Alberta Hansard — 18 May 1976, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 18, Session 2)

19760518

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

May 18, 1976 ALBERTA HANSARD 1381 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Tuesday, May 18, 1976 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a privilege for me this afternoon to introduce to you, and through you to the members of the Assembly, a lady who has given 40 years of public service to this province. I refer to Miss Dorothy Hope, who is in your gallery, Mr. Speaker, and who is accompanied today by her mother. Miss Hope commenced employment with the Gov ernment of Alberta in June 1936.

In 1939 she became the personal secretary to the premier of the province, the late William Aberhart. From 1939 until 1971 she was the personal secretary to the three Social Credit premiers, Premier Aberhart, Premier Manning, and Premier Strom. Since August 1971, she has been the personal secretary to the three leaders of the opposition whom this Assembly has seen during that time. I'm extremely pleased to have the opportunity today to say to members of the Assembly, and through you, Mr.

Speaker, a very genuine and a very sincere thank you to Miss Dorothy Hope for 40 years of very dedicated and very genuine service to the people of this province. I suppose it would be facetious for me to say that I think Miss Hope in fact has shared a great deal of hope with people across this province in the way she has managed the affairs during the time she was personal secretary to the three premiers. Oddly enough, she was personal secretary to the three premiers for some 32 years. When you consid er that the province of Alberta is 71 years old, that's indeed a mark that I doubt we will ever see again.

Miss Hope, if you would rise, I'm sure the members of the Assembly would like to join me in paying our respects to you. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members of the government, if I could join in this occasion with the Leader of the Opposition to also pay our respects to Miss Hope, our appreciation to her for her kindness and courtesy.

As a new leader of the opposition in the latter part of 1967, one of my first experiences in this building as an elected person was being directed, if I could use that word, by the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly to go down to have a discussion with the then Premier Manning. I approached the office with considerable trepidation. I opened the door. I was greeted with very pleasant surprise, recognition and a pleasant response. I have remembered that as a start of a very friendly and delightful relationship for me and for the colleagues who were with me during those times, and latterly as well.

We on the government side are very pleased to join the Leader of the Opposition in our best wishes to Miss Dorothy Hope. Thank you very much. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay my respects to Miss Hope, as well. She has served her province exceptionally well throughout the years. Perhaps I should finish by giving a quote from the late Dave Ure: "Is there any hope for Taylor?" MR. DOAN: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague for the Red Deer constituency, I would like to intro duce to you, and through you to the members of the Assembly, 50 senior citizens from the Red Deer Recreation Department.

They are accompanied by Mrs. Isla Wagers, who sponsors senior citizens in Red Deer. They are seated in the public gallery. I would ask them to stand and be welcomed by the Assembly. MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, today we also have an opportunity to pay our respects to another long-time public servant of this province. She is Miss Donalda Campbell, who until recently was a cashier in the companies branch. She was originally hired by the government in the motor vehicles branch at $700 a year. That's $2.25 a day. She has served this province for 47 years.

She is accompanied in the gallery by her old boss, Jimmie Warr, the retired registrar of companies, who incidentally had 43 years of service. I would ask Miss Campbell to please rise and be recognized by the Assembly. DR. WARRACK: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased today to have the opportunity to introduce to you and to members of the Legislature the Grade 10 social studies class from Trochu High School in my constit uency. They are in the members gallery, accom panied by their teacher, Mr. Glen Holmes, and their bus driver, Mr. Grant Hastie.

If they would rise, I would ask all members to join me in welcoming them in the traditional way. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to introduce to you, and through you to the hon. members of the Legislature, three great grunt and groan artists. A great Interfaith wrestling match will be staged at Victoria Pavilion in Calgary on May 25. We have three of the star wrestlers here with us today. I would like to introduce them to you. First, we have the "Wrestling Rabbi". I would ask him to stand. Then we have "Tiger" Joe Tomasso. I would ask him to stand; and last of all, "Killer Kush", in that corner.

I'm sure the people of Calgary will be enter tained royally. I would like to use this opportunity to do something I've wanted to do for a long time; that is, to commend Rabbi Ginsburg of Calgary for the tremendous work he does. Every worthy project, irrespective of faith, he's in there to help in every way he can. The proceeds of this wrestling match in Calgary will go to the Interfaith. I'm sure every hon. member will welcome these three great grunt and groan artists with us today.

1382 ALBERTA HANSARD May 18, 1976 MR. GHITTER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, might I say that I'm betting on the rabbi. [laughter] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table a return to Motion for a Return 187. MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table responses to Motions for a Return 157 and 170. MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table the replies to Motions for a Return 186, 189, and 193. MR. HARLE: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to file with the Legislative Library the annual report of the Alberta Automobile Insurance Board, and The IBC "Veriplan" Proposal, the study done by the board on the no-fault proposal. MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to file three copies of the 1975 annual report of the Farmers' Advocate. Reports will be made available today to individual members. MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table a reply to Motion for a Return No. 180. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table four copies of the second annual report, 1974-75, of the Department of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs. MR.

SCHMID: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table replies to Motions for a Return 128, 142, 154, 193, and 218. As well, I'd like to file the interim report of the Department of Culture, Youth and Recreation from January 1, 1975 to March 31, 1975. MR. DOWLING: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table the response to Motion for a Return No. 137, and I'd like to file copies of the 1974-75 annual review of Travel Alberta. Copies will be made available for every member. MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table the responses to Motions for a Return 114 and 150. MR. FARRAN: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if I could revert to Introduction of Visitors. HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS (reversion) MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce to you, and through you to the House, a group of 40 senior citizens from Calgary who have arrived here on a bus chartered from Ambassador Charter. They were a little late arriving in the House. They're here as representatives of the finest citizens in Calgary. Would they please rise now and be recognized by the House. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Oil Pricing MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to direct the first question to the Minister of Energy and ask if negotia tions on the quest for a new oil price are continuing between Alberta and the oil-producing provinces. MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations are still proceeding. They are now proceeding between the Prime Minister and the Premier. Perhaps I should refer the question to the Premier. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations are in their final stages. I hope to be able to say more to the Legislature about the matter later today, probably this evening. MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question to the Premier, in light of the comment made by the Premier. Does that indicate that in all likelihood the announcement to be made at 6 o'clock Alberta time by, I believe, the hon. Mr. Gillespie will set the price for Alberta crude oil? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, in no way is that accurate. If a statement is in fact made at 6 o'clock tonight Edmonton time by the federal government through the Minister of Energy, as discussed between the Prime Minister and myself, it will be in the nature of the negotiations between the producing provinces and the federal government.

Our response and par ticipation in those negotiations will therefore follow, presuming the negotiations are then completed, in this House this evening when we reconvene at 8 p.m. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question to the Premier. Is it then the intention of the federal government and the province that should negotiations from 6 o'clock on go successfully, the Premier hopes to be in a position this evening to announce the new price? MR. LOUGHEED: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, that's accurate, presuming there's no last minute hitch in the negotia tions as far as other producing provinces are involved, and discussions are still ongoing. It would be my intention to make a statement in the Legislative Assembly tonight at 8:00 p.m. with regard to the negotiations of energy prices. Gasoline Retailing MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my second question to the Minister of Business Development and Tourism.

Is he in a position to indicate what response he's given to the Alberta Automotive Retail ers, following their most recent brief to the govern ment and their meeting with the Conservative caucus members concerned with consumer affairs? MR. DOWLING: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we did respond to the Automotive Retailers' Association late yesterday afternoon, indicating that at this time we cannot contemplate introducing legislation to do as they wish; that is, remove the integrated companies from the retail area. Primarily, Mr. Speaker, what they

May 18, 1976 ALBERTA HANSARD 1383 were asking us to do was to react in a legislative way against 60 company-owned and operated salary sta tions, when their problem is really the private bran¬ ders, which are something like 350 in number. The second issue they wanted us to deal with was to legislate the price of gasoline to the retailer. We cannot do this because of cost savings reflected to the private branders because they are not confronted with having the credit card system, the advertising campaign, the station flag, and so on.

We felt this was necessary because the companies have responded very vigorously and in a proper direction to everything we've asked them to do. One of those things is to move out of the retail area as quickly as they can. The second is to have the cost of gasoline reflect cost savings to the companies. In other words, a retailer who is not a flag carrier would obviously not be charged for trucking if he has his own truck, or credit cards, or advertising, if he didn't participate in those things. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister.

Are you in a position to give us some sort of time frame dealing with that portion of your response that talked about the companies moving out of retail areas? What kind of time frame have the companies and your department agreed upon? MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. member please use the ordinary form of Parliamentary usage. MR. CLARK: What kind of time frame have the companies and the minister's department agreed upon? Also, how many companies have moved out of the retail area to date? MR. DOWLING: Mr.

Speaker, of the normal retail stations, there are now some 60 remaining company- operated stations which are company salaried opera tions. In the self-serve area, some 45 are still salaried operations. The companies are continuing to move out, if they can find a lessee to take over some of those stations. I can't give you a time frame, but they are moving as quickly as possible. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question to the hon. minister. Is he in a position to table with the Assembly the report done for the minister by the caucus committee headed by the hon. member Mr.

Ghitter in response to the presentations made by the ARA? Is the minister prepared to make that report available to members of the Assembly? MR. DOWLING: Mr. Speaker, that was an in-house report. I had a meeting with the consumer affairs committee, at which they transmitted their views regarding the ARA position. On the basis of their views, my own, and those of the department, the letter to the ARA was made yesterday.

I should also say we have written to each of the major companies asking them to make some adjust ments in severance should the market place — which is reacting in a major way to the demands of the consuming public to offer gasoline at a lesser price. We've asked them to make certain that, if severances are required because of this change in the market place, they will act in a completely fair manner. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. Perhaps the minister didn't under stand the question.

My question is: is the minister prepared to make the report of the consumer affairs committee headed by Mr. Ghitter available to members of the Assembly? MR. DOWLING: Mr. Speaker, no, there is no report as such. Rather, it was verbal communication with the committee members as a result of their earlier meeting with the ARA. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion to the hon. minister with respect to his comments concerning better termination and remuneration agreements for service station opera tors going out of the business.

Is it the government's intention to do anything beyond requesting the major oil companies to consider this? For example, will there be consideration of legislation if voluntary compliance with the letter is not followed up? MR. DOWLING: Mr. Speaker, the oil companies have changed their position in a major way over the last four years since the government of the day first started to meet with the ARA and the companies. Two of the major firms have substantial severance clauses in their agreement.

They've gone beyond that severance clause to offer up to 100 per cent of the net profit for the previous year as severance in addition to the normal things that would transpire — purchase of equipment and stock, et cetera. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question to the hon. minister. Is the government considering any contingency plans with respect to what action might be taken if the other companies do not follow the suit of the two that have already made some provisions? MR. DOWLING: Mr.

