Alberta Hansard — 15 March 1983, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 20, Session 1)

19830315

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

March 15, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 65 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Tuesday, March 15, 1983 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 23 Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund Special Appropriation Act, 1983-84 MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to intro duce Bill No. 23, the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund Special Appropriation Act, 1983-84. This being a money Bill, His Honour the Honourable the Lieutenant- Governor, having been informed of the contents of this Bill, recommends the same to the Assembly.

The purpose of this short Bill is to authorize the Provincial Treasurer to transfer 15 per cent of the non renewable resource revenues received in the 1983-84 fiscal year from the General Revenue Fund to the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund. [Leave granted; Bill 23 read a first time] Bill 2 Aerial Photographic Survey Repeal Act MR. SPARROW: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to beg leave to introduce Bill No. 2, the Aerial Photo graphic Survey Repeal Act.

The purpose of this Bill is to no longer require private individuals or companies to have licences to photograph land in Alberta from the air, to be used for mapping or surveying purposes. [Leave granted; Bill 2 read a first time] Bill 16 Companies Amendment Act, 1983 MR. ALEXANDER: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill No. 16, the Companies Amendment Act, 1983. Public companies that are authorized to issue shares under the Securities Act must comply with two different sets of rules under both the Securities Act and the Companies Act.

The purpose of the amendment is to consolidate these rules, in form and substance, to relieve such public companies from unnecessary paperwork and to provide consistency in provincial legislation. [Leave granted; Bill 16 read a first time] Bill 4 Planning Amendment Act, 1983 MR. MUSGROVE: Mr.

Speaker, I beg leave to intro duce Bill No. 4, the Planning Amendment Act, 1983, an amendment to allow for the completion of regional plans, to be effective December 31, 1983, and to maintain pre liminary regional plans until the new regional plans are in place. [Leave granted; Bill 4 read a first time] Bill 20 Rural Gas Amendment Act, 1983 MRS. CRIPPS: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill No. 20, the Rural Gas Amendment Act, 1983. The purpose of this Bill is to make the name changes in the legislation reflective of the changes in departmental responsibilities.

Reference will be included to ensure that the minister may make regulations ensuring that addi tional construction of new lines will require agreement of property owners. The Bill will permit the co-ops to hook up customers in franchise areas whose consumption pre viously made them ineligible. Lastly, the Bill allows rural municipal authorities to be subject to the same provisions as the rural gas co-ops. [Leave granted; Bill 20 read a first time] MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bills 4, 16, and 20 be placed on the Order Paper under Government Bills and Orders. [Motion carried] Bill 201

An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicle Administration Act MRS. CRIPPS: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill 201,

An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicle Adminis tration Act. The purpose of this Bill is to allow a judge to order the seizure of a vehicle operated by an impaired driver who has been convicted of a previous offence and is operating without a driver's licence. [Leave granted; Bill 201 read a first time] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table the 1981-82 annual report of the Agricultural Develop ment Corporation. Copies were forwarded to members on December 7, 1982. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I wish to table with the Legislature copies of the 1981-82 Public Accounts of the province of Alberta, volumes 1 and 11. They were made public on February 9, 1983. As well, in a package which was available, members will be provided with supplemen tary information and the financial

summary and budget ary review for the same fiscal year. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the first annual report of the Alberta Health Occupations Board. This being the first annual report of the board, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation and that of the government to Mr. Elvin Christenson, chairman of the board, and the members of

66 ALBERTA HANSARD March 15, 1983 the board for their work in the establishment of the board during the year 1982. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. HIEBERT: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this after noon to introduce 22 grade 6 students from St. Bede school in the Edmonton Gold Bar constituency. They are accompanied by their teacher Mrs. Bahry, and parents Mrs. Fraser and Mr. Tulodzeike. They are in the mem bers gallery, and I ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of the House. MR. HYLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce to the Assembly some students from Senator Gershaw high school in Bow Island.

Approximately 20 students made the bus trip to visit the capital and the Legislature. The students are accompanied by Brian and Pam Moen and Ernie Van Soest. I'd ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Legislature, please. MRS. CRIPPS: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to introduce to you, and through you, 26 grade 6 students from Breton school. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Tom Gray, bus driver Ted Grzyb, and parents Mr. Ernie Mockerman, Mrs. Mockerman, Mrs. Marg Stevenson, Mrs. Elaine Adair, and Mrs. Charlotte Sobon.

They have participated in a model legislature, and the students are interested in seeing their real life coun terparts over there, so look sharp. They're seated in the members gallery, and I ask that they rise and receive the warm welcome of the House. MR. DIACHUK: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure today in introducing a class of some 20 grade 6 students who are visiting the Legislature from Anne Fitzgerald school in the constituency of Edmonton Beverly. They are accom panied by a parent, Mr. Marvin Drews, and a school teacher who, coincidentally, has the same name as the Minister of Education, David King.

I wonder what those students sometimes share with David King in their class. I welcome them here today. I ask if they would rise in the public gallery and receive the usual welcome of the Assembly. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Royalty Tax Credit Program MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this ques tion to the hon. Provincial Treasurer. It flows from the February update on the budget, showing our deficit up from $758 million to just under $2.4 billion.

With respect to the royalty tax credit, which was estimated at $282 million — and in the February update, it's going to come to some $674 million — is the Provincial Treasurer in a position to advise the Assembly whether, to the govern ment's knowledge, any companies took advantage of this scheme to offend the spirit of the scheme by either selling assets or dividing their operations so that they might be entitled to several credits instead of one? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, the royalty tax credit is an integral part of the oil and gas activity plan, which was introduced last spring, as hon. members know.

The royal ty tax credit benefit flows mostly during the 1982 and 1983 calendar years. Last summer we became aware of possible problems with respect to the way in which the royalty tax credit was being used or might be contemplated as being used in future. Of course the credit was designed, and I believe has been very effective, to assist the smaller oil and gas companies in the province in generating jobs and in exploration and production.

Members will recall that last August, I believe, I issued a statement which indicated that from the point of view of policy, which would subsequently be buttressed by legislation, we would be clarifying the

interpretation of the previous legislation with regard to the eligibility of the royalty tax credit to the total of $4 million. Accordingly, at that stage that was the policy and has been the policy. In this session, legisla tion which will implement that will be introduced in the form of amendments to the corporate tax Act. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister.

During the course of the investigations that led to the announcement in August, is the minister in a position today to advise the Assembly how many companies may have offended the spirit of the program by selling some of their assets or dividing their operations in such a way as to qualify for more than one royalty tax credit? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, this Legislature of course debates at length, and there are many views about the extent to which the spirit of a given policy may be acquiesced in or blurred. We have to deal with what the law of the Assembly is and was.

The law of this Assem bly, the corporate tax Act as passed in previous years, sets forth the eligibility of the royalty tax credit. From the point of view of compliance with the law itself, last summer we indicated that we wanted to clarify the exist ing provisions. So we made available a policy statement to that effect in August, made it available to the industry. Amendments to effect that clarification will be brought into the Assembly for debate within weeks. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

Can the Provincial Treasurer advise the Assembly today whether in fact companies sold some of their assets or divided their operations in such a way as to qualify for more than one royalty tax credit in a program that I remind the Provincial Treasurer has mushroomed from a cost of $280 million to $670 million, $400 million of public funds. How many companies took advantage of that particular scheme to subdivide and benefit to the tune of more grants than we were told they would otherwise qualify for? MR.

HYNDMAN: I think the question as to what companies received what royalty tax credits is one for the Order Paper, and that would be public information, Mr. Speaker. I can only say that the Treasury Department was implementing the law as passed, in terms of the eligibility of various companies who receive royalty tax credits. That information can be made available. But again I point out that it was originally planned to have a very significant amount, the largest part of the royalty tax credit, plugged in to help jobs and activity in the oil industry in 1982 and 1983.

Therefore it's no surprise to see the very large amounts, which I think have clearly benefited and continue to benefit smaller oil producers,

March 15, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 67 smaller oil discoverers in this province, and certainly have created job activity in a major way. MR. NOTLEY: Well, I'm delighted to learn that. Mr. Speaker, an announcement as to clarification was made in August by the Provincial Treasurer. Undoubted ly something caused the Provincial Treasurer to want to clarify the position. That something was companies tak ing advantage of the scheme who might not otherwise be entitled to it.

My question to the Provincial Treasurer: are there any facts that could be given today, or any information that could be shared with the members of the Assembly, as to the extent of companies taking advantage of this scheme? MR. HYNDMAN: Again, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated last summer, we felt, and my officials indicated that they thought there may be a concern developing with regard to the extent to which the royalty tax credit appeared to have been used by various organizations, various compa nies that were applying.

We were applying and continue to apply the law as a matter of administration of the law of the Assembly. Through the statement that was made, we indicated that modifications and a tightening up, a clarification, would take place. Amendments will be in troduced to effect that. If the hon. member is interested in those companies who received royalty tax credits and the amounts, certainly that information will be available upon the introduction of the appropriate motion for a return. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

Is the Provincial Treasurer in a position to advise the Assembly specifically what steps were taken by the Treasury Department or the Department of Energy and Natural Resources to monitor the operation of the royal ty tax credit program from its inception? MR. HYNDMAN: Well, the usual appropriate monitor ing approaches were taken from its inception, Mr. Speak er. Those are monitoring approaches which take place with respect to any tax credit, whether it's a renter tax credit, a royalty tax credit, or the various other tax credits that are administered. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

Is the Treasurer in a position to advise the Assembly why it was August and not earlier? In view of the mushroom ing impact of this program from an estimate of $280 million to some $670 million, why did it take so long to plug the loophole? MR. HYNDMAN: It wasn't a question of taking time, Mr. Speaker. When the legislation was implemented — I believe the royalty plan was implemented in March last year — the members will recall that it was significantly enriched from previous years, for the purpose of assisting the oil and gas industry in this province.

Over the ensuing five months, it was noticed that there was need for a tightening up and a clarification, and that was announced. There's no question, though, Mr. Speaker, that the royalty tax credit has been very, very effective indeed in building jobs and activity in the industry. That's one of the reasons very large amounts — hundreds of millions of dollars — are being used, in terms of the royalty tax credit, to assist the industry. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. There may have been jobs created; I would hope so, for $670 million. But that's almost $400 million more than was in the budget.

At this stage, do we have any global estimate as to the extent by which companies may have benefited by subdi viding their operations and obtaining more than one royalty tax credit? Do we have any figures at all that can be shared with the Assembly? We can go through the process of a motion for a return, and no doubt will. But has the minister any global figure that could be shared with the Assembly now? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, the member is asking for information as to whether or not, and the extent to which, companies did or did not properly become eligible for the tax credit.

I think that's something on which I would welcome a debate when the committee study of the Bill which puts in the amendments comes before the Assembly. Grain Marketing MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the second question to the hon. Minister of Economic Development. It flows out of a subject the minister is extremely elo quent on, abandoning the Crow rate.

