some aspects of agriculture. But I say, Mr.

Speaker, a great deal more genuine concern has to be exhibited by all members of this Assembly as far as agriculture is concerned in this province. We have been advised, and I quote from the Speech from the Throne, ". . . parts of the agricultural sector are soft". Mr. Speaker, that's preposterous. In agriculture today, times are not soft; times are hard — darned hard if you get out across the province and talk to farmers, and especially hard for those young farmers 40 years of age and under who are having to make payments for land. Don't tell them it's soft. The work isn't soft; the work is hard.

And if this government would listen to farmers today, it would realize their determination and resolve are not soft either. It's hard and it's inconsistent. It's essential: farmers have to insist, along with members of this Legislature, that farmers get a better deal from this government, and during this spring session of the Legislature. We can't wait for a longer period of time. Mr. Speaker, one of the areas the government could move in to be of direct assistance to agriculture deals with the whole question of energy input costs. So I would like to move on to energy for a moment or two.

In the throne speech the government boasted about supplying natural gas services to "new rural users" and announced stability in natural gas prices. But the speech didn't mention that the government promised rural gas co-ops some years ago that the price of natural gas would remain stable at a low level. The price is now doubled. In fact, in Viking, as a very specific example, when the program went in they were promised 60 cents per MCF. Later, deli very prices were over $1.40 per MCF. Is that what the government calls stability in natural gas prices? I would hope not. The price of natural gas doubled last year.

Two more price increases are scheduled for this year, thereby ensuring that heating costs will continue to accelerate. This is neither price stability nor is it relief to our citizens. Mr. Speaker, it's being hypocrit ical to talk in the terms of the Speech from the Throne. Let me give you a very concrete example of the kind of situation that some people on low and fixed in comes face. A gentleman from Camrose, a pension er, tells this story: two years ago we paid $14 per month for our gas in our house; we received our bill a couple of days ago for the month of December. It is now $88.98.

Eighty-eight dollars and ninety-eight cents. Four teen dollars two years ago. That's not stability. This represents in excess of 60 per cent of this old-age pensioner's pension. It was a 600 per cent increase in the heating costs in just two years. This person said to me, what's my part of the heritage fund? I'm one of the pioneers. This is a far cry from the so-called relief which the government has claimed to have provided in the throne speech. The natural gas protection plan has been absolutely little help to people on fixed incomes. To say that it's been of assistance to someone like that is ludicrous.

When one examines natural gas prices, propane prices — and more important what's going to happen to propane prices after the first of April — and gaso line prices, one concludes that the government is creating and expanding inequities rather than elimi nating them. If this administration were really sensi tive to these inequities, genuinely open and respon sive in these areas, and truly concerned about provid ing some immediate relief to those on fixed incomes, one of the things it could do is to move in the area of removal of royalties on natural gas distributed to Albertans.

It could help people in agriculture also, and it could be a big leg up for Alberta small busi ness. I think many people in this province are looking toward some definite move in that direction. I hear members on various occasions at various affairs say, you know, we have the lowest prices you find around. We know we don't have the lowest prices in gasoline anyplace in Alberta, because I personally have bought gas in British Columbia, Sas katchewan, and Montana in the last eight months and was able to get gas cheaper than I can in Alberta, in my own constituency.

It isn't good enough to say, well, in some areas we're leading Canada. We own these resources. We have a major obligation to peo ple in this province itself. But then, Mr. Speaker, this is a big government, concerned with mighty big projects. It can give Imperial Oil and other multinational companies reduced royalty rates to stimulate oil sands and heavy oil development, but it is totally unwilling to provide a similar service to average Alberta consumers. In this area, Mr. Speaker, it's neither sensitive nor open nor responsive. Mr.

Speaker, I would like to move on to the Department of the Environment, and I see the minis ter is involved elsewhere. Let's consider now the government's record of being open and responsive with respect to environmental issues. Why, Mr. Speaker, this government was so responsive to public opinion that it has gone ahead and decided to build a dam at Site 6 against the wishes of local residents and concerned citizens.

This government was so open to suggestions coming from some place that it abolished the Environment Conservation Authority as an effective and independent spokesman for envi ronmental concerns, when the latter's recommenda tions went against the cabinet's notions. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, the govern ment is only open and responsive to those who are big and important, as far as environmental issues are concerned. If the life style of a few Albertans, a few

March 6, 1978 ALBERTA HANSARD 35 farmers west of Red Deer, the concerns of some environmentalists, are not compatible with the plans for industrial development — especially if that indus trial development is based on non-renewable resource development — you can bet your bottom dollar that that non-renewable resource development will take precedence and the people take the back seat, along with the quality of life. Mr. Speaker, let's look for a moment or two at the record in the area of municipal affairs.

Let's consider the government's record of being open and respon sive and sensitive to the need for public participation in decision-making as far as municipal affairs are concerned. I challenge the government and govern ment members to ask municipal officials how respon sive they are to the issue of municipal finance. When municipal officials and administrators are continually frustrated in their attempts to make direct contact with government ministers on issues of vital concern, is it little wonder we're sceptical of those timeworn phrases of open and responsible and responsive gov ernment?

What's more important is the fact that municipal officials across the province know that this government has little regard for their real needs. They need not look any further than the Speech from the Throne. This important area of endeavor, municipal affairs, working with local governments across this province, the officials at the local level who have a very impor tant role to play in this province — several members of this Assembly have been local mayors, councillors, aldermen, in the past. But let's look at the kind of importance there was in the Speech from the Throne. Well, there were four paragraphs.