Speaker, we are not in a position to discuss contingency plans at the moment because the companies have, in the main, reacted very positively to our earlier suggestions, reflecting cost savings on gasoline pricing, severance, and a number of other things. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question to the hon. minister. Is it the minister's intention or the government's intention to discuss with the appropriate officials in the B.C. government the plans recently announced by British Columbia to bring in a form of functional divorcement? MR.

DOWLING: We have attempted to keep in touch with the market place relative to gasoline marketing in all the provinces of Canada. I mentioned earlier the Isbister commission in Ontario. We are aware of an indication that something would be done in B.C. in a legislative way, or some such measure. Howev er, we have no factual indication that that is going to transpire. But we are keeping abreast of what is happening. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, just one more supplemen tary question, so I don't misunderstand the minister's position.

Is it the position of the government that if the companies beef up their severance clauses, the

1384 ALBERTA HANSARD May 18, 1976 matters raised by the ARA will not command any more of the minister's attention? MR. DOWLING: Mr. Speaker, we've always held the view that if someone in the business community who wants assistance — whether it's guidance with regard to management or anything — comes to the department for assistance in that regard, we would be more than willing to help them. We did make that offer some time ago, and have responded in a positive way to half a dozen requests for assistance in individual cases.

I should say again, I have no indication that the companies will not respond in a positive way. Until that happens — which I don't expect — I'm not in a position to indicate what we'll do. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask one further question. MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps we should leave that as the final supplementary, and then if there's time at the end, the hon. leader may wish to come back to this topic. Natural Resources MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier.

In light of the debate in the Ontario Legisla ture in which the government there may request the federal government to take over Alberta's natural resources, is the Premier prepared to advise the Assembly as to the position of this government on any such proposals? MR. LOUGHEED: I wouldn't think it's very funny. Mr. Speaker, our office has been besieged with com ments with regard to the reports from the Ontario Legislature — if accurately reported — and we're deeply concerned. I think Albertans share that concern.

We feel very clearly that it's the right of the province owning the resources to decide how to sell those resources. Mr. Speaker, we feel that Confed eration to date has benefited central Canada and that, because of the resources, Alberta now has an opportunity to reach its full potential. We've tried as the Government of Alberta, as Canadians, to work these matters out in a spirit of compromise and give and take. We will continue to do our best to do that, recognizing that there has to be a balance between ownership of provincial resources and the national economy as a whole, of which we are a part.

Perhaps at some future time, Mr. Speaker, we will conclude that the federal position with regard to resources is unfair. We'll face that if and when we come to it. But we give notice to the Ontario Legislature that my colleagues and I, and I believe the people of Alberta, simply will not accept a federal government attempting to expropriate resources owned by Albertans for the benefit of central Canada.

A federal government that attempts to do so would not be a government that could call itself federal, nor sadly would the nation we perceive be the nation that we want it to be and want to be a significant part of. So the Ontario Legislature had better face the realities. For decades, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the national tariff policy, this province and the west have been forced to buy from them. Entrepreneur- ship and government policy past and present have changed the nature of Canada's economic leverage. They've got many options in Ontario. Reduction of the gasoline tax is one of them. Mr.

Speaker, I feel pretty strongly about this. We would not accept such a move of expropriation of our resources. Ontario is not Canada, but a stronger west would be a stronger Canada. [applause] MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Premier a supplementary question. In doing that, I'd like to say that the official opposition shares the view that has been expressed by the Premier. Mr.

Speaker, my question to the Premier very directly is this: is it the intention of the Premier to communicate to the Premier of Ontario either by wire or written letter, expressing our views about the very, very unfortunate comments attributed to the Premier of Ontario with regard to this question of resource development in Alberta? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I've already made that communication. But I think to be fair, one would note that my answer referred not simply to the views expressed by the Premier of Ontario, but to the Ontario Legislature in general. MR. BATIUK: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the hon.

Premier. Could the Premier advise why this attitude from central Canada was never expressed sooner? Is it because they were used to getting the resources for very little cost? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I couldn't respond to that. I think what I've tried to say — and I think the Leader of the Opposition has responded, too — is that this is a matter that I think extends across the province and all points of view. We're in this posi tion, as I mention, because of government policy both past and present and entrepreneurship in this province.

Fine for people to take the view that we were fortunate the resources were here, but the resources had to be discovered. The resources were discovered by risk-taking by Albertans. They were discovered by the effort and energy of Albertans, and they were discovered with sound policy. I think it's very impor tant that in our time in Confederation we protect our ownership rights in these resources. OSP Grants MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this question to the hon. Minister of Government Serv ices also responsible for Culture.

It's with respect to the minister's statement yesterday that some nine- tenths of the March 1975 grant cheques from the department were withheld until after the election. Mr. Speaker, can the minister advise whether the persons, groups, or organizations which were to receive those cheques were advised by mail prior to the election that these cheques were forthcoming? MR. SCHMID: Mr. Speaker, the greatest portion of these cheques referred to Project Co-operation. The people of the municipalities or individual groups

May 18, 1976 ALBERTA HANSARD 1385 applied for grants under the Project Co-operation program, the community hall program, and the cemeteries program. Applications were sent in and had to be processed before the end of the fiscal year. Naturally if someone applies for a grant, especially on an approved government program, he probably was expecting a cheque to be sent to him. But in order to avoid implication, we held these cheques until on or after the election date. MR. NOTLEY: Supplementary question for clarifica tion.

My question did not relate to the sending of the cheque, but whether or not there was a letter advising that a grant allocation in fact had been made. MR. SCHMID: Mr. Speaker, it's very possible that some letters may have gone out to some of the groups telling them their applications had been approved. We do this at all times, stating that an application has or has not been approved and that a cheque would be forthcoming in due time. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion to the hon. minister.

Can the minister advise the Assembly whether the office of special programs or the department acquired one or more Redactron automatic typewriters from Kellam Business Systems during the course of March 1975, in order to see that the letters concerning the cheques were sent out? MR. SPEAKER: Should it happen that the minister might have that kind of detail in his memory, I suppose he might answer the question briefly, but I think the hon. member will himself agree that the question is supereminently qualified for the Order Paper. MR. SCHMID: Mr. Speaker, I can reply very shortly to that.

I recall that the community hall cheques, which were held until on or after the election date, were prepared by the Redactrons. This is probably one of the letters that the hon. member of the opposition refers to. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion if I may. If it's too detailed then I can put it on the Order Paper. Does the minister recall whether or not one or more Redactron typewriters were leased during that period of time from the company in question? MR. SCHMID: Mr. Speaker, I would not be able to state exactly when the Redactrons were leased.

Therefore, I would ask to have the question put on the Order Paper if necessary. Life Insurance Underwriters MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Has the minister or his department received any complaints relating to life insurance underwriters not being able to be licensed by more than one company? MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the situa tion, the present system is one of single representa tion by a life insurance agent of a sponsoring company.

There have been requests made by some of the organizations involved in the life underwriting business, particularly the Life Underwriters Associa tion. At one time this was objected to by the representatives of the companies. However, since then, there has been some modification of their point of view. Because of the request from the life underwriters, I understand the superintendent pres ently has that matter under review and will, no doubt, be making recommendations to me in due course.

I might say that where a life underwriter finds he has to deal with a client for whom his own sponsor ing company cannot provide the type of insurance that he wants, he can obtain permission — by arrangement with his company, of course — to handle the type of insurance that might satisfy the need of his particular client. MR. MANDEVILLE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister considering legislation which would allow underwriters to be licensed by more than one company? MR. HARLE: As I understand it, it probably would require some change in the legislation, and we will consider that. MR.

MANDEVILLE: One final supplementary ques tion, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister indicate the department's policy regarding the same party being both a life insurance underwriter and a real estate salesman or agent? MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, I understand there is a practice in the cities of Edmonton and Calgary that you shouldn't be both a life insurance agent and a real estate agent. That's not true in rural Alberta. Lots of people have the dual capacity.

Of course, I suppose there was a long historic reason for that, because of a lack of people, a lack of trained people, and a lack of an opportunity to make a reasonable livelihood from the one occupation. I'm sure that the life insurance agents and the real estate agents would take some objection to what they would consider the backward step of having an individual licensed under both. I think it was probably stretching things to [allow] a dual capacity in the rural areas. Probably there should be a look at and update of that because of the general improvement of the professional capacities of both occupations.

Wage and Price Controls MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Premier is for information. It's with regard to the discussion of the Canadian Labour Congress relative to a strike because of their concern about the wage and price control program. Was the matter of Canadian labor's attitude towards wage and price control discussed at the Western Premiers' Conference or the first ministers' conference? If it was discussed, was any particular position or attitude taken at that time? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, no, it was not dis cussed either at the Western Premiers' Conference or the meeting of first ministers on May 6.

1386 ALBERTA HANSARD May 18, 1976 Russian Aircraft MR. LYSONS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my question to the Attorney General. I wonder if he was aware that a Russian jet aircraft circled the Wabamun power plant this morning, then landed at the Vegreville airport, and took off immediately. MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, that sounds like the kind of question that should probably be directed to the Minister of Transportation. DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, so nobody gets the wrong idea, a Russian Yak jet was in Alberta today on a demonstration flight on which it took a number of members of the Legislature.

It did indeed land and take off at Vegreville. DR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to the Minister of Transportation. Because of the jet landing at Vegreville, is the minister considering changing the Vegreville airport to international status? MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to the hon. Minister of Transportation. Are you sure the plane wasn't from Ontario? DR. HORNER: You can be sure. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, if I might be permitted this comment. If it were from Ontario, it wouldn't have been allowed to get off the ground. Gasoline Retailing (continued) MR. CLARK: My question, Mr.

Speaker, on a serious note, is to the Minister of Business Development and Tourism. It refers to the matter I raised initially in question period with regard to the ARA and its brief. Is the government's only concern at this time flowing from the ARA's brief to the minister dealing with the question of the severance clause — or, to put it this way, if the severance clause matter is straightened up to the minister's satisfaction, is it the position of the government that they will take no immediate action as far as the ARA brief is concerned? MR. DOWLING: Mr.

Speaker, from the standpoint of the companies, what we want to assure ourselves is that they are treating those people they have under lease with all fairness. One thing that is so abun dantly obvious to us after having spent some three and a half to four years on the subject in one capacity or another is that the problem for the members of the ARA is a change in the market place and a demand by the consumer for a lower-priced product. The compe tition is really not from the line companies carrying the same flag. The line company's service station is operated under salary. That competition is not the concern.

The concern really should be with the private branders, the co-ops, all these companies which are able to purchase gasoline at a lower price than the flag-carrying lessee. The reasons for that are very obvious. The problem is that the companies manufacturing the gasoline are required by federal statute to sell to those private branders, so they are a part of the market place and always will be. Therefore, that competition must be recognized by the members of the ARA.

They simply must react to the market place and provide service and the kind of product at the price they can offer to the public, because those are the demands of the market place of the day. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, then a further supplemen tary to the minister. In light of the action the government hasn't taken in this area, is the minister in a position to give us an indication of what the government expects to happen to the automotive retailers? Is it the expectation of the government that operations will continue to fall by the wayside? MR. DOWLING: Mr. Speaker, not at all.

