Alberta Hansard — 8 November 1977, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 18, Session 3)

19771108

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

November 8, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1945 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Tuesday, November 8, 1977 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SELECT COMMITTEES DR. McCRIMMON: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to pre sent to the Legislature the first annual report of the Select Standing Committee on The Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund Act. This committee, Mr. Speaker, has been a most in teresting and challenging experience for me and the other committee members.

I would like to thank the members for the interest and zeal with which they attacked the problems, and the many, many hours of work they have put in within the past two months. I would also like to thank the ministers who appeared before the committee. They answered all questions put to them and provided whatever documentation the committee requested. Mr. Speaker, about 30 recommendations were received, of which 12 were approved by the commit tee. Those approved were from all parties in the Legislature. Mr.

Speaker, I feel that this committee has done a thorough and competent analysis of the task assigned to it, and it has been a privilege to chair. Copies of the report will be provided for all members. The committee has been informed that minority reports will be filed. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. head: NOTICES OF MOTIONS MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I wish to give oral notice of introduction of three bills scheduled for tomorrow: Bill 97, The Legislative Assembly Amend ment Act, 1977; Bill 101, The Temporary Anti- Inflation Measures Amendment Act, 1977; and Bill 104, The Municipal Government Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 2). head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 256

An Act to Amend The Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill 256,

An Act to Amend The Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act. Briefly, Mr. Speaker, the principle behind Bill 256 is to apply the same rules to corporations residing out side this province as are presently set out for individ uals, so that any corporation that is not headquar tered in Alberta, or owned by a majority of sharehold ers in Alberta, would have the same prohibitions against contributions to Alberta campaigns as pres ently face other Canadians. [Leave granted; Bill 256 read a first time] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. HARLE: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to table the annual report for the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs for the year ended March 31, 1977, as required by statute. MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table the reply to Motion for a Return 165, which is the latest 12 issues of New Buildings, the monthly progress report of all buildings under construction in the province by the provincial government. MR. MOORE: Mr.

Speaker, in an effort to resolve a dispute between the Alberta Hog Producers' Market ing Board and packing plants in this province, on August 22 I commissioned Hu Harries and Associates of Edmonton to do a study into the price relationship between hogs in Alberta and in other points in North America. I'd like to file with the Assembly three copies of that report, and indicate as well that copies will be made available this afternoon to all members. MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a response to Motion for a Return No. 104 and a reply to Question No. 170. MR. BOGLE: Mr.

Speaker, I beg leave to table the reply to Motion for a Return No. 147. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to file with the Legislature Library one copy of a minority report deal ing with the Select Committee on The Alberta Herit age Savings Trust Fund Act. MR. SPEAKER: There's some question in my mind with regard to filings at this stage. The Standing Orders and the routine provide for tabling returns and reports. There seems to be an increasing volume of filings coming in at this stage.

If we have difficulty dealing with the traffic, it may be necessary to have another look at that part of the Standing Orders. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. PURDY: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to introduce to you and to the members of this Assembly some 40 students from the Westview Village School, which is located on the outskirts of the city of Edmonton in the Winterburn area. They are accom panied by their teacher Mr. John Drebit and Mrs. Linda McDougall. They are seated in both galleries. I would ask them to rise and receive the recognition of the House. MR. CHAMBERS: Mr.

Speaker, with your permission, I'd like to introduce 26 grade 6 students from the

1946 ALBERTA HANSARD November 8, 1977 Kensington Elementary School in the Edmonton Cal- der constituency. They're accompanied by their teachers Miss Kersell and Mr. Sattler. They're seated in the public gallery. I'd like to ask that they stand and receive the recognition of the members. MR. WOLSTENHOLME: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure this afternoon to introduce to you and to the members of this Legislature 32 members from the Cayley Junior High School, which is in the Highwood con stituency. Their teachers Norma Dudgeon, Arnold Nugent, and Tom Bown are with them. They are in the members gallery.

I would ask that they rise and receive the welcome of this Assembly. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Foreign Land Ownership DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address the first question to the Associate Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. Has the minister been made aware of any cases of foreign corporations acquiring Alberta land by loaning money for land purchase to a Canadian, and then when the Canadian has defaulted on the payments, the land in effect reverts to the foreign mortgage holder? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr.

Speaker, I'm not aware of any of the cases the hon. member mentions, other than those that have made the legal application for an exemption. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, has the minister considered removing the June 7 amendment to the regulations so that foreign acquisition of land by this method would not be possible? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, if on investigation what the hon. member states is a problem, it can certainly be considered in the new regulations that will have to replace the temporary ones, which are finished as of the end of December. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the hon. minister.

Will the minister file with the House a copy of the results of his monitoring of rural land sales under these regulations? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, at the present time monitoring is ongoing on the transfer of urban land only. I am sure we could make available those figures on the monitoring at the end of this calendar year, if the results would be of any value to members of this Assembly. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, we will make that judgment. We would like the information. Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary.

Can the minister file with the House a list of the exemptions that have been granted under these regulations? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker the exemptions that have been granted are by O.C. They're public and available to all members. [interjections] DR. BUCK: Easy, Horst. Easy, six million dollar man. Highway — Grande Cache DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, has the Minister of Transpor tation been made aware of the petition, being circu lated in the Grande Cache area, to have the extension of Highway 40 routed through the town rather than 15 miles east of the town? DR. HORNER: Mr.

Speaker, we have an outstanding and ongoing commitment to the people of Grande Cache that the first

section of pavement will be, and is now under way, from Muskeg to the town of Grande Cache; that's the junction with Highway 40. The other commitment is that that pavement will extend south to Highway 16 as a priority relative to the entire Grande Prairie/Hinton connection. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. Has the minister given any concern to having a second route out of Grande Cache in case of an emergency procedure where the town would have to be evacuated? DR. HORNER: Mr.

Speaker, we haven't given consid eration to that kind of emergency, but we do intend to upgrade the airport facilities as well in Grande Cache. I expect that if the emergency is of the nature sug gested by the hon. gentleman, a good airport might be more important than a second very expensive road. DR. BUCK: Not to move 4,000 out. Mental Health Facilities MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my ques tion to the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care. It's really a follow-up on a question asked yesterday in the House.

It's to clarify whether the psychiatric facilities at Lethbridge municipal hospital are in the process of being moved to the care centre at Clare- sholm, Alberta. I wonder if the minister could clarify the position on that. MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, there are no plans to move psychiatric services or programs from general hospitals in Lethbridge to Claresholm. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister. With regard to the municipal hospital in Lethbridge and St. Michael's, are there plans at the present time to expand present mental health facilities? MR. MINIELY: Mr.

Speaker, as I indicated yesterday in response to the question in the manner it was put by the hon. Member for Little Bow, the provision of mental health services for the Lethbridge area, hospital-based and community-based, and the inter relationship, is receiving joint review and study among my colleague the Minister of Social Services and Health, myself, and our respective officials. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, to the minister, to be more specific. The answer to the hon. Member for Lethbridge West indicated that services will be held

November 8, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1947 at the level at which they presently exist. My ques tion: is the policy direction at this point in time one of expanding the services, or doing nothing? MR. MINIELY: Mr.

Speaker, I've answered that ques tion in my earlier answer in saying that the desire of the Lethbridge hospitals for program expansion is being developed and is being submitted and reviewed jointly by the Department of Social Services and Community Health, and Hospitals and Medical Care to ensure a proper balance and full co-ordination between community-based services and hospital- based services in the interests and needs of mental patients in Lethbridge and that part of southern Alberta. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, to the minister.

When will we expect clarification and action, such as building a wing or an extended facility that's neces sary, building admittance centres in both the munici pal hospital and St. Michael's Hospital? When will we get those kinds of commitments? MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, there's been more action in mental health services in the last five years than there was in the previous 20. DR. WALKER: A supplementary to the minister. Would the minister explain why there should be an expansion of mental health services, any more than any other hospital services in Lethbridge? MR. NOTLEY: He's on your side, Gordon. MR.

MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is indicating a view which I happen to agree with, that these things have to be related to all health programs. Farm Labor Force MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my question to the minister of manpower and labor. I'm sure he can give a very definite answer to this. DR. BUCK: If he can understand the question. MR. R. SPEAKER: Could the minister advise whether farm labor from Mexico will be available to farmers of southern Alberta in 1978?

There is presently some question about, one, your department's attitude on the matter and also the federal government's attitude. DR. HOHOL: I presume the [question] was to me, Mr. Speaker. At this time, I couldn't give a definitive statement on it, but will take it under advisement and check. I would have some doubt about that at the present time. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister. Would the minister have an answer for me, possibly tomorrow, with regard to that question and have more definite information? DR.

HOHOL: No, I don't think so; not because I wouldn't choose to, but this is a federal/provincial kind of matter and would involve other departments of this government, the Department of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs, that of Advanced Educa tion and Manpower, and certainly the Department of Employment and Immigration in Ottawa. It's at the initiative of a particular sector — in this case farming — to begin the process to attempt to qualify immi grants to Alberta by contract for a period of time. To my knowledge this has not begun, so I can't respond in that way. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, to the minister. Could the minister bring back a current report of the situa tion for the Assembly tomorrow? DR. HOHOL: I can certainly make that necessary contact to give the hon. member information in the House. But in all fairness I should point out to the Assembly, Mr. Speaker, that in my portfolio I have some reservations of considerable proportions with respect to the reasonableness of the proposition that we should bring people in by contract for a short period of time and get them out again. I should be on record that way. Metric Time MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon.

Minister of Government Services. First, a very short explanation is necessary. News media are advising the public that on January 3, 1978, Canada — except for Ottawa — will be converting to metric time. There will be a clock in the shape of a triangle with 10 hours on it. There will be 10 seconds to one minute, 10 minutes to one hour, 10 hours to one day. Instead of seconds, minutes, hours, there will be millidays, centidays, decidays, or millimonths.

The rest will be converted: one day will be one day, a week will be a decaday, a month will be a hectaday — perhaps it should have been a heck of a day [laughter] — and a year will be a kiloday. Is Canada going metric-mad, or is this some kind of a joke? MR. SCHMID: Mr. Speaker, while metrication may be beneficial to international trade as well as mathemat ical problems, I think in all seriousness that should this come about, we would probably do a similar thing as the Hon. Marvin Moore has done as far as the metrication of acres is concerned; namely, protest to Ottawa and not do it in Alberta.

If we consider that our day would be reduced to 10 hours, I can well imagine the psychological impact; sometimes we haven't got enough time available to do our work even in the 24-hour day. So, Mr. Speaker, again, I doubt Alberta would ac cept that kind of metrication problem. Kananaskis Park MR. WOLSTENHOLME: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Recreation, Parks and Wildlife. How will the development in the Kananaskis Park affect the wildlife officers who patrol the areas near by? Will there be more wildlife officers? MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the hon.