Have there been any discussions with the consortium building the Prince Rupert terminal as to the concern of at least some people that abandoning the Crow rate could in fact shift produc tion away from export grains and therefore reduce the throughput expectations in that terminal? MR. PLANCHE: Mr. Speaker, there are ongoing discus sions with the principals of Prince Rupert Grain. When that comment was made, we asked for a general comment from the participants, and the consensus of all of them was that in fact it will not. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

Is the minister in a position to advise the Assembly what steps he has taken himself, as a minister of the Crown? Has he sat down with the president of the Wheat Pool, for example? And is the minister in a position to confirm clearly to the Assembly that it is the position of the pools that there is no concern whatsoever as to throughput expectations in that terminal as a result of the Pepin plan? Is the minister in a position to give an unqualified statement in that regard? MR. PLANCHE: Mr.

Speaker, we sat down with the Alberta Wheat Pool as recently as within the last two weeks, and the issue was not raised at all. But in specifics I have not requested a meeting on that issue, nor have I had a solicitation from them on that issue, nor have they commented to me, either privately or publicly, on their concerns about that issue. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister.

Has any consideration been given by the Department of Economic Development to engaging a consultant with respect to the impact of the Pepin plan on the terminal at Prince Rupert, in view of the very substantial financial commitment of public dollars from Alberta that have been advanced for that particular project?

68 ALBERTA HANSARD March 15, 1983 MR. PLANCHE: Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. mem ber that the pools also have a substantial investment, and they haven't indicated any concern about their investment in that regard either. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. In his first answer, the minister indicated that everybody seemed to be happy. If he hadn't talked specifically to the pools, did the minister talk to any of the participants in the project with respect to the impact of the Pepin plan on the Prince Rupert terminal? MR. PLANCHE: We have a representative on the Prince Rupert terminal board. The conversation I referred to happened subsequent to the newspaper

article on the concern, so I only have the reports from my officials in that regard. I have seen no need to call a meeting, because there haven't been any solicitations at all to me about a concern for throughput. The member may very well know that if the railways are not fully compensated, the issue of whether or not there will be throughput in Rupert will be irrelevant. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

I will resist the temptation to enter into a debate and simply ask the minister whether or not the government of Alberta will consider commissioning a consultant's study, should representation be received in the next several days from any of the participants, regarding the impact of the Pepin plan on the expected increase in throughput which is going to be necessary to make Prince Rupert a viable operation, not only for the pools but for the people of Alberta. MR. SPEAKER: The question is clearly hypothetical.

What the hon. leader is saying is: if you get representa tions in the next while, will you appoint a commission or committee? As such, perhaps the question ought to wait to see whether the hypothetical event might happen. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could just re phrase the question. In the light of the need to protect public dollars on this issue, is the government prepared to objectively assess the impact of the Pepin plan on throu ghput projections at Prince Rupert before that plan is rammed through the House of Commons? MR. PLANCHE: Well, Mr.

Speaker, the tone of the question seems to suggest that we care little about the issue. I can only repeat that the grain sector has a substantial investment in Rupert and, under the circum stances, they would be at the same risk as we would as creditors to the facility. If there is indeed cause to be concerned and if the issue as presented by a minority has some substance, we would be glad to consider it if and and when a representation is made. Labor Negotiation MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Labour.

Is the minister in a position to indicate what steps the government has taken to respond to the motion passed by this Assembly last year, asking that alternatives to the confrontation techniques used in labor/management disputes be investigated? MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question, the Minister of Labour regrettably has to advise that the activities of trying to resolve some of the problems that arose out of the current situations over the past year have deflected from some of the initiative we would like to have taken. However, I can report on a number of events.

Last fall there was the meeting in Jasper of the Confer ence Society of Alberta, which is a tripartite forum. Regrettably, last year it was not a forum in which the Federation of Labour representatives chose to partici pate, as there is some difference of view between the building trades unions and the Federation of Labour affi liates. It is very difficult to engage in conversations which simultaneously involve representatives of both those groups.

That same Conference Society is now planning a conference — and I was advised yesterday of a meeting, I believe last week, of the steering committee — for this fall, again in Jasper. The focus of the conference is the very item which was the subject of the resolution. I think that will be a very useful forum again, because it does involve between 75 and, in some conferences, as high as 350 people. The department staff has undertaken a number of other initiatives.

Under the heading of grievance media tion — again an up-to-date report, anticipating that there might be some questions — there have been 29 cases where representatives of the department have assisted the two parties to come together, in the hope that it would resolve or make better their relationships for future bar gaining. That has been very well received. One other initiative is a new program for which the staff has been trained, which is called relationships by objectives.

I am very pleased to report that the first exercise of that type occurred this past December, I be lieve, involving the Edmonton Public School Board and the teaching staff, upwards of 50 persons — I don't remember the exact number. All the reports I have heard from that three-day exercise have been very positive. So to that extent, for new initiatives I can indicate those achievements. Perhaps I should indicate one other, because it is signif icant. In 105 cases in the past year, the department has assisted parties who have come together to the bargaining table for the first time.

It's called first-agreement orienta tion. They try to familiarize the parties with what collec tive bargaining means, so that their expectations are reasonable. That has turned out to be very effective, both in terms of some public-sector situations and the private sector. MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion. I appreciate that initial outline of initiatives taken.

Does the minister have any plans to formalize the process of looking at alternatives, perhaps following the confer ence mentioned, either by bringing together labor and management leaders or by using some mechanism availa ble to this House? MR. NOTLEY: [Inaudible] you delay the arbitration process. MR. YOUNG: If the hon. leader is interested, as other members assuredly seem to be, I am pleased to report that we will be working with the steering committee of the Conference Society.

I do want to emphasize that from a government point of view, we are trying to encourage the leadership to be taken by the chamber of commerce and the union representations involved. If they are their ideas, we find that a more productive way, and we can assist in a supportive role.

March 15, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 69 The other situation that might usefully be reported on is in the construction industry, where there are a consid erable number of challenges at the moment, partially due to the overcapacity but also arising out of some relatively large increases negotiated a year ago. We have a tripartite council, which I chair. Actually it involves the owners as well. That council met as recently as February, and we devised five subcommittees.

Two of those subcommittees, at least in my opinion, would be looking at the longer term continuing relationship and how that can be im proved for bargaining table purposes. The subcommittees should be reporting this month. I regret to say that they have not all achieved as much as we had hoped, and I expect they won't be reporting until April. However, that's another initiative which affects a very major sector of our unionized employees in this province. MR. ANDERSON: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Is it the minister's intention to table or other wise inform the House of the various options investigated by those groups reporting near the end of the month or next month and, from that time on, on other moves that this Assembly might consider to assist the private sector and the unions to move further toward resolving difficul ties caused by confrontation? MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to respond posit- ively for the reason that there are some leaders involved who are, as one can appreciate, in a political situation within their union and also within the contractors' or ganizations.

We have asked, and some of them have agreed to speak with one another most openly. That has already produced a situation where we are being very guarded, because some of the suggestions which, in their candor, they are putting on the table for discussion might well cause them some considerable difficulties if not fully understood by the membership. So in order to respect the candor being shown, which really has to be found if we're to make progress in some of these areas, I wouldn't want to make that commitment — at least not for the foresee able number of months. MR. ANDERSON: Mr.

Speaker, one further supplemen tary question. Recognizing the need for confidentiality in such discussions, at some reasonable time in the future will the minister bring back to the Assembly some sugges tions as to how we might participate in this process? MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I'm quite happy to make that undertaking. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question. I'm pleased, Mr. Minister, that you want to get away from confronta tion politics with labor. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question. MR. MARTIN: I'm leading up to the question here. Settle down, puppets over there.

As a result, is the minister prepared — and I know he can't do this alone — to push for abolishing Bill 41 and restoring full collective bargaining rights to the govern ment's own employees? MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, the question that I think the hon. member seeks a response to really is not just my will but also my achievement. My achievement will be deter mined by what occurs in the Assembly before the comple tion of 1983, since Bill 11 is sunset legislation. MR. MARTIN: Supplementary question. I realize it's going to come to the Assembly.

I'm asking whether you as the Minister of Labour personally would push for repeal of Bill 41. I suggest this would do more to solve the confrontation with labor than almost anything else you could do. MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood has asked about Bill 41. If Bill 41 is the Public Service Employee Relations Act . . . MR. MARTIN: Yes. MR. YOUNG: All right.

That was and is the balance which the government sought to provide for employees of government who, to the time of the introduction of that Bill, had neither the right to strike or the privilege of a work stoppage — to put it in that context — nor, alterna tively, a means that was considered to be as fair and objective for third-party resolution as is provided by that Bill.

That Bill provides, then, a means for a very objective third-party resolution of an impasse and, as the hon. member well knows, has been reviewed by the Interna tional Labour Organization, who found the process for a third-party impasse resolution to be entirely acceptable. MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the last supplementary. I'm becoming very concerned. We have about seven members who haven't yet asked their first question. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question leading from the hon. Member for Calgary Currie's ques tion concerning consultation. Bearing in mind the value of consultation . . . MR.

SPEAKER: We're getting into argument now. In view of the short time, let's stick with the question. MR. NOTLEY: . . . has there been any specific consulta tion with the trade union movement in general, and the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees in particular, concerning the proposed changes in arbitration procedure? MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, there has been some discus sion by a tremendous number of parties concerning ad vice on changes to the binding arbitration process.

In terms of the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, apart from that which has come through the media, I do not believe I have received any advice. But I certainly have received it from a number of other unions and from the general public. I have received more advice on that topic than I have on any other matter I've had to deal with, apart from the interruption of service which oc curred in the hospitals. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Vegreville is most anxious to come in with a supplementary. Might this be the final one on this topic. MR. BATIUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's quite ob vious that the minister has no . . . SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question.

70 ALBERTA HANSARD March 15, 1983 MR. BATIUK: Come on. Mr. Speaker, it's obvious from the minister's reply that he is not planning to repeal Bill 41. I wonder whether the minister could advise whether it is his intention to expand and strengthen this legislation? [interjections] MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, again I would ask the Assembly to be patient and we will know what changes, if any, are to be made. I should add to the question from the Leader of the Opposition.

I neglected to mention that the only union that has asked me for a meeting in connection with any potential changes for binding arbitration, has received such a meeting. In fact, it's had two meetings. Sewage Disposal MR. OMAN: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. I believe his department recently requested the city of Calgary to upgrade its sewage facilities, in order not to dump so many pollutants into the Bow River. I believe this has serious financial implications to the city of Calgary — some $200 million, I'm told.

What help from the province may the city of Calgary expect in this matter? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, there certainly is a con cern in the province with regard to the quality of the Bow River, and every effort and attempt that is made to proceed with cleaning up that river is certainly laudatory. The province has a program to assist municipalities in upgrading their sewage and water treatment facilities, and the city of Calgary is eligible for funding under our programs.

We also have initiated a phosphorus removal grant program, from which the city will benefit to the amount of $15 million with regard to removal of phos phorus from the effluent discharged into the Bow River. MR. OMAN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Recently there has surfaced a possible plan whereby the pollutants or the sewage would be diverted by pipeline to possibly irrigable and productive land, which is now not produc tive, maybe 100 miles from the city.