If those private operators who are in a position to react to the market place and choose to stay in the business of retailing gasoline react properly to the market place and recognize what is going on, they will realize they cannot make a living selling only gasoline, and therefore must get into the business of offering service, using their bays, and selling TBA — tires, batteries, and accessories. This is where the profit is in the operation. That surely should be recognized. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, just one last supplementa ry question to the minister. Mr.

Minister, is your department in any position to indicate to the House the number of private operators in Alberta who have gone out of business since the first of the year? MR. DOWLING: Mr. Speaker, we are not. But we have conflicting reports from some of the private operators, one of whom said he was going broke. We reacted rather violently to this and made an investiga tion. We found that was not true. He decided to change the operation he was in with the same company, and is now making substantial profit in the same kind of operation. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, to the minister.

Can the minister give us any sort of figure . . . MR. SPEAKER: We're starting to run a little short of time. I believe the hon. leader labelled his previous supplementary as being the last. Perhaps we might see if there's further time to come back to this. MR. CLARK: The minister doesn't have any answers. MR. SPEAKER: In that event I have to allow the hon. leader to judge whether he wants to place supple mentaries or further questions. MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister. What percentage of the total service station dealers in Alberta does the ARA represent? MR. DOWLING: Mr.

Speaker, as I understand it, it's a substantial percentage in the two major urban areas of Edmonton and Calgary. I think it's on the order of 85 per cent. But in total, over the entire province they represent about 25 per cent of the dealers. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary relates to the charges lessees are asked to bear for

May 18, 1976 ALBERTA HANSARD 1387 such company-operated services as advertising, cre dit card facilities, and the like. Mr. Speaker, to the minister: does the Government of Alberta have any mechanism, or is it the intention of the government, to systematically monitor these charges? If so, how will that be done? MR. DOWLING: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure that we should be in the position of monitoring contracts between two private-sector operators. We of course are apprized, just in a general way, by the company and the operators what the contractual arrangements are.

But I think it must be borne in mind that, when a contract is signed by a lessee, it should surely be signed with him having full knowledge of what that contract contains. On that basis, we have examined the contract and see virtually nothing wrong with it, providing the operator who is going to operate the station believes he can make a profit with that contract. Automobile Insurance MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, my question is to either the hon. Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs or the Minister of Consumer Affairs.

In view of the fact that the federal government has now brought insurance premiums within the guidelines, is the provincial government taking steps to monitor insurance premiums in this province? MR. HARLE: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'd perhaps answer the question this way: there is no change in the function and the duties of the Alberta Automobile Insurance Board. The fact that the federal govern ment is monitoring the profit position of the insur ance companies and, I believe, has almost swept most of them into the anti-inflationary net doesn't change the position of the Alberta Automobile Insur ance Board. MR.

TAYLOR: A supplementary. Is the Alberta Automobile Insurance Board monitoring all premiums or just those for compulsory insurance? MR. HARLE: Just the compulsory portion of the automobile package. MLAs' Coverage MR. KUSHNER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct this question to the Minister of Labour. I just don't know how to phrase this thing. It's in a line of duty that's going to take place on May 25. Whatever side the accident should occur, is a member of the Legislature covered by the compensation act? MR.

SPEAKER: With great respect to the hon. member, perhaps the details of the risk could be added to the question on another occasion and the suitable opinion sought from the minister or one of his officials. Agricultural Leases MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. Has a decision been made whether Crown grazing leases and agricultural Crown leases are going to be transferred from the Department of Energy and Natural Resources to the Department of Agriculture? MR. GETTY: No, Mr. Speaker, a final decision on that matter has not been made.

On a temporary basis, there has been perhaps greater input from the Department of Agriculture in the administration of the leasing arrangements. However, the final deci sion will be postsession. Russian Jet (continued) MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transportation. It's with regard to the Yak jet that was mentioned just a few moments ago. The minister mentioned that it was on a demonstration tour of the province. I was wondering if the minister could outline the purpose. Is it for purchase by PWA, or is there going to be a purchase by Executive Council for faster action? DR.

HORNER: Mr. Speaker, for the hon. member's information, the jet is here on the basis that an Alberta company, as I understand it, is being formed with the Russian interest to promote the marketing of the Yak 40. To the best of my knowledge, neither the government nor Pacific Western Airlines is in the market for such an aircraft. Gas Pricing DR. WARRACK: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition asked, and an undertaking was given to see if some letters had been written by my predecessor with respect to the matter under review in Bill 57.

My staff has searched the files and come up with one letter that might be related. I'm prepared to table it by way of response, adding this comment: the letter involved is dated January 1974 and is to Great Northern Gas Utilities Ltd. This is the company that owns Plains Western, which serves gas utilities in Alberta. That letter refers to utilities questions. I would certainly comment that all matters by a utility- regulated company pertaining to their supply circum stances would be reasonable items for them to discuss with the Public Utilities Board at any time.

Secondly, and related to it, was the request that consideration be given to see if there were other items of correspondence that might have advised the applicants in question to the Public Utilities Board that the legislative review would be undertaken that is now before the House. I think this matter was dealt with in second reading last night, when I referred to a letter that I guess the hon. Leader of the Opposition now has and that the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources agreed to table. This has been done. I believe that takes care of the undertaking that was given. MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if I might direct a supplementary question for clarification to the Minis ter of Utilities and Telephones. Were there any discussions between the companies going to the

1388 ALBERTA HANSARD May 18, 1976 Public Utilities Board, the seven companies that just finished their hearing there? Were there any discus sions between those companies and the Minister of Utilities and Telephones or one of his cabinet col leagues prior to the government arriving at a decision to go the legislative route through the bill that came in just last week? DR. WARRACK: Mr. Speaker, none with me. Now, in terms of other discussions, verbal or otherwise, by other cabinet colleagues, it's pretty difficult for me as one member to know all of that. This may very well have occurred.

As one of the members mentioned last night, those discussions had taken place between members of the Legislature and some of the parties involved. To be specific and clear on the answer with respect to myself, Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might pose a supplementary question to the minister then. Does the minister know of any discussions that took place between any members of Executive Council and offi cials of the seven companies who made the applica tion to the Public Utilities Board, advising them of the government decision? DR.

WARRACK: Advising them of the government decision to proceed with Bill 57 — not to my knowledge. As for earlier discussions of the situa tion, I understand from the copy of the letter I received this morning that was written to the government that there is a suggestion that at some period in the past there had been some discussions of the matter. But specifically to the question, not to my knowledge. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: May the hon. Member for Athabasca revert to Introduction of Visitors? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS (reversion) MR. APPLEBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would also like to thank the Assembly and yourself for this special privilege. Today it's a real pleasure to introduce to the members of the Assembly two of the latest immi grants to this province. Mr. Speaker, seated in your gallery are Mr. and Mrs. Jefferson. I think they're just trying to leave. Mr. Speaker, these are the parents of Mrs. Marg Pratt, the assistant administra tor in the government members' office. They have heard such glowing accounts of the province of Alberta that they decided to come and make their home here. They're settled in Redwater.

I'd like them to receive a warm welcome from the House. head: WRITTEN QUESTIONS 198. Mr. Notley asked the government the following question:

(1) Did the Alberta representative on the Syncrude board of directors and/or management commit tee approve distribution of a publication entitled Syncrude Progress Review, Spring 1976?

(2) If so, how many copies were distributed, where were they distributed, and what was the total cost? 199. Mr. Notley asked the government the following question:

(1) Has Mr. Murray Rasmussen recently been appointed to a position under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Housing and Public Works?

(2) If so, what is the effective date of appointment, the job title, the job descrip tion, and the annual salary of that position?

(3) How many applications were received for the above position?

(4) When and where was this position advertised?

(5) What was Mr. Rasmussen's former job title and annual salary? MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table the answer to Question 199. 200. Mr. Notley asked the government the following question:

(1) Has Mr. Peter Jenner recently been appointed to a position under the jurisdiction of the Attor ney General?

(2) If so, what is the effective date of appointment, the job title, the job description, and the annual salary of that position?

(3) How many applications were received for the above position?

(4) When and where was this position advertised?

(5) What was Mr. Jenner's former job title and annual salary? head: MOTIONS FOR RETURNS MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, I move that the following motions for returns stand and retain their places on the Order Paper: 197, 204, 206, and 207. [Motion carried] 190. Mr. R.

Speaker proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: (1) the names of the firms who submitted tenders to undertake the design and development of the Alberta mental health services computerized information system and the amounts of these tenders; (2) the name of the firm which was awarded the contract in (1), and the amount and the terms of the contract; (3) the total amount of money that has been expended in the development and design of the Alberta mental health services computerized

May 18, 1976 ALBERTA HANSARD 1389 information system and the specific service for which each sum of money was paid. MISS HUNLEY: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move an amendment to Motion for a Return 190. The amendment deletes the words "and the specific service for which each sum of money was paid" at the end of subsection (3). This will enable us to answer the motion clearly and specifically to the satisfaction of the hon. member. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would agree to that amendment. [Motion carried] 195. Mr.

Clark proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: The sources of revenue and the amount of money received by ACCESS from each source over $1,000 during the fiscal year 1975-1976. [Motion carried] 196. Mr. Clark proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: The number of feet of film processed for ACCESS, the names of all laboratories in which such film was processed, and the number of feet of film that was processed in each laboratory during the fiscal year 1975-1976. [Motion carried] 201.

Mr. Mandeville proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: The details of each trip to Japan by any employee of the Government of Alberta or any person acting on behalf of the Government of Alberta during the fiscal year 1975-1976, including: (1) the date of each trip, (2) the total cost of each trip, (3) the purpose of trip, (4) the name of each person on each trip, (5) the relationship to the Government of Alberta of each person referred to in (4). MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I move an amendment for clarification of the motion: that after the words "the details of" the following words be added: "public expenditures for". I sent a copy of the proposed amendment to the member moving the motion, and he has no objection to it. [Motion carried] 202. Mr.

Mandeville proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: A detailed statement of all expenditures, both capital and operational, of each regional office of the Department of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs in Ottawa, Los Angeles, London, and Tokyo during the fiscal year 1975-1976. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I wish to clarify this motion with a short amendment deleting the word "operational" and substituting the word "income" and, further, deleting the word "regional".

I've sent a copy of the amendment to the hon. member propos ing the motion. [Motion carried] 203. Mr. Mandeville proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: An itemized statement of the cost of the preparation of the report entitled The Alberta Task Force on Nursing Education: September 1975, prepared for the Minister of Advanced Education and Manpower. [Motion carried] 205. Mr.

Clark proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: The total number of full-time salaried employees for each government department and for Alberta Gov ernment Telephones as at March 31, 1976. [Motion carried] head: GOVERNMENT DESIGNATED BUSINESS head: GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Second Reading) Bill 49 The Natural Gas Pricing Agreement Amendment Act, 1976 MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to move second reading of Bill 49, The Natural Gas Pricing Agreement Amendment Act, 1976. Mr.