Member for Highwood. I would say initially we're looking at certainly the possibility of some increase in staffing for that particular area

1948 ALBERTA HANSARD November 8, 1977 called Kananaskis Country. The immediate effect will be that those in the area surrounding that will be patrolling that area from the regional office in Cal gary. We have a committee within the department looking at that right now, as to what the future may hold. Alcan Pipeline Negotiations MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my ques tion to either the hon. Premier or the hon. Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs. It flows from negotiations on the Alcan pipeline. A word of explanation is necessary.

It's my understanding the Americans have proposed that there should be one monitoring agency for the pipeline as it goes through Canada, so that they avoid the problems of jurisdic tional disputes, different agencies, and what have you. My question to either of the hon. gentlemen is: what discussions have taken place between the gov ernment of Alberta and the government of Canada concerning this question of one uniform regulatory agency? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Speaker, there have been pre liminary discussions between officials of our depart ment and appropriate officials of our federal govern ment concerning that proposed agency. The federal government has referred to it as a surveillance agen cy. They have indicated that they intend to bring forward legislation, possibly in December or early in the new year, with respect to some kind of agency or overall authority which might have the duty of mon itoring all aspects of the pipeline in Canada.

They indicated they were receiving suggestions from the United States, but they have not indicated to us their views or their reaction to that suggestion, if it's been made by the United States. We have been trying to ascertain whether this proposed agency would purport to cover the Yukon and perhaps British Columbia. We have indicated that with respect to Alberta we would not accept any agency which intruded upon the jurisdiction of the province of Alberta with respect to matters relating to pipeline construction.

Therefore it could possibly mean that Alberta would devise its own means of co-ordinating, with such federal agency as there might be, a manner of operation in order to facilitate pipeline construction. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister. Are any specific studies present ly under way with respect to the implications of this surveillance agency, or what have you, with respect to the question of provincial rights?

Have specific studies been commissioned by the government to consider the implications, or is the proposal in a suffi ciently concrete stage that you're able to do this? MR. HYNDMAN: The information from the federal government is not yet in a concrete stage. We have been undertaking a considerable amount of review and examination of the concept. Studies will not be undertaken outside the government because, in our view, the expertise does exist in the Department of the Attorney General, the Department of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs, and other departments.

But we will be watching the matter very closely as it develops from this point on, and we have made the suggestion to the federal government that we wish to be involved and consulted when their legislation with respect to this purported agency is being developed. We've also indicated that this province has more expertise in the area of pipeline construction than any other in Canada, and that we can perhaps offer them some of that expertise and save them some time and money over the years ahead. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister.

Can the minister outline to the Assembly the reasoning for an Alberta approach in dependent from the surveillance? Now I'm not rais ing the provincial rights question here, but what kind of mechanism the government of Alberta would fore see to dovetail with the federal surveillance agency on the pipeline as it passes through Alberta. Are you in a position to advise us on where that stands at the moment? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, not knowing anything about the form or structure of the proposed federal entity, we are not able to decide what our approach would be.

However, we have had in operation now for a number of weeks the task force of four ministers with respect to co-ordination of all departments regarding the pipeline. There is also an interdepart mental support advisory task force involving nine departments. Those two entities would be the nuc leus of such a future entity, be it in a co-ordinating role or working with whatever federal entity appears, in order to ensure that the Alberta public interest and that of all departments are fully protected. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary question to the minister.

Does the minister expect that a formal agreement will be signed between the federal government and the Alberta government on these matters? And are any discussions occurring now with respect to that? MR. HYNDMAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we think it's likely and useful that down the road, probably early next year, an agreement be finalized with the federal gov ernment with regard to the various relationships be tween federal and provincial jurisdictions vis-a-vis the pipeline.

We have been working on that for several weeks, and we may well be submitting the kind of agreement we would like to the federal gov ernment, and negotiating thereafter. Crime Prevention Program MR. PURDY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Solicitor General if the crime prevention program sponsored by his department is a universal program. MR. FARRAN: Yes, it is; universal through Alberta anyway. MR. PURDY: A supplementary question for clarifica tion, Mr. Speaker.

In other words, if a member of the city police force were asked to go into some town outside the area of the city of Edmonton upon invita tion of a sponsoring organization, he would in effect be able to do that?

November 8, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1949 MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, it's largely an educational program for the public, and I would think that the question of an invitation to a guest speaker would be one for the host. Power Requirements MR. STROMBERG: Mr. Speaker, in light of the [Elec tric] Utility Planning Council report that by the year 2006, 72 per cent of Alberta's electrical requirements could be met by nuclear power, has the Minister of Utilities and Telephones or his department any input to planning when Alberta goes nuclear? DR. WARRACK: Mr. Speaker, the percentage men tioned by the hon. member is correct.

It's an option for the 30-year future into Alberta's electrical energy requirements. This was part of a report developed by the Electric Utility Planning Council to the September 1977 hearing on energy requirements by the Energy Resources Conservation Board. Basically in that 30- year time frame, the base load options are between coal and nuclear. Where the matter would stand as it evolves is yet to be decided. MR. STROMBERG: Supplementary.

Have there been any discussions between people of your department and people at the U of A in evaluating the different systems that can be used for nuclear, such as dif ferent reactors? DR. WARRACK: Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportu nity to obtain assistance from others in briefing me on the facts of this matter and its possibilities for Alberta's future, particularly in the hope that electri cal requirements can be met more cheaply in the future than might otherwise be the case without this sort of planning.

I have had the opportunity to dis cuss the matter with the Electric Utility Planning Council and also, because it was raised with me, with people from the University of Alberta engineering faculty and Electrical Engineering Department. Gun Control Regulations MR. KUSHNER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Solicitor General.

I wonder if the Solicitor General could inform this Assembly if there are any laws as far as storage of rifles or guns is concerned, and if the minister would inform this Assembly if rifles stored in a glass case with a wooden drawer with a key for storing ammunition would be acceptable in the urban centres. MR. SPEAKER: I trust the hon. member will not be unduly surprised if I refer him to other means to do his legal research. In other words, the hon. member is asking a question of law; he's asking the hon. Solicitor General what's in the law, and that really is not a function of the question period. DR.

BUCK: Joe Clark will look after you, John. MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, maybe I could help the hon. member to some degree. MR. SPEAKER: Quite possibly an appointment could be arranged outside the question period. [laughter] Rural Gas Program MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Utilities and Telephones. Could the minister indicate whether any revisions are planned in the target of 80,000 hookups under the rural gas program? DR. WARRACK: Mr. Speaker, I regret I missed the middle part of the hon. member's question. MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr.

Speaker, the target was for 80,000 hookups in the province. The question is: is the minister planning on revising this target of 80,000? DR. WARRACK: Mr. Speaker, the short answer is no. There really hasn't been reason to worry about exact ly what a refined calculation of that might be. Basi cally we're undertaking the program as rapidly as we can, and a very substantial amount of progress has been made. In fact, well over 50 per cent of the job is done at this time. MR. MANDEVILLE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Are there any statistics, compiled by the department, that indicate the number of hookups in the province at the present time? DR. WARRACK: Yes. As of the end of October it was roughly 42,750. MR. MANDEVILLE: One more supplementary ques tion, Mr. Speaker. A number of applicants, especially in northern Alberta, did get the installations but weren't hooked onto gas. Could the minister indicate if these applicants are hooking on and using gas at the present time, or what the number is? DR.

WARRACK: I don't know the number and I don't really have a way of finding out, other than a survey of the large number of rural gas co-ops across Alber ta. But certainly a number signed up initially and for various reasons, including their own circumstances, have not hooked up, at least to date. A number of these people have been hooking up during the inter vening months. In addition, Mr. Speaker, people who had not originally signed up are hooking up. MR. GOGO: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the min ister.

To the minister's knowledge does any other jurisdiction in Canada have a similar type of rural gas program? DR. WARRACK: Happily, Mr. Speaker, the answer is no; that's unique in the progressive thrust of Alberta government of our time. DR. BUCK: Tell that to the guys who can't afford to hook up, Allan. Eastern Slopes — Snowmobile Use MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Associate Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. It's relative to the eastern slopes policy statement. I was wondering if the minister has received represen tations from the snowmobile association, the regional

1950 ALBERTA HANSARD November 8, 1977 planning commissions, or other interested groups suggesting revisions. The thrust of my question will lead to asking whether the minister is prepared to have another hearing relative to that report. MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to visit with the snowmobile association. Basically the visit and discussion that was held was not a question of any changes in the eastern slopes but of clarifica tion of misunderstandings that existed, first of all without a copy of the [statement] and, secondly, misunderstandings after reading it. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, the other part of my question to the minister was whether the minister would indicate if any further public hearings would be held to review the statement made at an earlier date? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, long before the zoning concept of the eastern slopes was announced, the ECA held hearings for a period of some three years. In the eastern slopes policy are incorporated 232 of those recommendations. At the present time we feel there was sufficient public input.

However, through the administrative procedures under the eastern slopes policy — in looking at individual areas of the provision of recreational complexes — if it were necessary there could be some public input on a particular spot and a particular use. MR. R. SPEAKER: That's not the answer, though. Foreign Land Ownership (continued) DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Associ ate Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. Just to clarify a point, did the minister say the department is monitoring only urban land sales to foreigners? MR.

SCHMIDT: The monitoring going on at the Land Titles Office is the monitoring from agricultural and recreational land as covered under the temporary regulations that exist, to see that those transfers fol low and meet the temporary regulations. A straight monitoring, in the concept of monitoring before Bill 40 became law within this province in the safeguard ing of agricultural and recreational land, is done on that basis, on the transfer of urban land only from an information point of view. Oil and Gas Export Policy MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Energy and Natural Resources.

Regarding the 30-year continuing supply of natural gas before export of gas is permitted, does the minister see any need for reducing this period in the foreseeable future? MR. GETTY: No, Mr. Speaker. MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary. Is any consideration being given to a similar policy for oil in the province? MR. GETTY: We've considered it, Mr. Speaker, but the supply so far exceeds the 30-year requirement that in our judgment it's not necessary to state it as a policy. Syncrude Labor Recruitment MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this ques tion to the hon.

Minister of Energy and ask him whether the province has any plans to monitor the hiring practices of Syncrude with respect to the recruiting of permanent, full-time staff, particularly people with technical skills? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Energy and Natural Resources would not be monitoring the hiring by Syncrude. However, the ministers of Ad vanced Education and Manpower, and of Labour, the representative of the government on the Syncrude board of directors, and of course our Syncrude equity management would be involved.

However, I would have to leave it to them to provide any details as to how they might check on the hiring. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question then either to the Minister of Advanced Education and Manpower, the Minister of Labour, or the hon. Member for Edmonton Calder, who sits on the Syn crude board. DR. BUCK: And does their advertising. MR. NOTLEY: What monitoring policies do we have with respect to the recruitment of full-time staff, par ticularly in the area of technical skills? DR. HOHOL: Mr.

Speaker, it's exactly the same vehi cle and sets of procedures we have had in the con struction phase of Syncrude. It will proceed in the same way in the operations. It has been very suc cessful. The record is excellent. We're working in the manner described by my hon. colleague. It's successful. We're looking to real, full capability by Syncrude to use Canadian manpower. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Advanced Education and Manpower.