I don't know if the minister is aware of this, but would the province be at all amenable, perhaps through its own irrigation plans, to integrating this and bringing some non-productive land into a productive situation, thus helping the city as well? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, if the city wishes to pursue that course of action, the province would be in terested in assisting in a technical way or otherwise with a project such as that. MR. ANDERSON: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Could the minister indicate whether or not his department has looked at the feasibility of that kind of approach and whether it can be recommended to munici palities around the province, particularly Calgary? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, there has been an interest in that approach from other municipalities in the prov ince. I'd have to check to see exactly which projects are ongoing, but certainly we'd be interested in pursuing such projects as an option in terms of sewage effluent clean-up, as an alternative to discharge to our river systems, where they're practicable. MR. ANDERSON: Mr.

Speaker, does the minister have in hand any studies by the provincial government which would indicate whether or not this is practical in such instances, as an assistance to such communities in deter mining if that is the direction to go? MR. BRADLEY: As I stated, a number of municipalities have considered this option. It depends on the soil condi tions in the area, et cetera, and it also depends on the ongoing costs, et cetera. The municipality has to consider those. I could check on the exact projects proceeding in the province and give that advice to the Assembly. MR. OMAN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: Might this be the final supplementary on this topic. MR. OMAN: Mr. Speaker, does the minister see any present plans for irrigating some of the land within a 100-mile radius of the city of Calgary with which this could be integrated? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, I guess I have to take that question under advisement, as to the specifics with regard to the proposals the city of Calgary has received from a consultant. We have received the report of the city of Calgary, and it is currently being reviewed by the department. MR. MARTIN: He doesn't know. Gasoline Pricing MR. GOGO: Mr.

Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, which has been prompted by several constituents raising it with me. Notwithstanding the fact that the recently announced OPEC price has done something to oil and gasoline, could the minister advise the House, or offer me an explanation, as to why Shelby, Montana, just 60 miles south of Lethbridge, which is at world price for oil, sells gasoline at about 30 cents a litre, and yet the pump price throughout Alberta seems to be about 38 or 39 cents? Could the minister offer me some kind of explanation I could carry to constituents?

Or, indeed, is it the result of some policy within his department? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I have some misgiving about this kind of question, because it seems to be an exercise in research. I'm sure that if that kind of question becomes customary in the question period, we're going to have an awful lot of research done on the floor of the House here. DR. BUCK: Research and embarrassment. MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, I could rephrase the question. Could the minister advise some explanation for the difference? MR.

SPEAKER: I bring to the attention of the hon. member that that doesn't rephrase the question; it only summarizes it. Edmonton Annexation MR. PURDY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address a ques

March 15, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 71 tion to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. A number of concerns have been raised by businessmen and residents in the newly annexed area west of Edmonton. These include business tax and lack of services, which include police, fire, and other transportation needs. Is the minis ter considering re-evaluating the cabinet decision of June 11, 1981? MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, I imagine the Member for Stony Plain is talking about the cabinet decision on June 11, which dealt with the annexation order annexing terri tories to the city of Edmonton.

No consideration is being given to a re-evaluation or a change of that order at this time. MR. PURDY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. In view of the fact that some Edmonton aldermen have publicly and privately stated that it was a mistake to annex such a large area, is the minister considering legislative changes for a reversal of this annexation order? MR. KOZIAK: That's not necessary, Mr. Speaker.

If the city of Edmonton passed a resolution asking for certain territories to be annexed to the county of Parkland, I imagine they could go through the normal process and have the Local Authorities Board hear the matter. MR. PURDY: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Businessmen in the area were informed, when annexation was taking place, that there would be no tax increases of any significant nature. Subsequently, taxes have increased up to 1,000 per cent in assessment and in the actual dollar.

Is the minister considering any financial assist ance, either to the city of Edmonton or directly to the businessmen, to alleviate some of these very high tax concerns? It would be a reversal of what the department and the minister's office did in 1981, to put money into the various municipalities to assist them on a loss of revenue. MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, without accepting certain of the preliminary remarks relative to representations that may or may not have been made as to the level of taxation, I would like to say that there are reasons for different levels of taxation in different municipal govern ments.

Those primarily reflect the fact that, for one, the county of Parkland does not impose a business tax,

whereas the city of Edmonton does. So that's one aspect of the matter. Probably the more significant aspect of the difference in the level not so much of taxation as of assessment is the fact that the city of Edmonton is now on the new manual,

whereas the county is a couple of years behind and won't be on the new manual until 1985. It may well be that once the new assessment has been completed in the county of Parkland, the level of taxation will be the same in the county as in the city of Edmonton. Of course, the fact that there has been an annexation may also reflect an increase in value that may have been attributed to proper ty that's now within the city of Edmonton. DR. BUCK: Mr.

Speaker, is the minister in a position to indicate if the Department of Municipal Affairs has compensated the annexed counties surrounding the city of Edmonton to make up for the shortfall position they are in because of a loss of assessment to the city of Edmonton? MR. KOZIAK: The compensation that has been and is being provided is being paid in accordance with the formula that was developed to assist those counties that had lost more than 10 per cent of their assessment. MRS. CRIPPS: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the Department of Education also made adjustments? MR. KING: Mr.

Speaker, we first of all provided assist ance to school boards corresponding to the assistance provided by the Department of Municipal Affairs. Upon the appeal of the school boards, we examined their budgets and provided additional compensatory funding which we are providing to the boards at an accelerated rate over five years. So it is the view of the Department of Education — shared, I think, by each of the school boards involved — that they have in fact suffered no loss of revenue. DR. BUCK: That's not true. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question . . . MR. KING: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker.

If I heard from some far corner of the House the statement that that was not true, I would invite an hon. member to document that, provide it to me, and I'd be happy to respond. Oil Pricing MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. It's with re gard to the comments of Mr. Chretien, indicating that the federal government would not support a $4 increase for conventional oil on July 1. As well, the $4 increase would bring conventional oil to 95 per cent of the world price.

Could the minister indicate what the government's posi tion is with regard to that matter today? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member reads Hansard of yesterday, once it's available, or the Blues, which are now available, I think our position is abundantly clear. We have long advocated a market pric ing arrangement in the absence of concurrence by the federal government in market pricing. We have in place the energy agreement, which we are going to be assessing in the weeks ahead as the world oil pricing situation becomes more clear. With respect to remarks attributed to Mr.

Chrétien, which I believe were made outside the House, I simply say that I will be meeting with him on Friday in Edmonton. I understand he'll be in town on other busi ness and has asked to have a meeting with me while he's in town. I look forward to the opportunity to discuss these matters with him at that time and would not be making any public comments in advance of that. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources indicate whether the pos sibility of conventional oil moving to world price would be one of the matters of discussion between him and the hon. Mr. Chretien? MR.

ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, it would be an extreme ly surprising situation if, in light of recent world events, the topic of crude oil pricing was not on the agenda. We will be putting forward our view on that matter, as we

72 ALBERTA HANSARD March 15, 1983 have in the past, and I am sure we will have a very wide-ranging discussion. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. Could the minister indicate whether the objective of the government at this time is to maintain the 1981 energy agreement as it is, or to change agreement to adjust to the contemporary situation? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, I believe I've answered that question on more than one occasion. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion. Could the minister indicate clearly the government's position with regard to that 1981 energy agreement.

Will the agreement be broken, or will the government work toward adhering to the clauses within that agreement? That hasn't been clearly established in this Legislature. MR. NOTLEY: And do the minister and the Premier have the same policy? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, I do believe that ques tion has been answered, speaking both in terms of the principles and the long-term policy position of this gov ernment as well as the present energy agreement, its status, and the assessment that was agreed to be under taken in the light of world events as they unfold. MR. SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Clover Bar, fol lowed by the hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood, if there's time. Mandatory Comprehensive Examinations DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Education. Can the minister indicate to the Assembly the specific purpose of the compulsory com prehensive examinations he is going to be putting into place? MR. SPEAKER: With great respect, I don't know whether that can be answered within the scope of the question period.

It would seem to be a fairly broad topic, and I realize it's no fault of the hon. member that it's coming so late in the question period, but we have just two or three minutes left. DR. BUCK: Then I'll ask a different question. Can the minister indicate what grades and which subjects will be the subject of the comprehensive examinations? MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the way the question is worded leads me to believe that the hon. member may share some confusion that is rampant in the community.

I will re spond by saying that the student evaluation policy of the provincial government is directed toward diagnostic eval uation and what is called normative evaluation as well as summative evaluation. [interjections] Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can talk to the hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood afterward and have all of this explained to him. My colleagues can talk to me. The comprehensives are going to be administered in high school. They would be available to students in math and science at the end of grade 10, grade 11, or grade 12.

It will be the choice of the student, because math and science are only compulsory in high school till the end of the grade 12 level. Social studies and English would be written by students at the end of grade 12. So it's in high school in grades 10 or 11 and in grade 12 that the comprehensives would be written. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. It was just touched on briefly yesterday, hon. Mr. Minister.

What consultation was there with the minister's depart ment and the Alberta Teachers' Association and the Alberta School Trustees' Association before the final de cision was made to go ahead with the comprehensive compulsory examinations? MR. KING: Of course, Mr. Speaker, no decision has yet been made to go ahead with compulsory comprehensives. The Speech from the Throne is quite clear in stating that that question of policy will be considered by the govern ment this spring and that we hope and expect we'll be in a position to make a decision and to announce it by June of this year.

But the government has not yet made a policy decision that comprehensives will be compulsory. It is correct to say that I am recommending that to my colleagues as the policy of the government in the future. As to the question of consultation, I can only say that this consultation goes back at least as far as 1975, when the Minister's Advisory Committee on Student Achieve ment was established.

That committee included a repre sentative from the Alberta Teachers' Association, the Alberta School Trustees' Association, the Conference of Alberta School Superintendents, the Alberta Federation of Labour, the Alberta Chamber of Commerce, and others. In 1979, when the report was received, we solicited responses from all over the province, and they were analysed by Dr. Gordon Mowatt. In addition to that, we surveyed the adult population via the Gallup poll. The member will be familiar with that. MR. NOTLEY: Lots of surveys there. MR.

KING: In 1980 there were meetings with both the ASTA and the Alberta Teachers' Association, and the policy was announced on November 13, 1980. Since that time, there have been meetings at the staff and technical levels, as well as meetings of myself with members of the executive committees of the ATA, the ASTA, CASS, and others. I would say that there has been extensive consul tation with all interested parties, going back to 1975. DR. BUCK: One short supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister. MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the final supplementary. DR.

BUCK: In the ongoing discussions that I'm sure the minister and his department have had, have there been discussions with the universities that if they are made compulsory, these will be the bench marks for university entrance? MR. KING: There have not yet been formal discussions as such, Mr. Speaker. I have written to the Universities Co-ordinating Council, advising them of our interest with respect to the comprehensives. They have responded by saying that they will consider the comprehensives at meet ings of the Universities Co-ordinating Council.

I expect that in the course of that consideration, they will invite the attendance of representatives of Alberta Education and that discussion will take place.

