Alberta Hansard — 18 April 1985, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 20, Session 3)

19850418

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

April 18, 1985 ALBERTA HANSARD 453 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Thursday, April 18, 1985 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS MR. SHRAKE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce one of the fine new aldermen from Calgary city council, which works so well with this provincial government, Alderman Ray Clark. I hope members of the Legislature will give him a warm welcome. head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 43 Alberta Corporate Income Tax Amendment Act, 1985 MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I request leave to introduce a Bill, being the Alberta Corporate Income Tax Amendment Act, 1985. The primary objectives of this Bill are as follows: firstly, to put into effect the significant corporate tax manufacturing and processing rate reductions as announced in the budget; secondly, to simplify the Alberta small business deduction; thirdly, to require the Provincial Treasurer to refund or surrender a taxpayer's security if a court has ruled in the taxpayer's favour; fourthly, to amend certain penalty pro visions, which would provide greater discretion to the courts.

As well, I should mention at this time a relevant matter, Mr. Speaker; that is, it is the intention of the government to amend this Act in future to ensure that Alberta taxpayers are not required to pay disputed taxes, interest, or penalties until after the first judicial hearing of the taxpayer's objec tion. This legislation will be introduced, possibly by way of amendments to this Bill, after similar federal amendments have been enacted. [Leave granted; Bill 43 read a first time] Bill 45 Local Authorities Pension Plan Act MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill 45, the Local Authorities Pension Plan Act. This being a money Bill, Her Honour the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, having been informed of the contents of the Bill, recommends the same to the Assembly. The Bill, which is an update, a rewriting of this legislation for the first time in many years, is the same in substance as those two pension Acts approved by the Legislature last fall, which were two of the six Acts administered by the government, although the unique aspects relating to local authorities are contained in this Act.

It provides that all existing benefits would be maintained, and the guarantee by the government is maintained. There is no increase in the contributions of either employees or employers at this time. The traditional quasi-judicial powers relating to the board are set forth with greater clarity, and there is a clear confirmation that pensioners may appeal to the courts on matters of law or jurisdiction.

Pension policy remains the responsibility of the Legislature and the Executive Council, and the boards will provide policy advice. [Leave granted; Bill 45 read a first time] Bill 46 Universities Academic Pension Plan Act MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill 46, the Universities Academic Pension Plan Act. This being a money Bill, Her Honour the Honourable the Lieu tenant Governor, having been informed of the contents of the Bill, recommends the same to the Assembly. This Bill similarly is an update and modernization, for the first time, of this piece of legislation.

It is again the same in substance as the two pension Acts approved by the Assembly last fall, although the unique aspects with respect to the university academic situation are reflected. All existing benefits are maintained, and the benefits are guaranteed by the government. There is no increase in the contribution rates at this time, and the traditional quasi-judicial powers of the board are set forth with greater clarity.

There is, again, clear confirmation that pensioners can appeal to the courts in matters of law or jurisdiction. [Leave granted; Bill 46 read a first time] Bill 50 Pension Plan Statutes Amendment Act, 1985 MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill 50, the Pension Plan Statutes Amendment Act, 1985. This Act refers to the Public Service Pension Act and the Public Service Management Pension Act. It is for the sole purpose of making clarifications, basically, and essen tially technical changes in those two Acts, which were passed by this Legislature as rewrites last fall.

This will provide that these two Acts are consistent with the provisions of the Bills which have just been introduced, and they reflect public advice and input over the past six months. [Leave granted; Bill 50 read a first time] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the 1984 annual report of the Alberta Health Facilities Review Committee. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. PAHL: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to introduce to you and members of the Assembly 28 grade 6 students from Weinlos elementary school in Edmonton Mill Woods.

They are accompanied by teachers Mr. Roger Langevin and Mr. Glenn Sharpies and by parent Mrs. Leanne Schnider. I regret not having been able to meet with the group earlier

454 ALBERTA HANSARD April 18, 1985 when they arrived, but I understand I've received an invi tation to join them in their class at Weinlos school. I look forward to meeting them there. I ask the class, who are in the members' gallery, to rise with their chaperons and receive the traditional welcome of the Assembly. MRS. LeMESSURIER: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to intro duce to you, and through you to members of this Assembly, 14 adults from the Edmonton Day Centre, which is situated in the constituency of Edmonton Centre.

Accompanied by their group leaders, Joan Baker and Bob Holmes, they are seated in the members' gallery. I ask that they rise and receive the very warm welcome of this Assembly. MR. PLANCHE: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure today to introduce to you, and through you to other members of the Assembly, 31 bright young Albertans from grade 6 in the Chinook Park school. Accompanying them today are their teacher, Mrs. Fortin, and Mrs. Klug, Mr. Fortin, and Mrs. DeBoni. They're a little chagrined with me because I was forced to admit that from now on I'll be cheering for the Oilers.

I wonder if I could ask members of the Legislature to accord them a warm welcome. MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr. Speaker, for the first time since I was elected, I have the privilege this afternoon to introduce a group of school children from my own constituency. I have to say that they're from a school that has the best teacher and is the best school in the best constituency in the province. [interjections] It's not debatable. There are 42 young, enthusiastic, grade 6 students from the G.R. Davis School in Fort Macleod. They'll be in the Edmonton area for about three days.

They are led by their teacher, Cathy Olmstead, who is also the wife of the mayor of Fort Macleod, librarian Janet Scott, student teacher Marie Meidahl, bus driver Al Cameron, and parents Barb Davis, Vicky Larson, Rowena Perrin, Wendy Philibert, Hennie De Koning, Calvin Crawford, and Sharon Bourassa. Mr. Speaker, I ask that members give them the usual warm welcome. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce to you and members of the Assembly some 34 students from the Cromdale campus of Grant MacEwan College, situated in actually the best constituency in the province. Edmonton Norwood.

Accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Don Whalen, they are seated in the public gallery. I ask them to stand and receive the traditional welcome from the Assembly. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Disclosure of Ministers' Interests MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Premier — I want to follow up — perhaps I can ask the Government House Leader if he could advise the Assembly if the statement on public disclosure of interest that the Premier put before this Assembly on May 2, 1973, is still the policy of the government.

I'm particularly thinking of whether it is still required of cabinet ministers that they file with the Clerk of the Assembly for public inspection a listing of all lands in which they have any interest, all private companies in which they have financial interest, and business part nerships in which they have an interest. MR. CRAWFORD: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is certainly the policy of the government.

