Alberta Hansard — 21 March 1983, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 20, Session 1)

19830321

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

March 21, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 165 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Monday, March 21, 1983 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SELECT COMMITTEES MR. H1EBERT: Mr. Speaker, as chairman I request leave to present a report of the special committee ap pointed to prepare lists of members to serve on the select standing committees of the Assembly. head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 209 Public Access to Pollution Monitoring Surveys Act MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I request leave to introduce a Bill, being the Public Access to Pollution Monitoring Surveys Act. Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill No. 209 is to provide access to all monitoring of any environ mental problem or difficulty undertaken in this province. [Leave granted; Bill 209 read a first time] Bill 214 Environmental Impact Assessment Act MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill No. 214, the Environmental Impact Assessment Act. Mr.

Speaker, the purpose of Bill No. 214 is to set out requirements for environmental impact assessments on projects in this province. [Leave granted; Bill 214 read a first time] Bill 27 Chattel Security Registries Act MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to intro duce Bill No. 27, the Chattel Security Registries Act. This being a money Bill, His Honour the Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor, having been informed of the con tents of this Bill, recommends the same to the Assembly. Mr. Speaker, the Bill is in fact a recasting and updating of existing legislation with respect to chattel security regi stries.

It deals with a number of items necessary to the registration of interest in personal property, including the duties of the registrars, the registration system, the man ner of handling financial interest statements, and the continuation of the existing role for an assurance fund. [Leave granted; Bill 27 read a first time] Bill 12 Alberta Government Telephones Amendment Act, 1983 MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill No. 12, the Alberta Government Telephones Amendment Act, 1983.

The amendments are requested to reflect the current title and responsibilities of the minister, to make the definition of telecommunications consistent with that contained in the Alberta Public Utilities Board Act, as well as to effect the composition of the commission and the make-up of the pension board. [Leave granted; Bill 12 read a first time] Bill 26 Widows' Pension Act MRS. EMBURY: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill 26, the Widows' Pension Act. The purpose of this Bill is to provide assistance to Albertans between the ages of 55 and 64 who have lost their spouses and have limited means.

This Bill also encompasses the income security, health care, and hous ing programs. [applause] [Leave granted; Bill 26 read a first time] MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 26 be placed on the Order Paper under Government Bills and Orders. [Motion carried] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, I would like to file with the Legislature Library four copies of the West Central Al berta Extension Area Study Discussion Paper and four copies of the Hanna Historical Roundhouse and Village Feasibility Study and Concept Design. MR. BRADLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to file with the Assembly three copies each of information I received from Gulf Canada last Thursday and Friday. MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table the 1981-82 annual report of the Department of Agricul ture. Copies were forwarded to members on December 7. I also wish to table the Wheat Board money trust account. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the 77th annual report of the Department of Education for the fiscal year 1981-82. MR. MUSGREAVE: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to table the annual [report] of the Alberta Research Council for the year ended March 31, 1982. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. PENGELLY: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to in troduce to you, and through you to the members of the Assembly, 19 students from the Salem Christian Acade

166 ALBERTA HANSARD March 21, 1983 my and their four teachers: Mrs. Carol Loney, Mr. George Loney, Miss Christine Essex, and Mr. Dean McPhail. They are seated in the members gallery, and I ask them to rise and receive a warm welcome from the House. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to intro duce through you to the members of the Legislature three members of the Alberta Union of [Provincial] Employees: vice-presidents Mr. Tom Minhinnett and Mr. Dave Pott er, and Mr. Don Sloan. I ask them to stand and be recognized. MR. PURDY: Mr.

Speaker, it's my pleasure this after noon to introduce a group of students from the Muir Lake school, which is located in the Stony Plain constitu ency. They are grade 7 students taking the option in youth government, and who are here today to watch the proceedings of the Legislature. Accompanying them are teachers Denele Walsh and Gwen Reid. The Muir Lake school was the first community school in the county of Parkland, and was probably one of the first to be organized in the province of Alberta.

At this time I would like to give the community full credit for what the the parents and teachers have done and the work they have committed themselves to, in making the school what it is today. They are in the public gallery, and I ask them to rise and receive the welcome of the House. MRS. LeMESSURIER: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce to you, and through you to members of the Assembly, 18 students from the English as a second language department at the Alberta Vocational Centre in the constituency of Edmonton Centre. They are accom- panied by their leader Mrs. Irwin, and are seated in the members gallery.

I ask that the students rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. MR. CHAMBERS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce to you, and through you to the members of the Assembly, 53 grade 6 students from Baturyn school, in the constitu ency of Edmonton Calder. They're accompanied today by their teachers Roger MacEachern, Jim Torsky, and Dar ren Cross, and by Mrs. Cypher, the group leader. I believe they're seated in the public gallery, and I'd like you to join me in extending them the warm welcome of this Assembly. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Gas Plant Monitoring MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to direct this ques tion to the hon. Premier. It flows out of the question last Friday with respect to a province-wide study on the environmental impacts of the sour gas industry in the province. With the permission of the House, I'd just like to make reference to the Premier's answer: If we feel there is a substantive concern that is backed up by these analyses, inquiries, and reports referred to by the Minister of the Environment . . . Mr.

Speaker, to the Premier: in view of the widespread concern of a number of groups — the Canadian Public Health Association, the Environment Council of Alberta, the Edmonton medical officer of health, the registrar of the College of Physicians and Surgeons — what evidence does the government feel is necessary in order to make a decision on a province-wide investigation? Is that evi dence contingent upon studies related to one particular incident — the incident in Pincher Creek — in view of the fact that we have a number of problems throughout the province? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, I think there's some debate about the degree of problems throughout the province. I would only respond to the specific answer I gave last Friday: If we feel there is a substantive concern that is backed up by these analyses, inquiries, and reports referred to by the Minister of the Environment, and a broader analysis in terms of gas processing in the province is required, we'll respond to it. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of the Environment.

Is the minister in a position to advise the Assembly what discussions the Department of the Environment has had with Gulf Oil and representatives of the gas processing industry to attempt to develop reliable tests on the flaring of gas, in view of the fact that most of the concerns have occurred when gas is being flared as opposed to the normal tests that are taken in a gas plant? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'm not in a position to respond to that question today. I'll take it under advisement. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Is the hon.

Minister of the Environment in a position to bring the Assembly up to date on whether or not the accord of May 29, 1980, with respect to environmental impact assessments, and the apparent failure to have one in the decommissioning of the Gulf plant — whether or not that general policy between the Department of the Environment and the ERCB is in place and in fact represented a stumbling block to a proper EIA when the Gulf plant was decommissioned? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd have to check the specific document to which the hon. leader is referring. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, as a bit of information, I would advise the minister that the document is some three years old. My question is whether or not the Department of the Environment, presumably as the protector of the envi ronment in this province, is going to take the primary responsibility for EIAs. Or is that going to continue to be a shared responsibility with the ERCB, whose mandate is somewhat different: the most efficient utilization of our non-renewable natural resources.

My question directly to the minister is, what initiatives has the minister taken with respect to ensuring that EIAs come under the direc tion of his department? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, at this point in time there's legislation in place under the Land Surface Con servation and Reclamation Act, which specifically pro vides for environmental impact assessments. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Under those circumstances, is the hon. minister in a posi tion to advise the Assembly what changes are going to be made with respect to EIAs, or whether he is proposing

March 21, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 167 any changes, when decommissioning of plants is being considered? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, to answer the specific question, I'm currently having the particular piece of leg islation which I referred to, the Land Surface Conserva tion and Reclamation Act, reviewed to see whether the specific object of having environmental impact assess ments for decommissioning of plants is currently possible or whether an amendment is required. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister.

What general assessment is being made by the Department of the Environment with respect to the difficulties of monitoring gas plants in the wintertime? I refer to a document that I'm sure the minister is well aware of, the Greenhill report, that raises the concern about the adequacy of wintertime monitoring of gas plant emissions. In view of the fact that most of the concern in Pincher Creek has been (

a) during flaring and (

b) during the wintertime, what particular changes is the government contemplating with respect to the monitoring procedures to ensure that there is proper wintertime monitoring? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, I haven't seen the specific document which the hon. leader is referring to, with regard to alleged difficulties with air quality monitoring in the wintertime. I will review that document. MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the last supplementary on this issue. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this sup plementary to the Premier.

In light of concerns attributed to the Premier some years ago about metal and lead poisoning in the Pincher Creek area, is the Premier in a position to outline to the Assembly . . . I might just add that I have another letter, of October 11, a copy of which I will share with the hon. Premier.

The question I would put to the Premier: in light of the general inadequacy of monitoring provisions, what changes have been made which would assure the Premier that the concerns he expressed about physical health due to metal emissions, and lead poisoning in particular, when he was on this side of the House — that these problems have in fact been properly looked after and handled in the last 15 years? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, in checking my records and that document and the letter I wrote to the then Minister of Health, Dr.

Ross, on January 21 — although we didn't have a Hansard at the time, I believe the matter was raised in the session of 1969. The response to it was a report, dated February 5, 1969, which came from the director of the environmental health services division of the Alberta Department of Health and the medical officer of health of the Chinook health unit. The conclusion coming from my inquiry was as follows: The considered opinion must be that there is abso lutely no cause for concern as to the safety of water supplies in the area with respect to lead content.

Similarly, there is no indication at all to support a conclusion that there is any ingestion of lead by residents of the area which would in any way ad versely affect their health. Constitution — Aboriginal Rights MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of any abili ty to pursue supplementary questions, perhaps we'll await another day. I'd like to direct my second question to the Premier, and it's with respect to the . . . MR. SPEAKER: Might I just respectfully interrupt the hon. Leader of the Opposition. He has had one question and six supplementaries on this point.

There has never been any difficulty — and the hon. leader would recall this — in the question period, certainly not in recent memory in this House, in going back to a topic later in the question period if there's additional time. I don't think it's a thing we need to be in any way snide about. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, perhaps. I was simply making an observation that I would bring the thing back. I did not mean to be snide. [interjections] If I really wanted to be snide, the hon. Speaker knows me well enough to know that I could make that abundantly clear to the members of the House.

But I do want to make it abundantly clear today that I was not. I was simply making an observation that tomor row, or perhaps later on in the question period should time permit, we'll come back to the question of Pincher Creek. I'd like to direct this question to the Premier, and it is with respect to the constitutional conference on aborigin al rights.

I'd like to ask the Premier to outline to the Assembly the reasons the government of Alberta felt that with respect to changes in aboriginal rights, aboriginal groups might be in a position to advise, as opposed to the debate over whether or not consent should be an integral part of any constitutional change? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I think the question is obvious in a federal system. There's a federal government and 10 provincial governments. We're involved with the constitution of Canada. There's no way any group within the country should be involved in a veto of the conclu sions on a constitutional basis.