Speaker, as I explained on first reading of the bill, this legislation is really to incorporate some administrative changes that now appear to be wise in light of the government having been in the natural gas pricing agreement legislation since November 1975. There is really an attempt in the legislation to improve the efficiency and operation of natural gas pricing through the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission and to ensure that Alberta producers receive their fair share of the export flowback which was negotiated with the federal government. [Motion carried; Bill 49 read a second time]

1390 ALBERTA HANSARD May 18, 1976 Bill 55 The Mines and Minerals Amendment Act, 1976 MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to move second reading of Bill 55, The Mines and Minerals Amend ment Act, 1976. Mr. Speaker, the principle of this legislation and the changes contained in this bill are to accelerate the rate of exploration and development drilling and lease turnover in the province. It is to be done in a variety of ways. I've distributed to the members a

summary of the present situation, the proposed changes, and what we hope to achieve. I'd just like to say on second reading, Mr. Speaker, that much that is contained in Bill 55 is the result of work that really was carried on by the previous Minister of Mines and Minerals, Mr. Dickie. During the royalty hearings held in the Legislature in 1972, Mr.

Dickie recognized that there appeared to be not only a restructuring of royalty arrangements, but many of the briefs pointed out that there was a need to encourage a greater level of exploration and development activity and petroleum and natural gas lease turnover in the province. Then for some time Mr. Dickie worked with the broad spectrum of companies that make up the oil and gas industry to try to work out how that might be done in a manner that best suited the people of Alberta and the ability of the industry to adapt to the changes. Mr. Speaker, I request that hon. members review the

summary which has been distributed. Note that the new tenure system essentially has six major aspects: first, that there would be one form of exploration agreement which would supersede the present five; that new petroleum and natural gas leases will have initial terms of five years. Leases in the past have been 21 years, and in 1963 were shortened to 10 years. There is also a provision in the bill for allowing extension of a lease from year to year should a lessee provide adequate security in return for conducting drilling.

The present 10-year petroleum and natural gas leases will be subjected to drilling requirements, and the holders of those leases will be served with notices to drill on a phased-in basis. One other feature of bill is that the holders of the present 10- and 21-year petroleum and natural gas leases will be required to sever the rights below the deepest production at the end of the terms of those leases, and in that way return to the Crown or explore rights that traditionally have been held by production in the past and then had attention paid to them near the late years of their productive life.

We trust that by the new proposals these deeper rights will be subject to active exploration, and hopefully development, much sooner. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a few comments, I certainly intend to support the principle of Bill 55 on second reading. It was interesting — I was looking back to some of the briefs presented during the royalty hearings in 1972, Mr. Speaker. The Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contrac tors presented a brief. Among the points they made at the time was that there has to be a faster turnover. I recall listening to that presentation.

While not being overly sympathetic to the representatives of the industry, I thought that here was a group of people in the practical end of the drilling part of the business, and the brief they made — particularly as it related to modification of our whole leasing system — was really a very good one. So I intend to support the principle of Bill 55. However, I would raise two or three points and ask the minister to respond. Quite obviously, Bill 55 represents the other side of ALPEP. I suppose one could classify ALPEP as the carrot. To a certain extent, Bill 55 represents the stick.

Clearly, it has been interpreted that way, to the extent that we are saying to companies, get busy and drill, or else. It seems to me that's fair enough. However, the questions I want to raise with the minister relate first of all to the very broad powers the minister has in this act. The minister gives a very nice introduction, a very quiet soft sell not to upset anybody here. But if we read the bill, Mr. Speaker, we are authorizing the minister now to have powers which before he would have shared with Executive Council.

I realize if you're going to make this kind of system work, the minister has to have some flexibili ty, to borrow an expression we hear quite often in this Legislature. But, Mr. Speaker, without getting into the clause-by-clause study of the bill during second reading, I'm sure the minister would agree that in Bill 55 we are voting him rather wide powers. I would simply ask the minister when he concludes debate on this legislation to advance the reasons, in the judgment of the government, that the rather substantial additional powers have to be granted to the minister.

I realize this is something that could perhaps be raised during committee stage, but I'm concerned enough about one specific part of this bill as a matter of principle that I'd like to raise it now, and urge the minister to respond. It deals with

Section 112. A company can obtain a new petroleum and natural gas lease by tender, going through the normal approach we've seen in this province, but — and the "but" is this — where "the Minister considers the granting of the lease warranted in the circumstances". Mr. Speaker, I would really ask the minister to respond and advise the House exactly what that means, what kind of powers we are going to be giving the minister that are not presently held. If this were widely used, it seems to me we could in fact be circumventing the public auction system which has developed over the years.

I realize that doesn't apply to natural gas, but as I understand it, it has at least applied to petroleum leases. The other question I would ask the minister to advise us on is the business of earning. As things stand right now, as I look over the explanation sheet, companies can earn up to 50 per cent. That will now be changed to up to 100 per cent of the lease geography. I would ask the minister to tell the Assembly the reasons for that change, because it does seem — to me, anyway — to be a rather important departure from existing policy of the gov ernment, both this government and the former administration.

I would conclude my remarks by saying that by and large I think the provisions of Bill 55 are useful. They will arm the government with sufficient muscle to ensure that companies plough back a reasonable

May 18, 1976 ALBERTA HANSARD 1391 portion of their profits in exploration and development in Alberta. When I look over the statistics the minister tabled during subcommittee estimates, I don't think anyone can be sanguine about the fact that a very large part of the after-tax profits are being used for things other than exploration and develop ment in Alberta. As a matter of fact, there has been very little change — in percentage terms anyway, Mr. Speaker — between 1973, before the great windfall in petroleum prices, and the present. Pretty obvious ly, some kind of action has to be taken.

But again, in taking that action, Mr. Speaker, however well- motivated the government may be — and for that matter, however much I may agree with the objective behind the move — I think it is incumbent upon the Assembly to be very careful before we broaden the base of power of any minister. We have to know, as a result of carefully reasoned arguments, why the course the government is suggesting is necessary.

Again I look through the bill, and without getting involved in the detailed sections, in place after place and provision after provision we are arming the minister with rather substantial additional authority. Mr. Speaker, in my judgment it's incumbent on the minister, when he concludes debate, to make the case for that additional authority. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make three very brief comments. The first one is that generally I think the amendments are a step in the right direction.

I suppose it would be fair to summarize the kind of reaction I've got: those people in the smaller com panies have been more enthusiastic than the larger, more integrated companies. That is likely a fairly reasoned response. I must say that I had to slip out for a moment or two; perhaps in his opening remarks the minister touched on the kind of consultation that went on between the industry and the government. I am well aware that this has been a matter of some concern to some sections of the industry for an extended period of time. The second comment I'd like to make deals with

Section 121. I raise it now so that perhaps the minister will comment later on, in committee perhaps tonight or tomorrow. It deals with this question of application re continuation of lease. My question to the minister is: what kind of criteria other than the criteria included in the bill is it the minister's inten tion to use? Perhaps we can get into that during committee study.

The third point I want to raise is a question of similar nature to that of the Member for Spirit River-Fairview, and that's the question of giving the minister a considerable amount of power to act with ministerial prerogative as opposed to having to act through order in council previously. As I see the order in council route, frankly the big advantage is that there's the opportunity for the orders in council to be made public. I suppose there's also the advantage of some other input. My question really is: Mr.

Minister, what was the government's reasoning for feeling that it wouldn't go the order in council route, as opposed to leaving an increasing number of matters to the discretion of the minister? MR. SPEAKER: May the hon. minister conclude the debate? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the two members who have discussed the bill in second reading. Actually, I guess the common question was the discretionary powers that may be increased by this legislation. I must say that I had some concerns, as did the government, in considering additional discre tionary powers.

But I should point out to the hon. members that if they review the second part of the

summary which I distributed, much of the discre tionary powers are existing legislation now being repeated, because parts of the bill must be repeated to take care of those leases and exploration agree ments that are still in existence. For instance, the very one the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview mentioned, 112, is just a repeat of an existing piece of legislation. It is one that industry and the government have lived with for some time, and it has worked out well. But there are other discretionary matters.

It just seemed to me, in recommending to my cabinet colleagues in caucus, that certain matters are unfore seeable, and you can't get them into legislation. Some of them, in fact, were tried. The legislation was becoming virtually unworkable. I find that the present bill is and will be confusing to a lot of people who are not familiar with the original legislation, and that's one of the reasons for the

summary. But I just want to point out that there's very little new discretionary power in the act. The majority of it was already in the act, in existing legislation, and is now being repeated. Some is, and it's because it's so difficult to foresee the variety of circumstances that will face a lessee, with weather, with the depth of drilling that will be necessary, with the new features of the legislation which involve the severing of deep rights. It was very difficult to foresee all the circum stances that would face companies, to try to capture all those circumstances within legislation.

Indeed, you will notice we have provided considerable scope for regulations. Even to capture them by regulation, I think, would be virtually impossible. Therefore, in many cases now a company or an individual comes in with a set of circumstances and says, look, here is my problem: a bridge is out, my lease runs out, I can't get on the location. The circumstances can hardly be described in legislation or regulations, and discre tionary rights for the minister appear to be the only way to deal with those circumstances. So I can only say that it has been kept to a minimum.

I'd be interested in the hon. members' pointing out to me in committee study of the bill areas in which they feel it could be in some way dangerous or too broad. I'd be happy to look at each of them. Mr. Speaker, there was also a question regarding the new theory that you can earn 100 per cent of a drilling licence by drilling,

whereas in past cases and some circumstances you could only earn 50 per cent. I guess the philosophy now is that the industry in Alberta has matured to the point that we want dril ling, and for drilling we're prepared to have additional rights earned. The previous thinking, or one part of the previous thinking, was that you would have only 50 per cent earned. Fifty per cent would revert to the Crown; it would then be posted for a Crown lease sale and increase dollars that way. In the early

1392 ALBERTA HANSARD May 18, 1976 development years quite a bit of money has been brought into the Provincial Treasury through lease sales. However, as I pointed out, our belief now is that drilling is the answer; that for more drilling we're prepared to have more land earned, and the size of the earning is controlled by the amount of drilling; and the belief that there are only so many dollars to be spent, and if they're going to be spent either on drilling or on purchasing leases, we again prefer that those dollars be spent on drilling, so that we find the remaining reserves within the province. The hon.

Leader of the Opposition raised the question of consultation. While he was out I pointed out that right after the royalty hearings held in 1972, much of the work that went on, leading to this legislation, was the result of hard work by the previous Minister of Mines and Minerals.

He carried on consultation and had his staff carry on consulta tion, starting shortly after those royalty hearings, because many of the briefs pointed out that royalty was one of the things that needed to be reassessed; but the lease turnover, the ability to sit on leases for a long period of time and go to other parts of the world or Canada to explore, was not in the best interests of Alberta. Therefore, over a period of two and a half to three years, Mr.