March 15, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 73 MR. SPEAKER: The time for the question period has more than gone by. I apologize to the two members I was unable to reach, and I'll try to recognize them earlier tomorrow if they so wish. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the questions and motions for returns, I'd like to move that all of them on today's Order Paper stand. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, in addressing the motion before the House, I'd like to make one or two very quick observations in terms of the point of procedure. It will be the intention of my colleague and I to vote for this motion today.

But I would like to say, to the members of the government in particular, that I would not want to see us follow the procedure we saw in the 19th Legisla ture, where we had motions deferring these motions for returns coming in every Tuesday and Thursday. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that one of the motions for returns is a request for information which was desired by this Legislature in the past Legislature, the one that was prorogued, the 19th House.

I understand that when motions for returns or questions are put on the Order Paper, it may well take the government a few days to evaluate whether or not they can obtain the answers. Fair enough. No one is going to demand that that immediately come before the House. But I suggest, sir, that on both the government and opposition sides, we looked carefully at what happened last year. We found that motions for returns sat on the Order Paper week after week and were simply deferred by this kind of motion.

So I raise the issue, simply serving notice on behalf of my colleague and I — I can't speak for the two Independent members — that the public right to know is so crucial that I say to the government: we do not want to go through the process that characterized the last sittings of the House. In contrast, Mr. Speaker, I say to the members of the government that during the first term of this administra tion, from 1971 to 1975, we had no problems with motions for returns. They were dealt with quickly. They were either accepted or rejected, but they weren't held over week after week after week.

I simply say that to state our position that these matters should be dealt with as quickly as possible. Reasonable time to assess — fair enough — but "reasonable time" is not the duration of the spring session. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment or two. As the hon. Leader of the Opposition has stated, I would never want to accuse this government of trying to withhold information. We know they run an open government. At least, they keep trying to tell people that. Mr. Speaker, as the hon.

Leader of the Opposition stated, there seems to be a greater and greater tendency for this government, for all intents and purposes, either intentionally or, I hope, unintentionally, to keep informa tion away from hon. members. We well know that the Government House Leader has said publicly — I believe to the Canadian Bar Association — that there is no need for freedom of information legislation in this province because all information is made available.

When we discussed and debated freedom of informa tion, members on the government side waxed eloquent on the fact that the information is available through motions for returns. But when we see the motion to hold them over being brought back time after time, pretty soon the session goes, and many of the motions for returns are never answered. So if the Government House Leader is so sure that we don't need freedom of information in this province and this Legislature, then I'm saying as humbly as I can to him that he'd better inform his ministers that they had better get the motions for returns in place.

Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, if that information is not availa ble to the Assembly, we are doing just the opposite of what we're asking for: we're withholding information. MR. SPEAKER: May the hon. Government House Leader conclude the debate? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. CRAWFORD: I just want to make a few remarks in light of what's been said by the hon. Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Clover Bar.

At this stage of the sittings, I think we should assume that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the ministers will act reasonably in assessing the motions, some of which are quite extensive, and that that is already in process. We appreciate the fact — and the hon. Leader of the Opposition has acknowledged it — that a reasonable time is required. As a matter of government policy, we will be looking at this type of important business of the Assem bly in the same way as the other important business of the Assembly; that is, that it should be dealt with in a timely way and to full effect.

I welcome the opportunity the hon. Member for Clover Bar has given me to add at least one other remark, Mr. Speaker. He made some references to remarks that were attributed to me in respect of freedom of information legislation. I should tell him a little story; in fact, I will. [interjections] When I first became Attorney General, I had an invita tion from the midwinter meeting of the Alberta

section of the Canadian Bar. One of the key issues that was to be discussed was freedom of information legislation. I was prepared for a hot time, because the Canadian Bar had already, on a national basis, passed a resolution and had become known as the sort of vanguard of promotion of this type of legislation in Canada. Well, I was told that the number of people attending the meeting of the Canadian Bar in Calgary that January would be some 700 or 800. They always have good attendances, and I believe there were 700 or 800 there.

At nine o'clock in the morning, I was to begin with a panel including some distinguished academics. Nobody suggest ed to me that everybody would come to the particular panel I was on, and they surely did not. The issue generated so much momentum among these leading pro ponents that no one was there at nine o'clock. We deferred consideration of the matter for about 15 or 20 minutes while the organizers, in a mildly embar rassed way, went up and down the hallways looking for people. We eventually had about 40.

As I sat looking them over while other people on the panel were making their remarks, I had the opportunity of doing what politi cians do; that is, counting the crowd. I found that about 16 of the people they had successfully got to come into the meeting were employees of the Attorney General's Department. I just mention that, Mr. Speaker, because when every

74 ALBERTA HANSARD March 15, 1983 body says what great momentum this type of issue has in Canada today, let them know some of these facts. It is, in so many respects, a pumped up media item. They know that; all hon. members know that. I want to make this point, though, about remarks I've been quoted on before, because I haven't made reference to that yet. I've only shared this interesting little tidbit of Canadian Bar history. What I have said is that the promotion of American-style freedom of information leg islation in Canada is something that is there because of a certain bandwagon effect.

I did not say at any time, and would not say, that people who want information from government shouldn't have it. What the American system does is create a structured and stratified way, a large bureaucracy, and all sorts of catalogs and unnecessary publications which are quite expensive for the govern ment to create and maintain. I think this Assembly and the members of it, certainly the government, are always amenable to practical sugges tions in regard to what information should be made available.

But, please, don't ask us to swallow whole the sort of proposals that in the last decade have been part of the scene in Washington. [Motion carried] head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 201. Moved by Mr. Lee:

Be it resolved that the Assembly urge the government to review its current financial support for urban transporta tion and give consideration to funding two-thirds of the capital cost of any arterial roadway project, transit proj ect, or land purchase for future transportation right of way which is to be undertaken by a municipality and which has been approved by the Minister of Transportation. MR. LEE: In opening debate today, Mr.

Speaker, as representative of the constituency of Calgary Buffalo, it is indeed an honor to have the privilege of moving the first motion of the First Session of the 20th Legislature. While I know this motion appears on the Order Paper first by the luck of the draw, I am one who believes there are no accidents. In fact, short of the concerns of the economy, I believe transportation to be the issue of number one interest and concern to urban dwellers today. Mr.

Speaker, I recall not that long ago when I was campaigning, I was promoting the idea of a new policy for transportation and getting quite a good response at the doors until I visited one apartment in the community of Bankview in Calgary Buffalo. Not one person was interested in what I had to say about urban transporta tion. I arrived at the last door. It was the door of the caretaker. I said, "Excuse me, sir, would you care to know my position on this issue?" He said, "No." I said, "That's interesting. Nobody in this apartment was in terested in the subject, and I can't understand.

Is it ignorance or apathy?" He replied, "I don't know, and I don't care." Mr. Speaker, I think we'll find that for those of us who represent urban constituencies, there's very lit tle apathy, and certainly most citizens are extremely in terested in the subject. Therefore, I approach the challenge of speaking in support of this resolution with anticipation, and I do so, Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the subject by speaking to seven key issues that relate to it.

Number one, I wish to talk about the traumatic effect that the change and the rapid growth in our municipalities have had upon our citizens; number two, take a look at current government programs and the possible need for review and revision; thirdly, take a close look at the status of the city of Calgary, in which the constituency I represent is located, in terms of their financial status and their planning ac tions. Fourthly, I think it would be appropriate to ex press my own views on the importance of LRT and the importance of balanced transportation policies.

Fifthly, I want to review with members of the House the fundamental findings of the Advisory Committee on Urban Transit Requirements for Edmonton and Calgary. Sixth, let's look at the cost of delay and failure to take additional action in this regard. Seventh, and finally, I believe it's critical that we address the human aspects of transportation. This simply is not a matter of dollars and cents, but it really affects the lives and the quality of life of people in urban municipalities. Mr.

Speaker, when Alvin Toffler wrote the book Fu ture Shock, his purpose was to address the issue of the impact that rapid change of technology is having upon the people of this earth. In a sense, I believe the citizens of our urban municipalities, primarily Calgary and Ed monton but others as well, are experiencing a form of future shock. It was less than a decade ago that one could travel from one end of Calgary to another in 15 minutes. The population was half of what it is today; people knew the community, knew it well.

But within a few short years, less than 10 years, the populations have doubled in these municipalities, and a number of changes have gone along with that. Without warning or notice, the relatively small communities have evolved into large metropolises, complicated cities of 600,000. While many of us have perfect twenty-twenty vision in hindsight, who could have predicted a decade ago, 50 years ago, or at the founding of Calgary 107 years ago, that these small communities would evolve into two major urban centres of 600,000, on their way very quickly to populations of one million.

The problem hasn't been so much, Mr. Speaker, creat ing a transportation system. Transportation planners can design any system we need, and I believe we have availa ble to us in this province some of the finest transportation planners anywhere. The real difficulty has been to find a way to retrofit a transportation structure for a municipal ity that was never envisaged or designed to be more than 250,000.

Even Thomas Mawson, who was commissioned before World War I to prepare a plan for the city of Calgary, who talked about grandiose plans of a city of half a million, never really conceived of the size and density that our cities are achieving now. Surely it must be well known that the city of Calgary, in fact, is the largest city of land area in North America today. How do we retrofit and put that community of 600,000 into a basic structure designed for no more than a quarter of a million? Mr.

Speaker, along with the trauma of the rapid change that kind of grew upon the citizens of Calgary and, of course, Edmonton, there have been many key changes in our life style and our ways of life. The regis tered vehicle ownership per capita in the city of Calgary has grown 50 per cent in the past 15 years. In regular interchange with the city of Los Angeles, one way or the other, Calgary is the city with the largest number of vehicles per capita of any other municipality in North America. Transit ridership per capita has been growing

March 15, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 75 every year for the past decade. Trips per capita per work day are growing. The average Calgarian makes three trips per day — that's 1.8 million trips per day within our community — simply to go to and return from work. The costs of transportation, Mr. Speaker, are mind- boggling. Who could have predicted five years ago that the city of Calgary, in a five-year period, would have a budget to spend $1.5 billion on transportation programs for the next five years, that fully one-third of the capital budget of the municipality of Calgary is earmarked for transportation?

If you add the operating costs, fully one- half of the budget is directly or indirectly dedicated to transportation. So there have been a number of changes, both socially and factually, for Calgarians and for urban dwellers in this province. Frankly, the only consistent aspect of this dramatic change is that it's change, and change will always be there. Mr. Speaker, what is the purpose of this resolution? Well really, it's twofold, and I think it's important that we be clear about the purpose.

Number one is to ask the government to review its current policy; number two, to give consideration to a new formula, a formula I believe to be a logical evolution of the previous government policy, and that is that the province fund two-thirds of the capital costs of roadways, mass transit, and land acquisition and that the municipalities fund a third. So in this resolution today, I'm simply asking that members of the House give consideration to the principle of the resolution. Let's take a look at current government programs.

The first comprehensive program really evolved in the period of 1974 to 1979, when the province had, in essence, four cornerstones to its transportation funding policy. Number one, it would fund two-thirds of the cost of research; number two, capital transit incentives; number three, funding of two-thirds of the approved cost of arterial roadway systems to a maximum; and, number four, pay ing for 90 per cent of major corridors that were approved by the province in urban municipalities to the maximum of one corridor per city. It should be noted, Mr.