We did agree that there should be consultation with the groups involving the aboriginal peoples of Canada, to particularly respond to their special historical position within Canada. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Premier. What would be the nature of that consul tation, as far as the province of Alberta is concerned? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, if there was proposed amendment to the constitution that would in any way — and I believe even closely — affect the aboriginal peoples of Canada, I'm sure the government of the day would very obviously consult with the aboriginal peoples and their representatives within the province, since that obli gation will in due course form part of the constitution of Canada. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Minister responsible for Native Affairs.

Given the comments in the Premier's statement at the confer ence, what initiatives is the department going to under take, first of all to settle out of court the mineral rights case involving the Metis settlements of this province and, secondly, to proceed quickly with outstanding land claims

168 ALBERTA HANSARD March 21, 1983 — the Lubicon case being one example, but others might be cited. MR. PAHL: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that both those issues are under litigation, perhaps I should refer the question to the Attorney General. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my hon. friend would do me the service of restating the question. MR. NOTLEY: I'm going to give the hon. minister in charge another opportunity to take a run at it.

The question is with respect to the outstanding land claims, the Lubicon case being one, and the other is the mineral rights case in which the settlements have undertaken the suit against the province of Alberta. To either hon. minis ter: in light of the spirit contained in the Premier's opening statement, what consideration would be made to setting aside a legalistic approach in the case of the Metis Settlements issue, attempting to arrive at an out-of-court settlement with the settlements' association, and then pur suing the land claims expeditiously? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr.

Speaker, there's quite a history to the lawsuit involving mineral rights in respect of the Metis settlements. Part of that history is that because there were disagreements about what should be done and the government wanted to be fair, the suggestion was made that the matter be taken before the courts. At the time this proposal was made, we believed that could be done within a reasonable time.

The government has very significantly supported the Metis settlements' associations with respect to the legal costs incurred by them in respect of these proceedings, and has paid quite a lot of costs to the lawyers for the Metis settlements. I mention that because it's been my belief that the action could have been tried by now. Perhaps that's still the best way to do it. It would be a very long and difficult trial, but it could be done.

Then all the points that have been raised, many of which go back to statements made in the 1930s, for example, about ministers of the govern ment at that time who made certain types of commit ments or alleged commitments — it requires a lot of sorting out. Now if, because the action is there, the knowledge that each of the two sides has of the other side's case could lead to a settlement, I for one would be very pleased. That is certainly our approach to most lawsuits where the end result could suitably be compromise and where there is a distinct difference of view but not a difference in principle.

So I would like to see the case tried at an early opportunity, given the absence of any negotiations that would be likely to lead to settlement, which is in fact the case. I think it's an important part of my answer that the government side is doing everything possible to see the matter not delayed, and I for one have been very disap pointed that it's not been possible to bring it to trial before now. The other matter, of Lubicon, is just sort of nicely under way in the sense that one thinks of lawsuits.

It's been around for a much shorter length of time and has been in and out of one of the courts and back into another. Since it's at that stage, Mr. Speaker, and I don't know the intentions of the plaintiffs in that case as to pressing it, I don't think there's much I can add, except to say that the lawsuit is indeed under way. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister responsible for Native Affairs. Was there any discussion with B.C. officials concerning the so-called working memorandum, which threatened to poison the atmosphere of the conference?

Was there any discussion with B.C. officials by Alberta officials concerning what one would call that negotiating strategy? MR. PAHL: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. My colleague the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs may want to respond as well. Mr. Speaker, I think it's important for the House to know that there was a very positive spirit on all sides of the table at the constitutional conference. To my knowl edge, that wasn't brought up at any time. MR. HORSMAN: Having been invited to participate in the answer, Mr. .

Speaker, I can also add that the document referred to in some news media reports never came to my attention, nor was it the subject of discussion between myself or any of the ministers who attended the conference on behalf of the province of British Columbia. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary question I'd like to address to the hon. Attorney General. It's to clarify what I thought was an important answer.

Is the Attorney General telling the House that there is now a point in time when the government sees an out-of-court settlement after this long, long process with the Metis settlements in this province? MR. CRAWFORD: I might say, not in precise terms, Mr. Speaker. But any lawsuit, particularly one with the degree of complexity and perhaps some common ground, the common ground being that any original intention expressed should certainly be given full weight whether the rights are purely legal or are in some respects social and political in their possible ultimate answers . . .

As to settlement, I've always taken the view that that's a proper result once the proceedings have gone along as far as they have. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Little . . . MR. CRAWFORD: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, I'm afraid I want to be clear on one more thing: to my knowledge, there is no immediate hope of settlement. Product Advertising — Agriculture MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Agriculture relates to the annual report the hon. minister tabled today.

I wonder if the minister could indicate why in a province such as Alberta, where the rate of alcoholism is high and the rate of crimes related to alcohol is high — we have a serious drunk problem in the province — the government provides subsidies through the marketing branch to Alberta distilleries to advertise their products in an effort to increase sales of alcohol? I wonder if the minister could comment on that and why such a program is in place? MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that they are assisting with advertising alcohol, but I'll be happy to check and report back. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, would the hon. minis ter check with regard to cost-shared programs of advertis

March 21, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 169 ing with Carrington Distillers Ltd., Sunnyvale Distillers, and Alberta Distillers Ltd.? Would the minister do that? MR. FJORDBOTTEN: I'd be most pleased to, Mr. Speaker. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion. Could the hon. minister indicate why advertising subsidies are going to some very successful companies?

Also, other companies that have the prices of their products and their profits controlled through the Public Utilities Board — such as McGavin's, NADP, Alpha Milk, Palm Dairies, and other large companies — have their advertising programs subsidized in the province of Alberta. In terms of a free-enterprise government, why is the government doing that kind of thing? MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr.

Speaker, we certainly are supportive of the dairy industry, in particular, because of the difficult times some dairy producers are finding them selves in because of the reduction in the consumption of milk and the surplus in the world. And there's competi tion from other products, other types of fruit drinks. For an industry that's as important to the province of Alberta as the dairy industry, we are supportive of them in their advertising, to the extent of some $300,000 to their Drink Milk campaign this year. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary.

Could the minister indicate whether any studies have been done with regard to the results of some of this advertising, specifically with regard to advertising distilleries? MR. FJORDBOTTEN: I'd be happy to check that and report back. Educational Financing DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Education. Can the minister indicate to the Assembly the status of the ministerial task force on financing education from kindergarten to grade 12? As far as I can understand, the report was handed to the minister in December, but he didn't seem to like what it contained so he sent it back.

Can he indicate the status of that report on educational financing? MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, on December 23, I received the report referred to and did indeed have an opportunity to read it. I might say that it was not a question of liking or not liking its contents but of being rather uncertain as to the implication of some of its contents. I have referred it back to the task force. I have asked the task force to meet one more time and give me the benefit of their advice on three questions that I directed to them.

When they have had that meeting, I expect the report and the addendum will be returned to me, at which time it will be made public. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, could the minister be kind enough to table in the Assembly the report he received in December? MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I think we would all be a lot better off if we had the benefit of the comments of the task force on the questions I put to them. In order that we might have a profitable and constructive debate about educational finance, I will table the report when I have the reply of the task force. DR. BUCK: Mr.

Speaker, can the minister indicate to the Assembly the three questions he was having problems with, so that we can compare those with what the original report indicated? MR. KING: I'm not sure that the questions would have any meaning without the context provided by the report. MR. NOTLEY: Take a run at it. MR. KING: In order to assure that the hon. member has the most complete possible grasp of educational finance, I will table the letter at the time I table the report and the addendum. Consultant — Transportation MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this ques tion to the Minister of Transportation.

Can the minister inform the House what work the former Chief Deputy Minister of Transportation, Mr. R.G. McFarlane, has been contracted to do with his department? MR. M. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, it's a question of some detail, but I'd be pleased to provide the answer right now. Mr. McFarlane, as hon. members know, has served in the public service for some 42 years, I believe, both for the government of Canada and the government of Alberta. As a matter of fact, he came to this province prior to 1970 to work for the former Social Credit government.

In that capacity he has headed a number of government departments, more recently the Department of Transportation. Mr. McFarlane has almost reached the age of 65. When I discussed his future plans with him in November, he indicated his wish for an early retirement so that the new department head could take his place in the depart ment. He also indicated there were a number of ongoing matters he had been involved in that he'd like to continue with for at least the next 12 months.

They included his chairmanship of a very important international cargo handling association, which he has been involved in for the last two to three years. It was therefore at his request that he retired on January 1. In the course of that retirement, he signed a contract with me, which I was pleased to sign, that would provide for his continuing services in several capacities on a per diem basis for the next 12 months. Mr. Speaker, I just conclude by saying that I think this government is fortunate to be able to be served by a senior diplomat like Mr.

McFarlane when it comes to dealing with matters of this nature, and we should be pleased that we have his services even in retirement. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question to the minis ter. In view of the fact that he was Deputy Minister of Transportation until December 31, 1982, why did his department place an urgent request with the Department of Public Works, Supply and Services as early as Decem ber 2 for preparation of furnished office space for Mr. McFarlane and associates, to be ready by January 1, 1983? Is it common government policy to do this when somebody is already working with them?

170 ALBERTA HANSARD March 21, 1983 MR. M. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, it's common practice when an individual like Mr. McFarlane is retiring — as chief deputy minister, in this case — for him to be provided with alternate government office accommoda tions if indeed he is going to continue doing work for the government, so that the incoming deputy minister might assume the office space he had been located in. It's also common practice to plan these things a little while in advance. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question.

It's very in teresting to know that we provide space for private con sultants, and that will be my next question. What are the terms under which Mr. McFarlane and associates, who are now private consultants — and the key word is "pri vate" — have use of furnished government office space? MR. M. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I'd be pleased to pro vide a copy of the agreement between the government of Alberta and Mr. McFarlane with respect to his continu ing work with the government. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question to the minis ter.

Is it usual procedure for the government to provide furnished government office space to private consultants? MR. M. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, it depends entirely upon the terms of the contract. There are personal service contracts of various kinds. I expect many exist with this government and with other governments wherein office space is supplied. It's totally a matter of working out whatever arrangements are satisfactory to both parties, as is the case with any particular contract. It's not a situa tion where the government considers that all its civil servants can do every job.

From time to time we do indeed utilize private consultants — engineering firms and others — on all kinds of things and make various arrangements. We don't apologize for them. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It's nice to know that we're looking after our people so well in this time of restraint. I ask the Premier: in light of the vigorous attack of the federal Conservatives on the Trudeau government's guidelines, which I think you would agree are far more stringent than anything we have here . . . SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question. MR. MARTIN: Just relax. I'm sure the Premier can handle himself.