The first para graph said, we have a program. The second para graph said, we have a program that will help munici palities get deeper in debt. The third said, we'll promote local autonomy by establishing a new plan ning commission in the Drumheller/Hanna area, and I commend that. But at the same time I commend that, I have to remind members that the Conservative Planning Act of the last session made planning commissions mere tokens of the Minister of Munici pal Affairs. And the fourth paragraph with regard to municipal affairs — and this was an important, hard-hitting part of the Speech from the Throne.

We're finally going to get around to proclaiming The Planning Act passed last session, I might add over serious objections which were ignored by this government. That's the whole sum and substance of municipal affairs in the Speech from the Throne. That's some recognition for local government in Alberta. More significant things were said in the Speech from the Throne about government services than about munic ipal affairs. Those are the kinds of priorities munici pal officials in the province are learning to live with. Mr.

Speaker, I fail to comprehend the government's reluctance to take action on revenue sharing with municipal governments. With both major municipal organizations, the association of counties and MDs and the urban municipal association, calling several times for a variety of forms of revenue sharing, I simply don't understand the government's reasoning. The Premier has said many times that revenue- sharing programs, through the sharing of non- resource revenues and income tax, would tie the hands of future governments and restrict financial flexibility. This is absolute ridiculousness.

For the Premier to give that kind of answer to municipal offi cials in this province does no service to the Premier's office. The Premier and every member of this House know that with the action of a simple repeal of any piece of legislation in Alberta, any government, Conservative or otherwise, has all the flexibility in the world. So let's not have any more feeble excuses like that about lack of flexibility for the future as a reason to deny municipal governments the financial independence and authority they need to set their own priorities. We hear a great deal of talk about balanced growth in Alberta.

We're never going to see the kind of balanced growth that many of us in this Assembly would like to see as long as we continue this head long rush toward further and greater centralization of decision-making in the hands of the provincial cabinet, and balanced growth is never going to be fully realized in this province either until we're pre pared to implement a meaningful revenue-sharing program with local governments in this province. Now, Mr. Speaker, let's move on to the area of housing for a moment or two.

The government in the throne speech patted itself on the back, saying that Albertans are the best housed people in Canada. AN HON. MEMBER: True. MR. CLARK: An hon. member across the way says "true". Perhaps they would be the best housed in Canada if they could afford the prices. According to Statistics Canada, housing prices have gone up 243 per cent in Calgary and a like amount in Edmonton, from '71 to '76. The latest figures show that the average range of accommodation in Edmonton and Calgary is $60,000 to $65,000, and lower in the rural centres in the province.

But the fact all of us in this Assembly have to face, Mr. Speaker, is that while we have $3 billion in the heritage savings trust fund, less than 30 per cent of the people of Alberta can afford houses in that $60,000 to $65,000 price range. Less than 30 per cent of our people can afford houses in that price range. As the throne speech indicated, Alberta has the highest labor force participation rate of any province in Canada. I say to you, Mr.

Speaker, that's a direct reflection on the housing market, such that house ownership for young couples requires at the very least that both husband and wife must work if they're going to realize that dream of being able to have a house, a duplex, or part of a condominium of their own. Mr. Speaker, the throne speech didn't show any initiatives to provide affordable housing to Albertans by means of lending programs, or encourage the development of serviced land, the shortage of which is one of the largest contributors to rising housing costs.

Between '68 and '77 the cost of serviced lots on an average across Calgary and Edmonton increased by something like 570 per cent. This gov ernment's insensitivity to the financial needs of mu nicipalities has contributed to this shortage of serv iced land. The throne speech indicated nothing about financ ing main trunk utilities to the edge of developable land. I can recall in 1975 my colleague from Brooks raised that matter in the House. It was referred to the

36 ALBERTA HANSARD March 6, 1978 government. It was going to be considered. We are still waiting. I can see nothing in the speech, either, that's going to deal with the speed-up of approval process. On a lot of occasions it takes from three to five years. To alleviate the real problems we have in housing sup ply, the government is going to have to deal first with the inadequacy of municipal government revenue. To this end — and I don't know how many times we have made this suggestion — we still have to move to an adequate revenue-sharing program in this province. Mr.

Speaker, I was particularly pleased today that the Attorney General was in a very jovial mood in the House, because I hope that would mean he's made some significant progress in the area of matrimonial properties legislation with his colleagues. [applause] Well, he has three supporters over there now. I wish to address again . . . AN HON. MEMBER: Weak support from this quarter. MR. CLARK: . . . the issue of matrimonial properties legislation. The government has vowed to ensure a fair and equitable distribution of property in the event of a marriage breakdown.

I repeat that fairness and equality are possible only through the system of deferred sharing. The overwhelming majority of mail in my office — and I'm sure the same thing is true in the Attorney General's office — comes from couples who regard themselves as equals, who wish to be acknowledged as equals, not presumed to be equal under legislation that subsequently provides 19 points under which they may be judged not to be equal.

I suggest in all sincerity that the institution of deferred sharing would be a basic means by which the government could demonstrate its vaunted recep- tiveness to the public will on this issue. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to move along to the question of hospitals and medicare. It's not my inten tion to spend a long time on this area this afternoon. But in the Speech from the Throne the government promised to establish a new provincial home care program.