Can the minister advise whether Syn crude officials have made a number of trips to Europe to hire British and Dutch technicians for Syncrude, and are similarly undertaking recruiting trips to Europe in the near future? DR. HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, some trips have been made abroad and some to eastern Canada, in some cases with respect to making available sufficient people in the technical areas, some in the trades — for example, in the area of insulation. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Advanced Education and Manpower.

Is the minister in a position to con firm to the Assembly that the foreign technicians being recruited are the most highly trained techni cians, specifically for the categories of 3B and 3C, which I gather are the most technically oriented posi tions and also the best-paying jobs? DR. HOHOL: The classifications are accurate, but I would have to check the information. On balance, I would doubt that the full complement of those cate gories would be filled by people from outside Canada. Some will be, but a great number will not. We will be

November 8, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1951 looking at the long- and intermediate-term capability of Syncrude to do the operations phase of this project, with particular reference to manpower. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister with respect to the availability of Canadians. Has the Department of Advanced Educa tion and Manpower made any assessment or do they have an inventory of the people available in this country for the technical jobs involved? Do we have enough qualified people?

Have there been any dis cussions with Syncrude on ratios between Canadian and non-Canadians for these highly technical areas? DR. HOHOL: Well, the capacity to man the operations phase is a project that Syncrude has to undertake and complete. The capability of a nation to catalogue its numbers with respect to a particular occupation is extremely difficult. We're talking about a competence that moves to where the work is, and the kind of work we're talking about is really international. A great number of our people in management, drafting, engi neering, and design are abroad; many are in the nation.

So if we did come down with a figure at any one time, it wouldn't last very many days, much less weeks or months. But the capacity to do this kind of work has been increasing steadily. There's no question in our minds that Syncrude is making every effort to use Canadian content, and the record is there to show it. But in some areas, it would be unwise for us to try to respond for a short period of time by training a particular occupation that would be in oversupply immediately this project was completed.

We have to remember that the operations numbers are much smaller in contrast to the building phase of Syncrude. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, one final supplementary question to the hon. minister. It really flows out of his last answer. Mr. Minister, I'm talking about permanent people who will be working at Syncrude, not people who will be working on the construction project. Bearing that in mind, have there been any discussions with Syncrude as to targets for Canadian opportunities in these areas of special technical expertise?

Has there been any preliminary discus sion, or is that just left within the context of as much as you can? DR. HOHOL: No, not at all, Mr. Speaker. In the context of the last statement by the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview, I did respond in every instance that we were speaking of the permanent force at Syncrude that would operate the plant once the oper ations begin.

So in that context, again the same kind of vehicle for consultation, for discussion, with re spect to the manpower phase in the permanent oper ation of this plant is in place, and is not left to the best they can do and the best we can hope for. But a concerted effort by government, through the vehicle described by my hon. colleague, is in place, working, and very healthy. As I say, we're looking forward to a tremendous program of service and opportunity for Canadian people in the operations phase of Syncrude. MR. SHABEN: A supplementary question, Mr.

Speak er, to the Minister of Advanced Education and Man power. Does the minister have any figures as to the number of new jobs created in Alberta last year and, if so, the impact of this on the availability of skilled labor within the province? DR. HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, these are filed figures, and I have seen them a few days ago. But I would want to be precise, and I would examine the files and report to the House. But the ratio of indirect jobs to direct jobs on a plant like Syncrude is in the order of a maximum of 1:7. Gun Control Regulations (continued) MR. KUSHNER: Mr. Speaker, I'll try it again.

I direct my question to the Solicitor General, if the general can in fact inform this Assembly if there has been a change in the policy regarding storage of rifles or guns in the province of Alberta, in commercial or residential areas. MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, I'm happy the hon. member has hit the target with his second shot. I understand it is the intention of the federal gov ernment to provide for proclamation of new gun con trol laws in June next year. They will make it an offence not to have a firearm in secure and safe storage.

At the present time the police and any common-sense person would advise the owners of firearms to keep them in a secure place. That could include both locking a gun in a cabinet and the use of a trigger lock. A very good trigger lock was invented by someone at the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology a couple of years ago. The practice of leaving firearms loose and unprotected in the back of a pick-up truck and that sort of thing is not recommended. As of June next year then, Mr. Speaker, in effect we will be obliged to enforce the federal Criminal Code in regard to storage of weapons. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Drumheller, as chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, has asked me to say to hon. members that there will not be a meeting of the committee tomorrow; that is, Wednesday morning. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I wish to move that the following bills not be read a third time now but be referred back to Committee of the Whole for further amendments: Bill 71, The Nursing Assistants Regis tration Act; Bill 72, The Alberta Insurance Amend ment Act, 1977; Bill 85, The Social Development Act, 1977 (No. 2); Bill 96, The Trust Companies Amend ment Act, 1977; and Bill 98, The Motor Vehicle Administration Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 2). [Motion carried] head: MOTIONS FOR RETURNS MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, I move that Motion for a

1952 ALBERTA HANSARD November 8, 1977 Return 172 stand and retain its place on the Order Paper. [Motion carried] 163. Mr. Notley moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing a copy of the Management Manual or similar document, howsoever styled, which outlines to senior Alberta civil servants guidelines on making information and/or documents available to the public. [Motion carried] 173. Mr.

Mandeville moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing the number and total amount of all loans committed by the Alberta Housing Corporation under the starter home ownership pro gram during the period April 1, 1976, to March 31, 1977, for each of the following regions:

(1) Calgary

(2) Edmonton and Slave Lake

(3) Fort McMurray

(4) Grande Prairie

(5) Lethbridge. MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, the motion is generally acceptable except that there is a mistake in it. The Alberta Housing Corporation should be replaced by the Alberta Home Mortgage Corporation. If I might be permitted, Mr. Speaker, I would make that amend ment, and thereby the motion would be acceptable with the Alberta Housing Corporation being replaced by the Alberta Home Mortgage Corporation. [Motion as amended carried] 174. Mr. R. Speaker moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: (1) for the periods (

a) April 1, 1976, to March 31, 1977, and (

b) April 1, 1977, to September 30, 1977, the amount of money received by the govern ment of Alberta from the Western Canada Lot tery Foundation, pursuant to the agreement between the Western Canada Lottery Founda tion and the government of Alberta; (2) a copy of the total agreement between the gov ernment of Alberta and the Western Canada Lot tery Foundation which outlines their relation ship, one to the other, with respect to moneys to be transferred from the Western Canada Lottery Foundation to the government of Alberta; (3) the disposition which the government of Alberta has made of all moneys received as outlined in (1), including (

a) the name of each person, society, organiza tion, and body corporate which has received such moneys, (

b) the amount of money received by each per son or organization as outlined in (a), (

c) the purposes for which such moneys were distributed by the government of Alberta, and (

d) the conditions which were attached to the use of said funds. [Motion carried] 175. Mr. Mandeville moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing the number and total amount of all loans committed by the Alberta Housing Corporation under the direct lending program during the period April 1, 1976, to March 31, 1977, for each of the following regions:

(1) Calgary

(2) Edmonton and Slave Lake

(3) Fort McMurray

(4) Grande Prairie

(5) Lethbridge. MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, the same mistake has been made in Motion 175 as in 173, so I would like to move an amendment which changes the Alberta Housing Corporation to the Alberta Home Mortgage Corporation. [Motion as amended carried] GOVERNMENT DESIGNATED BUSINESS head: GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Second Reading) Bill 99 The Statute Law Correction Act, 1977 MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 99, The Statute Law Correction Act, 1977.

As I indicated on first reading, this bill which has become, I hope, a tradition in this House, unfortunately, is designed solely and simply to correct incorrect references, typographical errors, and drafting omis sions as they occur in several statutes of this Assembly. [Motion carried; Bill 99 read a second time] Bill 54 The Petroleum Marketing Amendment Act, 1977 MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to move second reading of Bill No. 54, The Petroleum Marketing Amendment Act, 1977. The main principle or objective of this bill, Mr.

Speaker, is to place the marketing of condensates or pentanes produced from Crown lands in Alberta under the control of the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission. This would put the pricing and market ing of condensates on the same basis as crude oil in Alberta. More particularly, it would provide some assurance that an adequate supply of condensates would be available as feedstock for a liquid-based petrochemical industry in the province. Mr. Speaker, I would still prefer to see suppliers and users of condensates enter contracts themselves without the government being involved.

Therefore it is the intention of the government to have this bill pass the House, should the House agree, but not trigger the operation of the legislation unless abso lutely necessary.

November 8, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1953 [Motion carried; Bill 54 read a second time] Bill 68 The Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund Special Appropriation Act, 1977-78 MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill No. 68, The Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund Special Appropriation Act, 1977-78. Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could simply call to the attention of mem bers of the Assembly comments I made on a similar motion yesterday. DR. BUCK: Premature. [Motion carried; Bill 68 read a second time] Bill 69 The Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund Special Appropriation Act, 1978-79 MR. LEITCH: Mr.

Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 69, The Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund Special Appropriation Act, 1978-79. [Motion carried; Bill 69 read a second time] Bill 95 The Glenbow-Alberta Institute Amendment Act, 1977 MR. McCRAE: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 95, The Glenbow-Alberta Institute Amendment Act, 1977. The principle of the bill is to assure that government-appointed representation on the board of governors of the Glenbow-Alberta Institute will reflect the increased fiscal responsibility for the insti tute assumed by the province of Alberta during the past few years.

That level of support is approximately 7 per cent of the annual budget of the Glenbow- Alberta Institute. Mr. Speaker, in moving this bill, I would like to do two things. One would be to comment on the impor tant cultural contribution the Glenbow Institute has made to the city of Calgary and indeed to all of southern Alberta, also to pay tribute to the Harvie family for their contribution to Alberta culture and history throughout the years, through the Devonian Foundation and its predecessor. DR. BUCK: Mr.

Speaker, I would also like to support the bill and bring to the attention of the members the contribution the Harvies have made to Alberta. I guess many of us who know that many of the dollars that came out of the ground in the Redwater area contributed to the Harvie fortunes. I was fortunate enough to be a very good friend of one of the Harvie family — but that's neither here or there. I think the thing we should remember is that this Glenbow Institute doesn't get as much recognition from the people of Alberta as it should.

We sort of seem to take the Glenbow Foundation for granted; we appreciate all the wonderful things it's doing, but never seem to fully appreciate the fact that a family — the Harvies — took charge of this and tried to keep before Albertans some of the things that of course are part of our history. So I think we as members of the Assembly should certainly do everything we can to bring the focus of the people of Alberta onto the wonderful work the Glenbow Foundation is doing. MR. TAYLOR: Mr.

Speaker, I'd just like to say a word in connection with the Glenbow Foundation and pay tribute to the institute, but particularly to the work done by the Devonian Foundation. This foundation has improved the main streets of many, many towns in my constituency and probably throughout Alberta. They certainly do splendid work; they leave a wonder ful taste in the mouths of the people after they've been there. I think they are to be highly commended. [Motion carried; Bill 95 read a second time] DR. HORNER: Mr.