Dickie carried out a considerable amount of consultation with the broad spectrum of industry — that is, from individuals to small companies to large companies which were in other resource develop ments as well as oil and gas — and tried to work out a new lease tenure system to which they could adapt and which was in the best interests of the province. So it has been a long period of consultation. At some stage, you finally have to stop consulting and make some decisions, but I'd say it's certainly been adequate.

These amendments would probably have been brought in by the previous Minister of Mines and Minerals, except his attention was diverted from this area by the upheaval in energy policy matters that has occurred and did occur with the export tax, many of the legislative and jurisdictional policy problems with the federal government, and the dramatic increases in the Middle East and world oil and gas prices. If there hadn't been a diversion of attention, I think these lease tenure changes would probably have been in the House under the jurisdiction of the previous minister.

Under 121, I think it is best that we get into that during committee study of the legislation. As for the question about orders in council, again I would like to have it pointed out to me where we've moved from order in council to ministerial right. Again during committee study I'd be pleased to consider those. Other than that, Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the House to support second reading of Bill 55. [Motion carried; Bill 55 read a second time] Bill 58 The Natural Gas Price Administration Amendment Act, 1976 MR. GETTY: Mr.

Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 58, The Natural Gas Price Administration Amendment Act, 1976. As I pointed out in first reading of this legislation, it really is the sister legislation, or duplicate in fact, of The Natural Gas Pricing Agreement Amendment Act. The original Natural Gas Price Administration Act has not been proclaimed, nor would we see it being proclaimed unless the Government of Alberta is unable to enter into an agreement with the federal government on natural gas pricing in Canada. How ever, obviously the changes inherent in Bill 49 need also to be made for Bill 58.

In the event that we're unable to enter into an agreement with the federal government, we would require a natural gas price administration act to fall back on in order to have the ability to control prices of Alberta's natural gas. They are administrative changes for greater efficiency, and they duplicate Bill 49. I ask members to support second reading of the bill. [Motion carried, Bill 58 read a second time] Bill 2 The Appropriation Act, 1976 MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 2, The Appropriation Act, 1976. Speaking on the principle of the bill, Mr.

Speaker, it will provide the funds that have been approved by the Committee of Supply. [Motion carried; Bill 2 read a second time] Bill 24 The Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1976 MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 24, The Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1976. It would be my intention, Mr. Speaker, to hold this bill in committee to receive some comment on one or two of the bills that are amended by this act. This is an omnibus bill. It amends several acts of this Legislature. The first is The Alberta Evidence Act.

That amendment is to implement a recommen dation of the Institute of Law Research and Reform to deal with the matter of the admissibility of certain evidence; that is, the evidence of the conviction of any person for an offence. There is a general rule of evidence that evidence of a criminal conviction is not admissible in subsequent civil proceedings to prove the facts in which the conviction is founded, where those facts are an issue in the civil proceedings. This amendment would change that. The second amendment is a minor amendment to The Expropriation Act, to clarify the original intent.

There are some minor changes. We're making uni form certain notice provisions with respect to unoc cupied and occupied lands concerning notice of possession. The third is an amendment to The Garagemen's Lien Act. Here it's intended to allow garagemen's liens to be filed against farm vehicles which are not self-propelled, to allow them to be filed for the repair or supply of motor vehicle parts, to allow liens where the garageman performs repairs away from the premises of the garageman, to shorten the time in which a lien may be registered, and to allow a time within which a lien must be filed to run, subject to

May 18, 1976 ALBERTA HANSARD 1393 the rights of third parties accrued to that period. It is on latter point that we may be proposing an amendment. I'd like to receive some public comment on that. For that reason, I would be proposing to hold this particular bill. Next is an amendment to The Pension Benefits Act, which is to strike out a redundant section. The next is an amendment to The Trustee Act, which will allow the holder of a registered retirement savings plan to designate a beneficiary by simple execution of an appropriate form, just as is done with life insurance and for employee benefit plans.

Here again, there may be comment from those affected. Finally, Mr. Speaker, an amendment to The Wills Act would permit Canada, on behalf of Alberta, to enter into an international convention providing for a uniform law with respect to the form of an interna tional will. It sets up a registry in the province, and the contracting states will be recognized by a form of validity or by formal arrangement between the nation states.

The will will be recognized internationally, if it's drawn and attested according to the rules set out in the convention, which are a part of this bill. [Motion carried; Bill 24 read a second time] Bill 52 The Manpower Development Act DR. HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, in the introduction of the bill, I pointed out that it does three things in particu lar.

I should like to expand on them briefly with one intent only, and that's to assist all hon. members to discuss, show alternatives, and assist me, the gov ernment, and the department in any way possible to put in place the most effective possible program of training people in Alberta. The three major parts are the following. The first is the manpower programs and services.

This outlines those programs and services for which the portfolio has responsibility, in particular the following: as far as possible, to ensure a comprehen sive range of manpower programs and services in the areas of training; to assist employers to obtain and develop employees; and to attempt to develop and maintain a balance in labor supply and demand. That, sir, has to do with

Part 1.

Part 2 has to do with trade training and certifica tion. In this area we have an amalgamation of three previous bills: The Apprenticeship Act, The Trades men's Qualification Act, and The Welding Act. In part, this intended statute combines the three. There are historical reasons why they are different, but the evolution of trade training — apprenticeship in par ticular, but other programs as well — leads to the conclusion that one statue better meets the intent of the programs and services than do three. Mr.

Speaker, in addition to the amalgamation of the three statutes, it specifically provides for appren ticeship training and introduces new provisions for prerequisite training for apprenticeship, upgrading of tradesmen, and updating of qualified tradesmen. There is a significant difference between upgrading and updating. The statute provides for the require ment of both, with the particular intent of assuring performance standards and safety. Mr. Speaker, it also provides for certification.

This can be either voluntary on the part of people deemed to be in an occupation, or compulsory if the proficiency level requires that kind of certification — again, relating to safety and standards of performance. The third

section provides a unique advisory council to the ministry. Mr. Speaker, this advisory council will advise the minister on all such matters as may relate to the notion and the concept and the fact of manpower.

Part 2 retains the apprenticeship board and the tradesmen's qualifications board, but it now combines them as a proper consequence of placing these statutes into one piece of legislation. We will now have one board, which will be the Alberta apprenticeship and trade certification board. If I could conclude, then, by stating that

Part 2, which has to do in particular with the training of apprentices and the qualification requirements and certification of journeymen, is in three divisions. Mr. Speaker, the first division designates the trades for those trades where designation is deemed appropri ate. Division 2 establishes standards for the trades. Division 3 articulates the nature of the certificates of qualification, which would show that a particular candidate who has met those requirements be so certified. Mr. Speaker and members of the House, I'll be pleased to discuss this bill on second reading. DR.

BUCK: I'd like to say a word or two on this bill, and indicate to the minister some concerns I have in areas that are sort of similar. I'd like to say to the minister I'm pleased to see that these sections are coming in under The Manpower Development Act. The point I'd like to make to the minister is that the constituency I represent has highly intensified dairy farming and some of the small farming areas. Mr. Minister, for many years now there's been a request that we go into a straight apprenticeship program, similar to what we have in some of the other trades, for training farm workers.

I think maybe the hon. minister will remember a man by the name of Mr. Reeve from the Josephburg area, who made an excellent presentation in relation to this at the Jubilee Auditorium. It seems we're really getting to the point when our farmers are retiring and getting to be close to the age of retirement that we can provide financial means and services through the district agriculturist. But we have to provide some type of training for young farmers. Many, many young men would aspire to be farmers who just do not have the expertise. Maybe they've been raised in the cities.

They've possibly taken some short courses. I would suggest to the minister that we could possibly look at a regular apprenticeship program with some type of relationship between government and the farming community as it is now. At the same time, it has been suggested to me many times by the dairy farmers in my constituency that they are running a $100,000 or $200,000 operation and just can't get qualified help.

The suggestion from those people was that you could also go into some type of apprenticeship program — very similar, again, to welders, electricians, and so on — so they can have direct training, and come up with some type of certificate that would indicate Mr. John Doe is a qualified dairyman. It's a business in which you can't just turn a $100,000 or $200,000 operation

1394 ALBERTA HANSARD May 18, 1976 over to anybody and expect these cows to produce the way they should. These are some of the areas of concern, Mr. Minister. Along this vein, sort of beside this legislation, I would also like to know how we're making out with the training of heavy equipment operators and people in the oil businesses. I know a program was in effect at one time. I'd like to know if these two programs are still in effect.

A friend of mine who is a graduate engineer working in one of the large chemical plants in the Fort Saskatchewan area said to me, "If my son came to me and asked, 'Dad, what should I do?', the first thing I'd tell him is, 'Don't go into engineering or any of the professions. Go into the trades.'" With the large developments we now have in Alberta, that's the way to go. Anybody who has had a house built lately or had any industrial wiring or any plumbing done will know it sure beats teaching school or even fixing teeth or taking out appendixes.

But it's certainly a fact of life that the trades have been elevated to the position that I believe they rightfully hold. So I say to the minister, these are some of the areas of concern I have. I'm certainly supporting the bill in its present context. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the bill in general, I certainly approve the bill in principle. Certainly the whole trade practice and apprenticeship bill over a period of time has been very beneficial to many individuals in the province. However, there is one concern I'd like to raise with the minister.

It's more with regard to the administra tion of the act and the apprenticeship program rather than the legislation itself. As I understand it, a person who enters into the apprenticeship program must do two things to qualify for his papers. First of all he must pass a written exam and, secondly, he must pass his practical. Just very quickly looking back at some of my notes of a case I dealt with in my constituency in December 1975, at that time I became very concerned with the implementation of the policy.

In solving the problem, at that time I talked to officials in Edmonton, the director in Edmonton, two or three people in Calgary. I went back and forth two or three times and finally put my finger on who was to make the decision and had made what at that time I felt [was] the right decision, and I found that it could be made. What concerned me very much — and I should give a little background to the minister so he understands the case. This young fellow from my constituency was taking apprenticeship training in sheet-metal welding in Calgary.

At the time of calling me, he had passed his examination with a mark of around 75 per cent, which qualifies him. He had spent a number of hours in training. At the time he was employed as a sort of interim apprentice — I'm not sure what the terminology is at that point — with a private company. The private company said, you're doing a great job, we want to hire you full time and give you full wages, but you haven't got your papers.

So the young fellow made a number of attempts through the department in Cal gary to get his papers, appealed to them, discussed the matter with them, and certainly at one point it got a little heated. At that point I sort of interceded — and I did it by telephone — and said now, come on, let's look at this thing rationally. I asked two questions of the people in Calgary. One, has he successfully completed his examination? Yes, he has. Has he successfully worked at his practical and shown to you that he has done an adequate job? Yes, he has. Then I said, well, what is the problem? Why doesn't he get his papers?