This would seem to be a praiseworthy response to the urgings of many groups across the province, also a praiseworthy response to the resolu tions moved over the past two years by my colleague the Member for Little Bow. However, Mr. Speaker, we're beginning to get input from people in both urban and rural areas, already beginning to express fears that this program will be centralized in Edmon ton and administered by bureaucrats unfamiliar with local situations.

I want to say to the minister that I think we on this side of the House recognize the difficulty she had in getting her colleagues to move even a bit of a dis tance in this direction. The debates for the last two years — we started this question in the House, my colleague did — where there were even very basic questions about cost saving and whether such a program should move ahead at all. So I commend the minister for making real progress there.

But I say to the minister and to all her colleagues on the government side, for goodness' sake don't wreck what can be a very important step forward by getting this program tied up with all sorts of central strings and people from Edmonton. And for good ness' sake don't go to municipalities across the prov ince and say, well, you have to run your home care program by having a local administrator, a $20,000 or $25,000 a year person who's going to look after the darned thing locally.

The home care program has been working successfully in 11 communities across the province already, if members would just go and see the kind of simple way it's being handled. I'm not a betting person, but I have a wretched feeling that before long we're going to hear you have to appoint someone locally, someone who's going to be the program co-ordinator, or you can't have the money. Here is a golden opportunity for the govern ment to say to local people: you've proven that this program can work, in some cases for more than two years. Here is an amount of money.

You can expect this amount for this year, this amount for next year and the following year. You run the program. We'll give you three years. We basically trust you as local people. Yes, we think you've got something to con tribute; we think you can manage the program. I for one will be prepared to rise in my place as Leader of the Opposition and whole-heartedly com mend the minister if there aren't strings attached to this home care program. How I hope that that's the situation. Mr.

Speaker, one of the most amazing things in the throne speech was this portion that talked about the upcoming hospital and nursing home construction program that will be the largest in the government's history. I see my friend the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care isn't here. But, Mr. Speaker, that statement is about as ludicrous as that portion of the Speech from the Throne that deals with the week's holiday the MLAs are going to get at Easter. We're going to have the largest hospital construc tion program in the province's history?

This is the same government that last spring placed a freeze on the construction of rural hospitals across this prov ince because the costs were going up too much. Same government, same minister. Then to come along this spring and say we're going to have the largest program ever — well, who froze the program in the first place? It was this government. I remind rural MLAs why the hospital program was frozen in rural Alberta: because the costs were going up. The Southern Alberta Cancer Centre cost went up from $35 million to $72 million with merely a whimper.

But we couldn't afford to go ahead with that hospital in High River or the 90 beds in Leth- bridge; couldn't afford to go ahead with the addition in Cardston or here in Edmonton. The Health Sciences Centre, which every member of the Assem bly voted for: the cost went up from some $86 million, if my memory is accurate, to $207 million. DR. BUCK: Miniely's in control. MR. CLARK: Well, someone's in control. The problem is that we told rural people in this province, whom we supposedly want to stay in rural Alberta, we're freezing your construction. Then we went ahead with these projects.

We're happy that finally the government is going to move on some of these projects. My colleagues and I could spend almost the rest of the afternoon telling members of various situations in their own constitu encies with regard to hospital problems. We're happy the government has listened to thousands of Alber

March 6, 1978 ALBERTA HANSARD 37 tans and is now prepared to go ahead with at least some rural hospital construction. The government has boasted that its upcoming hospital construction program will be the largest in our history. One must wonder, however, where the priority has been since the last election campaign. I'd like to use the example of a hospital situation I've become quite familiar with. It happens to be the Grande Prairie situation.

Now according to such a reliable source as the Grande Prairie Herald-Tribune, during the 1975 provincial election the Premier pro mised Grande Prairie a regional health centre. That's three years ago. DR. BUCK: He'll revive it next year. MR. CLARK: And one must question the openness of a minister who three years later concludes, in corre spondence to individuals in the area, that the Grande Prairie project has been, and I quote, placed in a holding pattern for this current fiscal year. Although years too late, we hope they'll get it back on the plan finally.

In the 1975 campaign, and this is the interesting part of it, the Premier confirmed that provisions had been made in the February budget for the 300-bed regional hospital in Grande Prairie. I wonder what ever happened to the money that was in the budget in 1975 for that 300-bed regional hospital in Grande Prairie. The Premier also said that although working drawings would take several months to complete, the hospital would be pushed as quickly as possible. Well, Mr. Speaker, in February of this year the work ing drawings hadn't been done yet. DR. BUCK: But they'll be ready for the next election. MR.

NOTLEY: The promise is just as good as new next time. DR. BUCK: Yeah, they'll remember. MR. CLARK: They certainly will remember. They do remember in Grande Prairie now. Mr. Speaker, is this the kind of openness and responsiveness we read about in those lofty first and second pages of the Speech from the Throne? I think not. Moving on quickly, Mr. Speaker, to the area of social services and community health, I look at the promises or commitments in this area, and I sense that we have some extracurricular activity coming forth in Alberta in the next while.

For years a variety of community organizations, and the opposition, have urged a comprehensive system of home care. For years the government has argued that such a system would be too costly. Now we're finally moving on it and in a manner, I hope, that is consistent with what we indicated earlier. The government now claims to have realized that there are still a number of Albertans who are excluded from the general prosperity of the province. The amazing thing is, why did it take so long to recognize the plight of these people? Did these neg lected people just emerge since the last session?