Speaker, I move that you now leave the Chair and the House go into Committee of the Whole to study certain bills on the Order Paper. MR. SPEAKER: Having heard the motion by the hon. Deputy Premier, do you all agree? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Committee of the Whole) [Dr. McCrimmon in the Chair] MR. CHAIRMAN: The Committee of the Whole As sembly will now come to order. Bill 66 The Department of Hospitals and Medical Care Act MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any comments, questions, or amendments to be offered with respect to any sections of this bill? There are some amendments to the bill.

Is every body familiar with the amendments? MR. MINIELY: Mr. Chairman, in the spring sittings of the Legislature, during debate on the estimates of the heritage savings trust fund, and on second reading of Bill 66, there were several matters that I indicated I would report back to the House on. But before I do so, I have as a very pleasant task a major an nouncement to make to the members of the Assembly. I am pleased to announce the appointment of a new Deputy Minister of Hospitals for the province of Alberta, Mr. Gary J. Chatfield. The appointment is effective January 1, 1978. Mr.

Chatfield comes to Alberta from his current position as Assistant Deputy Minister, Institutional Health Services, Ministry of Health, government of Ontario. Mr. Chatfield completed his high school education in Winnipeg and received his Bachelor of Science in Pharmacy from the University of Manitoba in 1957. He obtained his diploma in hospital administration from the University of Toronto in 1961. Mr. Chatfield brings to the deputy minister position an extensive background of experience in the hospital and health care field. Prior to joining the Ministry of

1954 ALBERTA HANSARD November 8, 1977 Health, government of Ontario, Mr. Chatfield worked as a consultant for the development and planning of York Central Hospital in Richmond Hill, Ontario, and was appointed its administrator in 1963. From 1969 to 1971 he was president of Medex Nursing Home Limited, which operated a number of private nursing homes in Alberta.

He was employed by the govern ment of Ontario in 1972 as co-ordinator of the extended care program, Ontario Hospital Services Commission, and was appointed general manager, direct services division of the Ministry of Health and the Ontario Hospital Services Commission, following merger, with responsibility for psychiatric hospital services, ambulance services, mental retardation fa cilities, public health laboratory system, clinic serv ices, and children's mental health services. As Assistant Deputy Minister, Institutional Health Services, since 1976, Mr.

Chatfield has been respon sible for the direct services division, information sys tems, the inspection branch including extended health care program, and the institutional division responsible for all public and private hospitals in the province of Ontario, plus responsibilities for The Ontario Cancer Treatment & Research Foundation and the Alcoholism & Drug Addiction Research Foundation. Mr.

Chatfield is a member of the Canadian College of Health Service Executives, holds fellowships with the American colleges of hospital and nursing home administrators, and holds an associate professorship, department of health care administration, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto. Mr. Chairman, I believe all members will agree that we are indeed fortunate to employ an individual of Mr. Chatfield's calibre for the portfolio of Alberta Hospitals and Medical Care. He brings to the portfolio an obvious extensive administrative, operational, and financial skill background. Mr.

Chairman, during debate last night on the her itage savings trust fund, and earlier, I indicated that I would be filing further information with the House with respect to evolving policy positions in the portfo lio. I would now like to do so.

First, I would like to file the Alberta Medical Association seventy-first and seventy-second annual meeting reports, and particu larly refer hon. members to the parts of those reports which talk about the relationship of the medical pro fession with the government of Alberta, which they describe as excellent both with the Social Services and Community Health portfolio, and with Hospitals and Medical Care.

The next items I would like to file for the informa tion of members are with respect to my comments on the high rates of surgery in Alberta, and a comparison of Canadian surgical rates with England and Wales; A Strategy for Utilizing Existing Buildings, that is rele vant to what we've been talking about in hospital construction and capital cost control; Health Project Management: An Overview. That constitutes the items I would like to file for the information and reading of hon. members. Next I would like to make several points before we go into any questions hon. members may have on Bill 66.

I think it is obvious to all hon. members that I view sound organization as a key first step in meeting the challenge of sound decision-making and choice of priorities in health care in the future. Bill 66 repre sents a major change historically in Alberta from the commission concept to a departmental concept. I would restate that change obviously creates appre hension in terms of staff, of the hospital community, and of the professions involved in the health care community. That is natural.

But that will require our collective leadership during a period of reorganization of the portfolio, the utilization of a new deputy minis ter, in order to communicate the purposes for which this reorganization is being undertaken in terms of providing in the longer term in our province quality services within responsible levels of financial expend iture; in other words, Mr.

Chairman, to repeat that in my view it is not responsible of any member of this Assembly to take the natural anxiety and apprehen sion that citizens or groups may have as a result of change that is needed to thwart or attack the need for desirable change. Mr. Chairman, one other point I would like to make is that I fully realize that over the past year or two a lot of decisions which hon. members would like to have been made for hospitals, expansions, or pro gram services in their constituencies, have not been made.

I have to say that I take full responsibility for stopping certain kinds of decisions and actions. Because in my view the only way we would have a chance to assess and to make choices for the future would require that we stop some of the actions and decisions which had been under way in order that we could assess with more clarity the alternative direc tions we should go in the future. Mr.

Chairman, in my view it was an important decision to stop the very large, if you like, elephant of hospitals and medical care services in the province in order that we could assess and redirect our energies to what might be more appropriate goals and objectives. Mr. Chairman, during the spring sitting of the Leg islature, when I announced the holding pattern on hospital construction, I indicated that I would be pro viding a progress report to the Assembly on new construction control procedures.

Having assigned this to officials in the Hospital Services Commission, soon to be the department of hospitals and medical care, I'd like to acknowledge the outstanding contrib ution that two young officials in the commission have made; namely, Mr. Kohut and Mr. Stoodley. In a very short period of time they have come up with an analysis and with specific recommendations on im proved construction control procedures which I believe to be excellent and outstanding, and that address themselves to the historical dislocations we have found.

Because of the importance, topical nature, and discussion this has received, I would like to highlight some of the major recommendations these two officials have made. First, in his report Mr. Kohut recommends that the new department of hospitals and medical care be founded on a fiscally responsible planning orientation which integrates planning and financial control with consistent decision-making based on master planning rather than simply on a more tightly controlled but continued ad hoc expenditure basis.

The second rec ommendation is that the new departmental structure contain a single unit or units devoted to planning, programming, and evaluation. The third recommen dation: that the planning unit provide current, compe tent, and analytic advice on service and cost implica tions of policy and planning alternatives. Fourth, that a planning, programming, and budgeting system be

November 8, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1955 accepted in principle. That the following five prin ciples be incorporated into the organization of the new department: definition of clear and limited lines of responsibility, grouping of activities to enhance decision-making, explicit linkage of financial account ability and program responsibility, formal develop ment of a committee structure to facilitate communi cation, and the establishment of an internal audit function which of course would dovetail with Treasury. Mr.

Chairman, a very major change from our histor ical system is recommended in this official's report; that is, that functional planning become the responsi bility of the new department of hospitals and medical care. Functional plans produced must be consistent with departmental policy and must be developed by seeking substantive input from local boards.

Respon sibility for functional planning would rest with a spe cially created unit within the new department, which would produce functional plans using its own resources and hospital and board staff in combination with departmentally hired consultants as required. Mr. Chairman, that means that no longer would the responsibility for the initial functional plan rest with the hospital board. That would start with the prov ince, in consultation with the hospital board, and then move to the next stage where local boards would retain responsibility for hiring their prime engineering and architectural consultants.

It provides us with greater control over the first step in the planning process that gives rise to the construction of health care facilities. I think another very important recommendation is that a program be formally established to evaluate the effectiveness of the systems and design of every hospital project built under the new policy. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Stoodley's recommendations, which are in the financial area and tie into the program area are, I think, of major interest to mem bers of the Assembly as well.

I'm not giving all of them but I'd like to highlight his recommendations as well: the development of a costed departmental master plan setting goals, objectives, and a strategy for implementation; the monitoring and reporting of all financial factors relating to master plan activities. The ability of hospitals to carry on with short-term plans will be restricted until initial long-range plans have been approved. Project proposals will contain preliminary cost figures for capital, staffing, and op erating.

No functional program will be accepted for review unless accompanied by a new project resource requirement proposal which will contain construction feasibility, space program, capital budget planning study, equipment budget, preliminary site data, staffing budget, and four-year operating budget proposals. The approval of the functional program and project resource requirement proposal will set firm project end price in current year dollars, as developed con struction standards are to be followed.

There'll be additional financial control during the construction process, which will be the appointment of on-site building inspectors, formal reporting of progress by the hospitals, the strengthening of financial reporting and control systems during construction, and a formal audit and evaluation program to cover financial inte grity, compliance with rules, et cetera. To incorporate all these new procedures, there will be the formation of a capital project control centre in the new department. Mr.

Chairman, the officials also conclude that deci sions and actions on capital facilities in the health care field impact three, five, and six years down the road. So the need for these improved procedures is clearly demonstrated by the number of years and time span involved. Historically the province has not set definitive parameters at the outset of a project. It's our intention to do so to avoid some of the difficulties of the past, and demonstrated more recently by the Calgary General psychiatric wing and, of course, the Southern Alberta Cancer Centre and the Foothills auxiliary services.

It's a key change and will move away from rubber-stamping local hospital board re quests. It will require a great deal of responsibility locally and by the province. Mr. Chairman, concurrent with that are three major policy areas, which I've mentioned in the House, that MLAs will be chairing, examining, and reporting to me for a subsequent report to the Legislature: one by the hon. Mr. Gogo, on the economics of health care; one by Mr. Kroeger, who is nearly finalizing his report in the area of nursing home policy; and one by the hon. Dr. Backus, in the area of new approaches to rural health care. Mr.

Chairman, obviously the new deputy minister I announced at the beginning of committee this after noon will play the key and major role in carrying forward the implementation of Bill 66 and working toward the incorporation and implementation of the new mechanisms and controls that are necessary, and in maximizing the effectiveness of the manage ment which departmental structure is intended to incorporate to ensure we develop the appropriate policy challenges to the future, and that we do so within appropriate balance between the need for qua lity program and ongoing financial responsibility. MR. ZANDER: Mr.

Chairman, I just want to say just a few words. I certainly don't want to rehash some thing I've said for over six years. But certainly I think some of them have to be said. I welcome the change, a change that was probably six years in coming. It was a long time before we made up our minds that the changes were necessary. There are a few questions I asked myself, and that I'll also ask the hon. minister: how long before we go in the direction for long-term health care in our province? Where do we start? When do we start? Are we going back to the basics of 1971, or are we going to start in 1977?

The planning that was done six years ago is no longer adequate for the people of this province. It may be that within the next four, five, or six years of planning this century will be four-fifths gone and we'll be no better off than we were before we started. It's only my hope that the new direction will certainly benefit the people of this province. As I stated just this last session, I hope it's a start in a new direction. If it is, perhaps all the suffering that has gone past will not have been in vain. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Chairman, just before we move on, the minister today outlined a couple of things- the most important I thought — because we discussed the principle of doing away with the commission before — was the change in the planning process for

1956 ALBERTA HANSARD November 8, 1977 hospital construction where, at the initial stage, the government is going to be setting out the general perimeters, I guess, and getting fairly deeply involved in the planning. I suppose this would presume, Mr. Minister, that plans would be drawn up by the de partment and discussed with the hospital boards.