The one thing that should be added at the present time is something I believe the Premier may have referred to in an answer to the hon. leader earlier this week; that is, members of Executive Council are bound, as are all other members, by all the provisions of the Legislative Assembly Act. That is the beginning point, and all members are in the same position in respect to that legislation, which has its own guidelines, indeed its own statutory strictures. Because of the additional duties of members of Executive Council, it was thought appropriate to have a policy with respect to them as well.

That is the policy the hon. leader asked about, relative to the statement in 1973. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question to the House leader. Could the minister outline how this policy is admin istered and enforced and what sanctions and penalties are in place to ensure compliance by members of Executive Council? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, the matter principally has two ingredients to it: one is disclosure, and the other is the absence of the prospect for any conflict of interest based on properties or shares held.

I think that given those two tests, those are simply complied with by members of the Executive Council. Since it is a policy rather than a statutory matter that gives rise to filing the declaration, it is really a self-administering type of function. MR. MARTIN: In that case, I'll move to the Solicitor General, if I may. Given that the Solicitor General has been a member of Executive Council for approximately a year, can he advise when he intends to file his public disclosure of interest with the Clerk? DR. REID: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I thought I had done that. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question.

To the Solicitor General's knowledge, does he have any land or is he involved in any partnership which could be defined as the sort of property or interest detailed in the Premier's directive? DR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I'll have to take that as notice, check into the records I have, and find out whether it was indeed submitted. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question to the Solicitor General.

Being the helpful person I always am and because the Premier made a lot of public disclosure, I would like to file for the information of members a copy of a certificate of title for a condominium here in Edmonton which is partially owned by the Solicitor General. [interjections] It's following guidelines. They're getting nervous. If I might finish my question to the Solicitor General, I would like to ask why he has not filed with the Clerk a disclosure statement indicating interest in this property. DR. REID: As I said, Mr. Speaker, I thought I had. I'll have to check. MR.

MARTIN: I can assure the Solicitor General that he hasn't, because we've checked. It seems that full disclosure doesn't mean much, after the Premier's statement yesterday. My question is back to the Government House Leader. Does he know on what basis the Premier made the statement

April 18, 1985 ALBERTA HANSARD 455 yesterday that we have full disclosure, given the absence of disclosure by at least one member of this cabinet? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I think the Solicitor General has responded quite fully and surely has by now left the impression with the hon. leader that if the statement is not physically in the hands of the Clerk, as it is for other ministers, it's a matter of inadvertence. MR. MARTIN: That may well be, but the point is that it's a directive, and we had a lot of talk here yesterday about full disclosure. Let me follow up with one more question.

Could the Government House Leader indicate what directive he intends to issue or what action he intends to take to ensure that the Premier's 1973 statement is complied with by all cabinet ministers? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I don't really have any difficulty with that at all. If the hon. leader fancies there is a government anywhere in the world where ministers don't pay attention to their leader, I think he is mistaken. What is happening is that the statements are routinely filed and are brought up to date if there is a change.

I don't have to ever file any amendments in my own case, because now that I've entered public life, my assets have not grown at all. To find themselves in that position is something that I think is a feature for the vast majority of hon. members in the Assembly. The process, though, is that if there are changes, the amendments are filed. If there are no changes, the statement filed may indeed be several years old, but it's just as accurate as an updated, amended one if there has been no change.

It is really a system which was voluntarily under taken by the Premier that number of years ago without any legislative requirement upon him that he ask the ministers to do that, and it was indeed for the purpose of full disclosure. I believe it achieves that. If he peruses all of them, I believe the hon. leader will come to the same conclusion, as perhaps he has. The system in all respects, therefore, is functioning and adequate to the purposes for which it was designed. The leader asked me what I propose to do to sort of crack the whip and see that some updates are filed.

It is surely a matter that I would be happy to discuss with any of my colleagues whose statements are not up to date. But I won't get too angry with them, because other than the case of inadvertence we have just been looking at, I think the level of compliance is there. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It may well be, but either we have a guideline and rules in the House or we don't. My question is to the Attorney General. He said it seemed to him this was voluntary compliance. Are there any sanctions at all if a person refuses to do it, or is just hoped that they will do it? MR.

CRAWFORD: In a system which is not required in any way by statute, I don't think there are legal penalties or strictures in any way. It's something each minister attends to on his own, and he does it. When I referred to it as a voluntary system, I was referring to the act of the Premier in requiring ministers to do that. It is voluntary in the sense that no statute requires the Premier to ask for this information, but he has done so in any event. Not only has he done that, he has declared that it must be public, as it has been for many years and still is.

I'm not aware of any failure in the system, except that the hon. member has chosen to draw to the attention of the House today that the one minister who was appointed midterm rather than at the time of a general election may or may not have filed a statement. If he has, the hon. leader is declaring to us that he hasn't been able to find it. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question to the Attorney General. The point I make is that it's voluntary compliance, because the Premier made a great speech about this yes terday. AN HON. MEMBER: Question. MR. MARTIN: Don't get nervous.

My question is simply this: is it theoretically possible that with this voluntary compliance we would not know all the land or business dealings a cabinet minister has? There would be no compulsion to actually record this? MR. SPEAKER: I have a little difficulty with that. If we're going to start asking ministers what's theoretically possible, there will be absolutely no limit to the amount of speculation that could go on in the question period. If the hon. leader is looking for factual information, which he is fully entitled to do, so be it.

But to ask a minister what is theoretically possible surely doesn't come within either his official duties or the rights of the Leader of the Opposition to conduct wide-ranging whatever you want to call them. MR. MARTIN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We're talking about government guidelines. Either there are sanc tions or there aren't. That's simply what I'm asking. MR. SPEAKER: The question about sanctions was asked previously. MR. MARTIN: And I didn't get an answer. Mr. Speaker, if you wouldn't be so anxious to jump in.

I'll ask the minister this as simply and clearly as I can, so even the Minister of Advanced Education can understand it: are there or are there not sanctions to comply with these regulations the Premier talked about in 1973? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have indeed answered that at least once and perhaps twice this afternoon. I indicated to the hon. leader that there is a basic statutory obligation which applies to all members and that, obviously, there are sanctions attached to anything that is related to a statute.

When you have the Premier declaring that further disclosures and responsibilities will be required in addition to the statute, because it's outside the statute, it is in that sense something that is basically just a matter of each minister completing the form and filing it with the Clerk. I don't know how much supervision or what type of bureaucracy the hon. leader would put in place to manage a system like that. It is not such that requires management or sanctions. It is something that each minister simply does.