Speaker, that this program was introduced in an era when there was relatively little major work being undertaken in the city of Calgary for capital projects for transportation. The breakthrough in terms of policy really took place in 1979 when the government and Minister of Transpor tation announced a comprehensive nine-point urban transportation package, a program I believe to be one of the most thorough in any jurisdiction in North America. The total cost estimate of that package was roughly $800 million.

It included the following: funding of two-thirds of the cost of arterial roadway capital programs; two, approval of 90 per cent of the cost of major continuous corridors — and that sounds like a kind of an abstract thought, but a good example is the Deerfoot freeway. The province has contributed over $90 million to that one roadway alone.

Three, public transit capital assistance to a maximum; four, railway/highway grade separation structure assistance programs of anywhere from two- thirds to 90 per cent of the cost; five, an urban signing project; six, paying for two-thirds of the shareable costs of research and development projects, up to 100 per cent for certain projects; seven, a transportation systems man agement program; eight, primary highway maintenance cost-sharing; and nine, public transit operating assistance to the tune of $9 per capita. In effect, Mr.

Speaker, in 1981-82 this nine-point program cost the province of Alberta about $155 million, and it's estimated for 1982-83 that that will be roughly $211 million. My contention to members of the House is that the basic program is a good one. But it was introduced in an era of catch-up, and we have not yet caught up. There is no more appropriate time for review of the policy and a clear look at an additional formula than now. Why would that be? Mr. Speaker, I think there are some clear points we should look at.

While the program appears to be generous in nature — and it is; it includes funding of up to 90 per cent of certain costs — in reality there's been a lid, a maximum, on the cost of those programs. The reality is that the city of Calgary has cost-shared with the province to the tune that the province has paid for roughly only 25 per cent of the cost of the capital projects in that city, and in the city of Edmonton the cost has been roughly 23 per cent of their projects. So really we're only supporting about a quarter of those costs that take place in the two major urban centres.

Secondly, inflation: the five-year program envisaged a rate of inflation of about 9 per cent. I'm sure most members will recognize the real rate of inflation for land acquisition has been 15 per cent a year and, for roadway capital construction, in excess of 15 per cent a year. Even in the economic downturn, these costs have certainly been way in excess of what was ever anticipated. I think of the interchange at 16th Avenue N. and 14th Street in the city of Calgary, Mr. Speaker. A delay of three years: because of inflation, the project alone, one interchange, escalated by $4 million.

Although growth has slowed in this province, I believe that slowing of the growth rate is a temporary phenomenon, and we will be experiencing a significant growth rate again relatively quickly. So now is really an opportunity to allow more orderly planning — we're not in as great a crisis situation — and to stimulate employment through road projects and interchange and freeway projects. Thirdly, what bet ter opportunity to avoid future rates of inflation by grasp ing this opportunity while it exists. I think it should be pointed out, Mr.

Speaker, that the addition of a more effective transportation plan of action is an asset to the entire province. I ask members who represent constituencies other than Calgary, Edmonton, Red Deer, or Lethbridge to recognize that our provision of a thorough, complete, and effective transportation in frastructure system makes this province far more capable of attracting industry to our cities. The growth of major urban centres, at the rate it has been experienced for the past decade, in many respects has been a result of success ful provincial government policies and programs.

So in a sense, policies of the provincial government have generated and caused the in-migration to this province that was primarily focussed on the two major urban centres, but additionally it focussed on all 12 cities in this province. So in a sense, I believe the cost of that in- migration caused by these policies ought to be borne by the province in a more comprehensive and thorough way. If we look at the expenditures of the total budget of this province for the past five years, there seems to be one consistent relationship.

A good example is the year 1981- 82; roughly a $7 billion budget — transportation expendi tures, $800,000; urban transportation expenditures, $155 million. In other words, we're spending about one-quarter of our transportation budget to service the needs of about half, plus, of the population. Please don't confuse my remarks, Mr. Speaker, that I'm suggesting that there ought to be a struggle between rural and urban areas for the transportation dollar. I'm simply saying that in this case, given the rapid rate of growth in urban centres, we

76 ALBERTA HANSARD March 15, 1983 ought to review the policies that affect urban centres. Let's take a look at Calgary, the subject I know most about, having had an opportunity to serve as an alder man for five years on Calgary city council. I'd draw to the attention of members of the House the policy of the city of Calgary. I believe it was best expressed in a document submitted to the provincial government in 1981.

It says: The City strives to provide an efficient, effective level of service for movement of persons and goods, having due consideration to the financial costs and environmental consequences of their provision. Mr. Speaker, my experience as an alderman in the city of Calgary is that in every case, the city certainly gave a great deal of consideration to the financial and environ mental considerations of approving any project, and that they simply weren't approved lightly. In fact, we spent hundreds of hours annually reviewing the particular needs that were being recommended by our transporta tion planners.

So there is very clearly a need for proceed ing with these projects. But what of the plight of urban municipalities today? Beginning in July 1981, city council in Calgary began a process of major cuts to the capital budget. Between then and today, Mr. Speaker, the city has cut over $1.7 billion from its capital budget for the next five years. It has cut $1.7 billion, of which half, $834 million, has come from transportation.

Frankly, I don't believe that it is fully appreciated either by the citizens of Calgary or the citi zens of this province that other than the northeast LRT and the 26th Avenue connecter, we have no major road projects taking place in the city of Calgary today. There is no money. I refer members of the Legislature to the transportation improvement priority system study of the city of Calgary, that identifies the 20 top projects that are scheduled for the next five years. It has been reviewed annually during the past few years.

Every project, except the 26th Avenue connecter which was required for the coliseum, is not being proceeded with today: Bow Trail widening; Mac- leod Trail, 34th Avenue, Elbow River; 50th Avenue con struction between 37th Street and Crowchild Trail; grade separation at Glenmore Trail and Elbow Drive — I don't know how many members of this House have tried to get through that interchange at any time of the day, but it is significant in delays — Sarcee Trail; Bow Trail to Glenmore Trail; interchange at Macleod Trail and An derson Road, stopped; interchange at Macleod Trail and Canyon Meadows Drive, stopped. Mr.

Speaker, I could go on with this list extensively. Frankly, we do not have a transportation capital pro gram at the moment in the city of Calgary, and I know it's very similar in the city of Edmonton. Why is that? The municipality has recognized that in times of econom ic recession, it's absolutely essential that we not proceed with major capital projects that would impact the munic ipal budget. The city of Calgary has a policy that under no circumstances should more than 20 per cent of the operating budget be spent for debt service.

The city of Calgary is indeed keen that it not fall into the plight of cities such as New York, where in fact 85 per cent of their operating budget was allocated for debt service. I believe that is a responsible position. The city of Calgary has adopted very responsible posi tions about attempting to obtain a fair return from the fare box for operating LRT and buses; that is, a goal of 50 per cent, with a current experience of about 40 per cent. That has meant raising bus fares annually at times when it wasn't necessarily politically popular.

But city councils in Calgary and in Edmonton bit the bullet and proceeded to continue to ask the user to contribute more significantly to these costs. Mr. Speaker, so that members of the House don't look at the cities and say, why are they not attempting any innovative projects other than roadways and LRT, let me summarize for you some of the innovations that are taking place. The city of Calgary has a civic traffic management board that brings together the expertise of transportation planning, the police, and the private sec tor.

We have a $1 million computer for the purpose of synchronizing lights on major roadways. There has been a very successful car pool demonstration project involv ing city employees. There is an exclusive bus lane in some cases on Macleod Trail. We have the Blue Arrow bus system. We have a very extensive feeder bus system for LRT. There is exhaustive consultation between transpor tation planners and the community about changes in bus routes.

We have a significant increase in the area of bike paths and, of course, free LRT in downtown Calgary: so many innovative projects, but none are really proceeding in a major way today because of the serious financial crunch that municipalities find themselves in. The city of Calgary recommended, by way of a resolu tion approved on February 16, 1981, that the province adopt a new formula for funding, similar to what I have proposed in my motion today, Mr. Speaker. Edmonton is essentially in support of that position.

They have recom mended that roadway construction costs be increased to 75 per cent sharing from the province, with no maxi mums, and 100 per cent of LRT. I believe that if the government were to examine seriously the motion before us, the city of Edmonton would look favorably as well. Mr. Speaker, I believe LRT is the wave of the future in the municipality of Calgary. When the first LRT car was boarded on May 25, 1981, it touched off a romance with the citizens of Calgary, who now affectionately call it their C-Train.

We haven't really had that form of trans portation since 1950 when the last streetcar completed operation. But certainly Calgarians have flocked to em brace this new form of transportation in a way that very few transportation planners ever envisaged.

I suggest that the fundamental value, the real value, has been the relief to the downtown area in terms of peak-hour congestion, in terms of creating a more suitable environment for the pedestrian, in terms of reduction of noise and air pollu tion, the eliminating of the demand for monthly parking stalls that contribute very little to the urban scene in downtown, and certainly transit efficiency. Mr. Speaker, transportation and the funding of trans portation is not just a matter of LRT. It must be balanced.

In the way that with LRT there are two tracks, I believe for transportation policies, there must be both mass transit and private roadways. It is essential. In Calgary today, other than the Deerfoot Trail, there is not another six-lane, north-south corridor anywhere in the city, which means our roadways are dependent on four- lane roadways, which is two either way. If one breaks down or there is a car caught on one, where have we got a transportation system? Without funding of roadway systems that complements LRT or mass transit, we're in trouble.

We have the report that has been circulated to the members of the House by the advisory committee on urban transit requirements for Edmonton and Calgary. Their acronym is ACUTREC. Essentially, they made two recommendations. Number one, that the Province make an immediate . . . long-term fund

March 15, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 77 ing commitment to continued development of LRT in the cities of Edmonton and Calgary . . . Number two, that the Province recognize Edmonton's and Calgary's current long-range Transportation plans including the LRT component . . . This group, this blue-ribbon panel of experts who stud ied every major municipality in North America, has said completely that, yes, LRT works; it ought to be funded, and we ought to adopt the master transportation plans of the cities of Calgary and Edmonton.

I think that is very significant evidence that the direction the municipalities are headed in is a sound one and that we ought to take the advice of a group struck by the former Minister of Education solely for his advice — good information. Mr. Speaker, in support of this resolution, I would point out that of the 10 municipalities in the United States today that have some form of mass transit, the average funding from federal and state authorities from senior governments is in excess of 85 per cent of the capital cost; a significant factor indeed. The province of B.C. funds 100 per cent of the cost of LRT.

The province of Ontario funds 75 per cent of the capital cost. I believe these are good precedents for the case that is being made today. In closing, I want to point out the cost of delay, the failure to act. It will add not only to the level of frustra tion in additional time spent by our citizens in their automobiles, in their trucks, and in their taxis, but we must know and acknowledge that the transport time in the movement of goods is absorbed into the price of those goods. My learned colleague Mr. Cook yesterday pointed out the great productivity and efficiency in Japan.