I wonder if you could be just a little more specific on how you visualize the first step of this planning process — who is going to do it; whether there will be architectural plans that will be developed for given size hospitals; whether many hospitals in the prov ince will generally fit a category; whether we're going to have a general approach for each category of hospital: how, in fact, this first step is going to operate. MR. R. SPEAKER: Was the minister going to answer the member's question? Possibly he had other follow-up questions. Maybe they could complete that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr.

Minister, do you wish to answer one question at a time, or do you wish to have all the questions and then answer them all? MR. MINIELY: I'd prefer that they finish all the questions. MR. R. SPEAKER: The minister referred to two stud ies done by the department, by Mr. Stoodley and Mr. MR. MINIELY: Kohut. MR. R. SPEAKER: Kohut. Would the minister make those available to the members of the Legislature. MR. MINIELY: They're internal documents. MR. R. SPEAKER: Okay. Mr. Chairman, would the minister indicate whether he has accepted the crite ria outlined from those two reports as policy?

Will they be placed in a formal statement to be presented not only to members of the Legislature and the general public, but sent in clear, concise language to the hospital boards? MR. MINIELY: Yes. MR. R. SPEAKER: I'd like that in the record, if the minister is able to stand up. MR. MINIELY: Yes. DR. BACKUS: Mr.

Chairman, I was very pleased to hear the minister's statements on the proposed plan ning process of health care delivery in the province, because I've been very concerned that many mem bers on both sides of the House have been increasing their demands on the Department of Hospitals and Medical Care for action on specific hospitals in their constituencies without really any thought for an overall planning process of health care delivery in the province. Mind you, this isn't surprising because for many years there has been very little in the way of overall planning of health care delivery.

This is why I'm so delighted to hear the minister is now undertak ing it. Just for a second, I would like to take a look at the experience in Sweden. There they have developed a hospitals plan. They consider that a 200,000 to 300,000 population justifies a central county hospital with several satellite hospitals. Each of the satellite hospitals services a population of 50,000 to 90,000 persons. These hospitals are able to manage the care of 90 per cent or more of the ill people in the catchment area, the rest being referred to the central county hospital.

In addition, they have developed in the whole coun try about six regional hospitals, each regional hospital to take care of a 650,000 to 1.4 million population. These figures, translated to Alberta, give us a pretty good indication of how excessive we are in this prov ince as far as having beds is concerned. One interesting comment I would like to quote is that: Within the last 30 years specialized departments have been established in some of the district hospitals far away from the central county hospi tal.

The formation of these specialized depart ments in the smaller hospitals was often due to pressure from both doctors and the local public. It should be noted that the national board of health which has to make the final decision both on hospital buildings and personnel agree to allocate necessary resources for these special ties. Infrequently departments have insufficient patients and have been or are intended to be closed down. As an alternative the county coun cils have recently been offering an extended ambulatory service.

Now this is the significant part: Reduction of facilities has never been achieved without creating a heated debate and this ration alization often met with dissatisfaction and dis approval from the population concerned. So as one can see, we aren't the only people who are having problems. However, the Swedish regionaliza- tion has been going on for over 10 years and is considered highly successful. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make these com ments because I feel we are entering a new era in health care delivery in this province. There is going to be much debate.

Much concern is going to be expressed by hospital boards and local people because they have been going in one direction for years and now they are asked to look at a bigger view. Instead of the individual hospitals competing with each other, I hope we're going to get a co-operation between hospitals that will develop a much more economical as well as efficient service for our people in this province. I want to congratulate the minister on taking the bull by the horns and taking this step which I'm sure he has realized will cause a certain amount of debate and argument.

But he's prepared to take on this problem and perhaps put some order into the chaos that has been developing over the last 30 or 40 years. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, the minister indi cated that functional plans now start with the prov ince, not with hospital boards. I wonder if the minis ter can indicate when the hospital boards will be notified that they shouldn't initiate any plans for extensions, new hospitals, or new facilities, and that any directive of that kind is to come forward from the

November 8, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1957 province in their overall, large plan of things. When will that be clarified with the hospital associations? Will the minister be making this kind of announce ment at — I'm not sure whether or not they've had their annual meeting yet. But will that be the thrust of his remarks to the hospital association? MR. GOGO: Mr. Chairman, I certainly support the bill and the arguments the minister put forward. I'd simply like to make one or two observations dealing with people.

I think we in Alberta have, by sheer numbers, been extremely fortunate in having not only the highest standards of care in the country, but the greatest number of beds in our active treatment hos pitals. I think it's been pointed out that it's the cost of operation as well as the principle of accountability to elected people which really prompted this bill.

I would simply like to point out — and I'm sure the minister is well aware and perhaps he'll make some comment — that we as Albertans have been very well served by many dedicated people within the Hospital Services Commission and certainly by the Alberta Health Care Insurance Commission. The Alberta Health Care Insurance Commission is second to none in Canada. I would like that to be understood by most members. The only one that would come close would perhaps be the province of Saskatchewan, the pione er in that direction.

If it weren't for the administrative problems we had with the premium collection system — there's no question that physicians in Alberta receive prompt payment for their claims by an extremely dedicated and well-functioning health care commission. I would like the minister, if he would, to make a comment on the dedication of the members both in the Hospital Services Commission and the Health Care Insurance Commission, because there's no question that to make this new concept under Bill 66 work, we're going to require the co-operation of those people. I don't think it should be something that's assumed.

I think it's something that we as legislators should be asking of the members who will continue in the functioning of this new concept. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. DR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Chairman, this topic of course is of high interest to me, as it is to many if not all members of the Assembly.

I am only going to speak for a minute or two, to indicate to the House that I'm certainly pleased that the minister has taken cogni zance of the total approach for total health — mean ing physical, mental, and social well-being — which I attempted to bring about through community health and social service centres in 1971 and thereafter. Just for the record, I would like to recognize that the minister certainly now recognizes the need for co ordinated community services out of institutions; in other words, to de-institutionalize patients wherever possible.

Number two, he recognizes the need for co-operation and co-ordination of auxiliary, active hospital patients, and nursing home patients with community facilities and services and three, that with such a total, co-ordinated approach with flexibility — which the minister has indicated — I am confident we will indeed have optimal care for the physical, mental, and social well-being of our communities in Alberta, at optimal dollar cost. MR. KROEGER: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to add just a couple of comments to the debate.

As a member of the Hospital Services Commission, I worked quite closely with the people in management and adminis tration there. I think we should recognize that what is being done doesn't necessarily constitute a conde mnation of the former commissions. I think the peo ple involved at that level, having been invited to stay in the new department as it will be constituted, is the answer to the point made by the Member for Leth bridge West. The minister wants these people involved, has invited them to stay.

The former chair man, of course, isn't staying in the department as directly as before, but in another area. New duties have been assigned to him. All of which indicates that we are not talking about people. If the minister feels that departmentalization is the way to go, certainly that is the choice he should make. I think that any organization can stand to be reviewed. I think that any system can stand to be improved. The aim of what is being done now is to improve an operating system with the appointment of the new deputy minister.

I think that the minister is now ready to proceed and we can look forward to some very good things in the near future. MR. MINIELY: Mr. Chairman, the comments started with the hon. Member for Drayton Valley, who indi cated he was hoping that some of these would start a new direction. The way I put it was that I think there is lots of evidence to demonstrate that we are at a turning point in hospital and medical care services and in health care generally, and that the challenge for all public leaders will be very simply to carefully manage the public dollars within citizen priorities.

We won't be able to go back to the history of the last 20 years, where it's been an open cheque book and then the axe falling. We will have to carefully manage and develop quality in our services, also new responses, showing that the problem in health care is different than it's been historically. In that sense this is starting, and we are at a turning point in a new direction. With respect to the question of the hon.

Member for Spirit River-Fairview, I would say that the change in the planning process, relative to the new depart ment having responsibility for the functional program, is in response to the fact, as we travelled throughout the province, that more definitive parameters should be given to hospital boards from the beginning; not to design their facility totally, but to give them some parameters so we get away from this historical pro cess. We find that boards and administrators are happy with this change.

They don't feel they've had adequate guidance right from the beginning to devel op a facility, and then all of a sudden it gets near the final design stage and the government comes crash ing down and says, no, this is now far beyond what we can tolerate in cost. Granted, that's the way it has been done for many, many years. But we believe the time has come for the government to give the hospital community in Alberta, and nursing homes, more broad, definitive parameters in terms of what's reasonable, tolerable, and financially responsible as far as what the government will fund.

Of course that will be done right from the outset, in consultation with local boards and local communities

1958 ALBERTA HANSARD November 8, 1977 in terms of the need for services in that community. In other words, it won't be done in isolation. It will be done in consultation. But the responsibility for the development of the functional program in consulta tion with local communities will rest with the new department rather than with the local board.

"Categories" may be the wrong word, but I think the relationship between rural hospitals, larger cen tres in rural Alberta, and our very sophisticated, spe cialized facilities in urban Alberta will have to be developed in a very co-ordinated and concurrent way, if we're going to be effective in terms of the move ment of patients between the different levels of care available in the province. To that degree it may be we have to categorize hospitals more in the future than we have in the past. In answer to the question of the hon. Member for Little Bow, with respect to the two studies.

For the information of hon. members, because it has been topical both in the spring and fall sittings and because the work had been done and presented to me, I have made a decision that the main recommendations of the two reports of officials will be implemented in the new department. Nevertheless it is an internal de partmental organization document, and to that degree I am not prepared to release it publicly. I am prepared to state that I have endorsed the policies to be implemented, as I've indicated in the House today. It will take some time to implement the policies, as the hon. member would understand.

So I would ask for his understanding: it will take some time to actually implement these new policies in the new department and during the period of reorganization. MR. R. SPEAKER: [Inaudible] . . . extended policies. MR. MINIELY: As soon as we have the mechanisms to deal with future construction proposals, we will communicate these policies to the boards right from the beginning. In the meantime, Mr. Chairman, in answer to the hon. Member for Little Bow, I will tell the Alberta Hospital Association and the hospital community that these kinds of procedures are comin- g, so they won't be caught by surprise.

But the building in of the mechanisms, as I indicated, will require a control centre, also the strengthening of people. We will need more people to do the job effectively than we have had historically. That's something I'll have to deal with my colleagues on, in terms of budgetary support. I simply want to compliment the hon. Member for Grande Prairie on his remarks and his perception of the broad view. I think it is difficult, particularly in an emotional area like health care, to defer decisions in the best interest of our province in the longer term and take the broad planning view.

That's exactly what we've been attempting to do. The hon. Member for Little Bow raised a question with respect to the functional plan. I think I have answered that question with respect to his earlier questions. The hon. Member for Lethbridge West: while I want to make it clear that I firmly believe there should not be an arm's length organizational mechanism, either real or implied, in this largest area of public expendi ture — and "implied" is an operative word too — that's no reflection on the outstanding job many peo ple have done.