What steps is the government considering to prevent further such conflict of interest by senior public servants? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, the only questions I've been able to read in Hansard recently in the federal House of Commons have to be the attack of the hon. member's party against a rollback of oil prices. [interjections] MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Premier to answer the question instead of making a political speech. I think that's only fair. Answer the question. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary ques tion to the Minister of Transportation, with regard to the contract with Mr. McFarlane. Under the circumstances where Mr. McFarlane works out of a public office, are his terms of reference limited, whereby Mr. McFarlane cannot contract with other private agencies or do private work outside of government? Does it restrict his activities in any way? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister has assured that he is going to make a copy of the contract available. Questions dealing with particulars of the contract might await read ing the contract. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

If I may, I'd like to ask the Chair to at least give the minister an opportunity to share with the House whether or not . . . No one is asking the minister to be aware of every dotted "i" and crossed "t". That would be unreasonable. But in a contract of this nature, particularly with a former deputy minister, I am sure the minister would be able to advise whether or not the arrangement precludes that consultant from taking business with the private sector. Mr. Speaker, I ask whether or not the minister is in a position to advise us of that simple question? MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. leader is repeating the ques tion that was previously asked. In order to save question period time, it does seem prudent that when a document is going to be tabled, questions based on that document should await its tabling. MR. M. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your comments in that regard. But the question having been put, I think it deserves an answer. The answer is simply this: Mr. McFarlane is on contract at this government's request, and that contract in no way precludes him from taking other work.

If it were to be any other way, I don't believe he would have signed the contract or been in volved in the ongoing work we asked him to be involved in. Again I repeat that his contract is on a per diem basis. Therefore there is simply no reason to consider tying a person down to providing his services only to the gov ernment of Alberta. It may well be that they would do that in the province of Manitoba, but not here. MR. NOTLEY: Well, great. No question: I'd be glad to argue that one anywhere in the province, let me tell you. My supplementary question is to the hon. Provincial Treasurer.

Given our $2.5 billion deficit, what is the policy of this government with respect to picking up the office expenses of people who are not in fact restricted in their work to supplying consulting services specifically to the government of Alberta and are in fact enjoying the advantages of the private sector while their rental space is paid for by the public sector? MR. M. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The hon. member is now entering into a brand new accusation that reflects on the character and integrity of Mr.

McFar lane, in that he's suggesting . . . [interjections] Well I heard the hon. member suggesting that those offices sup plied by this government are now being used in some other way than with respect to the contract with the government of Alberta. [interjections] Why doesn't the hon. member come clear and state exactly what he be lieves is going on? MR. MARTIN: Don't be so touchy, Marv.

March 21, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 171 MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'm trying to find out from the minister's answers here — and if I followed the hon. minister's answer, on a point of order he indicated, as I recollect, that the particular gentlemen in question was able to engage in consulting services outside the govern ment of Alberta. Fair enough. My question to the Pro vincial Treasurer is, what guidelines does the government of Alberta have with respect to retaining office space for consultants who also do work with the private sector: a very simple question of policy.

The Minister of Transpor tation should not get so excited. There's no reflection on Mr. McFarlane. However, it is a question as to the policy of this government for providing office space for private consultants. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Trans portation has given a full and complete answer to that, and one which any reasonable person in the province would accept. [interjections] MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could put a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Public Works, Supply and Services.

In view of the unused office space we've got all over the province, did the Minister of Transportation or his department seek out the Minister of Public Works, Supply and Service to use some of this unused office space for Mr. McFarlane's office? MR. CHAMBERS: Mr. Speaker, the reference to all sorts of space being empty all over the province isn't really valid. I think the 1 per cent vacancy rate in space that the department has is pretty good by any comparison. AN HON. MEMBER: By whose standards? MR.

CHAMBERS: In good times the private sector considers that 2 per cent is a normal vacancy rate because of mobility, people transferring and so forth. So I think the 1 per cent the government has at this point in time is remarkably good, given the . . . AN HON. MEMBER: What about private rental space? MR. CHAMBERS: I don't know that I could add anything. MR. MARTIN: I don't think so. MR. CHAMBERS: I think the Minister of Transporta tion has adequately described the situation.

I would only say that any consulting contract — and I'm speaking in a general way; I'm not actually familiar with all of them — would involve a commitment of time by an individual to do a certain task. And as part of the contract, it might well be more economical to do that in space the government had available, rather than ask him to go out and rent the space and be billed for it. As everyone who has used consultants knows, they have to have their space paid for. That's part of the real world in private consulting.

So it may well be more economical to take advantage of . . . [interjection] The member may scoff because he doesn't like the way things are done here, compared to Manitoba. But the fact is that it may well be more economical to proceed in that manner. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, can the hon. Minister of Transportation indicate what government policy is in place where we provide space for a person under contract to the provincial government and at the same time doing work for the private sector? Can the minister indicate if it is the policy of the government?

Is this an isolated case, or does this apply just to the honorable gentleman we've been discussing? MR. M. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, again there's an implied accusation that Mr. McFarlane is using . . . DR. BUCK: There is no accusation. [interjections] Mr. Speaker, the minister is trying to make that point, and nobody has said that. I ask him to withdraw, because that is not the question. MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member please resume DR. BUCK: If you ask him to withdraw, I will sit. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

I am sure this all very exciting, but it's an elementary rule that when the Speak er attempts to do his job — which normally out of courtesy he does standing, except when calling on the next member to ask a question, for example — hon. members resume their places until they hear what the Speaker has to say. It may well be that the subject matter of an hon. member's excitement may not be that exciting if the Speaker would get a chance to deal with it. What I'm trying to suggest to the hon. member is that the minister is putting an

interpretation on a question, and all human texts are open to

interpretation. If the hon. member doesn't agree with that

interpretation, I think he should at least wait until it has been stated, and let's see just how far it goes. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The hon. minister has made an accusation to the Leader of the Opposition and to me, that we're discussing the integrity of Mr. McFarlane. Mr. Speaker, it is your responsibility to interject at that time, and we wouldn't have that problem. Very simply, the question to the Minister of Transpor tation: is it government policy that we provide space, at public expense, for former civil servants when they con tract with the government and to the private sector?

Is it government policy that we do this for all people, or just the honorable man we've been discussing? MR. M. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I think I earlier an swered the question, but I'll try one more time.

When the government contracts with an individual, a company, or anyone else, to provide certain services on a per diem basis and, in the course of that, provides that individual with office space and/or secretarial services for perform ing those functions for the government, it does not at that same time — at least not in the circumstances I've been involved in — prohibit that individual from working for or providing his services to others, especially when that individual is only hired on the basis of perhaps a few days a month. I would only expect that Mr.

McFarlane, having spent more than 40 years in the public service, would be well aware of the requirement that his office not be used to perform other duties, and in fact I know he is. I have never thought that it was a responsibility or requirement

172 ALBERTA HANSARD March 21, 1983 of government to specifically write into a contract with such an individual that he mustn't use his offices for other purposes. Indeed, that should be well understood. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Social Services and Community Health. Occasionally hon. ministers have indicated their desire to add further information or to qualify information that has been previously given to a member in the question period. It seems to me that that is an appropriate func tion of the question period.

Ordinarily I have tried to keep those to the last of the question period, but it has occurred to me that perhaps it wasn't quite fair to do that because it may well be that when such an answer does come, hon. members may have supplementaries in regard to it. Social Allowance Appeal Panel DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on a question raised last Thursday by the hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood, regarding the Bonnyville social services appeal committee. There was a suggestion of a firing in that situation. I'd like to assure the hon. member and the House that there was no firing.

The chairman's appointment came to an end on March 11, 1983. The chairman had been appointed on March 11, 1971, and it was simply a matter of his not being reappointed. The gentleman had 12 years of service as a member of that particular appeal committee, and it was felt that it was time to ask another member of the community to take on those responsibilities. We certainly appreciate the service of the chairman. Out of some 160 members of appeal committees across the province, to date only 15 have served for that length of time. So it is common practice to try to rotate these jobs among people in the community.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary Milli- can, followed by the . . . MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, can I follow up on that? MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps we might have a brief supplementary. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question to the minis ter. One of the questions you were going to check, because you couldn't remember at the time, was whether you had some discussions with the member for the area, the Minister of Manpower, before you made that deci sion. You were to check back on that. DR. WEBBER: Mr.

Speaker, I received correspondence from the Member for Bonnyville, making a suggestion as to whom he would recommend for the openings on that particular board. That's a matter of common practice. MLAs from across the province make recommendations to me when openings arise on these different committees. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question. Did you fol low the Minister of Manpower's advice in this regard? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, the position was coming to an end on March 11. It was simply a matter of reappoin tment, and in all cases of reappointment we like to have recommendations.

I did get a recommendation from the hon. member and, on March 12, we appointed a new chairman to that particular board. MR. MARTIN: So you followed his advice. Hospital Construction MR. SHRAKE: Mr. Speaker, could the hon. Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care please advise me in regard to the proposed $640 million project for new hospitals in Alberta. Is the hon. minister strongly encouraging the architects, consultants, and engineers in charge of the construction of these hospitals to use only Alberta prod ucts, where technically and economically feasible? MR. RUSSELL: Mr.

Speaker, the $640 million program the hon. member refers to is the four 500-bed hospitals scheduled for construction in Calgary and Edmonton. Because of the competitiveness these past few months in the construction industry, there has been a fairly exten sive lobby by some members of the concrete industry to make sure that the hospitals are built primarily of concrete.

We've asked our consultants and designers to use Al berta manpower and materials wherever possible, all other things being equal, and a detailed analysis of our design shows that the partial steel and partial concrete structures that are contemplated are by far the most economical. I think the representatives of the concrete industry don't realize that the amount of concrete, by way of a poured concrete core and precast concrete exterior panels, going into the buildings does constitute a very large portion of the work for their industry. I want to make that clarification.

Consultant — Transportation (continued) MR. M. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could just file with the House a copy of the contract between Her Majesty the Queen in the right of the province of Alberta, as represented by the Minister of Transportation, and R. G. McFarlane and Associates Ltd. MR. SPEAKER: The time for the question period has elapsed. I'm sorry I haven't been able to reach everyone.

It may be necessary, if we're going to have to allow for arguments on points of order, as happened last week and again this week — it doesn't seem right that those who ask their questions first should have a full complement of supplementaries, and then we take up so much of the rest of the question period on points of order that other members don't even get a first question in, let alone a supplementary. However, I'll watch the situation and try to administer the question period in such a way that everyone who wishes to may be recognized.

In a House of 79 members, we really should be able to get by with 45 minutes when the federal House has 40. head: NOTICES OF MOTIONS MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask hon. members' unanimous consent to revert to No tices of Motions. The purpose would simply be to give notice of the motion to adopt the report of the commit tee, submitted today by the hon. Member for Edmonton Gold Bar.

March 21, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 173 HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: Is there any dissent? It is so ordered. . . . I had assumed that in requesting notice, the hon. minister was in fact giving notice, and when unanimous consent was given, the notice was then properly made. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, that suits me just fine. I might have particularized the wording of it a little more, but I accept your view of it. HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. ORDERS OF THE DAY head: COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY [Mr. Appleby in the Chair] MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Committee of Supply please come to order.