Well, the problem lies in the fact that we feel that X number of hours are necessary in practical training. A number of people have done this. Other appren tices have gone through this process. We feel that X number of hours . . . So at that point I said, okay, I don't agree with you. Well, we spent about half an hour on the telephone discussing the philosophy of X number of hours of training after a guy has proven he can do the job. At that point I said, well, you make a recommendation to your superior, and I'll talk to your superior. If it has to go from there, we'll go to the minister.

Well, at that point we got to the nub of the decision, and the decision was made to give the young fellow his papers. What concerned me — and I indicated to these employees that what I understand is that you really haven't got the clearance or assurance in the policy directive that you can give or provide the papers for a person once he has (

a) written his exam and (

b) shown that he is capable of doing work. I said, it's just not clear, as I understand it. I said, I'd like to follow the matter up and discuss it with either the minister or the director. I felt that since the opportunity was here, I wanted to raise the matter at this time. The point just doesn't follow with me that once a person reaches qualifica tions, a time factor has nothing to do with his capability in the field.

The second thing is that I'm sure that if this young fellow — I don't take any credit myself — hadn't, say, phoned me or had the aggressiveness to, say, phone the minister, he would have had to wait two to three months before he would have gotten his papers. During that time he would have lost a lot of money to support his family and his livelihood, and most likely would have somewhat jeopardized his position with the firm he was working with. If that continues to be or is a matter of concern within the department and the minister is receiving letters, I feel he should clarify that matter.

Certainly it will be of great benefit to the program itself. MRS. CHICHAK: Mr. Speaker, in considering The Manpower Development Act and the area of man power development, there is always a need to look to the future. We must try to anticipate the technologi cal changes that will occur and prepare ourselves for them, for there is always a lead time between the planning and initiation of a program and the actual results that such a program is designed to achieve.

A few days ago in the House, I indicated that statistics or projections or predictions would lead one to believe that by 2015 some 50 per cent of Albertans would be employed in jobs that have not yet been created. But as well, in the future the average person may have three or four different careers. Employ ment areas will frequently be phased out and replaced by new areas that will require the workers to develop new skills. Training and retraining will become a constant process. Thus our manpower of today must serve two vital needs if we are to

May 18, 1976 ALBERTA HANSARD 1395 prepared for tomorrow. One, research must continue so Albertans can be provided with sufficient information on employment trends and opportunities and receive expert career counselling. Reliable occupational forecasts would also allow government and industry the time to plan programs to meet labor shortages and provide incen tives to attract people to such fields. There must be a flexibility in training and education programs to allow for a maximum of transferability between occupations. The importance of these ideas is already evident in such projects as Syncrude.

Much special expertise currently is, and in the future will be, required. Some of that expertise is being imported from other prov inces and other countries, because we have not been able to induce enough Albertans to enter these fields, for whatever reason. As the project goes through its various stages, there may no longer be a need for some of the workers in specific jobs. They may require retraining before they can move on to further employment. It would be a waste of training facilities and of the worker's time and capabilities if the worker had to go back to square one for his training.

Here there is a need for a mechanism to assess how the worker's previous training and experience could be applied as credit toward the requirements of the new employ ment area. This could help remove some of the rigidities and artificial barriers to employment that presently exist in some fields. This might be seen as constructing a career ladder, providing Albertans with the means to benefit from the changing nature of our society and encouraging them to strive for the optimum in their employment field and in their personal development.

The need to plan for, adjust to, and accept change is very real in a province such as Alberta, with its rapid growth rate and its increasingly broadening and complex economic structure. I feel our manpower policy reflects this need. Our educational institutions must respond accordingly. I believe Bill 52 provides a mechanism for responding in the area of trades and certain other occupations. I certainly support this bill, Mr. Speaker. DR. HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, I should like very briefly to comment on the points made by the hon. members.

I appreciate the comments from the Member for Clover Bar and the support for the statute that he reflected. With respect to the farm apprenticeship program, I wish to say to him that I in my former portfolio and the Deputy Premier in his previous portfolio as Minister of Agriculture put together a program called the green certificate that's now pursued, much more devoutly than it had been initially, by the present Minister of Agriculture.

While in the end result it's not exactly like a welding journeyman, the notion and the quality servicing and supervision experience and some of the relationships of government and employ ee are modelled on the apprenticeship model. I'm familiar with the situation in the dairy industry, mostly because I visit some friends who own them, and I know the problem. It's a matter of getting people who will want to work in that enterprise. If we can get them, we have the wherewithal in terms of legislation and support in other ways to train these people.

To comment on the heavy-duty equipment opera tors, this is one of our most significant training programs in Alberta today, as is the oil rig training program with the base program on the south side of Edmonton. I have no difficulty appreciating the problems out lined by the hon. Member for Little Bow. He gives me proper direction in terms of the administration, and I will certainly look to that. I should mention two significant changes in the statute, Mr. Speaker. One is that an appeal procedure is written into the statute.

The appeal in matters like those will be from the decision of the director to the apprenticeship board. The second change is that the chairman of the apprenticeship board, or in this case apprenticeship and tradesmen's qualification board, will be a citizen from somewhere in Alberta, in contrast to the director being the chairman. This is simply a reflection of what we and others believe to be an effective way of doing it, rather than having a civil servant as a chairman of the board.

I certainly appreciate the comments of the Member for Edmonton Norwood, who in large measure reflected the attitude and the intent of this piece of legislation. I simply make the commitment that we will continue to expand the programs, make the institutions and the worksite and workshop training places sensitive to the needs of Albertans and make this piece of legislation a significant one in terms of responding to Alberta in the years to come, in the way the hon.

Member for Clover Bar indicated; which places the tradesmen in a very significant and important role in Alberta today. [Motion carried; Bill 52 read a second time] MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I move we call it 4:28. MR. SPEAKER: Does the Assembly agree? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 1. Mr. Horsman proposed the following motion to the Assembly:

Be it resolved that a select committee of the Assembly be established to recommend on: (1) the use of ordinary language in legislation and legal documents as opposed to formal legal language; (2) whether the best balance between public under standing of the law and legal correctness is established by the current use of formal legal language; (3) changes in specific methods of drafting; (4) the better use of introductory notes during the passage of bills through the Legislature; (5) how to increase public understanding of new laws by the use of white papers or draft laws. [Adjourned debate: Mr. Taylor] MR.

TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to delay the House very long on this motion. I support the resolu tion. I would like to see it followed in the legislation in this Legislature, particularly in regard to explana tory notes and setting out on the opposite page the

1396 ALBERTA HANSARD May 18, 1976

section that is being amended. Sometimes this is done, sometimes it isn't. When it isn't done, it takes a great deal of extra time to dig out the statutes, to find the proper section, et cetera. The better use of introductory notes is a very excellent thing. A general statement at the beginning of bills saying the object of the bill, what we want it to do, again saves a great deal of time, and immediately you know whether or not you're interested in the details of the bill. I'm speaking more on behalf of the people outside the Legislature than on behalf of those inside the Legislature.

Like most members, I send bills out to various people in the constituency. Many of them tell me that many of the bills are meaningless to them, because it says it's amending some

section and the

section is not even noted in the bill. They don't have a set of statutes and so on. For the benefit of the people outside, I think we should make a definite practice of including the

section being amended, even though it's a reasonably long section; also to put an introductory note saying what we expect the bill to do, in a general way. Then people outside can read the bill and know whether or not they want to labor through the details of particular clauses. When we talk about the use of ordinary language, I think that's something everybody supports. It's easier said than done though, because it's important to get the precise shade of meaning to the greatest degree when laws are being written. If we don't do that, we simply leave the door open for several meanings from the same word.

One of our difficulties in the English language is that one word can mean a number of things. Take the word "love" in the English language. We use the same word with several connotations. Love can be a love between a mother and her child. It can be love between a husband and his wife. It can be love between a brother and his brother. It can be love between a young man and a young woman. All different connotations.

I've never studied Greek, but I was told by a person who did study Greek language that there are three words denoting the precise meaning: one the love between a man and a woman, one the love between a mother and a child, and one the love between sister and brother. In the English language, where we have one word that denotes all three — and there are many, many words like this — it behooves us to try to be precise when we are setting out the words in a statute that's going to involve somebody's property or somebody's concern. Many times these words are spelt exactly the same.

Sometimes they sound the same, but they're not spelt the same. I remember, when teaching in a rural school several years ago, you had to prepare a great deal of seat work to make sure the grades that weren't receiving instruction at the moment were advancing and doing something worth while. In one Grade 3 class where we had learned all the words involved, I said draw a line. That's l-i-n-e. I went over and I said to John, "You haven't finished yet?" He said, "No, it's pretty hard." I said, "It's not very hard.

You try to get it done before I finish the next class." When I got back the next time he had something that looked like a dog. I said, "What's that?" He said, "That's a lion." He had misunderstood l-i-n-e for l-i-o-n. This isn't common just in school classes. This is very, very definite from people who come into this country from other countries. They note it far more than we do. I don't know whether anybody has ever endeavored to teach a young Chinese immigrant a few things about the English language. It's sometimes very, very amusing.

They sense right away the wrong meaning of a word that sounds the same and sometimes is even spelled the same. So I believe the hon. Member for Medicine Hat-Redcliff has done a real service in bringing this resolution to the attention of the legislators of this province. I hope the legislative counsels will pay attention to it too, because that is where much of the actual good of this resolution can be put into practice. I support the resolution. MR. LITTLE: Mr.

Speaker, today we are presented with an opportunity to assess the total integrated mobility of a synchronized, incremental concept relat ing to functional management options in a parallel monitored projection. AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear. What does that mean? MR. LITTLE: Needless to say, a balanced third- generation time phase will affect total reciprocal programming. It is my hope that a compatible, transi tional contingency can be developed. [interjections] Mr.

Speaker, in the event that you do not perceive these few words to be sagacious, I hope that they do not invoke your discountenance, for they are intended merely to achieve bewilderment. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak today on Motion No. 1 on the Order Paper. I will confine myself to the first portion of the motion by the hon. Member for Medicine Hat-Redcliff:

Be it resolved that a select committee of this Assembly be established to recommend on: (1) the use of ordinary language in legislation and legal documents as opposed to formal legal language. Mr. Speaker, there is an often-quoted rule of law that ignorance of the law is no excuse. However, it would require many, many excuses to adhere to that rule. In addition to the 600-odd statutes that are contained in the Criminal Code of Canada, every province in this country has its own laws and regula tions, each province its own vehicle and highway traffic act, or highway traffic act, whatever they care to call it.

We have countless municipal by-laws. In the United States, it is estimated that there are over 30,000 criminal statutes, and there appears to be a major problem understanding them. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, during the last two days I have been attempting to read a judgment by the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia on an appeal. In order to get through this judgment, I had the dictionary at my elbow, a list of Latin legal terms, and made numerous calls to the Law Clerk. I'm still not convinced that I understand that judgment.

Not only is it difficult to know of the existence of a law, but having once crossed that hurdle the average citizen then comes to the problem of attempting to understand the law. All professionals have their own vocabulary or jargon, possibly to guard against intru sion by the less knowledgeable of the public. Lawyers are no exception. Possibly, they are the worst offenders.