I said in my opening remarks on second reading of the bill that I believe the structure is not the right structure to meet the challenge now and for the future. But in no way is that critical of people. In fact I want to compliment the people on both commissions. With respect to the Alberta Health Care Insurance Commission, in particular, I want to endorse the remarks by the hon. Member for Lethbridge West, who sits on that commission. They have done an outstanding job in terms of the rela tionship with our citizens and the medical profession in billings back and forth. The hon.

Member for Edmonton Kingsway: yes, I've talked about belief in an approach to managing health care, concurrently with my colleague the Minister of Social Services and Community Health. It's based on priorities within a total health definition. I think that's going to be exceedingly important in the long term. The co-ordination of services on a total health basis, community and institutional, will be essential. I would also compliment the hon. Member for Sedgewick-Coronation. He chaired the nursing home policy review committee and has given me an interim report which is excellent.

While the report isn't final yet, his contributions, as well as those of the hon. members for Lethbridge West and Grande Prairie, will be very helpful to me over the next number of months as we're trying to move in some of these policy areas. Mr. Chairman, I think that answers all the questions. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, before we rush away, I would like to make one or two comments that I feel are significant and must be made relative to the concept at this time. I've made my statement with regard to that.

A department of government, if administered correctly, can carry on the health care responsibilities of this province. The commission, if administered properly, in communication as it should have been, could have functioned properly with elected and ministerial responsibility. There is no question about that. The decision-making rested with the minister as a responsible person, and in turn with cabinet. We considered how we would approach Bill 66 in committee.

We first considered we would raise a number of questions with regard to various hospital issues across the province; hospital boards that have contacted us, people who have concern. But, Mr. Chairman, we felt at this point in time that we would have to ask the question. We felt the minister would have to go find out the answer from somebody, and we would just be going through a process of little value. We feel that the minister has not been on top of many of the grass-roots issues across this prov ince. I raised the question with regard to Lethbridge yesterday.

The minister was not aware of what was being considered, relative to the mental health pro grams in the Lethbridge municipal and St. Michael's hospitals. We've had ample discussion with regard to the Cancer Centre in Calgary and the Health Sciences Centre in Edmonton. Answers were not available. The minister was not on top of the problems occur ring at the regional or local board level. Mr. Chair man, we said, why ask questions? And at this point we made that decision. We feel there's nothing wrong with the concept of a department even in light

November 8, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1959 of that. The minister has stood before us today and outlined a plan called functional planning. We all know what that, as a management tool, is supposed to do and what it can do. We know it can facilitate communication and priority planning if used properly. But the key to any kind of plan, Mr.

Chairman, is the man who sits at the top and administrates the program or the men who have the capability of giving good advice and direction, of being able to communi cate with local hospital boards in determining what their priority needs are and how they relate to provin cial priority needs. That is the key to the success of a health care program in this province, Mr. Chairman. We've had presentations with regard to cost control and the new administration, the new efficiency, reports that we are going to do great things. They all sound just fine.

I have gone back in Hansard, and I note the minister said in 1975 that he was going to come up with this new grand plan; 1976, exactly the same thing; 1977, here we stand today saying the province is going to establish priorities, cost control, and have this new plan for health delivery across the province. We are at exactly the same stage we were in 1975. The minister is unable to make decisions with regard to needs at the local hospital level.

In the interim we have done some things I just can't accept: one, we in this Assembly, through authorizing budgets, have built an insulation of social workers around the minister which has moved him away from professional people in the health care commission, and they could just as well have been departmental people. Whoever they were, they were servants of the government, servants of the people. We've built an insulation between that kind of advice that could have been to the minister and kept him fully aware.

I thought the prime example of that was when I raised the question the other day with regard to the initiation of work on the Calgary Cancer Centre. The minister knew the work. He must have talked to somebody outside this inner circle of insulation. He received good information and was taking his respon sibility. I thought, maybe something is happening. Well there's that insulation. At the same time the minister focuses on his internal responsibility with these people, and hospital boards across the province do not know the direction this government wants to go in health care.

Millions of dollars are being spent and administered by local hospital boards, and they don't know why they are being faulted at this point in time, why they're being criticized, why this cost con trol is going on. They're trying to do a responsible job. We freeze 13 hospital boards that were asked in earlier years to do something. They say, why is that happening to us? I guess it's because we have to wait for this grand plan. Well the minister has admitted here that it will take time before the plan is implemented. It will take time. At the same time, we've got people waiting at the doors of hospitals.

I understand the mental health facility in Lethbridge is filled to capacity; Claresholm, filled to capacity; others across the province, the very same. Some practical things must be done. The minister should talk with these people and in the interim at least make some decisions. But that communication level has been broken. So that's the second one: one between he and the department; the second between he and the local hospital groups. It's one thing to have 400 meetings with them, but another to have some kind of decision making that keeps the plan moving while this grand plan is in place.

I'm not sure it will happen. Such plans involve people. When you have people, you have difficulties administering things — making it run smoothly and priorities happening. That takes a skill in itself. Well, to this point in time we have no confidence that will be fulfilled under the present minister. We've waited since 1975 to have some thing positive come out; some good direction and easy decisions at the local level of government. It has not happened, Mr. Chairman, and we're not willing to accept that. We're not going to vote against the act because of that; the act has some possibilities.

We feel that if the Premier, in his assessment of the minister's re sponsibility, can either shuffle him to another portfo lio, or otherwise, and bring in somebody who can administer that department, then the functional plan, the departmental plan, the needs at the local level, the dismissing of these people who are putting insu lation around the minister can happen. What we want, as MLAs and representatives in our local dis tricts, can happen in this whole health scheme. I think it's unfortunate, Mr. Chairman, that I have to stand in my place and say those kinds of things.

But I'm concerned at this point in time that nothing's going to happen. I'm sure that in 1978 . . . [interjec tions] There might be some other people; we'll have a spring election prior to that. But in 1978 we're going to hear the same thing. We're waiting for the grand plan to be fulfilled. But at the same time, we have uneasiness at the local hospital board level, authority moving away from the local people, no decisions being made, and nothing but frustration. Mr. Chair man, that is an unfortunate thing. I'm not criticizing the legislation. That's standard departmental legislation.

It's how it's administered, the type of planning that's going into it, the hundreds of thousands of dollars the minister just asked for in additional staff. He's committing not only his col leagues but all of us to hundreds of thousands of dollars of additional staff. What you have to ask is: what does that do to the red tape between the local government level and the minister? I'm concerned what will happen to that kind of thing. If we build in this whole thing, will we facilitate communication between the local hospital and the minister as such. Mr.

Chairman, those are my concerns, concerns of many people outside this Legislature, and concerns of many groups involved in the health delivery system who want to do a good job but don't know how to communicate with the government through the min ister at the present time. MR. MINIELY: Mr. Chairman, I'm amazed the hon. Member for Little Bow would have the nerve to stand in his place and make the remarks and comments he has. I'm simply going to respond once, so that my response is on the record, and stand on the record. But I want to begin by repeating what I said at the beginning of second reading of Bill 66.

I quote what I said, which is accurate and on the record in Hansard: Mr. Speaker, the former government's attempt to answer these questions was through what the

1960 ALBERTA HANSARD November 8, 1977 Leader of the Opposition cited this spring as a commission form of government. Upon assum ing office the present government had little alter native but to continue to provide service under the existing or recommended structure. The offi cial opposition's so-called commission form of government has been given a trial period and found to be wanting — beginning with initial questions posed by my predecessor the Hon. Neil Crawford. In the spring session the hon. Member for Drum- heller, Mr. Gordon Taylor . . . This is what matters, in response to the hon.

Member for Little Bow. A member of the same government . . . rather succinctly stated the major shortcom ings . . . It [the Hospital Commission] was done with the ulterior purpose in mind of getting the people off the shoulders of the minister . . . Now is that Social Credit's idea of ministerial re sponsibility? It isn't my idea of ministerial responsibil ity — "getting the hospital done at arm's length". The hon. Member for Drumheller then went on to say "the minister has to be responsible". Well, that's what Bill 66 is all about, Mr. Chairman. You bet I take that responsibility.

But I have said in this House that the first step will be organization and accountability. Policy will be next. In my view the hon. Member for Little Bow has a lot of nerve getting up and making the comments he just made. He talks about one more item I want to deal with. MR. CHAIRMAN: Time. MR. MINIELY: He talked about items . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Our hour has passed. I'm afraid we have to move to the next item of business on the agenda. MR. NOTLEY: Can we obtain unanimous consent to finish? DR. HORNER: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. [Motion carried] [Mr.

Speaker in the Chair] DR. McCRIMMON: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole Assembly has had under consideration Bill 66, begs to report progress, and asks leave to sit again. MR. SPEAKER: Having heard the report, do you all agree? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 1. Moved by Mr. Shaben:

Be it resolved that consideration be given by the gov ernment of Alberta to introduce legislation requiring oil companies and/or refiners operating in Alberta to bear all costs of transporting gasoline and diesel fuel to vendors within the province of Alberta. MR. SHABEN: Mr. Speaker, my resolution has been on the Order Paper for some time. A number of people have approached me and there has been a certain amount of misunderstanding as to the intent of this resolution.

I'd like to make it clear at the outset that the intention of the motion is not to inter fere with the free enterprise system in the marketing of gasoline and diesel fuel within the province of Alberta. Over the years, Albertans have been faced with and historically have been upset by unfair transportation costs as they relate to movement of goods east and west, and transportation is certainly a factor in gaso line prices across this province.

In the realm of over all transportation concerns, all members of the House are familiar with the representations this government made to the Hall commission, asking for a rationaliza tion of transportation costs in the province of Alberta and western Canada generally. My resolution points to the same difficulty as it relates to gasoline pricing within the province. The wholesale, or dealer posted, tank wagon price, doesn't vary a great deal across western Canada. It doesn't vary any more than it does across the length and breadth of this province, and that's the problem I would like to address myself to.

The citizens of rural and northern Alberta are interested in joining the mainstream of the develop ment and growth of this great province, and our government has addressed itself in many ways to decentralizing this growth, and encouraging devel opment throughout the province. One of the difficul ties that rural citizens face is the higher costs of gasoline and fuel away from the major urban centres. In some cases those costs are as high as 20, 25, almost 30 per cent different from Edmonton and Calgary.

I realize the subject before us is not simple, and it's complicated by a number of factors including competition, dealer support programs offered by the oil companies, and the transportation component. The question I've put to the Assembly, though, is to help reduce some of that differential by asking oil companies or refiners to develop one transportation zone for the province. At present, the zones are based on location of refineries, and the transportation component increases as you move further away from these refineries.

An interesting case in point is that Calgary is a zone with pricing based on the fact that Calgary had a refinery. It's no longer operating and the great bulk of the fuel moving into Calgary comes out of Edmonton, but the Calgary consumer has the advantage of that zone pricing. In a sense we could say that the citizens of other parts of Alberta are subsidizing the cost of transportation of gasoline and diesel fuel into Calgary markets. The effect of transportation costs being zoned on the basis of the entire province should move the pricing of gasoline toward uniform wholesale prices, posted tank wagon prices.