ALBERTA HERITAGE SAVINGS TRUST FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS DIVISION 1983-84 ESTIMATES OF PROPOSED INVESTMENTS Department of the Environment MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the minister wish to make any comments? Agreed to: 1 — Capital City Recreation Park $1,000,000 2 — Fish Creek Provincial Park (Land) $2,000,000 3 — Irrigation Head works and Main Irrigation Systems Improvement MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Chairman, on this particular vote I'd like to raise questions as they relate to the development of the headworks.

There may in fact be a bit of overlapping into the Minister of Agriculture's domain, but it is useful that we have both ministers here this afternoon. We can assess the irrigation question in the larger sense. Mr. Chairman, first of all I'd like to ask the Minister of the Environment to perhaps outline to the committee the position of the ERCB with respect to no danger from metal contamination flowing into the river system that eventually becomes the St. Mary's irrigation system. I think this particular question is very relevant.

If we're going to be making money available for a capital project, we can't divorce the fundamental question of whether or not that capital project will be jeopardized because of environmental issues that might also be debated when we get to the normal estimates of the department but also have a bearing on this particular appropriation.

Because I know there has been some concern expressed — I know I've had some calls from people in that area that there is a danger — I would say to the minister that the metal contamination that has dominated the question period for the last couple of days could in fact have a bearing on the St. Mary's system. I'd like the minister to respond to that. I have a copy of the news release. I haven't a copy of the statement from ERCB yet, and I don't have the Gulf statement. I gather the minister filed three copies with the Assembly this afternoon.

The ERCB indicated they were satisfied there was no emission into any of the ground water in the area. As a starter, I would just like the minister to bring us up to date on what assessment the department has been able to make, particularly with re spect to the build-up of heavy metals in reservoirs in the area, but especially as it relates to this appropriation. MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Chairman, specifically with regard to heavy metals, there's no information that I have at this point in time that indicates that any heavy metals are in the St. Mary's irrigation system. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Before we continue the discussion, I wonder if we could have the approval of the committee for the Member for St. Albert to make an introduction of visitors. Is that agreed? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS (reversion) MRS. FYFE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This afternoon it's a pleasure to introduce to you and to members of the committee, 10 Girl Guides in the 7th Company from the city of St. Albert. They're studying a

section on govern ment. They're sitting in the public gallery accompanied by their Guide leader Pat McQueen. I'd ask them to stand and be recognized by the committee. head: COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY ALBERTA HERITAGE SAVINGS TRUST FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS DIVISION 1983-84 ESTIMATES OF PROPOSED INVESTMENTS Department of the Environment (continued) MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can follow that up. The minister indicated that he has no information. I'm at a bit of a loss because I don't have access to the Gulf report. I know the ERCB has indicated that they do not feel there will be a major problem. [Mr.

Purdy in Chair] But I am interested in whether, after the ERCB in their April 1982 report recommended that there be — and perhaps, Mr. Chairman, with the indulgence of members of the committee, I could read for the benefit of the minister: The Board therefore doubts that a problem with respect to heavy metal emissions exists, but agrees that further testing is desirable, and plans to retain a reputable research agency with a view to obtaining further measurements at 5 to 10 stacks, including oil sands plant stacks. The assistance of Alberta Envi ronment will be sought in this matter.

As it relates specifically to the two plants in Pincher Creek — this also talks about oil sands — is the minister

174 ALBERTA HANSARD March 21, 1983 in a position to advise the Assembly whether the depart ment was able to comply with this recommendation in the ERCB report of April 1982? MR. BRADLEY: Is the hon. member referring to the ERCB report, '82-D? MR. NOTLEY: There are many reports. Yes, it's '82-D; that's correct. MR. BRADLEY: It is my understanding that the ERCB has done stack testing on five gas processing plants in the province, two of which I do know: one at Shell's Water- ton plant, and the Gulf Pincher Creek plant. MR.

NOTLEY: Is the minister in a position to advise the committee what independent steps the department took — not the department but the ERCB at this stage, and let me also add the department as well — to come to the conclusion we have in this news release? Again, Mr. Chairman, I am working at a bit of a disadvantage; all I have is the news release of today re the ERCB's assess- ment of the Gulf study. It suggests that there was no release or discharge of this water. Yet I have several people writing me indicating that they have problems with their own drinking water, which they allege is related to this.

Because we're talking about two plants fairly close to one of the major irrigation systems in this province, I guess the question I would put to the minister is: what steps, if any, were taken either by the department or the ERCB to test the ground water emission? MR. BRADLEY: With regard to the specific, Mr. Chairman, local boards of health in the area have, over time, taken samples of drinking water and well water in the area.

As an aspect of the ERCB inquiry into health effects in the Pincher Creek area — and I may be getting into territory which isn't particularly the responsibility of my department when I comment about what the ERCB is doing, but I'm trying to provide information to the hon. member. With regard to information it requires for the upcoming health inquiry, it is my understanding that the ERCB is also including water well samples. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Chairman, is the minister in a posi tion to outline to the committee the reasons this has not been done in the past? We have had a debate over this issue for many years.

I remember going down to the Pincher Creek-Waterton-Hill Spring area in the early 1960s, and there was all kinds of debate over these two plants. The Leader of the Opposition in 1968 wrote a very eloquent letter about lead poisoning, in both '68 and '69. We have had concerns virtually every year. As the minis ter well knows, there was a major court case on this matter and an out-of-court settlement with respect to air emissions. What we have to sort of assess today is whether there has been any serious impact on the ground water in the area, because we are really talking about a watershed that leads into the St.

Mary's system. There's not much point spending tens of millions of dollars rehabilitating an irri gation system — which I basically support and intend to vote for — unless we have a strong handle on whether there is any contamination of that system, however slight. I guess that's the point I want to underline, Mr. Chair man, before I can be convinced to vote for these particu lar recommended appropriations.

Perhaps we could ask the minister to outline why there was no apparent ongoing assessment of the ground water levels, why it seems that this whole business of metal contamination appears — and I say appears because I'm not aware of the process in the department or the ERCB as to the monitoring of ground water levels — to have come to light as a result of information the company brought forward when they decommissioned the Gulf plant. If that's the situation, where has the ERCB and the Department of the Environment been?

Where is this accord that I made reference to in question period in 1980, between the department and the ERCB? What kind of ongoing safeguard, if any, has been in place; if not, then what can we learn from the Pincher Creek, Gulf experience? What changes are likely to flow from that experience in terms of future legislation? I raise that because it seems to me that the whole issue of air monitoring is one thing, and there could be a good deal of discussion over the adequacy of that. But I wonder to what extent there has been any kind of serious ongoing assessment of the impact of ground water contamination. MR.

BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to a number of the questions which the hon. member has raised. He alluded to the correspondence of the hon. Premier when he was Leader of the Opposition. There was a thorough study of ground water done at that time, as the hon. Premier indicated in response to his request for an investigation.

The response which the Premier gave in the House today from the reports that he received back from the people at that time, after thoroughly investigat ing it, was: The considered opinion must be that there is abso lutely no cause for concern as to safety of water supplies in the area with respect to lead content. Similarly, there is no indication at all to support a conclusion that there was any ingestion of lead by residents in the area which would in any way ad versely affect their health. I might say that since the hon.

Premier raised these questions with regard to the plants in the Pincher Creek area, specifically the Gulf and Shell plants, a number of improvements have been made to the operation of those plants over a period of time. I don't have a document with me which would enumerate those. But in terms of Shell's operation, I know that they spent a considerable amount of money putting in an off-gas treatment plant in terms of their gas emissions, and I believe they have a tertiary treatment system on their water effluent.

One can make some conclusions with regard to that, in terms of the initial requests for looking at some of the concerns down there, but there have been a number of improvements in the operating patterns of those plants and what's been required of them over time. In 1973, gas processing plants' wastewater management standards were adopted for the province. They indicate the re quirements for different kinds of plants in the province with regard to the requirements which they must meet.

There are various provisions in the licences of the gas plants in terms of reporting with regard to the quality of their effluents, et cetera, to meet their licences. Getting back to one of the specific questions raised as to heavy metals, I guess one could respond that the containment system which has been in place in the Gulf plant has done what it was intended to do. The majority of the concentrations concerned with regard to heavy metals are contained in the the containment ponds. That's exactly what they were set up to do: to have the heavy

March 21, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 175 metals caught and concentrated in those ponds. I have no evidence at this point in time, in a preliminary review of Gulfs report — and they've done sampling downstream of their containment ponds — that indicates these heavy metals have got beyond in the downstream areas. That would basically be a preliminary response to the mem ber's question. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Chairman, not being experts in the area, most of us have to be guided by what expert evidence and opinion there is. I must confess that I was rather shocked on Friday.

I suppose in committee we can discuss — I won't say press reports, but let us say a report. It concerned the views of Dr. Snider, who the government has commissioned to do this study in the Pincher Creek area. I won't get into the argument we had over whether we should have had the major study that the Canadian Public Health Association proposed, but we do have the Snider study. I'm not sure whether the minister heard the conclusions of Dr. Snider.

But as a member of this committee that's about ready to vote appropriations for irrigation head- works in an irrigation system that is close by this plant, I must confess that I was really rather shocked when I watched Dr. Snider on CFRN telling the people of north ern Alberta that if what was reported to be true was in fact the case, every dump truck in the province is going to be busy moving contaminated soil. Again, I'm not an expert, neither is the minister. The question really is: what objective ongoing monitor ing took place over the years before Gulf itself brought this information to public light?

That's number one. What objective assessment has there been of the Gulf findings? Presumably we're going to have a study, and we have the ERCB jumping in. With great respect for the ERCB, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Minister, I must confess that I was amazed and rather astounded that we have a press release on the Monday after the ERCB got the information, which I gather was Thursday evening of last week. They basically tell us, in their preliminary views, that everything is hunky-dory; don't worry about it; sub ject to further assessment, but everything's fine. Mr.

Chairman, somehow these things don't ring quite clear to me. Maybe way up in the north we take a little longer to understand these things. I don't know; perhaps so. We had Dr. Snider saying that it could be a major problem. We have the company holding a public meeting tonight. And I'm going to ask the minister whether he intends to attend the public meeting tonight after the estimates are dealt with. We have various people in the area who've contacted our office indicating that they have some concern about the ground water emissions. Then we have the ERCB doing what is an extremely quick review.

I don't know these particular gentlemen who did the review. I don't know to what extent — I suppose their views would be a good deal more credible to me if I knew that they'd been monitoring ground water in the last period of time. But my understanding is that their work has been on the stack emissions. So we're talking about air quality as opposed to ground water contamination. I'd like a little more information, if we can, from the minister.