I recall the report my colleague tabled with regard to the problems of the inner city areas of Edmonton and Calgary. The fact of the matter is, the govern ment has been too preoccupied with its oil sands technology ventures, building oil sand plants and pet rochemical industries, and forgotten that there are real people with real needs and problems that require immediate and genuine support. Unfortunately, Mr.

Speaker, I come to the conclu sion that the whole approach of this government in regard to social services is reflected in its own lack of concern for the plight of the ordinary citizen, let alone the underprivileged. The whole approach, unfortu nately, is a rather reactive approach. Solutions are proposed in a piecemeal manner after the fact, and in some cases they are rather cosmetic remedies to patch up the blemishes. No overall, long-term plan ning exists. The government's announcement of day care serv ice is welcome.

The services for the handicapped are also reflected on a haphazard approach to social services. The problem of day care standards and availability has been known for years. Yet the government dragged its feet. In view of the fact that Alberta is experiencing a tremendous growth rate, in view of the fact that Alberta's rate of female participation in the labor market is the highest in Canada, plans should have been made to meet these needs some time ago, not being dragged into them at this particu lar time with both feet braced. I could go on in several other areas.

Similar lack of co-ordinated planning is evident in the government's approach to the handicapped. For too long, and I include the former government in this castigation also, society has ignored and shrugged off its respon sibilities toward the handicapped. To integrate the handicapped successfully into the mainstream of society, comprehensive measures must be taken to enhance their ability to function in the daily activities of society. Providing a home alone is inadequate. Mr.

Speaker, I believe measures must be taken to amend The Individual's Rights Protection Act and The Alberta Bill of Rights, to prohibit discrimination against handicapped in the area of employment, ac commodation, and public service. Provision should be made to encourage and facilitate the employment of handicapped individuals. These are only the bare minimums we could do to assist the disabled to become meaningful participants in society. I would remind the government once again that being open and responsive requires more than being reactive.

If the government is going to be truly responsive and open to public wants and needs, it must attempt to seek out those needs and opinions in advance. I recall this government, when it first came to office, talking about how it was going to attempt to predict problems for the future and be one jump ahead. We've lost that zest, that zeal, now. We've slipped into a situation of reaction. In this respect, I urge the government to move quickly in the field of initiatives to senior citizens, to specific programs on their behalf.

I commend the government for their announcement made this after noon with regard to health care. Government pen sions and income supplements have failed to protect a sizable portion of retired Albertans from financial difficulties. The combined effects of the high cost of living and a restricted income have denied many eld erly citizens the comfort and security they deserve. I guess one of the most perplexing things that has

38 ALBERTA HANSARD March 6, 1978 happened to me as Leader of the Opposition, when I meet people across the province, is senior citizens who say: I'd like to have my part of the heritage fund now. I'd like to participate in that heritage now. Because I'm in the golden years, the latter years of my stay here. I find it very difficult not to have a great amount of compassion for those pioneers, the senior citizens of this province. I say I commend the government for its announcement today in that area. But let's not have a piecemeal approach here.

These are the people that likely we owe more to than any other group in this province. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I've examined the per formance and promises of this government in terms of the principles of equal opportunity, openness, and responsiveness. In many areas I've found them severely lacking. This is a big government, whether one looks at the numbers in the House, whether one looks at the size of the public service . . . DR. BUCK: Or the $400-a-night rooms. MR. CLARK: Yes, or the rooms in London. This a big government that's concerned with big projects.

It's open and accessible, but only to some people. It measures its own performance in quantita tive things, in terms of revenue and expenditures; it's insensitive in many areas to the qualitative aspects of life in this province. May I digress for a moment in my conclusion. We should face a few facts pertaining to the quality of life in Alberta, and I'll quote from a speech delivered by a member of the House of Commons in Ottawa, on February 20 this year: In 1976 Alberta led the nation in the rate of both drug and sexual offences and in violent crimes. Drug offences jumped 55.8 per cent over the preceding year.

The rate of sexual offences, 60.57 per 100,000 population, was well above the national rate of [46]. Social problems are by no means confined to the criminal element. Though Alberta is one of the most blessed spots in the whole world, the divorce, alcoholism, abortion, and suicide rates are the highest in the country. There is discri mination against native peoples. Welfare rolls have soared. Major transportation bottlenecks have occurred in Edmonton and Calgary. Real estate prices and rentals have risen [to] uncons cionable rates.

Farmers are alarmed at the rate at which prime farmland is being gobbled up by housing and industrial developments. There is a desperate shortage of accommodation for senior citizens. Mr. Speaker, these are not the remarks of one of us here in the opposition. These aren't the remarks of one of those people the Premier can refer to as prophets of gloom and doom. These are the remarks of a Member of Parliament from Alberta, Doug Roche, the Member for Edmonton Strathcona, and a member of the Conservative caucus in Ottawa. Mr. Speaker, Alberta's social problems are substan tive, but they're not insurmountable.

All we've got to do is to have the will. Our government has the wealth to deal with these problems, but as yet it hasn't demonstrated that will. Without the social will, Alberta's natural wealth is a blessing which brings social prosperity and social problems. I therefore conclude, Mr. Speaker, by asking the government to stop claiming responsibility for all the economic prosperity in the province which results from our geology.