I'd like to give you an example. In High Level, the posted dealer tank wagon price is over 7 cents higher than in Edmonton. That transportation component forms part of the price at the pump. I'm certainly not going to say that the entire differential in the price at the pumps in High Level is a result of differences in the transportation

November 8, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1961 component, but it's certainly a contributing factor. By moving in the direction of zoning the entire province, it could have the effect of substantially lowering the price of gasoline at the pumps in High Level, Hinton, High Prairie, and in the non-urban centres and the centres away from these zones. There's no doubt we would still have the interplay of competition, which has a great bearing on the prices of gasoline and diesel fuel.

Many members are aware that within the province most oil companies offer a dealer support program, ostensibly to allow their franchise dealers to meet the competition. The dealers are assured a minimum margin on their gaso line sales in order that they don't go under. That minimum support guaranteed by most oil companies is in the range of 5 cents a gallon for a self-serve station, and for full service stations it's in the neigh borhood of 8 cents a gallon.

So the effect of gasoline pricing, now mainly in the large urban centres, is to a great extent dictated by the dealer support program available in order that the dealers can respond to competition. This sort of situation rarely occurs in the small rural centres. As a result, you will see a dif ference in gasoline prices of 20, 25, 27 per cent, as I mentioned earlier. I realize that a great deal of this is a result of competition. But surely the members must wonder where the cost of that support goes. The cost of supporting this dealer support program is in the tens of millions of dollars.

Those dollars are absorbed elsewhere by the consumers. As I mentioned earlier, the situation in gasoline marketing is not simple. It's complicated by a number of factors I've mentioned — the transportation factor, the dealer support program — and I can visualize the difficulty the government would have controlling prices, either rack prices or wholesale prices. It would be very, very difficult. But in many ways the oil companies are doing things throughout Canada to maintain a fairly close level of pricing from one area to another.

If one examines the pump prices in, say, Vancouver, Saskatoon, Regina, and Winnipeg, the dif ferences between those prices and the prices con sumers in Edmonton and Calgary are paying is minimal. I really have trouble understanding that, in view of the fact that the Alberta sales tax on gasoline is substantially lower. It's 7, 9, 10 cents, the lowest in Canada, yet in many cases the price differential in these urban centres may be a couple of cents.

So I have difficulty understanding the pricing, although I do understand the dealer support program, and that cost to the oil companies of assuring the dealers' viability must be absorbed somewhere within the system. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make one additional comment — and the effect of this is largely felt in rural Alberta. There are some small oil companies, other than the majors, which have had a beneficial effect on the small rural communities in moving in and pricing their gasoline at the pump lower than the giants in the oil and gas business.

This has tended to lower the prices somewhat in rural centres, although all rural communities don't have the advantage of these small companies being located there. So I would lay this matter before the members of the Assembly and repeat my request that the gov ernment consider establishing a single transportation zone for the entire province in order to allow rural communities a more reasonable price for their fuel and gas, and to allow the policy of the government to decentralize, to move forward. I look forward, Mr.

Speaker, to listening to the contributions of the other members of the Assembly to this debate. MR. KIDD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a few comments on the motion by the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview. I'm sorry, he's from Lesser Slave Lake. DR. BUCK: The same political persuasion. MR. KIDD: Mr. Speaker, it's a little confusing when an hon. member puts a motion on the Order Paper and then speaks about something else. I don't know too much about the rules of this Assembly, but I was tempted to rise on a point of order and ask what motion he was speaking on. Because it certainly isn't the one I read here.

The one here says, and I think I can read it pretty clearly: . . . consideration be given by the Government . . . to introduce legislation requiring oil compa nies and/or refiners operating in Alberta to bear all cost of transporting gasoline and diesel fuel to vendors within the province of Alberta. Mr.

Speaker, I think this is another instance of the attitude of some of our members — I hope not too many — and a lot of the public toward oil companies who say, they're making great profits and so, by golly, all we have to do is let them pay for transporting fuel to anyplace in Alberta and take it out of their profits. Okay, let's talk about some of the facts. Now, do the hon. members know — maybe it would be good to state exactly what the situation is on a gallon of gasoline. Let's take April 1977, which isn't much different now.

At a full service retail outlet in Edmon ton, for instance, regular grade gasoline was selling for 78.9 cents. What made up that 78.9 cents? It was made up as follows: dealer's margin, 9 cents; provincial gasoline tax, 10 cents; federal sales and excise tax on gasoline, 14.9 cents. Mr. Speaker, if we're talking about relieving the price of gasoline, let's try to get that 10 cent excise tax that was imposed on everybody in this country on June 24, 1975, by the federal government. DR. BUCK: And the provincial tax, Fred. MR. KIDD: And the provincial tax. Let's speak about that in comparison.

The provincial tax is by far the lowest of any province in Canada. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. DR. BUCK: Well, take it off. MR. KIDD: To carry on, I said the federal sales and excise tax was 14.9 cents. Provincial and federal roya lties, and taxes paid by producers on crude oil, 17.5; the cost of crude oil, excluding royalties and taxes, 12.9 cents; and the oil companies' share to cover operating expenses and return on investment, 14.6 cents. What is that 14.6 cents comprised of?

It must cover all costs of refining, inventories, working capi tal, distribution, sales, administration, credit cards, municipal taxes, corporate income taxes on refining, marketing of oil products, et cetera, plus a reasonable

1962 ALBERTA HANSARD November 8, 1977 rate of return on investment. Let's take a look at the return on investment. Marketing and refining of oil has historically had a low return on investment. In one major oil company with which I am familiar, in only one year from 1966 to 1976 did they have over 6 per cent return on their investment. That is less than most other manufactur ing industries. So really when we talk about a gallon of gasoline, we've got 42.4 cents in taxes.

The after-tax profit of the oil company I'm talking about — refining and marketing — approximated 2 cents on each dollar of sales, including direct product taxes. Although I don't really know what the hon. Member for Lesser Slave Lake suggested, if we go back to his motion, I think he suggested that the companies absorb 7 cents so he can have his gasoline at 7 cents less cost in Lesser Slave Lake. My figures indicate that you just can't stand 7 cents when you only make 2 cents on a dollar of sales. So let's talk about some facts here.

I think this motion is ridiculous; I think I have a great many more facts that will support it being ridiculous; and I think in the future all such motions as this should be left to the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview. Thank you. MR. PEACOCK: Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter this debate in an impromptu way, but I couldn't help but respond to the Member for Banff stating that the previous speaker from Lesser Slave Lake was speak ing on a motion that he couldn't understand.

It seems to me that what the Member for Lesser Slave Lake has suggested is a pretty fundamental, philo sophical approach to what we in the province of Alberta have been looking at: that is, the decentraliza tion, or uniformity we should say, of opportunity for all areas of the province to experience their particular skills and show their entrepreneurship in the devel opment of their own areas. Mr. Speaker, I don't think anybody should be pena lized for a location.

Because a refinery happens to be located in northern, southern, or central Alberta, I don't think it gives them licence in any way to pena lize the products that come from that particular refinery, in the movement and use of those products in the areas they're servicing. I think there's a lot of precedent, Mr. Speaker, for a universal pricing policy. In the history of Canada rate areas in Montreal, Toronto, the areas around Toronto which are Hamilton, Peterborough, Belville, have all been given a rate grouping area.

In other words, they've defined those as the same rate to allow them equal economic freedoms and opportunities, and to make them competitive in moving from those areas into any point in western Canada. That's called a rate grouping. I think manufacturers traditionally and historically in Canada and the United States have done the same thing in attempting to give equality to people who, by reason of location, are removed from the source of supply. I refer to tire, battery, accessories people; they have a common price all across Canada.

It seems to me how they do this is a corporate respon sibility on behalf of the refineries, rather than, as the resolution reads,

an act of legislation. But surely the corporate responsibilities of the refiners in Alberta should be looking at a one-price zone rate for Alberta. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. PEACOCK: The reason, as I have suggested, is the precedent in the rail industry, the precedent in the manufacture of such products as tires and bat teries, where we have the same price in Toronto as we do in Calgary or Edmonton, and the same price for accessories in Toronto or Montreal as in Calgary or Edmonton.

I think this has been brought about by the corporate responsibility of the manufacturers involved, who have understood that they are working at a disadvan tage to apply a transportation charge just because a plant has been located at a spot different from the source of the product being used. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest that the hon. Member for Lesser Slave Lake, and this House, might see fit to draw to the attention of manufacturers involved in the province of Alberta that farm income, as has been mentioned here before, has not increased equal to that of some of our urban industries.

If we relate farm income to the increases we've experienced in real estate, the auto mobile industry, and the hydrocarbon industry, we can rapidly realize that farm income and the farmers themselves, who are the users of these products, are paying the difference in this transportation charge and should be protected. For that reason I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there be a zone for all Alberta for hydrocarbon products. AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say a word or two on the resolution, too.

I think the resolution might be called equalization of freight rates for gaso line and fuel oil, and as such it bears some resemb lance to what we have been trying to get in Canada for freight rates across this nation. We don't think it's right that we should be at the apex of the freight rates, pay the highest freight rate out of anywhere in Canada, or that Nova Scotia should be somewhat similar but not quite so badly off.

I'm not going to develop that, because I think every hon. member agrees that the Canadian government could, if it wanted to, find ways and means of equalizing those freight rates so the people of Alberta and our indus tries would not be penalized. When we travel around Alberta and find the price of gasoline at the pumps different in one place to another, sometimes up to 10 and 12 cents, it leaves a very bad taste in the mouth, and you begin to think you're being gouged. The freight rates have some thing to do with it, and the market place has some thing to do with it, too.

But until fairly recently, the city of Drumheller probably had the highest priced gasoline at the pump of almost anywhere in the province, which was very difficult to explain and to understand. The market place has looked after some of that but it's still very high — 5, 6, 7, 8 cents higher than 90 miles away in the city of Calgary. I went into the Crowsnest Pass a year ago, and found I was paying 12 or 15 cents more than I had been paying west and east of that particular service station. I was so disgusted that I put two gallons in and went to the next service station where I saved 7 cents a gallon.

That's the market place. What pro portion of this is freight is difficult to understand. It

November 8, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1963 certainly stands to reason that if you haul gasoline 100 miles it's going to cost you more than if you haul it 5, 10, or 15 miles. If you're going to haul it 200 miles from the refinery it's going to cost more than if you only haul it 10 miles. I think this is the thing many Albertans are now looking at when they travel, and they're travelling more and more by car across our province.

As a matter of fact, I think the excellent tourist program now advanced by the Minister of Tourism will see Albertans travelling across this province from length to breadth, from east to west, in a way we've never before envisioned. I think that little enticement and reward will put the frosting on the cake, and many, many people will be travelling across Alberta. It would be nice if there were some equalization of gas as far as the freight rates are concerned, so it would then be the market place without taking into consid eration those freight rates. The question is, who is going to pay it?