At this stage of the game, it seems to me that what we need to know in this whole affair is what actions were taken, not just in the last few days when the matter hit the newspapers, but in the last several years. It's on the basis of the last several years that we can judge how effective government agencies have been in protecting the people of that area, plus the very considerable public investment which we may be making in substantial im provements to the irrigation system of southern Alberta. MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Chairman, I don't think I'm in a position to make any comments on remarks of Dr.

Snid er, having not seen them. As I understand, he has been commissioned by the Department of Social Services and Community Health with relation to the study they are doing into health effects in the area. Also, I don't believe I'm in a position to comment on exactly the nature of the ERCB's examination of the Gulf study. I can relay, in terms of speculation on my part, that the ERCB felt it would be prudent for them to review the report, have some people who were familiar with the plants down there — and I think the two gentlemen the hon. leader has referred to have been doing work in the area.

I'm not certain, but I believe they also may be involved in the ground water work or the sampling of tap water of residents in the area. So they may be familiar with the specifics which the hon. leader referred to. They felt it was important that after having a review of the study, they release their information, in terms of their views, to the public as quickly as possible because, let us be clear, we don't want to be alarmist in this type of situation.

If an independent review by the ERCB con firms, in a preliminary way, that in fact these heavy metals have been contained to the containment ponds, as they were set up to do, that would be important. In terms of the containment ponds themselves, the li cences I earlier alluded to, and the fact that we do have these gas processing plants' wastewater management standards, I might say that there is ongoing monitoring of the effluent which comes from these streams.

I have here just a sample copy of some of the types of things that are in fact analyzed: a chemical analysis report for Gulf Pincher Creek; I believe it's their pond number 7. They monitor for all sorts of things, including chromium, mercury, cadmium, zinc, lead, cobalt, nickel, manganese, beryllium, molybdenum, arsenic, sulfide, odor, phenols, phosphorous, bicarbonates, chloride, nitrite, silica, so dium, magnesium, TDS, conductivity, iron, calcium, po tassium, and the list goes on. These reports are done on a fairly regular basis. I'm currently having the department compile this type of analysis for review.

MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the minister could be a little more detailed with respect to the inde pendent study announced last Friday and, specifically, how that study will be conducted on the soils, ground water and surface water in the plant site. MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Chairman, we are in the process of developing the terms of reference for those particular studies. The study would include — and this is what I would like to have them look at — soil contamination, ground water contamination and surface water, both on and off the plant site and downstream from the plant site.

I believe we will be taking something called benthic samples from Drywood Creek, which would enable us to determine whether any of these heavy metals have been deposited in Drywood Creek or down at Drywood Creek near the outlet to the Waterton reservoir, so we could confirm that none of this has happened. I might relay to the committee that a report had been done between 1973 and 1976. It's called benthic monitor ing of Drywood Creek, which was done from upstream of Gulf all the way downstream at various positions between downstream from Shell and upstream from Gulf and

176 ALBERTA HANSARD March 21, 1983 downstream from Gulf, and at the mouth of the Water- ton River which had a number of — I'm not sure what the biological names of these organisms are. Some of them are pollution-intolerant and some are pollution- tolerant. It compared the years in that period of time and, if there had been any of these substances, would definitely have had some effect on such biological organisms. The report indicates that what was found would be similar in other streams in the province and that there was not any indication that there'd been an effect on those biological organisms in the stream.

MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Chairman, to the members of the committee. The minister indicated that for this independ ent inquiry, the government is now in the process of attempting to finalize guidelines. I would like the minister to tell the committee who in fact is going to be assisting the minister and the government in developing the guide lines for this independent inquiry. Number one, will Gulf or Shell be asked for their input? Number two, specifical ly, will the Pincher Creek Industrial Pollution Committee be asked for their input or guidelines? What is the process by which these guidelines will be determined?

Is the minister going to have the various people in his department sit down with others and finally approve the guidelines himself, or will there be simple representation from people who are interested? In other words, what effort will there be to make sure that, in developing the criteria for the investigation, there be no barrier whatsoever, not only to a full and complete in quiry but a full and complete inquiry that is seen by the local residents as a full and complete inquiry? MR. BRADLEY: Mr.

Chairman, in terms of the inde pendent evaluation which I'd like to have done, I'm not sure whether one would necessarily call it an inquiry. But what I want to have done is a very thorough and complete evaluation of Gulfs report and then independ ent sampling of soils, ground water, and surface water run-off on the plant site, off the plant site, and down stream to indicate what levels of substances might be there.

In terms of getting this study on the way and proceeded with, I think I'd like to have this study started as quickly as possible, so the information which we can get from it can be accumulated and the work can start immediately. So in terms of developing the terms of reference initially, it would be my intent to do it through the department in terms of the parameters I would like to see looked at; make sure they're thorough and complete. I might add for the hon. member that it's my intention that this study would also include the Shell plant area.

I think it should be extended to Shell because of the nature of concerns that have been expressed in the area over the years. I'd like to get that process going as quickly as possible because if there are questions which the public may have, I would like to have some information which can make some very clear statements. Once we have this process started, I would certainly intend that there be an opportunity to review those terms of reference with local people in the area.

And if there are aspects of what we are doing which they feel there is some augmentation in terms of sites or locations, we'll certainly accommodate that sort of input. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Chairman, to the members of the committee. Tonight, as I understand it, Gulf is holding a public meeting in the area. I might just say that I think, frankly, that is one reasonable step the company could take, and I compliment the company for doing it. I may not compliment them down the road when we see to what extent they've been guilty of pollution.

But I think that it takes a certain amount of courage to do what they're doing tonight, and I compliment them for doing that. I would say, however, that if we're going to have any kind of independent evaluation of what's going on down there that will be seen as being credible at all, I think the minister should be holding a meeting there, and I think that should be widely publicized. It seems to me that rather than developing a set of criteria in house and then sort of allowing input after the fact — we all know how generally futile that process is, Mr. Chairman.

The whole process of an independent inquiry would be immeasurab ly enhanced if the minister took the initiative in the next several days — as a matter of fact, even being at the meeting tonight, since Gulf has organized a meeting that the minister should have organized. I think what we need is input from the people of the area in setting out the criteria and not reacting to the criteria that the department has come up with. Because, Mr.

Chairman, one of the things that I'm sure people in the area would want to know — one of the things I'd want to know — is to what extent the department has been asleep at the switch. I don't expect the minister to stand up and say, my department's been asleep at the switch. I've been in politics far too long to presume that. But the public interest demands the kind of independent investigation which can say that the department didn't do its job, that the ERCB didn't do its job, that perhaps Gulf didn't do its job, or that there's nothing to worry about. There is any kind of range of options down there.

But what I think the people of the region have a right to expect, and Albertans concerned about this issue have a right to know, is that there will be a full and complete investigation. The minister talked about this independent inquiry, but I'm still not quite sure at this stage who's going to do it. You know, it's not possible, not credible to have an independent inquiry conducted by the department. The department cannot investigate itself. So I think it has to be somebody outside the department. It seems to be that we have a number of steps here, and I want to be clear in my mind what those steps are.

In developing the criteria, it seems to me there has to be local involvement. I don't quarrel with Gulf being involved in helping to draft the criteria, providing you have the Pincher Creek Industrial Pollution Committee involved as well. I think that's the first step. The second step is, who is going to have the necessary standing to do that inquiry? I don't see it indicated in the minister's answer on Friday. If it was, the minister will quickly correct me, but I don't see it.

I think it would be useful, and I simply make representation to the minister at this stage that I believe it would be in everybody's interest if we had the widest possible consultation over the next few days — I certainly agree we can't wait around for two or three months; that would defeat the whole process — so we could have an inquiry which is seen by Albertans to be totally objective, completely independent from either the department, the minister, the ERCB, the company, any of the stakeholders in this.

I think we have to make sure that it is a genuinely independent inquiry that has terms of reference broad enough to be able to look at all angles of the particular question.

March 21, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 177 MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, once again I have to come back to the statement I made in the House last Friday. If I could quote from Hansard, I said: I have directed that an independent evaluation of Gulfs studies be undertaken . . .

That's an independent evaluation. . . . to determine their validity, also that this inde pendent study be conducted on the soils, ground water and surface water in the plant site area, and the area outside the plant site and downstream of the plant site, to determine the levels of substances and to determine whether any of the substances have migrated off the plant site. That was the nature of the evaluation and independent study which I have initiated. I spoke to the president of the Pincher Creek Industrial Pollution Committee last Friday night to advise her of the follow-up and what I intended to do.

I talked to other area residents who are also members of that committee to advise them of what I was proceeding with. The represen tation which the hon. member made today — I certainly think he's making some good points with regard to the evaluation. I would commit that prior to finalizing the terms of reference, we would have the input of the local people in the area: the Pincher Creek Industrial Pollution Committee, because obviously they would be concerned, and other agencies affected. But I'd like to have that done as quickly as possible so we can commence with this evaluation.

I hope that answers the hon. member's question. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Chairman, who is going to do the investigation? You talk about finalizing the terms of re ference, the criteria, and everything else. Who in fact is going to do it at this stage? It obviously isn't going to be a judicial inquiry. It won't be an inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act, or will it? Who is going to do the inquiry? MR. BRADLEY: Again, the hon. member is referring to an inquiry, and the words which I used in the House were "independent evaluation", "independent study".

Because of the nature of what I want done, we need some quali fied people who have the expertise in terms of ground water, water, and soil analysis. I have asked the depart ment to prepare for me a list of consulting firms, insti tutes, or university groups which might have the capacity, background, and competence with regard to carrying out the type of analysis and sampling which I am requesting. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Chairman, to the minister. As I understand it, though, the independent evaluation is es sentially still going to be drawn together by the depart ment.

So we have a department which — at least in the minds of quite a number of people, there are a lot of questions. Did the department do a good enough job? I respect the minister's commitment today to meet with the local people. I think that's an important step forward. But let me say to the minister, Mr. Chairman, that I think the wisest way to conduct this independent evaluation is to ask Mr. Crerar of the Environment Council of Alberta to move quickly under the terms of that Act, that the evaluation should be conducted by the ECA and made public. Here is a body which has the flexibility to do that.

It's a body which has the credible independence to do that. It's a body which has an advisory council where there is a broad range of people, both from industry as well as environmental groups, who have input.

It seems to me that if the government wants to have an evaluation of the Gulf study in a way that would be credible for Alberta and useful for all of us in terms of where we go from here — because presumably one of the things we want to draw from this entire experience of decommis sioning the Gulf plant is what changes should be made in our method of monitoring, our approach to reclamation, the whole business of environmental impact assessments when you have a decommissioning of a plant. We now have the first major example of a plant being decommis sioned; we are going to have others.