May 18, 1976 ALBERTA HANSARD 1397 Mr. Speaker, let me read you a list of Latin legal phrases that are in common use today. Let me challenge you, does the average citizen understand them: prima facie, sub judice, mutatis mutandis, ex officio, inter vivos, per autre vie, ex parte. AN HON. MEMBER: The lawyers don't know either. MR. GHITTER: Not the way he pronounces them. MR. LITTLE: I checked the pronunciations with the Law Clerk, Mr. Speaker. It is quite noteworthy, Mr.

Speaker, that when newspaper articles concerning court procedures are published, they usually place a definition of the Latin term in brackets following it, and often this definition is none too precise. I therefore would suggest the mere necessity of providing a definition indicates that they recognize the lack of knowledge by the general public. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that there is a very serious responsibility to be placed on lawmakers to make certain that the law is understood by all persons. For example, in the well-known case of statements, we have a trial within a trial.

During that trial within the trial, it is incumbent upon the law, or incumbent upon the prosecutor, to convince the court that not only did the person so charged hear the statutory warning, but that he must understand the statutory warning, and the presiding judge takes a great deal of care to make absolutely certain that he understands the statutory warning. But possibly the poor soul didn't under stand the charge before he even arrived at the statutory warning. However, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the propo sition of placing legal documents in ordinary lan guage poses certain problems.

Generally legal terms are precise in their meanings while ordinary lan guage frequently has many meanings. Mr. Speaker, don't think I'm trying to steal the thunder of the hon. Member for Drumheller, but I did look up one particu lar word today, the word "strike". In the Webster dictionary, as an intransitive verb, it has 18 interpre tations; as a transitive verb, 24

interpretations; and as a noun, 11

interpretations. Just think of the prob lems to a person attempting to learn our language. There are over a million entries in the Oxford dictionary, and it is believed that they have an average of 3.5 meanings and many of them as many as 11. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, communication or the lack of same is recognized as one of the major problems in our modern society. Although in the Oxford dictionary there are over one million entries, with three to five meanings, which equals 3 to 5 million words, the average person possesses a vocabulary of 5,000 words, and it is believed that he uses less than 500.

A very eminent student of language, Dr. Krotke, estimates that the average citizen has a mere 800 words in his vocabulary. By making legal documents easier to read and easier to comprehend, are we therefore encouraging illiteracy? Why do we have the one million entries in our dictionary if we're not going to use them? Mr. Speaker, we have had a number of debates in this Legislature expressing some dismay at the inabil ity of our university entrants to communicate effec tively, especially by way of the written word.

In our efforts to make the legal terms more easily under stood, I hope that we don't further erode our ability to communicate. By attempting to make the language more simple, more usable, are we catering to the lowest common denominator in our society, or the slowest ship in the convoy? I think it is most important, Mr. Speaker, that we attempt to make the law understandable to all. However, the law not only must read but must mean the same 10 years, 20 years, or 30 years from today as it does today. Contemporary colloquialisms are just not acceptable in legal documents.

I feel this is a most important motion, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Medicine Hat-Redcliff for bringing this problem to the attention of the Legislature. There fore, Mr. Speaker, I enthusiastically support this motion. MR. KIDD: Mr. Speaker,

whereas the hon. Member for Medicine Hat-Redcliff may have been seen to and indeed has duly made representation to this Assem bly concerning certain matters related to the clarity and/or lack of clarity related to the use of the English language, therefore removing all obfuscation thereof, it may be stated that I, in view of all that has been said to the present, state that this resolution is supported without equivocation. Or, in the immortal words of the Member for Calgary Millican, you betcha, I agree. MR. HYLAND: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to take

part in this debate, I'm surely not going to start with the many big words that the hon. Member for Calgary — I've got to look at my note, I forget where he's from — Calgary McCall did. Last year the statutes of Alberta were increased by about 850 pages. Presumably this increase will make the statutes far more easily understood and plug some of the loopholes that exist. I can recall a few years ago, when I was on town council, many times you'd be in question about how far you could go with by-laws and such. You'd look in the statutes and you'd think, well, there should be an answer there.

After you'd looked for a while, sometimes you weren't too sure. Sometimes you were sure you had gone a little too far. But it was never really totally clear because it's printed in a language probably most easily understood by someone who has trained his mind in this kind of language for a number of years. I think one example came up in this session in amendments to Bill 54, as presented on May 17. For someone like me who is not a trained lawyer, the amendment reads:

Section 28(

b) of the bill is amended by striking out the words "subsections 4 and 5" and by substituting therefor the words "subsection 4 and part (b)" by renumbering the proposed subsection 5 of

Section 99 of the act as subsec tion 4.1. Mr. Speaker, I looked at the

section in question, and I don't see the difference of numbering it from

Section 5 to

Section 4(1). As I say, maybe the legal minds — or as the slang term has been tossed around here, the legal beagles — have a good reason for it. Maybe some of them don't totally agree either. My honorable friend from Calgary Buffalo says, certainly they do. I think another came up in the House a short while ago, Mr. Speaker, when the hon. Attorney General

1398 ALBERTA HANSARD May 18, 1976 was asked a question. He said he was terribly busy with the legislative review committee. Just think, if this motion was passed, accepted, and put in ordinary language we could all understand, some of these people who have an extreme workload could turn that job over to some of us and let that much more time go so they could spend it in their departments. I'm sure they would be quite happy to have that much more time to spend. Mr. Speaker, they often say that to mix religion and politics is a bad thing and can get you into a lot of trouble.

That's true, because I have gotten into a lot of trouble arguing religion and politics. But I think one of the things that can really show that language can be changed is that the churches have changed from their old formal language to the modern lan guage. I believe, Mr. Speaker, this kind of language was buried even deeper in their beliefs than legal language is buried in the beliefs of parliamentary procedure. In summation, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to read a couple of verses out of two different Bibles, one the King James Version and one the New English Bible published in, I believe, 1961.

It reads: Let no man deceive you with vain words for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. How many arguments could you get on what that meant? So, we read in the new version: Let no one deceive you with shallow arguments. It is for these things that God's dreadful judgment is coming upon his rebel subjects. Considerably more simple than the previous lan guage. Just one more short one: See that ye walk circumspectfully, not as fools but as wise. Be most careful then how you conduct your selves, like sensible men, not simpletons. How much more plainly, Mr.

Speaker, could it be put than in the ordinary everyday language? I would like to commend the hon. member for bringing this motion forward. I fully support it. I hope all members in turn support it so that we totally understand all the ramifications of the legislation we're working on, that it's understandable by all, and, more so even than that, that it's understandable to the people of the province when they read it and try to figure out what they can do, what they can't do, and what they're doing wrong. Thank you. MR. GHITTER: Mr. Speaker, this has been a very unusual motion presented to the House.

We have had a number of instant experts trying to practise law in here this past day and on March 23 when the hon. Member for Medicine Hat-Redcliff introduced his resolution on ground nuts and gave us a number of

definitions how he regarded the English language should be utilized. I'll explain that in more detail. Aside from the discussion on ground nuts in this resolution, we've had the hon. Member for Drum heller tell us about love and the various

definitions of love, but he neglected to refer to the most popular definition of love. That is zero in tennis, but you ignored that entirely. I just wanted to explain to you that there are other meanings for love. We have also had the ex-policeman of 36 years, the hon. member from Calgary, speak to us in Latin — which was very interesting — mispronouncing all of the Latin phrases many of us hold so dear to our heart and spent many years trying to understand and deal with. They're just dealt with flippantly like they were meaningless little gems to be ridiculed like some mathematical equa tion, Mr. Speaker.

We heard the hon. Member for Banff, who came in with a little bit of slang and a little bit of basic terminology that none of us can understand, but that's another simplification of the English language for us to all enjoy. And yet, at the base of what everyone is endeavor ing to say here, Mr. Speaker, in their subtle criti cisms of the legal profession, they're very basically trying to tell us all that the English language doesn't work, that the English language is imprecise, that the English language is ambiguous, that the English language is illusory, that the English language just doesn't make sense.

And who do they blame it on, Mr. Speaker? The lawyers. Always the lawyers. When in doubt, blame the lawyers. Look at them all, you see. There they are, standing, just applauding like parrots. Going at it, Mr. Speaker. Now I can understand many of the hon. members criticizing the lawyers. I can understand, for example, the medical people who have their own jargon. Have you ever gone to a doctor, Mr. Speaker, and tried to find out what was wrong with you? Have you ever tried to read one of their prescriptions? Have you ever talked to a pharmacist and said, what is this drug I have to have, and why am I taking it?

Have you ever talked to any of them, Mr. Speaker, about what they do? Do you ever hear the doctors being blamed for anything, Mr. Speaker? DR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I'd like to request that you ask the hon. member to restrain his comments on the legal profession. MR. GHITTER: Mr. Speaker, I don't propose to stand here and defend Her Majesty's finest profession. I was merely trying to bring to the attention of the members that I can understand why the hon. Member for Edmonton Kingsway is so sensitive when anyone attacks the language he tries to use.

When you have a sore finger, you've got a metacarpus and all these other things that nobody understands. But do we criticize? Do you ever hear a lawyer criticizing a member of the medical profession? Of course not. An engineer, here right beside me, an engineer. Do you hear him at any time coming forward, Mr. Speaker, to criticize the legal profes sion? Every day I see him. But do I criticize engineer ing? Of course not. I don't understand his jargon. Engineers don't have to speak English, Mr. Speaker, so they're never criticized. Lawyers do.

The tool of a lawyer's trade is the English language, and it's an imprecise, unaffected type of language. Mr. Speaker, I can understand the lack of under standing in other members. But the thing that bothers me most about this resolution is for the hon.

Member for Medicine Hat-Redcliff to stand on his feet to present a resolution of this nature — a man trained in the law, a man who, in his speech, talks in terms of not understanding the difference between a grantor and a grantee, a mortgager or a mortgagee — not to understand those and say they're ambiguous, and suggest that we should change the terminology of the

May 18, 1976 ALBERTA HANSARD 1399 legal profession, to get rid of these terrible problems so that now transferer and transferee are no longer to be applicable, instead they're going to be buyer and seller, if that solves anything. Mr. Speaker, I can take it from the rest of the members, but from a man legally trained in the language . . . Mr. Speaker, I am sending a letter to the Law Society of Alberta to explain what happens in this Legislature. Mr. Speaker, the solution, what do we have . . . DR. BUCK: [Inaudible] MR. GHITTER: You can get up and speak later, if you wish. Mr.

Speaker, no one's inhibiting the Member for Clover Bar from coming forward in this debate and standing up. He's just tired. He doesn't want to stand up. DR. BUCK: [Inaudible] MR. GHITTER: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. I cannot hear the hon. member. Mr. Speaker, what quotes do we have from the hon. Member for Medicine Hat-Redcliff to encourage his case or to present his argument? He states, from The Guinness Book of Records, the most inexplicable statute that deals with the law of ground nuts, Mr. Speaker.