I think the resolution does leave a little bit of misunderstanding there. It says, the companies or refiners are "to bear all costs of transporting gasoline and diesel fuel to vendors". I suppose that could mean the total cost of transportation or freight would be totalled and an equalized rate set. I see the hon. mover of the resolution nodding his head, so it appears we're on the right track. I don't think that would be too bad.

It might be a trifle more for those who are living very close to the refinery, and may meet with some resen tment there, but it would be a tremendous boost for those who live a long way from the refinery. I think it would come into the category of helping other Alber tans to appreciate the resources we have. I suppose it could also be done by government subsidy, but once a government starts subsidizing one thing, where do you stop? Do you subsidize everything? Equalization of freight could apply to practically everything in the province that moves. Gasoline is used by almost everybody today.

Almost every home has a car, truck, two cars, or a tractor; they're using fuel oil, gasoline, and diesel fuel. It seems to me that equalizing the price across Alberta, even within zones, would be a tremendous boost to travel in the province and make all the people of Alberta, those who live in the far reaches of the province, feel they belong, that they are not being asked to bear an unfair portion of the costs of operat ing a farm or their vehicles for business or for pleasure. I think the resolution is worthy of looking into. There may be obstacles and ramifications.

But if we can go even part way in getting some equalization of freight rates for gasoline and diesel fuel across the province, in addition to giving a tremendous benefit and boost to our own people — at least all who would receive the benefit, it's conceivable some wouldn't, some may have to pay a little more — but for all who receive the benefit, I think it would be a tremendous example to the Canadian government of what a gov ernment can do for the people. We might then be able to make greater advances on freight rates across the Dominion of Canada. DR. WALKER: Mr.

Speaker, in responding to this motion by the hon. Member for Lesser Slave Lake, this government has a policy of decentralization to try to spread industry out to the smaller centres. But this policy conducted by oil companies has the direct opposite effect. In actual fact at the moment the smaller centres are subsidizing places like Calgary and Edmonton. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. DR. WALKER: The point-to-point pricing by oil com panies is done in a zone system. I don't know how many zones there are, probably 12 or 14. This all had to be arranged between companies — Shell, Texaco, Esso, the whole lot.

Some way or other they worked out a system where they could zone at least a dozen areas in the province. Yet they can't seem to work out an agreement to have one zone for the whole province. As the hon. Member for Calgary Currie said, this should be one whole zone. The price of gas in Calgary and Edmonton, as of August this year, was 62.8 cents per tank load or whatever they call it. Now, in Saskatoon at the same time the price was 63.4 cents — an 0.6 cent dif ference. In other words, presumably it cost 0.6 cents to ship from Edmonton to Saskatoon.

But it cost 3.4 cents to ship from Calgary to Fort Macleod, a distance of 100 miles. There's no refinery at Calgary any more, yet the price in Calgary is the same as in Edmonton, 200 miles away. It doesn't cost them anything to ship that little distance. So there are obviously a lot of inequities in the whole set-up. Even in comparing the smaller towns, for instance, the wholesale cost to both Fort Macleod and Clare- sholm is approximately 59.5 cents. When you add the federal and provincial tax, the price to the dealer is 79.5 cents.

In Fort Macleod it sells for 92 cents a gallon, which is about 13.4 cents profit. Then you go to Claresholm and find that . . . MR. PLANCHE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is in fact a refinery operating in Calgary. AN HON. MEMBER: It's a restaurant. DR. WALKER: The oil company I talked to today had closed theirs down two years ago. MR. PLANCHE: Mr. Speaker, Gulf is still operating. MR. SPEAKER: Possibly the hon. member could inter vene at a later stage. The refinery may be in order, but the intervention is not. DR.

WALKER: When we look at a lot of these figures, the little towns are marking up about 13 cents profit which isn't excessive. Then you look at Calgary, which buys at 62.8 cents and sells at 79.5 cents. I think that works out around 17 cents profit, yet they are still way, way cheaper. They can buy it cheaper retail than small towns can buy it wholesale. The oil companies come along and say, if you reduce your price by 8 cents, we'll sell you the gas a bit cheaper. So they invoice them the same price and give them a cutback of 8 or 9 cents under the table, or whatever it is.

So you get all these disparities be tween the small towns. There's no way to compare the cost of gas in one town with another, because there are so many different pricing set-ups whereby the oil companies guarantee a certain profit to a dealer, no matter what he sells it at in the price war,

1964 ALBERTA HANSARD November 8, 1977 or in other areas where they are in a marginal situation. The hon. Member for Banff said the motion wasn't in order. But it is in order, because while we say in the motion to bear the total cost of transportation, that cost could easily be spread over the whole of Alberta for a difference of 1 or 2 cents a gallon. I'm not at all opposed to the oil companies making a profit while they're selling oil, but it shouldn't make the profit from the rural areas subsidize the cities.

Per haps it would be a good idea to remove the provincial sales tax on country-sold gasoline only and just leave it with the cities and put a wee bit of tax on them for a while. The hon. Member for Drumheller mentioned the distance from the refinery. I think I've tried to make a point that this doesn't hold water at all when we start comparing prices across the province. The whole things boils down to some more equita ble type of distribution.

The two ways it can be done are: either the oil companies sit down and work it out, or, if that doesn't happen, government may have to interfere and say, get with it and do it, because the present system is very, very inequitable in every way. I would like to support this motion by the hon. Member for Slave Lake. MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take a few moments to participate in this debate, in support of the motion in general principle. I do so because I've had the opportunity during the past year or two to meet with the Medicine Hat group of the Automotive Retailers' Association.

I don't pretend to know all the intricacies of the pricing system employed by the multinational oil companies and their relationship with their individual dealers. I am impressed by the arguments put forward to me by the local businessmen who operate the little cor ner gas stations. When we talk about supporting private enterprise versus socialism, I think there is no doubt where I stand on that issue. I stand on the side of private enterprise.

Some people have asked me which side of this motion I am going to speak on, the socialist side or the private enterprise side, presuma bly meaning that the mover of the motion, the hon. Member for Lesser Slave Lake, is on the socialist side. I don't think that's the case at all, Mr. Speaker. There are degrees of private enterprise. There's the individual entrepreneur who tries to serve the public by providing gasoline services on the corner. On the other hand, you have these very large organizations which expand their influence around the entire world, and they have been called multinational oil companies.

Well, Mr. Speaker, both these groups fit within the framework of private enterprise. It seems obvious to me that the one has a great deal of influence over the other. So I would like this afternoon, if I can, to state the case for the individual small businessman. We as legislators in this province should be interested in seeing not just that the multinational oil companies succeed and make a profit. They will. Does anyone question that?

But what we should be concerned about is seeing that the individual entrepreneur, the small businessman, also has an opportunity of mak ing a profit, no matter where he may be in the province of Alberta. What we have today in Alberta is a zone system with regard to the pricing of gas to the individual operator. I have had it urged upon me by the Medi cine Hat branch of the Automotive Retailers' Associa tion and by their provincial president that what we need to do is equalize tank wagon prices in Alberta. I think really that's the intent of the motion before the Assembly today.

And I'm impressed by that argu ment. I'm impressed by the argument because it seems inequitable to me and to everyone else I know in my constituency of Medicine Hat-Redcliff that there is a difference of 8 cents a gallon between the city of Medicine Hat and the town of Redcliff, and the city of Calgary and the city of Edmonton. In addition — and why, no one can tell me — there's a difference between the city of Lethbridge and the city of Medi cine Hat of 4 to 6 cents a gallon in the price of gas at the pumps.

When I asked my friends and constitu ents, who are small businessmen trying to serve the public in Medicine Hat, why this differential exists, they say they don't really know, and they can't really find out from the companies they are dealing with and the companies from which they are buying the product which they sell on the retail market. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think there's something wrong when that exists. And I think we as legislators have a responsibility to discuss this matter in the public forum as we are doing today.

Perhaps the exact terminology used in the motion may not suit some of the members, as has been raised today. But I think it gives us an opportunity to discuss this question in general. A further suggestion has been made to me by the automotive retailers in my constituency that the mul tinational oil companies or parent companies get out of the retail business. Now perhaps that's straying too far from the intent of the motion. But I would suggest that there's a good deal of merit in that, because I think we really have a responsibility to encourage a private enterprise economy . . . The hon.

Member for Clover Bar will have an opportunity, now that he has returned to his place, to rise and state his views on this subject. And I'm sure we're all waiting DR. BUCK: I thought I'd misheard something. I was just checking . . . MR. HORSMAN: I see. Perhaps we agree on some thing for a change. But it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that there are members of this Assembly who have different backgrounds and we've heard expression of that point of view earlier today on this subject.

I would like to state the position I have tried to make that it's not just a question of seeing a profit made by the oil companies and/or refiners operating in Alberta. Certainly we want to see them make a profit. And profit to me is not a dirty word. It may be to the Member for Spirit River-Fairview; but to me it's a very essential ingredient of our private enterprise system. MR. NOTLEY: Agreed. Right on. MR. HORSMAN: But the same thing applies at the pumps. I suggest we have an obligation to examine this question. Perhaps we don't require legislation to bring about some equity in this field.

Maybe all we need is some moral suasion in order to do that. Now,

November 8, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1965 there are members who suggest that these larger companies are not subject to moral suasion. Howev er, I think we should try that approach first. I know that in certain fields there have been ministers of the Crown who through their departments have been most successful in applying moral suasion to these oil companies with respect to renewal and review of surface rights, leases, and that type of thing, and I applaud them for doing so. In most cases that has come about.

If I may digress, some time ago in this Assembly I raised the question of the attitude taken by a com pany known as Many Islands Pipe Lines Ltd. with regard to the review of surface rights compensations to the landowners. The hon. Member for Spirit River- Fairview took an interest in this no doubt because of the fact that Many Islands Pipe Lines is solely owned by the Saskatchewan Power Corporation. Interesting ly enough, they have now, after much reluctance, agreed to review those rates. For whatever reason that came about, I am indeed very grateful.

However, I initially raised it in this Assembly, for whatever that's worth, I think that that type of moral suasion on these giant companies, such as Sask. Power can often be beneficial. I think we should try that because the day is coming, Mr. Speaker, when I think it will be very difficult for me to stand in Medicine Hat and try — I'm not going to try very hard — to justify an 8-cent-per-gallon differential in the price of gas at the pumps in Medicine Hat as opposed to what it is in Calgary and Edmonton.

I would like the ministers who are directly involved in this matter to take a very good, hard look at this whole question. So, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I disagree with the comments uttered in the Assembly this afternoon by the Member for Banff. MR. KIDD: Are you speaking on this motion or anoth er motion? AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't know. MR. HORSMAN: Perhaps I should say this to him outside the Assembly, but it seems to me that we have to consider not just the position of making a profit from the point of view of the multinational oil companies. But let's look at the little guy on the corner too.

Let's look at him and let's see if w

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19771108
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L18 S3 19771108 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	f9cbf1b46d26c8e9db0514f9b6d512feb2c82499

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