To what extent are we going to find problems down the road as a result of these plants that are going to be decommissioned in the future? [Mr. Appleby in the Chair] I would say to the minister, Mr. Chairman — I make this as a representation, but I think it's a good suggestion. We have a vehicle which has the public independence, which could do the job — and I think could do it quickly if called upon to undertake it as a public responsibility — and provide a report, an evaluation which would not only be independent but, equally as important, be seen to be independent. MR. BRADLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I appreciate the represen tations which the hon. member is making today, and I'll certainly take them under consideration. MR. THOMPSON: I'd like to get the committee discus sion back on irrigation for a little bit. I'd like to commend the minister and his department for the empha sis they have put on maintaining the main canals and the headworks of the system in southern Alberta.

I don't know if all the committee members are as familiar with irrigation as the southern members are, but it's been a sorry history in irrigation that in the past the ditches would be dug, the dams would be built, and then people more or less expected them to run on their own. Whether it's a road, an irrigation ditch, or what it is, everything has to be maintained. So I really am pleased to see the department not only has the system working but they are maintaining it. I'd like to ask the minister a couple of questions.

First, would you give the committee a rundown on the number of new storage facilities you are contemplating; and, secondly, would you describe the new water delivery sys tems you're expecting to put in place? MR. BRADLEY: I don't know whether to take these one at a time or . . . MR. THOMPSON: Whichever you wish. MR. BRADLEY: I'd like to respond to the hon. Member for Cardston and thank him for his kind remarks. I'm sure the department would also like to acknowledge those remarks.

In terms of storage facilities which we are currently looking at in terms of the systems, there is the Kehoe Lake expansion, which is with regard to the Lethbridge Northern Irrigation District which was currently — I guess to be fair in terms of exactly the stage of that, we're in the process of land acquisition and engineering design there. Another storage facility we are working on is the Forty Mile Coulee reservoir in the St. Mary River Irriga tion District. We are also assisting the Bow River Irriga tion District with Badger reservoir to serve their water

178 ALBERTA HANSARD March 21, 1983 supply requirements, and in the Eastern Irrigation Dis trict we're assisting them financially with the development of the Crawling Valley reservoir. I believe, in both those instances, that land acquisition is going on with regard to the Badger Lake project. Their final design is being completed, and they're expecting to

schedule that for tender for the spring of 1983, with completion in 1984. With regard to the Forty Mile Coulee, they're in the final design stage and expect that it will be tendered in 1983 and completed in 1986. The Crawling Valley reservoir: the district is currently con cluding their land assembly for the project. They expect to tender it this spring and are anticipating completion in 1984. With regard to water delivery systems, there are a number of things that we are doing. There is rehabilita tion taking place with regard to the Lethbridge Northern Irrigation District main canal.

There are a number of projects with regard to that. There is the weir on the Oldman River, which is being upgraded. There is the flume across the Oldman River, which is about 75 per cent complete, and there is the major upgrading and rehabilitation of that main canal to increase its capacity to 1,500 cubic feet per second. Similarly, there is a rebuilding program going on with the main canal for the St. Mary River Irrigation District. The district is providing us with the additional right of way. They've developed some priorities with regard to what they are doing, and it's an ongoing project.

It's scheduled to be completed in terms of the entire length of the canal in 1990, but there are significant funds which have been allocated to that. Concurrently there are two projects in the Special Areas. There is a pipeline to Sheerness. I believe there's a coal project there to which we are contributing 10 per cent of the capital costs, and this augments water supply in the area of the blowdown from the canal.

We also have the Deadfish diversion project, again in the Special Areas, which will assist in augmenting water supplies in that area, and provide an opportunity for people in that area to augment the water they have with regard to irriga tion and other aspects. I think that generally covers the nature of the work that is being done in those two areas. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Chairman, I have two or three things I would like to ask the minister. I wasn't quite sure, of course, with all the recent talk about metal contamination — I know he went into this quite fully with the Member for Spirit River-Fairview.

Was it my understanding — just because I want to be clear on it — that because of the many questions that have arisen in terms of the possibility of metal contamination that this money would not be spent till after that study was finished? Am I correct in that understanding? Or would this be — we would go ahead spending the money in terms of this irrigation project, even while that study was going. MR. BRADLEY: Mr.

Chairman, no information has come to my attention which would in any way make me come to the conclusion or determination that we should delay the projects in the SMRID until the completion of these studies. I have no indication and there's been no evidence presented that there has been any contamination with regard to heavy metals and, getting back to specifics, any contamination off the Gulf plant site area. MR. MARTIN: To the minister, Mr. Chairman. I would suggest that there are some questions that are unans wered, and I'm sort of curious. It generally looks as a good project.

But why with all the publicity — and with all due respect, Mr. Minister, there are some conflicting stories here. Certainly the people in the area are nervous. I'm sure you're well aware as the local MLA. Why would we be in a hurry to do this if we could hang off and wait, and have all the information in? Why would we continue with that doubt in some people's minds? MR.

BRADLEY: The preliminary information I have is that the Gulf plant site has some 30 metres of clay in the plant-site area, and preliminary hydrology reports which have been provided, would indicate that there is not a rapid rate of migration in any sense because of the very tight and compact nature of the clay soil layer in that area. With regard to the containment ponds, the fact that in their report, Gulf indicates there are heavy metals in the containment pond, indicates that the containment pond is, in fact, doing its job.

And their monitoring downstream indicates that there aren't any of these metals running into Drywood Creek, downstream of the final containment pond. Further, I indicated a long list of substances which, in terms of surface water run-off, which is what would flow out of the containment ponds, have been monitored for. As I understand it, these heavy metals usually fall out and collect. If the hon. member's concern was that if there were heavy metals that somehow would have mi grated — say, even if it got to the Waterton reservoir . . .

My very primary understanding of chemistry and what would happen to these materials is that they would fall to the bottom of the reservoir. There wouldn't be any of these materials, these heavy metals. In the extreme possi bility that they had — and there is no indication that they have — gotten into Drywood Creek, they would have been deposited in the bottom of the reservoir or in the stream bed. There would not be any of these metals in the water which is being supplied to the irrigation districts.

A very quick check of that would be to have a water sample done on the Waterton reservoir, but the surface run-off from the plant has been monitored. MR. MARTIN: So in your own mind, I guess it's clear that you don't think there is any danger of contamina tion. You're absolutely clear about that, so this would go ahead — the money invested in this project — with the absolute assurance, in your own mind at least, that there is no contamination there. MR. BRADLEY: I have no evidence that has been presented to me to date that would lead me to recom mend delaying this project proceeding. MR.

MARTIN: I'd like to go into a little different area if I could, not being an expert in this area but certainly interested. I think you'd agree that there's a fair amount of taxpayer's money involved here. A quick estimate that I have: by the end of March 31, 1983, a little over $187 million will have been expended from the trust fund under this vote. If we add to that, to the same date under Agriculture, Vote 3 — the one we were discussing the other day — we're looking at a total of somewhere over $315 million, which is a fair amount of money.

I have a number of questions to the hon. minister that are related to this, and it has to do with a general question. Has the government made an effort to calculate

March 21, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 179 the value of the benefits assumed to be associated with this expenditure? I'll give you some examples of what I mean by this: how many acres of benefit, the general cost per acre — this may be technical; if you have the answers, I'd appreciate it — how many farmers would benefit by a project of this nature; the value of production from lands which benefit; the term over which the investment is effective; and then, the government's approach to irriga tion — I think we have some problems, and we'll get into that later with Paddle River.

But how do they go about looking at the cost/benefits? Given the whole array of potential investments of benefit to agriculture, has any attempt been made to quantify the comparative cost/ benefit ratios of each in order to priorize them? A question the minister probably doesn't have the answer to but something perhaps they could look at is: what is the relative merit of additional dollars spent on opening up new agricultural land, or on transportation or food processing research, as compared to that dollar invested in irrigation works? I recognize that between them maybe the two ministers don't have this.

But in this day and age, especially as we're talking about the deficit the Treasurer is going to be talking to us about, every one of the things we do should have this sort of cost analysis. DR. BUCK: They're going to spend the heritage fund, Ray, and it balances. MR. MARTIN: Okay. But you understand what I'm saying: there should be some comparison that in fact we're getting the best bang for the dollar. If we're not, I think we should be doing this, because we could be wasting money.

We're dealing with a lot of money, espe cially when we're going to be — I'm sure the Treasurer will be talking restraint in the budget speech, and cutting back in certain areas. We want to make sure that the money we're spending here is in fact the best possible amount for the dollar. So I just ask those general questions of the minister. In terms of the cost analysis, I don't know. I realize some of it goes into the Minister of Agriculture's area, but be tween them perhaps we could get some answers on that. MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Chairman, to the hon. member.

I think it would be useful to go back a few years in terms of the Oldman River management studies and the com missioning of different studies that were done at that time. I don't know if the hon. member wants to get into all the specifics of that in terms of these projects because in terms of the augmentation, et cetera, reviews of this were done. Generally, it looked in terms of alternatives and at different cost/benefits and, depending on which one you used, there was a

summary document made in terms of economic analysis. It looked at all these parameters and at whether you had off-stream or on-stream, and said that these proposals were economically feasible. In terms of the off-stream proposals, it said that benefit/cost ratios would be over three; in terms of on-stream proposals, benefits would be around two; and the combined propos al of off-stream plus on-stream is feasible and benefit/ cost ratios would be in the area of 3.0. These are R.V. Anderson Associates' conclusions.

So in terms of the projects that are proceeding, and in terms of that study, certainly an economic analysis was done, and that was part of the determination there. The other subjects the hon. member brought forward were raised in terms of number of acres irrigated, et cetera. Regardless of which formula you went through and looked at in terms of increases for irrigation acreage, it came out that there was a benefit/cost analysis on the positive side. MR. MARTIN: Okay. Would it be possible to get that information from the minister? I'll come back, and you can answer that question after.

I know I asked a lot of questions, so I'll narrow them down a little more. Specifically, I did ask if you have a rough idea of how many acres have benefited in this project, and how many farmers are benefiting. And have any studies been done in the area of what it would cost to open up new agricultur al land as compared to the irrigation projects? MR. BRADLEY: Well, let's not confuse different parts of this. It's important that when we look at irrigation works, in most cases these have been in there since the turn of the century.

The early '20s was when they were constructed, and there are certain parts of them that have to be replaced. Part of what we are doing is replacing structures which have to be replaced. When you go about replacing some of these structures, the incremental cost of adding increased capacity to canals, et cetera, which we're basically discussing here today, isn't that much greater incremental cost. You won't have to look at that. I believe the question of acreages was thoroughly dis cussed in the Heritage Savings Trust Fund estimates over the years.

Documents which outlined those acreages were provided to that committee by the former minister. I might say that all the Oldman River basin study reports are public documents in terms of the economic analysis and the information which was provided there. I believe they're filed in the Legislature Library. That information is public, and it's not something I would want to get into in great detail here today without bringing out the pounds and piles of reports, which amount to a couple of feet or maybe three — I don't know. They're certainly voluminous. But that information is public. MR. MARTIN: Mr.