If we are going to be productive and effective, we must have an efficient transportation system. Certainly the person-time lost in travel reduces productivity. We all know of inner city communities where failing to see the provision of proper transportation systems results in significant short- cutting and intrusion by automobiles into quiet residen tial neighborhoods. I want to share with you, Mr. Speaker, a letter I received about a year ago from an anonymous motorist who wrote me as an alderman in the city of Calgary.

He got a little angry about the anti-transportation advocates, and he said: There seems to be a false assumption that roads are for machines, not for people. Just who rides in those magnificent machines? PEOPLE. People on their way to work. People at play. People in an Ambu lance desperate to obtain instant medical help. Peo ple visiting relatives.

People moving goods, moving sofas and shovels, moving mens wear and mail, moving Old Blue and Pilsner and Pepsi, and Coke, people moving equipment and lawn seed and man nequins and books and T.V.s and preachers . . . people moving other people . . . by Taxi and by Bus . . . little people, big people, students . . . they're people . . . political people, even . . . Aldermen [and MLAs]. Mr. Speaker, when we address this resolution, I ask members of the House to acknowledge and recognize that what this is about is a people program and that it's time to review it.

In closing, I've talked about the traumatic effect that this rapid change has had upon our citizens. We've taken a look at provincial programs and their need for revision. I've expressed some personal views about the subject, and examined the findings of ACUTREC; I believe very solid, good, practical advice for this province. We have an idea of the cost of failure to deal with these issues. But I want to leave this debate by quoting from a book written by Schaeffer and Sclar called Access for All. I really think that there's something here for everybody about how we feel about transportation.

That there is something severely amiss with transpor tation in our cities and metropolitan areas is one of the most widely recognized problems of the man- made environment. In one form or another, everyone has experienced the transportation 'problem' and in one form or another most have a favorite 'solution' for it. Some advocate more highways, others more public transportation. Some want to ban cars, others drinking and accident-prone drivers. Some blame the over-sized trucks, others the taxis and buses. Some want public transportation to be free, others insist that it is self-supporting.

Some hope for electric cars, others for 'personal rapid transit' and 'dial-a-ride'. Some advocate special roads for buses, others more expressways restricted to private cars. With as visible a problem as traffic jams, accidents, unreliable public transportation and spiraling costs, as well as air and noise pollution and such a wide spectrum of solu tions, literally hundreds of books have been devoted to all aspects of the urban transportation problem. Mr. Speaker, there are hundreds of books and studies.

I believe that we have the best advice and information available to us today and that it is time for members of this House to review that information carefully and offer solid advice to the Minister of Transportation and the government by the adoption of this resolution. There is no more appropriate time for a review and a renewal of our commitment to the funding of urban transportation than now. I ask members to study the spirit of the resolution, to give fair consideration to the principle of the resolution, and support the principles of the motion before us. Mr.

Speaker, as this is the first motion of this session, and as I have had the privilege to be the first speaker in this debate, I look forward with anticipation to the debate that follows. MRS. FYFE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask a question of the mover of this motion. The mover suggest ed a number of rides per day of users. I have information that there's approximately 4,000 rides per hour in peak hours. I just wanted to clarify those figures with the mover. MR. LEE: Mr. Speaker, I can't give the specifics, al though they are available in these documents. I'm certain I can provide it to the hon. member.

But I wouldn't be surprised. MRS. FYFE: In the beginning of the remarks, Mr. Speaker, the mover gave figures about so many rides per day. I just wanted to ensure that what he was saying was, in fact, correct. MR. LEE: It is. MR. SPEAKER: Maybe the hon. member wants confir mation of what was said. MR. LEE: Everything I said is gospel.

78 ALBERTA HANSARD March 15, 1983 AN HON. MEMBER: Amen to that. MR. STROMBERG: Mr. Speaker, in the last half hour, we've sure had an awful lot of gospel. I would like to mention that my experience with LRT started about two years ago in this Assembly. At that time I had the Bawlf high school from my constituency visiting Edmonton and coming in to tour this Legislature. During their tour of Edmonton, they had taken a ride on the LRT. When I went to introduce them to the Assem bly, I said they had taken a trip on the LST. I never did quite live that one down at the Bawlf school.

But I've also had a little experience with rapid trans portation. About two years ago, my wife and I were touring the city of London, Mr. Speaker, and we got lost in the tube. AN HON. MEMBER: Did she come back? MR. STROMBERG: Oh, I stuck right with her, she had my wallet. There is a brown line and a green line and a gray line and a black line. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that after so many pounds of English money, or $50 of my hard- earned money, we saw all of London from underneath, lost in the subway. One other time we had the opportuni ty . . . AN HON. MEMBER: Your mike's dead. MR. STROMBERG: Mr.

Speaker, am I coming through? My light is dead here. AN HON. MEMBER: You're coming through. MR. STROMBERG: Another time I had the opportunity to be in Tokyo, Japan. The main throughway through their city was approximately 10 lanes of traffic. It's quite a thing to try and jaywalk across that or even just get across those streets. Down the centre of their main ar teries, they had built an elevated highway. This elevated highway had four lanes. But on the side of the elevated highway were two monorails. Then they informed me that there were three subways below that.

That's moving people — from distances of up to 70 miles. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that in the remarks made by the hon.

Member for Calgary Buffalo, I was amazed that from 1979 to 1983 the city of Calgary received $72 million for public transit capital; arterial roadway capital, they received $44 million; major con tinuous corridors, $99 million; grade separation structure, $12.8 million; transportation systems management, $4.1; urban signing project, $.87 million; research and devel opment, $.314 million; public transportation operation, $20 million; primary highway maintenance, $3.5 million; for a total of $258 million. AN HON. MEMBER: What did they do with it all? MR. STROMBERG: I don't know.

But I look at the city of Camrose, and all we got was $7.5 million. And I don't dare repeat the figures from our home town of New Norway. I'll tell you about it later. I'm afraid realities have come upon us, and it's the end of the line for LRT both in Edmonton and Calgary real soon. It's going to take, in today's figures, $2 billion to complete the line. I suppose now with the times as they are, your mass transit plans are paralyzed. Edmonton has hopes of somehow getting on to the approaches of the High Level bridge, to the leg to the university and out to Mill Woods.

They've been trying to get that agreement with CN for how many years, five or six? I'm not that familiar with Calgary, but I understand that the city of Calgary has only a third of their line completed. Their mayor has committed their city to another $250 million of their own funds. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, LRT is an idea whose time may never come in Alberta. Population densities are way too low. Ridership: gosh, I look at how low the ridership is here compared to the city of Toronto. Here in Edmonton, we're two-thirds compared to their per capita, one-third the ridership that Toronto has.

Less than 10 per cent of the people of both cities use this type of transportation, only 10 per cent. Both cities are losing their shirts. They're losing 65 cents a rider. That's twice as much as Toronto is losing. I would just like to refer to how Canada's major rapid transportation systems compare. I'll just read 1982 for you: Toronto charges 75 cents; Montreal 75 cents; Edmonton 75 cents; and Calgary, 85 cents. Then total miles: Toronto has 33.8; Montreal has 27.5; we've sure got a lot in the city here, 5.4; and Calgary has 7.4 miles.

Now total passengers is what is a shocker to me: Toronto has moved 400 million passengers — some people ride it more than once; Montreal has 335 million; Edmonton, 7 million; Calgary, 10 million. Now deficits: the per capita loss to the city of Toronto was $23.33; to the city of Montreal, rather high, $60 even; to Edmonton, $70.50 per capita loss; and for Calgary, $55.84. However, Mr. Speaker, you add up all that per capita loss and the Member for Calgary Buffalo's city or council has lost a whooping $33 million on rapid transportation.

Our Alberta transportation officials claim that unless the system moves 6,000 to 7,000 people an hour, LRT cannot be economical. At present — and you were correct — Calgary is moving about 4,000 people an hour; Edmon ton, only 2,500 people an hour. And they've got to move between 6,000 and 7,000; they've got a lot of catching up to do. As Henry Kroeger, the former Minister of Trans portation, has pointed out, neither city sought the advice of the province when they embarked on LRT develop ment. They never asked: is it a good idea; is it a bad idea? But by golly, when they're broke they sure do. In turn, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to point out that Alberta made no promises of financing. My colleague to my right, the Member for Cardston, California's great gift to this Legislature, who spent con siderable time this winter in California, informed me that the greater bay area of San Francisco has approximately 4.5 million people. They've been operating a system for a great number of years and according to the Member for Cardston, it's a mess. It runs at quite a deficit. To the south, L.A. tried for years to move the automobile and are just starting to look at it.

And a city that I am reasonably familiar with, Seattle, which has looked at rapid transit and is now backing away from it, used good judgment years ago in the freeways throughout their city. However, Calgary council is stuck with nearly $100 million. I've got to go back on a little bit of the council's good judgment in the past. Before they expand their system or ask for more funding, perhaps Calgary council should look at — they're stuck with nearly $100 million in interest alone for 1982. That's up from $40 million in 1980. I've got it right here; I'll table it.

Calgary council owes $821 million to the Alberta Municipal Financing Corporation and $42 million to the Alberta Home Mort

March 15, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 79 gage Corporation, the federal government, and other provincial agencies. I read that council has $18 million worth of extra LRT cars that they don't know what to do with. I wish the member had mentioned that $18 million of extra cars. I believe they came from Europe. I would like to point out — bear with me Mr. Speaker — and I have here the Alberta Report, and I would like to table it. It reads: "The Case of the Crumbling LRT: Calgary's mayor begs for more transit money as the system rots".

It goes on to explain about the ties crumbl ing and the block-shaped shims that have all rotted away. It sounds like just one heck of a mess. Could we table that? In closing, Mr. Speaker, I'm not trying to knock Calgary council's contribution to this Assembly. There are quite a number of them in the Assembly, have been over the years, but by golly I'm sure glad that they didn't run for aldermen in my village of New Norway. MR. SHRAKE: I'd like to congratulate the author of Motion 201.

In our modern society, in a modern city a transportation system is just as important in this day and age as your water system or your sanitary sewer system. Going back a few years, I'll speak of and mention my experience regarding this one portion we seem to be zeroed in on, the LRT. I served 11 years, not five years, on the city council there. I was one of the ones who made the fateful decision to go after LRT. Back in 1974, the then mayor of the city of Calgary, Rod Sykes, informed the city council that we had to get into a balanced transportation system.

Frankly I think most members of the council, including myself, thought he was perhaps not wise. He ended up taking that city council to Germany, to Europe, and he showed them some systems. I see Ed Oman smiling there; he remembers that. He took them to cities of 400,000 to 800,000 people and, lo and behold, our thinking was that Calgarians, Albertans, won't ride public transit. They love their automobiles; they are going to drive their automobiles. There is no use fooling with it. We've got to have a few buses around for the students and maybe some of the workers that don't have cars.