Let's get down to assuming re sponsibility for Alberta's conditions of social life, which are more properly the responsibility of any government which is truly open, any government that is truly responsive and committed to widening the opportunities for all Albertans. MR. KING: Would the hon. leader permit a question? MR. CLARK: Certainly. MR. KING: You stated in the course of your remarks that you were in favor of . . . MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member please use the ordinary parliamentary form. [interjections] MR.

KING: The hon. leader stated in the course of his remarks that he was in favor of deferred sharing. I wonder if he could explain whether or not he is in favor of retroactive deferred sharing. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, we've taken the position in our caucus that we support the concept of deferred sharing. When we see what the government puts before the House with regard to legislation, we can become involved in that debate and, I suspect, a whole range of other debates. Our position is support for the concept of deferred sharing, and that's where it sits. MR. KING: Mr.

Speaker, I appreciate the clarity of the hon. leader's remarks. It is consistent with the standard he has maintained in this House since he became Leader of the Opposition. To save myself a couple of comments later on, I will begin by saying I am in favor of retroactive deferred sharing in matri monial property law, and I know the difference be tween deferred sharing and retroactive deferred sharing. Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to have the opportunity to participate in this throne speech debate on behalf of the people of Edmonton Highlands.

I would like to begin by saying that I have valued your service to this Legislature during the past six years. I don't always agree with the hon. Speaker, but I have always appreciated his defence of the rights of each and every member, on whichever side, and the rights of the Legislature as a whole. I have always appreciated his willingness and ability to interpret to us as members, and to the public, the responsibilities each of us bear to our constituency and to our province, and the responsibility this institution bears to the public. The Speech from the Throne, Mr.

Speaker, has been referred to as shameless, smug, self-praise. Those are three different quotes, from a journalist and from two politicians in this House. The people of Edmonton Highlands must surely be cringing at the crassness of this government for this throne speech. Not quite, Mr. Speaker. I don't think that's quite true. Edmonton Highlands contains almost one-quarter of the senior citizens who live in the whole city of Edmonton. These people tend to be below the

March 6, 1978 ALBERTA HANSARD 39 average income of senior citizens, and the average income of senior citizens is itself below the city-wide average. Much of the housing of these people is not good because of limited income, because of age and infirmity. Their diet isn't good. Elderly home-owners, or indeed renters of single-family homes, find it diffi cult to maintain their residences, even in terms of so simple a function as shovelling snow or cutting grass.

For a complex variety of reasons, because these people are less able to look after themselves, when ill or injured they are more quickly candidates for an active treatment hospital bed than are younger peo ple, or basically healthier people, or people who have a family capable of caring for them. For the same reason, when these people become ill or injured, once in hospital they tend to stay there longer. They tend to leave an active treatment hospital bed for another bed in another institution or nursing home, rather than for their own home. Once in a nursing home they tend to stay there until they die.

If these people had non-institutional help, they would not be hospitalized so often. They would not stay in hospi tals so long, and they would more often leave hospi tal, returning to their own homes rather than to nursing homes. Even with good health, they could stay longer in their own homes before they had to move into senior citizens' lodges or homes. My remarks to this point, Mr. Speaker, suggest that home care has value because it frees institutional beds, or because it has a quasi-medical function. That's true to a point, but that is not the most important consideration in favor of home care.

Home care, to fulfil its potential, must have a strong main tenance component. The city of Edmonton is meeting today and tomor row to develop a plan for extended home care in the city. To all those people who are meeting, represent ing the province, the city, the private sector, and non-profit voluntary groups, I say that home care, to achieve its potential, must respond to psychological and social needs of people as well as to the medical needs. It must be designed and implemented to be supportive and preventive as well as remedial.

In my view, if an elderly woman living in my con stituency decides that she can continue to live among her friends, in her little rented house, for a few years longer, proud of her existence and her independence, then I say that decision she makes has social benefit for all of us. If her decision to stay in that home, in that community, with those friends and that spirit of independence depends on the assurance that her sidewalks will be snow-free and safe in the winter time, then I say let's ensure that those sidewalks are snow-free and safe.

If that is the only aspect of home care she wants or needs to use, let's make sure that our home care program ensures that that is available to that woman with that need. If keeping her side walks safe depends in part on respecting the people who work in a home care program, let's develop a home care program that is well regarded by the population. Let's expect from the people who work in that program a high level of service, and let's respect them for providing a high level of service. Mr.

Speaker, for 4,000 or 5,000 people who live in my constituency, I don't think the announcement in the throne speech that home care was going to be extended across the province to 11 centres, extended to them in my constituency, was an example either of smugness or of self-satisfaction or of — what was the other one? — shamelessness. I don't think it was, Mr. Speaker. The second thing I'd like to speak to for just a few moments is the announcement of a major expansion of day care services, along with higher program and licensing standards. That, Mr.

Speaker, will be wel come in Edmonton Highlands and I suspect in many constituencies around the province, not the least of which will be Edmonton Kingsway. DR. PAPROSKI: Hear, hear. MR. KING: In Edmonton at the present time approxi mately 4,500 day care spaces are available. Demand in 1977 was projected to be in excess of 4,000 spaces for children under two, 8,500 spaces for chil dren two to six, and an excess of 10,000 spaces for children seven to nine, who only need after-school care.