Chairman, I recognize that what the minister is saying is correct. Besides building canals, a lot of it is replacing systems that are old. You mentioned the first one back in the '20s, and I understand that. The point I still make, no matter whether we're replacing old systems or bringing in new: it still is important to always have the cost analysis to make sure that what we are doing is the most economical in the long run. So I would make that point. The other question — I'm a little confused here. I don't see Mr. Kroeger.

But does the water commission fit into this in any way, or is this an entirely separate project? How does the new water commission fit into a project of this nature? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Chairman, this is certainly an approved program or project of the province and has been, as evidenced by the fact that the vote is an [ongo ing] expenditure. I believe the announcement was made in 1980.

It may be that in terms of what we are doing there in terms of the irrigation districts, at some point in time the water commission's role, if one were to assign a role to them, would be to evaluate those irrigation sys tems and come back with an evaluation as to what has been done there, with recommendations. Certainly it may be useful at some point to have them undertake that sort of evaluation. But that would be the role I would see the

180 ALBERTA HANSARD March 21, 1983 Water Resources Commission having with regard to this ongoing project. MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I'm sure you're aware of the old PRIME project that was brought before this government and involved the massive transfer of water. I'm trying to understand the water commission and the specific project we're talking about here and how it all fits in. Are we back to looking at the PRIME project, which was a massive transfer of water from north to south and, as I recall it, with the possibility of selling or shipping water to the United States?

Is that part of the overall project here? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Chairman, currently the Alberta government policy — and I believe this was debated quite extensively in the Assembly in November or early De cember of 81 — is that water management in the prov ince is that we manage water resources on a river basin basis. There is no policy commitment of this government with regard to massive interbasin transfer of water. We are not contemplating that at this point in time, and it is not the policy of this government to look at massive interbasin transfer of water. That is not our policy. MR. MARTIN: Thank you.

I'm glad to hear that. There was some doubt, if you recall, about the debate and what was said at that time. I do read The Hanna Herald, because I originally came from a town called Delia, Alberta. Reading The Hanna Herald, I get a little dif ferent slant about Mr. Kroeger's commission, but I ex pect we'll have to deal with him on that. The minister is saying clearly that as far as he's concerned, they're not looking at this at this time. That's my understanding, Mr. Minister. MR. BRADLEY: No, we're not contemplating the PRIME scheme, if that's what the hon. member is allud ing to.

Our emphasis is in terms of managing our water resources within the basin in which they originate. There are some minor examples that are being contemplated, I suppose, in terms of the Buffalo Lake stabilization study. One might consider that the Vegreville pipeline to service the water requirements in that area is an interbasin trans fer, but we are not contemplating any massive interbasin transfer of water as contemplated in the PRIME scheme. That is not under consideration. I think the matter was fully dealt with in the Assembly in the latter part of November or early December of 1981. Let that be clear.

Our direction is to manage the water resources of the province within the basin in which they originate. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Minister, I'm glad you're clear about that. I hope you'll have Mr. Kroeger read the Han sard about that. Because when I read The Hanna Herald, there is some feeling that they are looking at it. Perhaps you would have a discussion with Mr. Kroeger about that. I have one last question, something I don't know much about.

In Hansard on October 21, 1981, the Minister of Agriculture at the time, the previous person in that port folio, talked of chemical means for brushings along irri gation canals as an Environment responsibility. I just wonder if this practice is widespread, and what are the environmental and health implications of this procedure? MR. BRADLEY: That's a very important question the hon. member has raised. I don't have the details of the current programs. You said debrush or remove weed growth. MR. MARTIN: I'll give you the Hansard. It's October 21, 1981, and Minister of Agriculture Schmidt is talking about it.

You may want to refer to that. MR. BRADLEY: Yes, I don't have that information handy, and I would undertake to get that information to the hon. member if that would be sufficient. What our current practices are with regard to chemical removal of brush, et cetera, in irrigation canals — is that the question? MR. MARTIN: Yes, he quoted in there, saying that it was the chemical means for brushings along irrigation canals that was a Department of the Environment re sponsibility rather than the Department of Agriculture.

So I was wondering if the practice is widespread and, secondly, what are the environmental and health implica tions of this process? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Chairman, I'll undertake to get that information for the hon. member and supply it to him directly. Does that fulfil the requirements of the committee? MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, to the hon. member with regard to the Bow River Irrigation District project and the Badger Lake proposal. Can the minister bring us up to date on that? Are the funds for that project in these estimates? MR. BRADLEY: Yes, they are, Mr. Chairman. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Chairman, I'm not sure whether the minister touched on this at an earlier time. Have you already touched on it once in early questions when I was away? MR. BRADLEY: Perhaps I could just go over that again. We have an agreement with regard to constructing the project. It has been signed; the final design is being completed. We anticipate the tender will be scheduled for the spring of this year, and it will be completed in 1984. Perhaps the hon. member is aware that one area of controversy is in terms of land acquisition which the district is undertaking. In some form, that may delay the scheduling of the project.

But from our point of view, what we are required to do has certainly been undertaken. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further questions or comments? MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry I missed some of the questions on Friday. In terms of the Oldman River, was the question with regard to the location of the dam raised, and in terms of negotiations with the native people, could the minister bring us up to date on that as well? MR.

BRADLEY: As the hon. member may recollect in the ministerial statement announcing our irrigation reha bilitation project and on-stream storage requirements in August of 1980, there was a joint statement made by the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of the Environ ment at that time with regard to that project. The state

March 21, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 181 ment referred to the fact that the Peigan Indians would be given an opportunity to make a proposal to the government with regard to siting of a reservoir on their reservation, and we would give them about 18 months in order to do that. Now 18 months has expanded into probably two and one-half years at this point in time. But to bring the member specifically up to date with the status of that, the Peigans will be submitting a proposal to us, and I've asked them to submit that proposal by the end of May of this year if possible.

At one point in time, I believe they were contemplating a plebiscite on the reserve in order to get the okay from the members of the band to proceed with putting forward a proposal. I believe with the change in council they have decided they are going to go directly to putting a propos al to us. It would then be my intention to have their proposal reviewed, and determine whether or not it would be acceptable and whether negotiations should take place with regard to parts of their proposal.

Hope fully, we could conclude any such negotiations by the fall of this year, and we'd be in a position to make a decision with regard to siting in the latter part of this year. [Mr. Purdy in the Chair] Agreed to: Irrigation Headworks and Main Irrigation Systems Improvement $91,500,000 4 — Land Reclamation MR. MARTIN: I have some questions. In terms of land reclamation, I think one thing nobody here would argue against is that we don't need to spend money there. I have some specific questions to the minister in regard to land reclamation. Maybe I'll do it one at a time; it seems to be easier.

When expenditures are allocated to the reclama tion of land previously involved in a commercial activity of some sort — for example, suppose a coal mine as opposed to a sanitary landfill site — what is the govern ment's policy regarding the relative responsibility of the commercial person as opposed to the public sector? How much do they contribute in percentage terms? I guess what I'm asking is simply who pays? Does the commer cial proprietor who's made money on that? What's the percentage of who pays in that area, the public or the private sector? MR.

BRADLEY: Generally, with regard to those proj ects my understanding is that we only reclaim industrial activity that occurred prior to our stricter regulations under the Land Surface Conservation and Reclamation Act. In terms of the government's responsibility, we'd only look at lands prior to the coming in of those regula tions. Is that clear to the hon. member? We'd only enter into these types of reclamations of industrial activity in terms of lands which had undergone industrial activity prior to our very strict reclamation requirements coming on stream.

One of the requirements we do have is that title to the land be vested with the Crown. We also look at whether the company is still operating today. If it's a company that's continuing to operate, certainly our ap proach would be different to a company that no longer exists. MR. MARTIN: If I can narrow it down, if there is an industrial site used and the reclamation was setting in, who would pay for that? MR. BRADLEY: Could you repeat the question? MR.

MARTIN: I am asking in terms of the government policy just so it's clear: if there was an industrial site, say a coal mine, that was going to be reclaimed, the public sector would pay all of that in other words. MR. BRADLEY: It would depend on whether the opera tion we are talking about had concluded its operations prior to the strict regulations which come in today. In terms of operating coal mines today, I believe they would be required in terms of their licences and approvals to reclaim those properties.

This particular allocation looks at past industrial activity where there is no current opera tion and looks at activity that was finished prior to our very strict reclamation requirements coming in. MR. MARTIN: So you are saying it varies depending on what was happening. Let me use an example then. Maybe this would make . . . [interjection] Yes, go ahead. MR. BRADLEY: I'm not aware of any specific examples, but perhaps there may be an ongoing operation, 10 per cent of whose spoil piles had created a problem prior to this legislation coming in.

The Land Surface Conserva tion and Reclamation Act procedures and requirements, when they became regulated — I think it was in '73 that these regulations came into effect, and the Act first oc curred in about '63, I believe. But say that 10 per cent of their operation had caused a problem until the time when the regulations and requirements came into place and then 90 per cent has been due to their ongoing operation. I think we'd have to look at the particular project to see whether there was a public benefit that could be derived from us taking on obligation for the 10 per cent.

The company would be responsible for the 90 per cent. MR. MARTIN: Let me use what might be hypothetic al. With regard to, say, the Gulf gas plant at Twin Butte, which we've been talking a fair amount about, whose responsibility would it be to return the site to a useable state? Do you have any idea roughly how much that would cost? MR. BRADLEY: I have no idea as to the cost, if that's where the hon. member is coming from, at this point in time. I haven't signed the ministerial approvals with re gard to the decommissioning of that plant.

We are re viewing Gulfs report to see what other conditions we might attach to that approval. Certainly it would be my contemplation at this point in time that the entire respon sibility for reclamation would be with the company. Agreed to: 4 — Land Reclamation $5,000,000 5 — Lesser Slave Lake Outlet $1,674,000 6 — Paddle River Basin Development MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Chairman, I would like to just take a moment or two on this particular appropriation. It's always with some degree of interest that we review the Paddle River project. In my understanding, Mr. Minister and Mr. Chairman — and perhaps the minister can

182 ALBERTA HANSARD March 21, 1983 correct me if I'm wrong — the original cost estimate is $18 million. That was changed to $19,700,000 as of 1980. The final figures: the projected cost now will be $37,600,000. I would like to know what happened in this particular case that the project mushroomed . . . . AN HON. MEMBER: Consider it economics. MR. NOTLEY: I certainly wouldn't want to suggest that it was mismanagement or anything, but a 109 per cent increase over the projected cost strikes me as being rather strange. It seems to me as well, Mr.

Chairman, that we have a government here that is going to be bringing in all kinds of cutbacks, no doubt, in two or three days when the Provincial Treasurer gets up to tell us the hard-luck story now that the rainbow has not only faded but disappeared. That being the case, I think we have to ask ourselves a little more about these projects, especially where there seems to be some evidence that the costs have gotten out of hand. I take this expropriation inquiry, where the inquiry officer indicated that "clearly from the evidence, from a cost/benefit point of view, the project is totally unsound". Mr.