If the hon. leader told me that my form wasn't filed, I think I'd be embarrassed, but I would give him the same answer the hon. Solicitor General did; that is, that I thought I had, and I would check. If the hon. leader were in the same position, I think he would surely give the same answer.

456 ALBERTA HANSARD April 18, 1985 MR. MARTIN: We'll move on. I doubt that I'll ever have that problem. To the Attorney General. The point is that we were told there is full disclosure, and the next day we found there wasn't necessarily full disclosure. Hospitality Expenditures MR. MARTIN: I'll move into another interesting area, which has to do with our Provincial Treasurer, if I may direct some questions to him. We finally got the Alberta Gazette, and there were some entertainment costs.

Given that 1983 was certainly a year of restraint — at least the rhetoric from the government was that it was a year of restraint — could the Treasurer explain why hospitality expenses were over three quarters of a million and probably closer to a million dollars in that year? And we haven't got all the figures in. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I think the reports indicate that that kind of restraint was in fact practised.

In other words, there are a large number of hospitality events there which involve meetings with various interest groups around the province, meetings with people who travel from other parts of the world and Canada. If there are any particular questions as to some individual events, I think it's incumbent upon the hon. member to put them right now. I'm sure the individual ministers who authorized them will be happy to respond. They were necessary in the interests of the province of Alberta to further the objectives of the public interest of the province. MR.

MARTIN: I sort of expected that answer from the Treasurer, but $1 million is a lot of booze and hospitality. Let me just follow up. To be fair, the last figures were for 1983. Have any steps been taken since then by the Treasurer to cut back hospitality costs in 1984 and '85; in other words, to practise restraint? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, the restraint continues to be practised. Of course, the budget is a reflection of that.

By the same token, I think Albertans expect that we would show guests coming from other parts of the world, people who might be involved in trade or export with Alberta, a usual and reasonable degree of hospitality. If the hon. member will be specific — he's not yet prepared to be specific — about a certain event, then I think we'll be happy to discuss them. MR. MARTIN: That's very kind of the Treasurer. I really do appreciate that. Let's take a look at some of the items. Could the Treasurer indicate what is entailed in debriefing Alberta and West German students that would cost nearly $6,000?

That occurred in 1983 according to the April 15 Gazette. MR. HYNDMAN: I didn't personally approve that, Mr. Speaker, but I think the hon. minister who did will be happy to explain it. I think we have guests from other parts of the world, and this is one example of many where this government is prepared to facilitate arrangements and asso ciations with other parts of the world. We'll be happy to answer questions. MR. MARTIN: That's very nice: I'm sure they appreciate it. I thought the Treasurer looked after the finances of the province. He's not sure what happened there, but he's pretty sure it was well spent.

That's what I hear him saying. Let's go into an other area. I thought the Treasurer might check these things. Has he checked the guest list, $3,800 for a reception on November 3, 1983, to discover what the Gazette put as the "community in Ottawa" when the new executive director for Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs was introduced to the community? Has he checked to find out who the community was? MR. HYNDMAN: I don't have the exact details at hand, Mr.

Speaker, but I think hon. members will agree that an investment in making known a person from Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs to the federal group in Ottawa is a necessary, valid, and perfectly appropriate expenditure. MR. MARTIN: I'm sure the community in Ottawa appre ciated it; I'm not sure the taxpayers of Alberta did. Let's take a look at another one, which happened in the province. Has the hon.

Treasurer conducted a review of the dinner menu, including the types and costs of wine and spirits, at the Attorney General's reception — maybe the Attorney General can talk to us — for the courts of Appeal and Queen's Bench in December 1983? That event cost Alberta taxpayers $7,000. MR. SPEAKER: This is getting to be a rather ridiculous exercise. Certainly the hon. Leader of the Opposition is entitled to get the information he is asking for.

But as he well knows by this time, there is a proper way to get that information, a practical way which is provided for in the Standing Orders; that is, questions of detail, which these are, howsoever exciting the hon. leader wishes to make them, go on the Order Paper. To ask a minister for particulars of a sum spent in December 1983 out of the size of budget the province of Alberta has would seem to me to be a flagrant disregard of the very practical procedure which is provided for this kind of thing in our own Standing Orders. If the hon. leader wishes, I'll get him the number of the Standing Order. MR.

MARTIN: On a point of order. Maybe I will refresh the Speaker's memory. We tried to do precisely that in this session — I think the Speaker was in the Chair — and they refused to do it. So this seems to be the only way we can. I quote from Mr. Hyndman, who said at the time: The basic elements of this motion tor a return as requested are, and have been in past years, found in the Alberta Gazette and are also referred to in the directives of the Treasury Board. That's just not the case, so how else could we do it but to bring it publicly here to get this information? MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. leader well knows — and he's done it in the past — that he may put a question on the Order Paper and ask for the detail. Obviously, from the questions, there is some of the detail in the Alberta Gazette. If he wants to go beyond that and get still finer detail, he can put a question on the Order Paper. I have approved for the Order Paper an endless number of questions of that kind by the hon. leader and his colleagues.

There has never been any problem about it, and I can assure him that if he wants to put further questions of that kind on the Order Paper, there'll be just as little difficulty with those as there has been in the past. But to take up the time of the question period to test the memories of ministers with regard to

April 18, 1985 ALBERTA HANSARD 457 details that are two or more years old is just a waste of the time of the House. MR. MARTIN: That's your opinion, Mr. Speaker, but I'm not sure it's the opinion of the taxpayers of Alberta. Let me follow up with one more question to the Treasurer, because we got stymied before, and I can quote again from what the Treasurer said at the time.

Will the Treasurer now undertake to table the details of each of the hospitality events outlined in the Alberta Gazette so that members of this Assembly can do their job, assess if we're getting value for the money we spend on hospitality events? Surely that's one of the things we should be assessing in this Assembly. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is interested in the details of some one specific event, then he can put it on the Order Paper, and the motion will be considered. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might add something. The hon. leader referred to a specific function.

I don't want to offend against the rule that the Assembly's time shouldn't be taken in such matters, so I will try to be brief. MR. MARTIN: You've never been brief in your life. MR. CRAWFORD: There's a first time for everything, but we may have to wait a while. Mr. Speaker, it does give an opportunity for me to reflect upon the value of some of these functions. In each year the federally appointed Court of Appeal and Court of Queen's Bench judges gather, usually for a period of two days, in either Calgary or Edmonton. It's alternated between the two cities.