In the city of Edmonton we are meeting less than 20 per cent of the existing demand for day care in both the public and the private day care centres. Of the total number of spaces available, and the total is only 20 per cent of the need, only 25 per cent are subsidized to some degree: 681 day care spaces, 350 spaces for after-school care, and 250 spaces for fami ly day care.

In other words, there are about 15,000 people who need day care, can't find it, and are coping with their need in some other way — private placement with a friend or a relative, a teen-age babysitter, or by the simple expedient of leaving chil dren at home alone when they are too young by any rational judgment to be left alone at home. I would like to quote, very briefly, a letter which I received: Day care is not a substitute for a family, but rather is a supplement required by some families which enables them to pursue, with dignity and independence, a useful social role.

Furthermore, it offers the children of these families an oppor tunity to develop their social, emotional and intel lectual needs. In this sense then, day care cen tres are future oriented facilities. It's fine to say, Mr. Speaker, that women should stay home to take care of their children. I should point out first that sometimes the homemaker is necessarily a man, in a single-parent home. Some times the homemaker simply doesn't have the means to stay at home. Our society certainly doesn't provide the means without compulsion for homemakers to stay home looking after children.

Sometimes the parent needs to get out of the house to relate to other adults, to maintain competence in a trade or a profes sion, or just to maintain their sanity. Mr. Speaker, aside from space, quality is an impor tant consideration also addressed in the Speech from the Throne. Edmonton Highlands is home to a pione ering day care centre, the Community Day Nursery. I commend it to every member for a visit if you want to see what day care can be at its best. The facilities of a day care centre are important, but they are subsidi ary to the staff who work there and to the operating philosophy of the centre.

You walk into the Edmon ton day nursery, and there is caring, affection, stimu lation, and respect for the child. Those things, Mr. Speaker, are important. Standards for the physical facility, standards for the staff, and standards for the program are important.

40 ALBERTA HANSARD March 6, 1978 The facility, the staff, and the program provide an important context within which the day care operates, and they do a lot to add to or detract from the total experience that each child gains each day. Standards should be set. They should be high but not inflexible. They should be remembered always as subsidiary to the attitude and the philosophy of the people who are providing the care.

The Edmonton day nursery will exceed whatever standards are set by the provincial government, because the parents, the board, and the staff want the best possible context for the experience of the children who are there. But if it didn't meet the standards, in terms of the ratio of toilets to children or in terms of insistence upon a particular part of the program, then I would accept a considerable trade-off for the caring, the affection, the stimulation, and the respect that exist and are there for every child to benefit from.

When we talk about a day care pro gram, when we talk about providing space and mak ing available a program to the people of this province who undeniably need that program, I hope that we are not going to focus our attention on the capital component, on the facilities; that we are going to be as mindful of what is happening in terms of the attitudes of the people involved in the program as we are of the need for standards. Mr.

Speaker, I don't think the people of Edmonton Highlands believe that the decision to expand that program was a reflection of smugness, shameless- ness, or self-pride — I keep forgetting one each time I'm required to go back to the beginning. AN HON. MEMBER: Self-satisfaction. MR. KING: Self-satisfaction. For the people of Edmonton Highlands important changes have been made in the natural gas price protection plan, whereby 75 per cent of future price increases will be absorbed.

For my constituents, many of whom live in older homes, this, as well as our province's recent access to the federal home insulation program, will be of real benefit. The program announced today by the hon. Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care is going to affect many of the citizens who live in my constituency: the elder ly, people on fixed incomes, people on limited in comes. I don't believe they would consider that to be smug or shameless. The Edmonton eparchy of the Ukrainian Catholic Church has plans under way for a nursing home. They are proud of the plans they are working on.

They are hopeful this will shortly come to fruition. The promise is held out in this Speech from the Throne that it will happen, at least that the policy framework that will make it possible for this to happen will be established.

I believe the people of Edmonton Highlands, the people of the Edmonton eparchy of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, are going to appreciate that and are going to believe that it was not a reflection of smugness that somewhere, in an admittedly large organization, an admittedly complex organization, someone cared enough about the con cerns of the eparchy and other private non-profit groups located around the province that that was contained in the throne speech. Support for the employment advocacy function of Native Outreach is important in my constituency.

The fact that that commitment was made in light of changes that have taken place in the last two years is important to a small but significant number of the people of my constituency. For those people to whom a commitment has been made by this government, even though that commitment was contained in one paragraph of the Speech from the Throne, the com mitment is nevertheless real to those people, impor tant to those people. Those people are important to this province, and that commitment, regardless of how briefly it was made, is not smug and is not shameless. Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to conclude briefly with two ongoing concerns because, like the hon. Leader of the Opposition, I agree that we are not living in Nirvana, things are not perfect in Alberta. This government recognizes that obviously more than he does oppo site. I think they're demonstrating more concern and more response to the concern. I'd like to lay two of mine on the table very briefly. One is metropolitan affairs. I would like to suggest that we could consider distinct legislation to deal with the cities of Edmonton and Calgary, the major metro politan centres in the province.

I think it is a result of their size, that they are so complex in terms of their responsibilities to their citizens and their relationship with the province, that we might consider the nature of that relationship to be different from the nature of our relationship with any other municipal government in the province. I think the municipal government of the city of Edmonton — and I believe the city of Calgary also — is at sea, adrift, uncertain about their relationship with their surrounding regions, about questions of revenue, particularly about questions of accountability to their own electorate.