Then to carry forward further, to really drive home his argument, to really bring to our attention that there's a real problem in matters of law, he quotes and circulates page 12 of Time magazine of September 22, 1975, with a precedent of a promis sory note, and suggests that we would be better off if we used a different terminology with our promissory notes. Instead of saying: "I promise to pay on demand the sum of $20 plus interest to John Doe", the hon. Member for Medicine Hat-Redcliff suggests in his address that we should be saying: "If I don't pay an instalment on time, I am in default". Mr.

Speaker, those of us who are lawyers know that you could drive a truck through that promissory note with respect to the loopholes that are there. I think truly, Mr. Speaker, all the Member for Medicine Hat-Redcliff is really endeavoring to do is to confuse the issue to such an extent that the legal profession will make more money than they're making right now. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hurray! MR.

GHITTER: What the hon. member is really trying to do, and what he is really saying, if he would be honest, is that we've made as much money as we can from the present language that's evolved over the past centuries, let's change it all around, let's start all over again, and then let's start a whole new jurispru dence on the law of promissory notes so lawyers can go back to the courts. Mr. Speaker, that is not really the problem, as I understand what the hon. member is trying to deal with today.

I think we really should leave bones to the doctors, we should leave bridges to the engineers, we should leave upper plates to the dentists, and we should leave the money to the farmers. That's really what it's all about. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, the real problem we are facing is merely the fact that, whether some in our society like it or not, when it comes to framing legislation, framing laws, framing contracts, or fram ing what have you, unfortunately a very serious responsibility is built within that structure of the law and contract.

And to deal in terms of imprecise terminology just really isn't good enough. We probably have one of the finest Legislative Counsels in this land. We have an individual and a staff who, when they sit down and try to translate our ambiguous policies into words — that is not an easy thing to do — do a superior job of that. But that takes training. That takes years and years of experience. That takes an understanding of

interpretation of statute. That takes a feeling for the law that only comes with a training and an expertise that comes with years and years of understanding. Mr. Speaker, it's not easy taking the thoughts of this Legislature, or this government, or any govern ment, and putting them into words. That is a very difficult task. You have to find out what the politician wants, and that's not so easy. Once you determine that, you must try to put it into words so that it will work. Those who suggest it's an easy matter to come forward to use ordinary language, whatever that means, to get it into statute, Mr.

Speaker — I think that is really something I have certain reservations about. Let me give you an example. I reached into my drawer and I picked out a bill, any bill. It happened to be The Stray Animals Act, the favorite bill of the Member for Hanna-Oyen. Just a pure coincidence. I opened to any page, and the page happened to be page 5. The

section is

Section 13. I'm sure the Member for Hanna-Oyen knows it by heart, but I'll read it just for the other hon. members.

Section 13 says: Where an inspector impounds livestock, he shall: (

a) where he knows or is able to determine the owner or the last person in possession of the livestock, (

i) notify one or both of them of the impound ment of the livestock, and (ii) by notice in writing warn the owner or the last person in possession of the livestock or both, that unless the expenses referred to in

Section 5 clause (

b) are paid to the inspector within 14 days . . . the livestock will be sold by . . . auction . . . Very simple. I'm sure all the hon. members under stand that. Mr. Speaker, let's assume we wanted to simplify the language. By using the ordinary lan guage referred to in the resolution by the Member for Medicine Hat-Redcliff, how would we go about doing it? I'll try to do it. It would go something like this: Where an inspector grabs pigs, he shall try to locate the owner, or the last person who had the pig, call them and tell them that he'd better pay the expenses or he's gonna lose the pig. Mr.

Speaker, how can we, as a Legislature, use that type of language from the point of view of trying to present to the people that we are intelligent individuals, individuals who are elected because hopefully we understand the English language, and individuals who want to speak in terms of slang or language of the street? There's no such thing as ordinary language any more, Mr. Speaker. The English language is too complicated. The matters we are dealing with in this Legislature are too complex. The concerns we have and the ways we wish to

1400 ALBERTA HANSARD May 18, 1976 express them, Mr. Speaker, are matters that can't be dealt with in the ordinary language of the street. If we are going to reduce our language to the language of the street, I think we would be better to take the suggestion from the hon. member Mr. Little, who suggested that we should try to raise the standards of understanding, not lower our standards, assuming we have them, to deal in terms of a less than ordinary situation. Mr. Speaker, I have a number of reservations about this motion. I think it was well intended.

I think the real motivation behind the mover was other than it appears to be. I think that the legal work in Medicine Hat may not be quite what it used to be. A few more things need to happen down there. But I'd suggest to the hon. Member for Medicine Hat that there's lots of work in the legal profession. Medicine Hat is growing. We're passing 80 bills every session. That's 80 chances you have to describe to your clients, and charge them more money. It's not that difficult. But the solution is what intrigues me, Mr. Speaker, the solution as to what we're going to do if there is this problem.

From the various speakers who have presented a point of view, I assume it is recognized that the language we are using is too complicated, that it can only be understood by lawyers. But the suggestion within the resolution is something to the effect that we establish a select committee of this Assembly to understand that. In other words, 17 men and women, well and true, of this Assembly are going to sit down and try to understand what the Legislative Counsel was interpreting or meaning to say, when well within the debate was the very fact that we can't understand the language. Mr.

Speaker, possibly I could better have understood the situation had we said that a special group of individuals who had expertise, like the hon. Member for Medicine Hat, could come forward, deal with it, and try to simplify matters. That would be a little more understandable. But those who have confused will be the ones who will try to overcome the confusion. Mr. Speaker, I don't know that that really works. Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the comments made to this point, frankly I intend to support the motion, because I truly think there is a little confusion in the law.

I think things are slowing down in the office in Calgary, as well as in Medicine Hat. I think it would be a good idea. On that basis, I commend the Member for Medicine Hat for raising a very interest ing resolution. I'll be happy to vote in favor of it. MR. GOGO: As I rise in my place, Mr. Speaker, I too am not sure whether I am the confuser or the confusee. I deem it a real honor to be able to sit with the law society here and hear the debate among the members about who should be spelling out the language that should go in the legislation.

I think of a comment made recently with regard to the overex penditure at the Olympic site: in view of the fact that the economists projected the costs, if all the economists were laid end to end, they would never reach a conclusion. Now I'm beginning to wonder if all the lawyers were laid end to end, perhaps it would be a good thing. I have a reputation within the Assembly of being a friend of those members of the legal profession, except when I have to pay them. The Member for Calgary Buffalo has twice made reference to making money.

I don't know whether he is aware that the Member for Medicine Hat-Redcliff is having a difficult time of it, but that's not the motivation behind his sponsoring the bill or moving the resolution. I was reminded of a story concerning a lawyer the other day. Percy Foreman, the famous American lawyer, who has defended over 1,200 people at murder trials, was accused by William Kunstler — out of Chicago, who defended the Chicago Seven — that Mr. Foreman was fine, except he charged outrageous fees. Mr.

Foreman responded, "I never yet charged a man more than he had." I don't think that would fall upon either the Member for Calgary Buffalo or the Member for Medicine Hat-Redcliff. I'm somewhat intrigued by the resolution, because I happen to be one of those of lower intellect who understands the words "simple" and "formal". I prefer the word "simple" to "formal". I think the Member for Medicine Hat-Redcliff makes a lot of sense, as he's simply saying to us lay people that as we are the lawmakers in the land, we should be the ones who simplify it, and not leave it to the lawyers.

I'm sure other members of the House have heard many times the number of words used in some of the most famous quotations in history — the number of words in the Lord's Prayer, the number of words in the Gettysburg Address. When we look at some of the bills we debate in this Assembly, we wonder if our Legislative Counsel is not on piecework. I don't mean to infer that if we simplify the language used in the House and in legislation, we'll put them out of work. I'm not nearly as knowledgeable when it comes to the fine points of the law as other learned people here.

However, I must say that I would find it much easier to do some studying on proposed legisla tion if some of the language were simplified. Some of the terms that have been used here — and I've learned a lot of them today — [are] about the lessor and the lessee, and the mortgager and the mortgagee. I don't even know the meaning of those words now. A member down the row from me slipped me a question: do you know what the term "daywear" means? I didn't know what the term "daywear" means. It turns out it's the amount of land that could be planned in one day, from 150 years ago. Perhaps that should stay in.

I don't know. Obviously, it's used in different places. In conclusion, I'd simply like to say I admire the fortitude of the hon. Member for Medicine Hat- Redcliff in moving a resolution like this, because he knew he would spark interest and particularly debate from the Member for Calgary Buffalo. I like the logic of the Member for Calgary Buffalo. All the way through his address on the resolution, there's no doubt he was supporting it all the time. I don't know how he concluded, because he lost me half way through. Mr. Speaker, in

summary I would simply like to say I would like to hear other members of the Assembly make comments on the resolution. I certainly support it. Indeed, it would be a wise thing for Alberta to simplify its legislation. Thanks very much. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I think the debate on the resolution has been an interesting example of exactly the point the hon. Member for Medicine Hat-Redcliff

May 18, 1976 ALBERTA HANSARD 1401 must have had in mind when he framed the resolu tion. We've seen the results of the application of logic by different members of the Legislative Assem bly. I have been interested to hear the members of the legal profession speak this afternoon, particularly the hon. Member for Calgary Buffalo. The point at which he and I diverge is that after speaking against the resolution this afternoon, I'm going to conclude by saying that I am opposed to it. AN HON. MEMBER: You're going to throw us. MR. KING: The hon.

Member for Spirit River- Fairview has been speaking at some length about the cabinet, about ministerial responsibility and collective responsibility. I was very interested in this and so picked up a book by Richard Crossman, entitled Inside View. Richard Crossman, for those of you who don't know him, is a prominent member of the radical left wing of the British Labour Party, and was for some time a member of the British Labour cabinet. He also happens to be a political science scholar, and before being elected to the House of Commons he was for some years a political science professor at Oxford University.

I would have thought that in many respects his view on ministerial responsibility, cabinet responsibility, the law, Parliament, et cetera, would have been compatible with that of the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview. It was interesting that every time he got up to speak yesterday after noon, I was on a different page of the book. Mr. Crossman was taking exactly the opposite point of view to that of the hon. Member for Spirit River- Fairview on almost every occasion. One of the things Mr. Crossman says in his book, which I would like to quote from briefly, is about the value of myth.

That certainly relates to the attitude of the legal profession. The particular myth he is talking about is the myth that surrounds the monarchy, but you can generalize from his comments. "I think it is true most members . . . accept the myth . . . ." Does it make a difference that they accept the myth? "Yes, I think it does." If people really accept the myth and accept the role of the myth and have a relationship to the myth, "undoubtedly that strengthens the standing"; that is, of everything related to the myth. What difference does it make?

"It greatly stabilizes the system." Of course we pay a price for the myth. "But in terms of siphoning off dangerous emotions," the myth has enormous value,

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19760518
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L18 S2 19760518 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	d4483d62d35260e7e1aecd220517f77ea660f8f0

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