Some of the expenses with respect to those who have to travel to the meeting and stay are paid by the federal government. They have very important agendas for those meetings. Those meetings involve a seminarlike approach and give judges an opportunity to consult on matters like sentencing, for example. It gives them an occasion to learn more about the corrections system, for example, in order that that part of their sentencing is more in the forefront of their minds. Typical of recent years is the study of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Also typical of recent years is picking up on an entire new regime in the law of Canada, such as the Young Offenders and, in effect, consulting and hearing seminar speakers and managing, as a result of that process, to become much better informed. It involves a lot of people. When we have potentially over 50 courtrooms in operation in the province on any given day, dealing with such issues, it's as important for them as it is for other professionals to update and have meetings and seminars. On those occasions the province normally hosts part of the proceedings, in the sense of at least one dinner.

As far as I know, I think we provide the coffee in the morning; I'm not sure. But it's that sort of thing. It is well done, it has been done over the years, and it is of very considerable value to the justice system of the province when one considers the cost measured against that. Mercury Contamination of Fish MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Associate Minister of Public Lands and Wildlife is with regard to the 1985 sportfishing regulations and specifically with regard to the warning to anglers regarding mercury.

The other part of the question relates to a study done by the Department of the Environment for the minister of lands and wildlife. Could the minister indicate whether further measures have been taken to establish precautions or safe guards for those people who may be angling this spring and this summer for fish that contain high levels of mercury? MR. SPARROW: Mr. Speaker, we are continually testing our fish in the province. Those test data are spread through out our offices.

The prime objective of putting the notices in the fishing guide is to make every Albertan aware that certain rivers and streams do have mercury contamination. In some cases it's to a level that we want to bring it to their attention, and we do it through that notice in the guide. They can get additional information on that if they call our offices, and there are more specifics. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister.

The guideline accepted by the province of Alberta is recommended by National Health and Welfare, which indicates that a level of 0.5 parts per million of mercury in fish eaten is acceptable. In the report, levels up to 1.0 were found in the Red Deer, Oldman, and Bow rivers, which is just about twice the acceptable rate of mercury in the fish. Is the minister concerned about that, and are any extra precautions or notices being given to alert people to that high level of mercury in the fish in those rivers? MR. SPARROW: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of the Environment may want to supplement my answer.

The 0.5 level mentioned is half what they use as a standard in the United States, and that level is definitely a warning signal to us. Very few tests showed above that level, and as I said earlier, we continue to have the Department of the Environment assist us in tests to make sure we have that information available. The individual tests are available in our office if anybody wants to pick them up and if they want to be site-specific as to where those fish were caught. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

Could the minister indicate what type of medical or research evidence was made available to him when he accepted the policy decision to allow fish with mercury levels that high to be eaten? And why was that level accepted? Was there further evidence, or was the decision of the minister based only on the report that was done by the Department of the Environment, which recommended that pregnant women should not eat the fish and that other persons might eat it no more than once a week during the year and it would not affect their health?

What is the background evidence that supported the policy decision of the government? MR. SPARROW: Mr. Speaker, the lab at Vegreville did the report. We trusted the expertise they had in the report and used that information to print our guide. We would have to refer that question to the Minister of the Environment or the staff at that centre to get further information. I accepted the report as printed. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, what the minister is indicating to us is that the report was accepted as given but that in terms of a concern for the health of the people who ate the fish, that was it.

That was the acceptable position of government at that point in time. Did the minister

458 ALBERTA HANSARD April 18, 1985 look into any other medical evidence that would support a policy that has been initiated through his department? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could answer the question. I believe the advice given by the Environmental Centre at Vegreville was based on standards that have been adopted in Canada by National Health and Welfare. That advice was given to the ministry of Public Lands and Wildlife, and they took the action to advise the citizens of Alberta as to the safe levels based on the advice that was received. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

Has the Minister of the Environment pursued the matter further in terms of checking medical research and advice to support the fact that in Alberta a person could eat fish at a level of mercury twice that recommended by the Department of National Health and Welfare, which is accepted by the province of Alberta? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, I believe I've answered the question.

The report advised certain things, and those were followed and implemented in terms of the advice given to sportfishermen in the province in printing the regulation and through news releases to advise the public, and I think it has been well publicized. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister of Public Lands and Wildlife. Could the minister indicate at this time whether any conclusive evidence has been found as to the source of the mercury in the fish, and has any action been taken on that particular evidence? MR. SPARROW: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

To my knowledge no evidence has been found that any industrial use has caused the mercury contamination. It is from natural causes in our rivers and streams, and to my knowledge we have not located any other type of cause other than the natural effect of water running through the streets. Hazardous Waste Storage at D & D Site DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Mr. Bradley, the protector of the environment. I would like to know from the minister if the Department of the Environment has recently inspected the D & D site at Nisku. MR. BRADLEY: Mr.

Speaker, the specific facility the hon. member alluded to is under the management of the Depart ment of the Environment at this time. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, did the minister say "is" or "is not"? MR. BRADLEY: The department is in fact the responsible manager for the facility at this time. We are managing the facility, since the owner of the facility is no longer in operation. DR. BUCK: To the minister's knowledge, Mr. Speaker, when was the last time the department inspected the site? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, the department has in place a system under which the site is being managed.

I'm not aware of the exact specifics as to whether the department is there on a day-to-day basis. The facility is under the control and supervision of the department. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, we had staff go out there today. Is the minister aware that there are absolutely no security personnel on the site? What worries me is that the barrels and some of the containers are sitting out. Is the minister aware that someone could go and ram those barrels, shoot holes in them, and have a leakage? Is the minister aware that this could happen? MR. BRADLEY: Mr.

Speaker, the site is under the control of the department, and it is inspected on a regular basis to make sure that it is securely and properly managed. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate what safeguards are in place? We have dikes around the oil well sites. Is the minister in a position to indicate if any pre cautionary procedures have been taken to make sure there is not a spill from the storage facility? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, as I said, the site is under the control and management of the department.

It is taking those measures which are necessary to ensure that those substances in storage there are secure. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, is the minister telling this Assem bly that he is satisfied that there is adequate protection and supervision by the department to make sure nothing goes wrong out at that site? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, I have received assurances from the department that they have taken control of the facility and are taking proper measures to ensure the site is properly under inspection and that the materials stored there are safely stored. DR. BUCK: Mr.