I think they are concerned and adrift about the question of their polit ical control over their public service. I think they're concerned about the question of the ultimate respon sibility of municipally elected politicians to their elec torate, on the one hand and, on the other hand, to the provincial government. I suggest not that it should be done, but that it should be seriously considered.

Because it seems clear to me, as I said a moment ago, that the cities have reached a size and a com plexity in the nature of their government that require some different response from the provincial govern ment than has been the case historically. The second thing I would briefly like to raise is a concern that was expressed to me about a week ago when I was in Lloydminster constituency at its annual meeting — an event, I might say, that was enjoyed by all.

This government has a strategy for decentraliza tion and for diversification of the economy of the province, and we in this Legislature believe that we have communicated it well to the people of the prov ince. I certainly believed that myself until about 10 days ago. I believe we have a way to go. I believe we would be surprised, amazed, at the extent to which the programs which have been ours for the last six years are not understood in their own right and are not understood in conjunction with other programs, other activities we have under way.

I subscribe to the strategy of this government of decentralization and diversification, but I believe it is not going to be as successful as it merits unless we can find some new ways of communicating to the furthest reaches of the province, to the grass roots, what it is we are trying to do. Communication has to involve the municipalities,

March 6, 1978 ALBERTA HANSARD 41 the chambers of commerce, the service clubs, the hospital boards, the school boards, and private busi ness. The people out there who should know what we are doing and why we are doing it, don't. I am simply here this afternoon to be frank, Mr. Speaker; to say to you that I don't understand why that is, but it is a question which we as legislators are going to have to address. The implementation of our strategy, the truly suc cessful implementation of the strategy, is going to require broadly based knowledge throughout the province about what we are trying to do and why.

It's going to involve agreement on priorities. It's going to involve a research policy which supports our strategy of decentralization. And while those things seem clear to us in this Legislature, I am concerned that, for whatever reason, they are not effectively under stood by many of the people in the province. Mr. Speaker, I am going to remember this after noon. I'm going to have copies made of the speech of the hon. Leader of the Opposition, because I repre sent an urban constituency and I want to send it to some of the people in municipal government around the province.

There's one line in there that I will underline and bring to their attention. I may digress for a moment and remind you that there's an institution in England, a social institution variously known as the bobbies or the peelers. I now discover that we have a social institution in this province which could always have been called the bobbies, but as of today could be called the "repea lers". Because with respect to revenue sharing, the position of the hon.

Leader of the Opposition seems to be that it is important that the municipalities have additional revenue, and that it is important that they should have certainty of source. They need more money and they need to know where it's coming from, and they need to be able to count on that. His position was that we should do that. We should give them revenue sharing, he said this afternoon, proba bly very much like some Social Crediters said some years ago, that we should give one-third of the resource revenue of the province to the municipali ties. He said, it has to be done; let's do it.

And then he said something that I think clearly demonstrates the political position of the party opposite. He said, you want to give them more money, you want to give them certainty of supply, so you institute revenue sharing. And then he said, if it doesn't work, you can repeal it. So much for more money, so much for certainty of supply, and so much for the consistency of the posi tion of the Social Credit Party with respect, first of all, to an important issue — municipal finances — and with respect, secondly, to many of the issues that touch on the lives of the people in this province. I enjoyed his remark.

I thought it was extremely apt. And he can be sure that I will order additional copies in order to circulate it to my friends and associates. Mr. Speaker, it's been a pleasure to participate briefly in the debate this afternoon. It is certainly the case in this province — and again I'm restating something I said just a few days ago — that money is not the problem. If we believe that a problem can be solved with more money, in the short term we've got it. I emphasize "the short term".

We can do more, we can spend more, we can hire more people, and we can do all of it this year instead of doing some of it last year, some of it next year, and some of it the year after. We have the crude physical resources to do it. But it will not be successful. It will not be well thought out. It will not be well executed. It will not be well implemented. And most important, it will not be done, except that it will be done at the expense of freedoms the people of this province currently enjoy.

If they don't mind filling out more forms, if they don't mind subjecting themselves to more questions by more public servants, if they don't mind the imposi tion of deadlines by the provincial government, if they don't mind that there is only a certain route they can follow to get to a certain end, then we can provide, but it will be for the short term because our physical resources are limited, they are non-renewable, and they are going down the tube.

More important than that it will be for the short time is that it will be done at the expense of the freedom of thought, the free dom of operation, which I believe the people of this province value very highly. The alternative, Mr. Speaker, which challenges the people of this province and challenges this govern ment, if it does not challenge the Social Credit Party, is to find the means by which those ends can be achieved other than at the expense of increased government intervention, increased government budget, and increased government activity.

I believe that my constituents know, as well as do my col leagues in this House, that I would like to see us do a number of things. I would like to see us have a number of things in this province. But when I say "us", when I say that I would like to see "us" do them, I mean the people of the province, not the government of the province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure this after noon to follow an excellent speech from the hon.

Member for Edmonton Highlands and two very excel lent speeches Friday last, and to have the opportunity to make some observations on the speech this after noon of the hon. Leader of the Opposition. Before I do so, Mr. Speaker, I should again express my pleasure at participating in a Legislative Assembly which has been so well guided over the past years. I look forward this year to the pleasant, if sometimes direct, way in which you may find occasion to lead us, Mr. Speaker. I think it is a tremendous compliment to the citizens of Edmonton Meadowlark to have Your Honour as their representative. Mr.