But lo and behold, over in Europe in cities of 400,000 to 800,000 people, they rode public transit; they had a balanced transportation system. In Hamburg, Dusseldorf, or most of these cities in Germany, they do not have a lot of the problems that we had that came up later. We wondered how it worked? Why would it work over there and not over here? One of the things you suddenly find is that if you have a good system that is fast, efficient, comfortable people will ride it. In the city of Calgary at that time, we had lots of buses. We still have lots of buses there.

You have the system where the bus goes out in the neighborhood, drives maybe to the far edges of the city, 12 miles out from the city, picks up approximately 52 people, maybe 60. They are 52-passenger buses; you've got eight of them standing. You drive your 12 miles downtown. You unload them, and go out and repeat this operation again. It's not very efficient. It doesn't take much sense to realize that the bus is not the most efficient system. The old trolley of years gone by was a lot better.

But your LRT system: you have a bus that runs around within the community going by the doors — close at hand within a minimum of a two-block walking distance — feeds over to the station, unloads and makes its circle again, never leaving that community. Remember that the city of Calgary has 122 communities, ranging from 3,000 to 10,000 in population. When they unload, they get on their LRT system; they ride this thing.

Off it goes downtown, wheeling down its tracks, passing the line-ups of cars on Macleod Trail or major arteries which cost hundreds of millions to build, past the people who are sitting in their cars backed up at the lights. They get people there faster and more efficiently. The LRT can link up enough cars during the peak hours to haul up to 500 people with one driver. It's a lot more efficient than the dozen buses it would take to haul this many people. As the operating cost stands now, the city of Calgary runs a deficit each year of $25 million.

Maybe the pre vious speaker's figures of $33 million are more accurate than mine. That's not for the LRT; that's for the entire transportation system, with 600 buses and 900 drivers. That is what's costing you your operating deficit. That's the reason you have to go to those high rates — not because of the LRT system. The LRT system is working in Calgary: 47,000 rides a day on one leg — a one-legged chicken, you might say. It's one little leg. One of the previous speakers mentioned figures of 6,000 people dur ing rush hour.

If you check with the transportation department of the city of Calgary, that is what they're getting during the rush hours. They peak at around 6,000 people. In the case for the LRT versus buses, the city of Calgary has reached the end of her limits to handle this type of inefficient operation. So they've attempted to do the two horrible things that a city politician always hates. They are raising the rates to $1 a ride. They attempted to cut service. The petitions poured into the city councils. People were upset because they needed this transporta tion to get to work.

So they backed up and reinstated all the lines they were cutting. They got away with a few where they didn't get a very large petition. As it stands now, the city of Calgary has an investment on the first leg of $180 million. It's not $300 million or $400 million, and it's not running an interest rate of $100 million a year. Those are not the figures. We gave them a little better interest rate on $180 million than that. But they have a partial system at this point. What the city is trying to do is build an infrastructure, the same as a small town finally says we must put in a water or sewer system.

It's expensive when you put the plant in, but later as you plug more lines in it, it's the only way to go. Once the LRT is built, there is a structure there for generations to come. We're basically saying that our heritage trust fund is for future generations. Once built, the LRT system will cut the operating cost, the operating transit deficits, for future generations. They will have it there to use. The students can get to university and school; the people can get to work. This is a thing for the future, but it is needed. Transportation becomes a selling point in the infra structure of any city.

The city of Los Angeles lost much of its head-office industry — the industry which is non- polluting, heavy employment generating; big pay cheques, big revenues, year after year, demanding very little back from a city, state, or province. These [industries] moved out of Los Angeles because the congestion of traffic and transportation became impossible. Some of them come to Calgary, by the way.

In Calgary the firm of Clark James Coupland offered to put up the capital cost of $2 million to extend the LRT for two blocks if the city of Calgary would run the LRT to the proposed site of their 900,000 square foot building. Why did they wish to spend $2 million? Because they

80 ALBERTA HANSARD March 15, 1983 have an offer from a head office of an international firm. This firm employs 1,800 people in their head office. That's 1,800 full-time jobs, jobs to maybe take up some of our unemployment. They will move their head office to this building. They will lease the building from this firm and have them build it, creating jobs, wealth, if the LRT runs by it.

Private industry is beginning to realize the importance of transportation. if we take one leg of LRT in the city of Calgary — for example, the next proposed leg, the northwest leg to serve the university, SAIT, the Foothills hospital, and a few hundred thousand residents — this thing will create 3,000 man-hours of work. That's what it creates. The excava tion companies that will be working there — right now we have excavation companies selling their excavation equipment at the public auction in Red Deer. American companies come in, buy it, take it down to the States, and put it to work.

It should be working in this province. We've done what we can to help the trucking industry. But if we build that northwest leg, they're going to haul a lot of dirt. I imagine every member of this Legislative Assembly has received a letter from the engineers and architects almost asking: please get us more work. This is expertise and technology in this province that we built up over a decade and have the danger of losing in a couple of years. If there is no work for them, they must go somewhere else. This will create a lot of architectural jobs, a lot of jobs for the engineers.

Members of the Legislative Assembly, our major cities must have a good infrastructure to compete against other cities such as Denver, Toronto, and Montreal. This is a system we're looking at for the 1980s, because the 1980s belong to Alberta. Alberta is going to be the place to be in the 1980s, and let's see that we have our cities ready for it. Thank you. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to rise on this motion and generally support it, being a city member also. And I don't think we should be trying to draw lines between city and rural members.

I think the motion could go further because a taxpayer is a taxpayer, regardless of whether it's the provincial or municipal government. During the election campaign we went on the assump tion that we favored revenue sharing, which is in many other provinces and working very well. We suggested 8 per cent could be given to the municipalities. In this sense it would not be, if you like, a famous quote, "children of the province", that they have a legitimate right in their own minds to set their own criteria.

The point we make — and I think it's very important — is that public works in a time of recession is a time to go ahead because it makes good economic sense. Let's use the LRT as an example. Perhaps the price of oil goes up again and we have to compete, and perhaps at some point heavy oil may be economic. Perhaps even the Alsands project may be economic again. If we wait until we're competing with these massive projects, the price of LRT is going to be very expensive. The point that we all know and they even knew in Houston — the price they're paying until they waited too long. It was much more expensive.

Some people may argue that you don't need LRT. If we look around the world, especially western Europe and the United States, that's the direction they're going. We're going to need to expand our LRT, to use that for an example. Why it makes sense to spend this money now is that it's a good economic investment in two ways. One, with 136,000 people unemployed, it's going to put people to work quickly. In this day and age, that would be very important to do.

The second thing — and I make the point clearly — is that it makes good economic sense to do it now rather than wait until we're competing for labor and materials with an Alsands project. For those two reasons, I suggest that we support Motion No. 201. As I said, I do not think it goes far enough, but I think it makes good economic sense. It would put a lot of people to work. It's the cheapest time to do it. I urge the Assembly to allow this to come to a vote and pass it. MR. PURDY: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a few comments on Motion 201, proposed by the hon.

Member for Calgary Buffalo, I'm sorry I missed some of his opening remarks as I was out. I guess I can read them in Hansard. I think the motion is timely, and we should seriously look at some of the concerns the various urban munici palities are bringing to this particular table. I think we should also be looking at some of the concerns that we in rural Alberta have. I reflect on the remarks that were made by my colleague from Camrose, and I can't totally agree with some of the comments he made. The statement he made was that the government was not involved with urban transportation.

But we have a policy paper, Mr. Speaker, that was done in 1977, and it has been amended a number of times. I think I would draw his attention to that. He should read this Alberta urban transportation policy that this government adopted in 1977 and has carried on over a number of years. It covers a number of subjects of interest to the city councils, such as research and development incentives, public transit capital incentives, public transit systems' operating deficits, arterial road systems, continuous co rridors throughout the cities, and rail relocation sites. So those are what is under the present policy.

The philoso phy of the policy is here, which says that we work in conjunction with the municipalities. The member pointing out that the cities of Calgary and Edmonton did not consult with the government when they went ahead with LRT is misleading. I've been a member of this House for probably 12 years now and can very vividly recall discussions to put this particular policy in place. I think that both the municipalities — I'm not familiar with Calgary, but the city of Edmonton has done a fairly good job in what they embarked to do a number of years ago.

I also look at the budgetary requirements, and this does concern me a bit. We have gone from the 1977 to '78 budget, $65 million for transit, up to the '82-83, which is an estimate of $211 million or a total of about a billion dollars over a five-year program to help the municipali ties. We look at our total transportation budget in the province of around $800 million, I believe it was, last year — or slightly more than that — and $211 million of that was allocated to the cities for urban transportation. It doesn't leave that much for the rest of Alberta for primary and secondary highway construction.

The city of Edmonton has also made a number of briefs to the government regarding urban transportation, and the latest was done in October of 1980. I think they put a lot of work into this particular brief, and I feel the province has met some of those concerns that the city presented to us in 1980. One of their particular recom mendations was — I'll read it into the record, Mr. Speaker: The city of Edmonton urged the government of

March 15, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 81 Alberta, in consultation with the city of Edmonton, to make a firm commitment by December 31, 1980, for the development of a ring road as a vital component of the roadway network required to cope with future develop ments in the area. That particular aspect has not taken place to this date. In 1972 the then Minister of the Environment unilaterally imposed upon the people surrounding Edmonton an RDA, and I was of the understanding that the RDA would encompass utility and transportation corridors.

I look at the area west of the city that I represent, and we are certainly in need of a ring road to eliminate the congestion we have on some of the major thoroughfares coming into Edmonton. A lot of truckers and other groups are going through the city of Edmonton to get to the Calgary Trail or the St. Albert Trail and don't have in place a ring road to serve their needs. A lot of traffic is now using Highway 60 to eliminate going through the city of Edmonton, but this particular highway is over taxed right now.

I'll be discussing this with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and his deputy minister in the near future to see what plans are in place to have Highway 60 act as a ring road around the city of Edmonton, especial ly to eliminate the westerly flow of traffic off the Whitemud freeway through Edmonton. I have another concern, Mr. Speaker. That's primarily Highway 16 west of the city of Edmonton. Right now the traffic count of vehicles coming into Edmonton is 38,000 cars per day. What is happening is . . . Sure, funds have been put into rapid transit and other areas.

But from Highway 16 we run into a bottleneck of 170th Street and 102nd Avenue, and this is as far as the traffic can go. A lot of traffic is now using the River Valley Road south and then hitting 79th Avenue and going into the city of Edmonton along the Whitemud freeway. But this River Valley Road is not up to standards. It's a dan gerous street here in the city of Edmonton, and I have some concerns about motor vehicle accidents. Because of traffic congestion and the high volume of traffic, we are going to have some serious accidents unless this particu lar arterial road is looked at.

We've made significant progress in the Yellowhead Trail on the northern route around the city of Edmonton and taking it just south of St. Albert, and I think that particular design is well received. I know that if I want to go to Northlands Coliseum, there's only about three lights I have to be up against from Spruce Grove and I'm right to Northlands.

However, that route must be ex panded further to allow a greater flow of traffic, and the province has committed, through funding over a con tinuous period until completed in 1986, a substantial amount of money to expand Highway 16 west from Edmonton to the Lake Eden corner. The right of way is now bought. A lot of the road has been expanded to a four-lane standard.