Speaker, are the containers all entirely under cover, or are they just out in an open area? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, I think I've answered the question. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, that's right, you have answered the question. You don't know. When are you going to find out and make sure that all safeguards are taken? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, I've advised the Assembly that the department has advised me that they are taking the necessary measures to ensure that the wastes there are being properly stored.

April 18, 1985 ALBERTA HANSARD 459 MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Could the minister confirm, then, that all hazardous wastes or PCBs on-site are under cover and in the building that was formerly owned by this company? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, I said the department was taking the necessary measures to ensure that the site is under proper supervision and management, and that's the assurance I've received. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, in terms of an assurance that all is looked after properly, can the minister confirm to this Assembly that all materials are under cover, inside, and not out in the open, where some kind of destruction could occur by vandalism or whatever? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, the former operators of the facility were under a control order to ensure that certain things took place. The department has assumed the respon sibility for the management of the facility, and I've been advised that they are taking the measures necessary to ensure that takes place. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. MR.

SPEAKER: Might this be the last supplementary on this topic. DR. BUCK: Is the minister in a position to indicate if sufficient precautions have been taken to make sure that if there were a spill, it would not spill into a watercourse that is in close proximity to the site? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question under advisement. I can advise the Assembly that the department has assured me they've taken the necessary implementing measures to ensure that the wastes there are securely stored. I will advise the House. Lubicon Band Game Kills MR. GURNETT: Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Native Affairs. On Tuesday I was at Little Buffalo and had the privilege of meeting and visiting with many of the members of the Lubicon Band. In a number of cases I spoke to these people through translaters, and these people are concerned about the minister's assertion on Monday in this House that informal reports to the minister indicated a reluctance on the part of members of the band to fully report the extent of their game kills.

Can the minister advise what informal sources have provided him with the slanderous information that these people are being dishonest about their game kills? MR. PAHL: Mr. Speaker, I take issue with the hon. member's characterization. He asked a question in the House, and I did my best to answer it. I rely on briefings from my officials, and that was the source of my information. MR. GURNETT: A supplementary question. Can the min ister indicate if there is any group in society other than our native peoples that he would feel confident in questioning the honesty of in the same way? [interjections] MR.

SPEAKER: That is not a question period question. The minister is answerable to some extent for a certain group in society. If the hon. member is concerned about other groups in society, maybe he could relate those concerns to a specific ministerial responsibility. MR. GURNETT: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the minister is uncertain as to the extent of game kills in the traditional Lubicon hunting area, why has a formal, objective report that could be made available to members of this House not been made public? MR. PAHL: Mr. Speaker, I don't believe I raised the concern.

I believe he raised the concern. I tried to respond to it in an informal way. Certainly, if he is concerned or has information that suggests that it is outside of the ordinary, perhaps he might like to direct the question to my colleague, or perhaps my colleague the hon. Associate Minister of Public Lands and Wildlife may wish to supplement my response. In meeting my responsibilities, Mr. Speaker. I try to receive generalized reports. The information is that it is not an abnormal situation there.

If the hon. member has specific information that he thinks is a problem and I suppose if we could correlate that problem with an increased incidence of welfare or some of the other issues he has associated himself with — if there were anything factual to go on — I suppose it would be something I would take up with my colleague with respect to getting more specific information. But the facts do not appear to substantiate the very gen eralized allegations made by people that have been reported in the press, so to my knowledge we haven't taken any additional steps. Perhaps my colleague can supplement my answer. MR.

GURNETT: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. My question to the minister is whether or not formal, factual information is available from members of the ministry or your colleague's department that would indicate what depart mental officials are saying the game kill is in contrast to the information regarding game availability that's reported by the actual members of the band. MR. SPARROW: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add to my colleague's remarks. In the House the other day there were similar questions, and I asked my staff to give me some information with reference to moose population.

During the last two to three decades, because of the lack of forest fires, the habitat in the area has been very dense, which provides for very poor moose habitat. We recently had a fire. We're looking at increased productivity in moose in that area, because it has opened up a little. Actually, the oil and gas activity in the area has really improved the access for hunting and also created more habitat. The tick infestation a few years ago cut back on the number of animals in the area and throughout northern Alberta. That has now declined, and the numbers are increasing.

From our records I think the natives can be congratulated: they are very good game managers. They know the number of animals in the area and, according to our officers, on the average they kill about an equal number of moose each year as are born. Along with our staff they try to maintain that level. I think they should be congratulated for their game management. They know as well as every one of us that it has to be looked after. We do have some specific figures of moose per square mile from aerial counts that have been made, and that type of information is available from our staff.

460 ALBERTA HANSARD April 18, 1985 MR. GURNETT: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, I'm concerned that the Associate Minister of Public Lands and Wildlife indicated that they're good game managers, and on Monday we heard from the Minister of Native Affairs that they were inaccurately reporting their hunt. My question to the Minister of Native Affairs relates to a quotation of him on a radio program.

He said, "It's like somebody comes along and says, 'I'm a direct descendant of Christopher Columbus, and I claim all of North America; therefore, I want an injunction so that nobody will turn another scoop of dirt until my claim is satisfied.'" My question is whether that philosophy and that quotation are a statement of government policy with regard to outstanding land claims by native peoples, the original inhabitants of this province, or just with relation to this situation at Little Buffalo. MR. PAHL: Mr. Speaker, that quote was taken from a 45-minute interview.

If the hon. member could phrase a question around it that makes sense, I'd be pleased to answer it. MR. GURNETT: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is whether the philosophy implied in that statement indicates the min ister's approach with regard to all land claims by native peoples, aboriginal peoples in this province, or only in relation to approaching the situation with the Lubicon Band at Little Buffalo? MR. PAHL: Mr. Speaker, as much as I can read into the question, I would say that statement reflects neither my philosophy in the specific nor my philosophy in the general with respect to land claims.

My philosophy and my com mitment, and this government's commitment as exemplified by our actions, is to take all possible haste to satisfy all land claims. When we get some co-operation as has been evidenced in most of our other situations, we are able to progress. With specific reference to the Lubicon Lake issue, right now we are co-operating in every regard with the federal appointed mediator, the hon. Mr. E. Davie Fulton. I'm committed to continue that mode of co-operation as long as and as much as it takes. That's my philosophy, and that's the commitment of this government. Sugar Beet Industry MR.