Speaker, as a non-farmer I will be reaching a little bit to come to the defense of our farm folk this afternoon. But I propose to do that, because . . . I'm being offered a tractor, and I don't know whether it's diesel or runs on propane or gas. AN HON. MEMBER: But it costs $20,000. MR. GHITTER: It's air-conditioned. MR. YOUNG: I'm advised by the hon. Member for Calgary Buffalo that it's air-conditioned, but according to the speech I've just heard from the hon. Leader of the Opposition, farmers can't afford that these days. Mr. Speaker, the hon.

Leader of the Opposition rightly points the attention of all citizens of our coun try to the condition in which agriculture finds itself. Four years ago we could buy farm products for $240.

42 ALBERTA HANSARD March 6, 1978 Today we could buy those same goods for $200. That is a reflection of what has happened in some sectors of our farming economy, and the hon. leader correctly indicated what's happened to rising input costs. As the Speech from the Throne indicated, it will be one of the challenges of this Assembly — and I refer to Hansard, page 4 of March 2 in the second paragraph: . . . my government will take significant steps to ensure that Alberta farmers continue to have the lowest farm input costs in the nation. Mr. Speaker, that's a more positive statement about the problem than the hon.

Leader of the Opposition managed to make in the five or ten minutes that he was addressing the subject. Until this afternoon's contribution, I always thought that in dealing with the situation of agriculture, one could work to raise the prices that farmers receive for their product. Alternatively, one could work, as much as possible, toward achieving efficiency and lowering the input costs, and of course that's the reference the Speech from the Throne makes. But, Mr. Speaker, I find this afternoon that the hon. leader believes that if government got out of the board rooms and into the barley fields we'd do more.

I really can't believe that in an industry which is as complex as agriculture, which is so dependent on international and interprovincial markets, it is a re sponsibility of government to be in the barley field. It's the responsibility of the individual farmer to make sure that when he's in the barley field he has the lowest input cost possible, and it's the responsibility of government to help him, but surely not to be there. Mr. Speaker, I believe the Social Credit caucus failed to have a sufficiently long caucus for the hon.

Member for Little Bow to enlighten the Leader of the Opposition about the very dominant role played in the matter of agriculture by the Premier of this province at the first ministers' conference in Ottawa. It was the responsibility, which was very well executed, of our Premier and our Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. Marvin Moore, to lead the sectoral discussions on agriculture at the first ministers' conference. I may say more lightly, Mr.

Speaker, that they succeeded so well that the sectoral discussion, which was sched uled for about half an hour or 40 minutes, went on for several times that length because all Premiers felt that, not to be outshone, they had to get into the act. I think it would be useful for members of this Assembly to look over the statement made by this province at that particular conference. To indicate some of the things that were brought to the attention of the Prime Minister of Canada and to the other first ministers by our Premier, I would just run over a few.

First of all, dealing with transportation, the Premier reapprized the conference of the need to take some action on the Prairie Rail Authority to try to get us into a more competitive position as far as transporta tion of agricultural product is concerned. Surely that's important. He dealt with the question of rapeseed. Surely if we are going to have a sound economy, we want to be able to build — we have to build — on natural advantages. One of the natural advantages we have in Alberta is agriculture. We produce in this province a very large proportion of the total beef production.

We also have an excellent natural advantage in the production of rapeseed. We want to be more compet itive in that production, and to do that we have to have transportation facilities. The Premier underlined that. He also indicated that we need, or the federal government needs, to get moving on the Prince Rupert facility; that if in fact we could modernize and develop Prince Rupert to a capacity of 6 million tons, we would be able to save western farmers something in the order of $25 million a year.

Now isn't that something to be done for agriculture that is worth doing and that will help the net farm income of this province? And it isn't going to be done in the barley field. Mr. Speaker, one of the other approaches this government has undertaken to help our farmers is to be sure that the federal government, in its dealings with the revisions to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, keeps the significance of trade in agricultural products and the necessity of bilateral trade with the United States uppermost in its mind. My recollections of some statements made earlier in this House by the hon.

Leader of the Opposition were very much opposed to our becoming too ener getic in the area of assisting the federal government on international trading matters. Mr. Speaker, I think that's a very important thrust of our government, one which will in no way be detrimental to agriculture and is one of the few ways for us to serve effectively such a highly interdependent industry, in an interna tional sense. If I might turn for a moment to a question which also came up at that conference, I would like to refer to the matter of regulation and the interdependence of governments.

I believe that particular conference had as one of its main beneficial side effects, and maybe one which will be a long time being apparent, the realization for many officials in the preparation of the background documentation that what is done fed erally without thought for what's happening provin- cially may just be a piling of regulation on regulation.

I believe it is through a conference such as that that officials are forced to look — sort of uniquely if you will; at least it becomes a very high priority with them — at just how the actions of one government affect the actions of another government, and the two together affect industry, agriculture, mining, or oil development. I'm convinced that the commitment made to one another at that conference by the first ministers is one which can only help our country and our economy.

That commitment was to try to avoid over-regulation, to examine carefully the regulations put in place, to try to give those persons who have the initiative the possibility of exercising that initiative without a battery of experts on government regulation at hand. I believe that is a very major require

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19780306
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L18 S4 19780306 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	4d48af04a687456e87c993e4e4c3b7b4c893f9f6

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