Chairman, I suppose there can be some debate. No doubt a project of this nature is going to be of some value to some farmers. Having many years ago first gone into the Paddle River country, I know that it does flood there. I remember the flood of 1971, for example. I understand the concern of people along the Paddle River.

But when I see that we have to expropriate land in order to get this thing under way — and we're looking at expropriation in the neighborhood of $375 an acre, but the figures we've been able to work out here are that by the time we finish with this thing, we're going to be putting $2,600 an acre of public funds into a program to stabilize the Paddle River. While no one would argue that, all things being equal, it would be desirable to reduce the flooding on the Paddle River, I guess the question really is, Mr.

Chairman: at a time when we have a major deficit, to what extent should we be getting into schemes where the cost/benefits just don't appear to add up? We all know — as I think one of the hon. ministers said the other day on air terminals — that some people have more success than others in making representation to government, in lobbying government. We all know that this particular project started from the brainchild of a very able politician.

But the fact of the matter is that regardless of how persuasive the then Deputy Premier was in getting the government into this thing, it seems to me that before we vote any more money, we have to be satisfied that we're into a proposition that makes sense. I really question to the minister how the government can press on when we have this kind of information from an expropriation inquiry in which they say it doesn't make sense, where we're looking at benefits in the neigh borhood of 20 cents for each dollar expended at a time when we've got a $2.5 billion deficit.

Surely a $2.5 billion deficit isn't swept away in a single stroke of a pen; it's swept away by looking carefully at all the projects. If a project doesn't make sense, then maybe we have to ask ourselves whether it should be continued. I know the minister said the other day, but we started it, we've got to finish it. The expropriation inquiry officer here says, as I understand it, maybe we should defer it for a while. Good heavens, Mr. Chairman, in hard times, we've had all kinds of much worthier projects deferred until we had the money.

The South Saskatchewan River dam, where the benefits far outvalued the cost, was de ferred for years until we could afford to do it. We had the St. Lawrence Seaway deferred. The minister was an elo quent spokesman the other day in the Crow debate on the Canadian Pacific railroad. We had the Canadian Pacific railroad stopped for a number of years — started and stopped until the people of Canada could afford to do it.

I guess I would just say to the members of the committee that if the benefits work out to a ratio which doesn't make sense, then to what extent is it reasonable for us to go ahead with a project which may be very popular with some — not with everybody, as I can testify from my discussions with people in that region. The people right along the Paddle River would obviously be happy with it. We're not in a position any more where we have money coming out of our ears. We're in a position where we have the Provincial Treasurer continually poor- mouthing it.

We are in a situation where we have to begin to cut our cloth accordingly. That being the case, I would ask the minister if he could give us an update and answer specific questions. One, what were the reasons why we had a very substan tial increase in the cost of this proposal? Two, what are the most recent figures the department has with respect to cost/benefits, because obviously there must be an up dated cost/benefit analysis? Three, what priority does the minister give to this project being completed, regardless of the cost/benefits?

Four, what are we learning as a department from the mistakes of this particular project as it applies to evaluating other projects in the future? MR. MARTIN: Lou needs some money. MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Chairman, I believe that at the time this project was proceeded with there was a great deal of discussion of the cost/benefits of it. The cost/ benefit analysis was public, and I'm sure there was a great subject of debate at the time with regard to that. One has to look in terms of cost/benefit analysis. There are primary benefits, secondary benefits, and there's another term used, but it eludes me at this moment.

I think it will come back to me. I don't know if it's "undefinable", but there's a word in terms of . . . Intangible benefits: I think that's the word. So you have to take into consideration the primary and secondary benefits. Also in terms of this project, one must look, in terms of flood control, not only at agricultural land but at provin cial and county highway systems. A very important part of this project is to ensure water supply for the town of Mayerthorpe. Downstream erosion control is another important consideration.

Another aspect that was looked at was river flow augmentation to supply water to the town of Barrhead. Other benefits are water-based recrea tion, et cetera. So there are a number of parameters that we look at. In terms of cost increases for the project, obviously inflation and construction costs have increased since the first estimates of what the project would cost. There have been some changes in the scope of the project. They were changed in terms of the dam site on geotechnical consid erations. But those are the types of things that have gone into the cost increases.

The hon. member has asked whether there's been a cost/benefit analysis done since that time. I don't believe there has. But certainly the whole question has been debated out there. There have been local committees set up to look at this project and make recommendations to

March 21, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 183 the government. The project is currently under construc tion. I'm not sure that it would be appropriate for us to stop construction of this project — what effect that would have in terms of the Paddle in future years, in terms of the works that have been undertaken, stability, et cetera. I think the completion of the project is probably very important in terms of the stability of the construction that's taken place to date.

There's no reason I would have at this point in time to conclude that we should not complete this project in terms of the investment that's been made and the investment intended in this fiscal year, given the fact that a considerable amount has been expended and that the project would be completed with basically the expenditures we're looking at for this year. MR. KOWALSKI: Mr. Chairman, the Paddle River basin development project is an extremely important one.

As it has now become the official policy of the New Democratic Party to be against the Paddle River basin development, and as the Assembly is being asked to approve some $12.7 million in expenditures, I think per haps it's appropriate for me, as the constituency of Barrhead is one of the prime beneficiaries of the work on the Paddle River, to perhaps bring all members up to date as to why this Assembly approved dollars several years ago for construction of a dam and other works in the Paddle River basin, and why we are now in the third year of capital construction on it.

When we take a look at the Heritage Savings Trust Fund, one of the things we have to be concerned about is that in essence we're being asked to look at investments for today. Those investments are not only for today but, perhaps more importantly, they're also for the future. When you look at the Paddle River, it's of interest to note that the year 1912 was the first recorded time when a group of farmers got together in the Rochfort Bridge area and petitioned the government of the day for some type of local flood control and relief near Rochfort Bridge along the Paddle River.

That kind of interest really extended through much of the 1920s, '30s, and '40s. In the 1940s, the Department of Agriculture began a series of studies on the river and started to look at channel straightening and upstream storage. In the 1960s, the county of Barrhead took advantage of a provincial government offer at the time for some finan cial assistance for brushing and some channelization and initiated the work. But it really wasn't until after the flooding of 1971, the change of government, I guess, and the creation of the newly formed Department of the Environment that a serious approach was taken to it.

In retrospect, from an historical perspective, my prede cessor from Barrhead worked extremely hard on behalf of his constituents in getting public interest in the Paddle River. It's very important, Mr. Chairman, because when you take a look at the Paddle River, it's a small river that begins in northwest-central Alberta. It flows into the Pembina River just a few miles away from the town of Barrhead. It's located not a great distance from the city of Edmonton where we're now standing, only some 60 to 65 miles away. Agriculture is the primary activity in the whole basin.

Over the years, the Paddle River has con sistently flooded and, by the very nature of the floods, it's caused hardship, isolation, and financial difficulties for a number of people. When you look at the Paddle, you have to look at it on the basis of many of the types of rivers that we have in northwest-central Alberta. Basically they flow — perhaps "meander" is a better term for it — through soil that has little rock, stone, or gravel in it. The water tends to release itself in the easiest direction that it can.

If you take a look at the Paddle River from an aerial view, you'll see hundreds and hundreds of oxbows that have been created out of the environment over the years. What that has basically done is created two major flood-prone areas along the Paddle. The major one is about five miles upstream from the town of Barrhead and extends some 20 miles to the confluence of the Upper Paddle River and the Little Paddle River. The second flood plain is located near the Paddle River with its confluence with the Pembina River, which is located five or six miles to the east of the town of Barrhead.

Information seems to suggest that since 1942 there have been some 13 floods, nine of which have resulted in very, very substantial damage. The capacity of the Paddle River is such that it's basically inadequate to handle two types of water inunda tion. The first is the spring flood, and the second is the summer flood. In our part of Alberta, the summer flood is perhaps as important and dangerous to people and livestock as the spring flood. Part of the flood plain, someplace along the whole distance of the Paddle River, tends to have some type of flooding almost on an annual basis.

It is really the control and curbing of that annual flooding, and the inundation and damage to various indi viduals, that have prompted and created the necessity for previous members of this Assembly to take a look at the Paddle River dam, river basin channelization, control ling, and the like. I want to repeat again, Mr. Chairman — because I think it is important — that if you look at history over the last 30 years, there have been basically nine floods of a very, very important nature.

I recall one in the year 1974, I believe it was, when the flooding was so signifi cant along the Paddle that in fact the good citizens of Barrhead could not move south of Barrhead because of a major flood of the Paddle right within the community of Barrhead. Hundreds upon hundreds of acres right within the community were under water. In fact where the bridge crosses the Grizzly Trail on Highway 33 in the southern portion of the town, the flood plain extended nearly half a mile at that point.

Literally hundreds and hundreds of residences of that community, farmers upstream and downstream from that point, were unable to move. I think that flooding — very, very extreme, excessive flooding in 1974 — really was the event that broke the back and prompted the necessity for colleagues in this Assembly to look at the matter, to get down to work on it, and come up with a solution. It has to be very clear, Mr. Chairman, that 95 per cent of the flood damage along the Paddle River is to agricul tural production. Our farmers, of course, do not have a defence for themselves.

They have to deal with their elected representatives and ask them to see what they can do to bring about changes in the environment. It's my good constituents, those involved in agriculture, that I speak on behalf of today, because I think it is they who will benefit in the long run from the committed works we have on the Paddle. I should point out that the remaining 5 per cent of the damage, over the years — and statistics will point this out — was essentially done to roads, bridges, fences, build ings, livestock, and the like. It should be pointed out, Mr.

Chairman, that the two municipalities involved, the coun ty of Lac Ste. Anne and the county of Barrhead, have been very, very much committed to work on the Paddle River for years and in fact were prime activists, going

184 ALBERTA HANSARD March 21, 1983 back as long as two, three, and four decades to bring about change. I'd also like to just reiterate once again that the Paddle River itself is a major cause of flooding into another river within the constituency of Barrhead, the Pembina River. The Pembina itself has very, very weak borders. It also tends to flood. The elimination of one problem will in fact reduce an impact and a problem on another river. Mr.

Chairman, I think that should not be forgotten when we take a look at what we're asking the Assembly to approve this year: in essence, the third year of construc tion on the Paddle River. I think it's also important, Mr. Chairman, when we look at the Paddle River, that we have to take a look to see how people got involved in the development of the concept, what kinds of people they were, and how their views were asked for by previous ministers of the envi ronment. I think you really have to begin in 1974, in the most comprehensive way, when Alberta Environment condu

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19830321
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L20 S1 19830321 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	14cfbec42893a191c1c9fadbe08302b34c34d71f

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