HYLAND: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Agriculture. I wonder whether he has any additional information he could share with this Assembly about the future of the sugar beet industry in Alberta, Manitoba, and Quebec. MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr. Speaker, I understand there was an announcement this morning. Even though I haven't seen it personally, I understand it is that there is an $8 million assistance package for Canada from the federal government toward the sugar beet industry. MR. HYLAND: Mr.

Speaker, docs the minister have any information on the breakdown other than the total gross dollars of the announcement? MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that $8 million is for all of Canada. Recognizing that this government's commitment for Alberta was $6 million, I think it would be somewhat less per tonne than our com mitment, which disappoints me to some degree. The one positive side is that I understand they are prepared to work toward a sugar policy with the provinces of Quebec, Alberta, and Manitoba over the next 12 months.

We would be very active with regard to seeing if there could be a sugar policy in place prior to the completion of this year's crop, so the sugar beet producers would know before the crop comes off what the policy for sugar beets actually is. Lubicon Band Game Kills (continued) MR. PAHL: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might supplement an answer, or perhaps elaborate on the question, because I think it put a very unfortunate slant on my remarks with respect to the honesty of a group of people in the Little Buffalo area. I think it would be unfortunate if that remained uncorrected. The hon.

Member for Spirit River-Fairview asked the source of my information with respect to the reluctance of certain individuals to report hunting success. The inference was that it was something dishonest with respect to the laws of Alberta. In effect, it was an unsolicited call to my office from a member of the community who indicated that certain members in the community were reluctant to report success in game kills to anyone because it was not in the interests of the group who were managing the publicity to have any hunting success reported.

So it was nothing with respect to an illegal action with respect to any laws. It was pressure within the community. It was reported to me. I will not further the problem. It was not slander against anyone or a suggestion of breaking any laws. It was suggested as informal pressure within the community, which again is an unfortunate situation that suggests that we obviously need to make our best efforts to resolve this situation. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Social Services and Community Health has some information in reply to a question taken as notice. Social Assistance in Little Buffalo Area DR.

WEBBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On Monday the Member for Spirit River-Fairview asked me to confirm whether 90 percent of Lubicon Band members are receiving social assistance. A check with federal Indian Affairs, which the hon. member could have done himself, indicates that the figure is more like one-third receiving assistance in the area. As to the communities surrounding the Lubicon Band, the provincial social assistance caseload is not out of the ordinary when compared to other isolated communities in this province and certainly nothing like the 90 percent the member alleged.

If the member would like more specific detail. I suggest that he could perhaps put his request on the Order Paper. MR. SPEAKER: We are running out of time, but the hon. Minister of the Environment wishes to add briefly to some information that was sought.

April 18, 1985 ALBERTA HANSARD 461 Hazardous Waste Disposal MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to supplement a question I was asked yesterday with regard to manifests relating to a shipment of materials from Quebec to Alberta. These manifests are first filed with the federal Department of the Environment. On April 9 the federal department was advised as to the nature of the vehicles which would be moving four shipments from that province. This information was received in the Department of the Environment on April 11.

On April 11 the federal department was advised as to the contents of these shipments, and that information was received in the Department of the Environment on April 11. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, I move that Motion for a Return 137 stand and retain its place on the Order Paper. [Motion carried] head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 206. Moved by Mr. Nelson;

Be it resolved that the Assembly urge the government to develop a policy whereby the retail sale of beer, wine, and spirits in the province would be gradually turned to the private sector. MR. NELSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm not planning to be on my feet a great deal of time today. I just hope that I don't have to leave urgently as I speak. The issue before us today, which I take pleasure in reintroducing to the Assembly, has certainly been discussed previously on many occasions. Of course, last fall it was given some comments. Mr. Speaker, I should express here the word "gradual".

The reason I emphasize that term is to suggest that the ideal behind the motion to privatize the sale of alcoholic beverages in the province is not one where it is suggested we'd go in with a knife and all of a sudden change horses in midstream but to gradually create a policy and position that would give the private sector the opportunity to compete in a competitive world with a competitive product.

The other consideration that I'm sure is of primary concern to every one of us, at least in the area of nonalcoholic consideration, is the people who work in the many outlets the Alberta Liquor Control Board presently has. Our employ ees, who have worked diligently, honestly, and with pride for many years, must be given due consideration any time we change horses.

With that in mind, of course, it is suggested that if at some time in the future this motion were to take a positive turn in the Assembly with the development of a Bill that would make that suggested change, we would have to make sure our employees were well looked after, now and at any future time. Some of the other salient points I would like to indicate here today, Mr. Speaker, have been identified previously.

Firstly, assuming that the government at some time in the future takes a positive step in this area, it's suggested that the wholesale distribution of alcoholic beverages be handled and continued in the same manner as at present. This would facilitate the collection of taxes, the payment of excise taxes and various other fees without overburdening the private sector with additional costs and would also let the government continue to control the products that, to some degree at least, are being sold in the outlets we place them in.

The only other area that I think the Liquor Control Board should be involved in is regulating, as they are now. In other words, let's have a regulatory board but let the private sector do the work. When I talk about regulatory boards and regulations, if we didn't have a referee in some of our hockey games — for example, if the Flames and the Jets didn't have a referee, the Flames would still be in the playoffs. That just shows you where the referees favour themselves; they favour from strength.

There's no doubt that the Alberta Liquor Control Board has a position of strength, and their control is certainly unbearable to many. I guess we could get into the manner in which some of them control our activities within the province and this country. Basically, we still have prohibition in the outflow of liquor. Many years ago when we had real prohibition, our alcoholic problems were certainly greater than they are today. It is suggested that we permit three different styles of licences to proposed licensees.

This could be in the form of a beer, wine, or spirit licence or any combination of two or three of those. Of course, this would be determined by the retailer and the regulations and the type of facilities that might be proposed by a proponent. Mr. Speaker, I look at the various parts of the world that sell alcoholic beverages in the private sector, and governments in Canada take a very dim view of this. Certainly, there are people in the province and the country who would not support this type of attack by changing the sale of alcoholic beverages to the private sector from government control.

However, during many of my travels, and especially those in Australia, where I lived for a number of years, it was interesting to note that the government didn't sell liquor in any manner, shape, or form. In looking back on those years, I don't recall a lot of drunks or a lot of people with social difficulties — no more than what would be a normal thing, if you call it a normal thing. The hotels sell the products. They have a special depart ment that sells not only beer, as we allow them to do here in Alberta, but hard liquor, spirits, or wines. Grocery stores sell the other products as well.