The area from Stony Plain to Edmonton is now paved as a two-lane highway with an additional two lanes to open up next year, which will give us four lanes of pavement from Stony Plain to the city of Edmonton, which I hope will eliminate some of the 38,000 cars per day on Highway 16 west. The traffic count on 16X coming into the city right now is approximately 6,000 cars a day. While we're discussing this motion, I think we should have expanded it and looked at some of the transporta tion problems we are having in some of our smaller towns in rural Alberta.

I represent two smaller towns, Spruce Grove with a population of 11,000, and Stony Plain, about half that size. They are having their own transpor tation problems within those urban municipalities. The department has committed that there will be further moneys spent in Spruce Grove this year for additional upgrading to the Calihoo road and the Golden Spike road, which I welcome. We have the same problem in the town of Stony Plain as one of the arterial roads. I can see rapid transit being expanded to that particu lar area of Spruce Grove and Stony Plain.

At Stony Plain this fall, we're going to be opening the first phase of the third technical institution in the province called Westerra. It will open with approximate needs of 400 students plus staff, but by 1986-87 I anticipate, and the government anticipates through the Minister of Advanced Education and board of governors responsible, that that could have a influx of 7,000 students.

So I very sincerely say that we have to look at rapid transit to those two towns to eliminate the very high congestion we'll have on highways if something isn't done, such as using the railroad as a commuter service or a further type of bus service to bring students from the town of Stony Plain to the city of Edmonton. I guess there are a number of other things I could say on this motion, Mr. Speaker, but I think that the government, through the Department of Transportation, has committed a number of funds for the urban transpor tation policy.

The last announcement was made two years ago, and the funding will run out in 1986. I'm sure we will be looking at re-enactment of this program with further funds to help our urban cousins. I say that because I'm an urban member, and once in a while I will support the urban concept in this House. Once in a while I don't, but generally I look upon my urban cousins as deserving and within their needs. This is why I rose today, Mr. Speaker: to support the motion of the Member for Calgary Buffa lo. I look forward to debate by other hon. members in this House. MR. NELSON: Mr.

Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to stand here today and support the hon. Member for Calgary Buffalo's motion before this House. Of course, unaccustomed as I am to public speaking, I'm a little nervous. Mr. Speaker, during the election year of 1977, that being the municipal election year, many of the candidates who ran for city council wanted to re-evaluate the devel opment of the LRT system proposed by the former council and the mayor Mr. Sykes during previous years. When elected, many of those new council members, in cluding the new mayor Mr. Ross Alger, initiated a re- evaluation of the LRT.

Although I don't want to ex pound on the LRT specifically, because I think it's only a part of what we would determine as balanced transporta tion, the majority of the council determined at that time that they would not support that total re-evaluation. Of course, in hindsight, those of us that may have wanted a re-evaluation were not fully informed and, of course, have proven that the LRT does work. There have been a number of comments made, specifi cally from our hon. Member for Camrose, and certainly they would have to be given some consideration in our discussion today and some of them rebutted. Mr.

Speak er, the issue here today is the issue of balanced transpor tation for the urban centres of this province, not neces sarily focussing on Calgary and Edmonton, but the 12 major centres that make up the major urban areas. Cer tainly Edmonton and Calgary, being the larger of the two and having the large populations including access to them

82 ALBERTA HANSARD March 15, 1983 or service to something like 60 to 65 per cent of the population of this province, do require special considera tion, as do many of the concerns of the rural members when they have roads developed in their constituencies. It's very difficult for me to come into the House after possibly a few years and say, well, I got Highway No. 40 done, or Highway 2, or whatever the highway is. Because of our network in Calgary, we just can't identify singular roads.

However, we would like to have similar considera tion given by our rural friends so we may be able to approach our constituency in the same manner and iden tify that we were able to assist in doing something for our constituency as they have done. Mr. Speaker, there has been a comment that less than 10 per cent use LRT. Certainly 10 per cent of the popula tion does not use LRT. However, when you only have one leg of LRT in each of the two major cities, it's pretty difficult to have 10 per cent of the population actually using that transit facility.

Somewhere back in the area of '74-75, both the major cities did discuss with the province the development of LRT, or at least a major transit facili ty. For some five years of discussion, this process went on. In fact on the bottom line, as I understand it, the complete Edmonton first leg and 65 per cent of the costs of the first leg of the Calgary LRT were in fact funded by the province. In that context alone, the province has made a commitment to ensure that the cities have suffi cient transit and public transit facilities to move the people of those cities.

Some two or three years ago, it was stated that before further funding is given, let's wait and see if people actually use this transit system. There was a committee, ACUTREC, developed by the then Minister of Transpor tation. Of course their recommendations are probably common knowledge to most of us here, and those who are not, they should be available through the minister's office. It's interesting to note that in Calgary alone some 47,000 people ride a one-leg system that goes from downtown to the suburbs.

Now one leg a system does not make, and until such time — and we hear arguments that the system doesn't work. It's only got 45,000 or 47,000 people; Toronto's got 400,000 people. Heavens to Betsy, I can relate to many systems in the world that I've been on, including Sydney, Australia, where they put carriages on the tracks on heavy rail; they're double-decker. They have eight carriages in one train, double-decker, something like 400 people on each car. Certainly you could argue that the population of Sydney, Australia, is a little greater than Edmonton or Calgary, and it certainly is.

The systems in the States — for instance, the BART in San Francisco. I've ridden on that, another system that has very high costs, $2 billion and losing its shirt, and has other concerns with it. I had the opportunity to discuss with people in the BART, when I was down there two years ago, some of their problems and operating concerns. Mr. Speaker, I don't want to relate too long on this subject of LRT, but certain comments have been made in this House relevant to it, and I just want to make sure the facts are on the table.

During the Stampede week, 10 days, some 2 million people ride the LRT, half a million of them riding to that Stampede. The south line, of course, is in place. The northeast line is being built, unfortunately at the cost to the taxpayers in Calgary. And of course to make that system work a third line is required, and that hopefully will be into the northwest of the city where very excellent transit use will be made of the system.

If for no other reason, both the large number of people that are moving into that area, similar to the northeast, but also because of our universities, our col leges, SAIT, the Jubilee Auditorium, the Foothills hospi tal — a government institution, it's a training hospital. [interjection] And you're right, Harry: the McMahon Stadium, which will be expanded for the Olympic games in 1988. However, Mr.

Speaker, I can speak on some of the transportation concerns that have bothered my con stituency, and my constituency alone has a greater popu lation than any other area, including full cities of this province other than Calgary and Edmonton, considerably more than the city of Lethbridge, for example. I can relate to transportation problems like probably nobody else here. Too often, we develop transportation policies and transportation activities after the fact of growth. During the Sykes era in Calgary, it was a thought of defer, defer, defer, defer.

That way you couldn't spend any money, and you'd save the taxpayers increases on their tax bills. Ultimately what happens, it has to be done. So what happens? You get that big growth. You have people jumping up and down and getting mad at you because you haven't done anything. Then all of a sudden you do it, and the tax bill hurts.

So what we need is to jump in and get on with the jobs of developing this balanced transportation at an early date, small portions at a time, so that over the period of the growth we are able to contain that growth and keep those people that are moving into these new communities reasonably happy. It's interesting that we had a letter come by — I believe yesterday — from the Hon. Horst Schmid regarding the export of LRT expertise to the United States.

Because Calgary and Edmonton are the forerunners of this type of system in North America, we have a quantity of quality experts in our midst in Calgary and Edmonton that are being used by some people in the United States to gain expertise on the systems they've developed in Canada. So what happens if we stop developing this part of our balanced growth transportation, being LRT? What hap pens to these people? Do they go down to the States? Do they become redundant? Let's hope not.

Let's keep our resource which we have developed at a great cost to our taxpayers that have been given the opportunity through confidence of the two major municipalities and this gov ernment. Let's keep that resource in Canada and export some of it for our benefit. When tourists come into our province, and especially into our major centres, do they ride in automobiles, do they rent cars? No, they ride on our public transit.

If any of you have gone around the world — and I'm sure many of you have travelled extensively — and into those centres that have rail systems, for some reason or other they have an attraction to tourists and they ride them. That doesn't necessarily mean we build them because of a tourist attraction, but certainly they assist in moving people around and getting them from one place to another. Road development can only extend to a certain degree, and it takes up one heck of a lot of land. Land cost today, of course, is exorbitant, and the development of roadways is becoming even more exorbitant.

An interesting comment was made a little earlier about the useless or worthless cars that are going into Calgary. AN HON. MEMBER: That means Gordon's old junker. MR. NELSON: Possibly. It's interesting that with the great expansion of the transit user on the south leg of

March 15, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 83 LRT in Calgary, they do not have enough cars to facilitate those people at the present time. So many of those 'ex cess' vehicles will certainly be used in that area as well as the northeast. Mr. Speaker, I think we have an opportunity here to develop policies and to develop financial policies that have some foresight to them rather than some hindsight. As I've stated — and I'm most familiar with Calgary — it's easy to look back and say, boy, we should have done that; boy, we should have done this. But unfortunately that doesn't happen.

Unfortunately what does happen is that the politician representing the particular community has to stand up here or at a municipal council meeting and jump up and down and cry the blues: why haven't we got these things done? My people can't move. They cannot get in and out of those communities. Mr. Speaker, the same argument can be given for any community or urban area in this province: Red Deer, Lethbridge, Medicine Hat, Fort McMurray.

Any argu ment regarding transportation — and that's balanced transportation in those urban areas — can be given in the respect that they too have traffic congestion and, many times, unhappy people. Until such time as we develop a completed system, with roadways, whether they be ring roads around the city, whether they be wide roads able to carry a lot of traffic through the city . . . Again, we start that nonsense; we have objections. These objections, of course, create other concerns, environmental concerns, and also the movement of people, social concerns.

They can be very costly, because a holdup of construction of any type of transportation not only adds to the cost; many times it creates other concerns. We cannot compare a system to . . . And I'm going to relate to the LRT again, because comments are made relevant to that the system doesn't work. Until such time as you have a system, it will not work. LRT has one leg both in Calgary and Edmonton. I must emphasize: only one leg. Both developed with the full knowledge and support of the government of Alberta, both in financial support and moral support.

We must ask that that support continue, because the argument can be given continually that the system does not and will not work because you've only got one line or one and a half lines or two lines. Mr. Speaker, we need to develop the system which is a minimum of three lines, so that we can move people not from the downtowns out to a suburb but from one suburb through the downtown to another suburb, to our working areas, to our schools, to our educational facili ties, to our social areas, to our cultural facilities, to our performing arts theatres and universities.

We need to move people to be able to participate in these functions, and we need to be able to move them efficiently and well and cheaply. Not everybody can afford a vehicle. Not everybody can go and park a vehicle at these facilities. For those people that live in our rural communities that may want to go to a facility, wouldn't it be nice to drive in to the south end of the city or the west end or the northeast end and say, hey, I can drive in and park my car right here, and I can get to that function without the hassle of driving into the downtown? People fro

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19830315
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L20 S1 19830315 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	0473311181d153a5bdc448825c345e96aab151c0

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