When a grocery store sells them down there, it has to have a special permit and create a separate entity within the same building. This isn't the proposal that is here today. In the near future I think the hon. Member for Calgary Buffalo will ably present his legislation, which will explain his proposal very nicely. It's also suggested, Mr.

Speaker, that any store that might be licensed to retail alcoholic beverages would be licensed to sell those products only and not compete with the private sector in other types of commodity selling, such as groceries, junk foods — candy, chips, et cetera — or any other commodity that might be available in the mar ketplace. Basically, the reasons here are unfair competition and keeping the same level and standards we have become used to as far as shopping in an Alberta liquor store, although I've often said that it's not one of the greatest experiences in the world: they are kind of drab-looking things.

I might add that there are now two liquor stores within the province that have really outshone themselves with nice, new, large wine bars. One is here in Edmonton and one is in the constituency of Calgary McCall, which

462 ALBERTA HANSARD April 18, 1985 has just concluded its opening of this new bar. I certainly recommend to any members who haven't seen these two stores that they are appealing outlets. If you have a spare $4,000 in your pocket, there are a couple of bottles of brandy there that you might just pick up. AN HON. MEMBER: Did you get one? MR. NELSON: I've ordered a dozen. Mr.

Speaker, one of the difficulties we are now having is that the Liquor Control Board decided to reduce hours of operation which the consumer had become used to, and many of our small-business men had also become used to receiving some traffic from the trade of these stores. It's interesting to note that since liquor stores that had been in a mall for a number of years and had extended hours, and what have you, have dropped their hours of trading to a five-day week and an eight-hour day, the traffic in these malls has also deteriorated and many of these small busi nesses are hurting.

I guess that's where I start to really wind up. As I've said many times, small business and small businesses are the heart and soul of our country. They create jobs. If there's a job to be created, it will certainly be the small-business person in the private sector long before government or the biggies. It's interesting to note how a government monopolizing a particular sector, an unfeeling Liquor Control Board, can go out and shut down an operation for a day or a number of hours without giving due consideration to those small- business people who have to pay the rent, who have to continue their operation.

Of course, when a major tenant, who is normally a traffic generator, removes much of the traffic in the mall, it has a devastating effect on that small business. I have one of those shopping malls in Calgary McCall; it's a sector mall. Of course, the impact on this particular mall has been very negative. Those people were hungry before; now they're starving. As I perceive it, the board has no sensitivity to these situations, nor does it concern itself with the jobs of these people, let alone the possible removal of jobs by reducing hours in its own operation.

I guess the other thing that disturbs me is the lack of concern for the consumers' needs or requests. I don't know that we should use the term "needs" when we're talking about buying liquor, because I don't know that anybody really needs it. But it's certainly one of those commodities that in reasonable consumption is acceptable. Mr. Speaker, the one area that has really twigged me and bothered me a lot is the private sector going out and developing a facility to sell a product. Under our present rules, the manufacturer of a beer or wine can open a store. I beg your pardon; they can't open a store.

They can invest in a store, put up the capital dollars, and get the thing ready to open, but as soon as they do that, they lose their key, because the Liquor Control Board goes in and takes over. And, boy, do they take over. That guy who has invested all that money can't even have a six-day week, possibly. He's run by the board, the bureaucrats, whatever you want to call them, at ALCB. If they want him to open five days, it's open five days. If they want to reduce the hours to 8 hours a day. 6 hours a day. 12 hours a day, that poor guy who has put up all that money hasn't got a hope in hell.

So I suggest that is one area we can start with very quickly, because it already has been invested in by the private sector. It is tailor-made for them to go into and run an operation and run it successfully. Maybe that would be a starting place for us to get away from some of the social attitudes that are prevalent in this particular area. It's interesting when I talk about the area of selling beer in stores that are owned by a brewery, where the province goes in and takes over the action.

It reminds me of some of these provinces that lean a little bit to the left or those countries that have socialist attitudes and governments, where they go in and take over the private sector's operation after they've invested. Quite frankly, I don't think it's fair. I feel very strongly about that. If any changes are addressed, of course our cities and municipalities will have to be party to these changes because they may affect the bylaws and planning Acts within the communities. Certainly, they would have to have some examination.

I'm sure they would be only too happy to participate in conjunction with any changes that are sug gested. Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks there has been a comparison addressed and offered by some. Why can't you sell liquor in the private sector? You sell drugs in the private sector. Some of the drugs we have are certainly a heck of a lot more dangerous than the drinking of a bottle of beer or a little bit of alcohol. I guess there are two trains of thought. When you're selling drugs, especially by prescription, you have a doctor offer the prescription and a trained pharmacist dispense that prescription.

That may be a fair argument, but we can still have young people, professional people — we don't have to call them clerks or anything like that. We have what you could determine are professional people in our liquor stores today, and there's no reason why the private sector cannot also offer professional, qualified assist ance in liquor stores, whether they're private or operated by the government. [interjection] The only difference is that selling liquor is not necessarily prescriptive.

In fact, it may even be destructive to many of those people who overindulge, similar to people who may take an overdose of drugs once they've been dispensed to them. There is really not that much difference. Many people are somewhat sensitive to the suggestion of privatization of the sale of alcoholic beverages. We have to expect that to be the case. Should we make a move in this direction, I'm sure it would have to be gradual and slow and caring. We would have to be caring people in making any move to privatization, caring not only for the people working in our stores but for the community at large.

It's interesting that during the last couple of years our throne speeches have addressed the area of privatization very well. In examining the area of privatizing the sale of alcoholic beverages, I guess we should examine the area of Altel Data and some of these other organizations that are part of the government operation that compete in the private sector. I can certainly make some comments about some of these other operations as well. I feel very strongly that we should make a move and unload those and stay in the business we should be in, if we should be in any business at all.

Another concern that is addressed from time to time is the continued high level of revenue for the government's General Revenue Fund. I guess that should be a concern, because if we don't have those revenues in our little bag of tricks, where do we get the money to operate our government? Quite frankly, it's my view that we may be able to have the best of both worlds. There are differing views on this, but again I'm of the view that we can have our cake and eat it too, without having the operating headache of the stores themselves.

April 18, 1985 ALBERTA HANSARD 463 Mr. Speaker, I've gone through a number of pieces of information. I would like to recognize a submission by the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees that was sent to us. I imagine all members received a copy. It's very well done, and I have to commend the people that did it. Like any report, certain areas could be questioned as to their accuracy and completeness, but in general terms I have to suggest that the report is very well done. But, again, like all reports, there are contradictory views and there is another report that contradicts the one you've got.

I guess which report you actually read and support to bring your views forward depends on where you want to view the position you're taking. It's interesting to note — in fact, it's a position I view with some credibility and a report that I determine is fairly positive — that it states that income and urbanization are more closely related to consumption and alcoholism rates than to availability. That's a very, very important statement which suggests that the higher income in the urban setting may have more of a detrimental effect on alcoholism and consumption than the availability of same. [Mr.

Purdy in the Chair] I ask the question: do we continue to treat our adult population as unintelligent children? Do some of them wish that we continue treating their neighbours as such? Why can't we give them a choice as to where, when, and how they may buy their beverage? After all, we'll probably create jobs for our citizens that will give them dignity. It's my belief — and I've said this many times — that our citizens in general are intelligent people. Access to alcoholic beverages does not necessarily mean more consumption or more alcoholism.

In fact, prohibition probably gives rise to more alcoholism than freeing the purchase of it. I'm not suggesting or talking about freeing up the purchase so that anybody can buy it, such as minors. I'm talking about opening the doors a little longer if necessary and working with consumers so their requests can be met. We have certain freedoms in this world, Mr. Speaker. We have the freedom to choose and the freedom to compete. Hopefully during that time we can be trusted and can trust that our citizens have enough intelligence to relate to the offerings we give them. It's amazing how we've talked about monopoly.

Of course, a few years ago Safeway had a monopoly, and the government said, "Look, we're going to put a three year moratorium on your growth." I guess this was reasonable in some respects. But what happened? Safeway still has control, and the reason is that it's the consumer's choice. The consumer determines who's going to grow and who's not going to grow, not the government; at least the government shouldn't decide that. Who's protecting the small-business man out there? He's out competing. He doesn't come crying all the time.

We've got Sunday openings of all the major stores, and sure it's hurting the small-business man very badly. Where is every thing happening? Where is everybody going with that? Maybe if we can't do something there, we can put beer and wine in the stores, or at least wine to start with. But that's a debate for another time, Mr. Speaker, which I'm sure my hon. friend from Calgary Buffalo will be only too happy to discuss. Mr. Speaker, we now have beer available at sporting events.

You know, there are probably less drunks at those sporting events today than there were when everybody took in their little bottle or cask or mickey or whatever. Amazing! [interjection] Yes, it was illegal. Mr. Speaker, just to sum up on a few salient points I've had the opportunity to present today, I think this government is sincere in its efforts to look at privatization. This is one area that can be privatized successfully under certain conditions.

The pursuit of that privatization by all members is certainly requested, not only in this area but in other areas of endeavour the government is proponent to competing in the private market. The Calgary Olympics are coming up in 1988. Not that that's a good reason to open the doors and flood the market with booze, but certainly let's open our hearts and our doors to the world and show them that we are a progressive province even though we're conservative at the same time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. MUSGROVE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments about the motion on privatization.

I certainly commend the Member for Calgary McCall for bringing this to our attention. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the privatization of liquor stores certainly has a lot of merit, providing they sell only alcoholic beverages and there is some control by the ALCB. We could allow, by a municipal bylaw, some flexibility in the hours or days open, but it would have to be done under an umbrella controlled by the Alberta Liquor Control Board.

For instance, we wouldn't want liquor stores to be open 24 hours a day, but if in a given town the municipal council feels it would be best to stay open on Saturday nights and close on Wednesday mornings, or something to that effect, I think it should be within the powers of the municipality to write it in their bylaw. We're suggesting the ALCB would issue three types of licences to vendors, and certainly there's a need for that. Along with our liquor stores we now have wine specialists, particularly in the major cities, who want to set up shops.

With some of the connoisseurs we have today, I think it's important that we have wine shops so that those people can go in and find the type of wine to their taste. Also, we have cottage breweries where they manufacture unpasteurized beer and sell it on the same premises. I think those things should be allowed, and in today's age they would probably be important to many places. Mr. Speaker, we have mentioned the possibility of selling wine and beer in grocery stores, and it was even suggested that grocery stores could handle the sale of all alcoholic beverages. I have some concerns about that.

I hear both sides of that from my constituents and at this time would certainly not recommend it. It's not because I'm saying the availability of alcohol would cause any more misuse than there is today. As a matter of fact, I think it would be the contrary. Generally, the more available alcohol is the less you get people misusing it. For instance, my father told me about prohibition in the 1920s, and he said that was the worst abuse of alcohol he had ever known.

Those people who could afford it bought black market bonded alcohol and created criminals to get it to them, and the price was something out of this world. Those people who couldn't afford bonded whiskey that was imported from other areas made their own. He said that half of it was poison and not fit to drink, but they made it and drank it anyway. He said there were as many social problems caused by the use of alcohol during the prohibition years as there are today. They had no control over it. Now there is at least some

464 ALBERTA HANSARD April 18, 1985 revenue for the province to cover the social problems caused by the misuse of alcohol. One of the things I'm hearing from some of my con stituents is that if we allow the sale of wine and beer in small stores, particularly convenience stores, there is the problem of security. Most of those stores are open for long periods of the day, and even though they wouldn't be able to sell it that long, they are generally understaffed and security would be a problem.

Generally, when you hear of a break-in, you find they take place at these convenience stores, and they're generally after cigarettes or something of that order. What they're saying is that if there were wine and beer there, it would increase the cause. Also, we have some small hotels that are now surviving on the off-sale of beer. These people are saying that by selling it in grocery stores, we would be causing some problems with their living. Another problem I hear from my constituents about selling wine and beer in grocery stores is that you hear a lot of comments about the high price of groceries today.

If you go through the average grocery cart, you'll find at least one-third of what's in that grocery cart is not food. It can be magazines, cigarettes, drink mixes, or whatever. Generally when you look through the grocery cart and talk about the high cost of food, it's the high cost of other things that creates the problem. If you added a case of beer and a bottle or two of wine to that grocery cart, the cost of food would increase because it would become groceries. I'm all for privatizing liquor stores, Mr.

Speaker, pro viding they have a semblance of the control that is now on the ALCB stores and providing we don't cause problems to people who are making a living other than by operating liquor stores; for instance, some of our small hotels. In that way I would like to suggest that we support this motion. MR. ZIP: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to rise to speak on Motion 206. First of all, I wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Calgary McCall for presenting us with this excellent motion and for reintroducing it for the consideration of this House once again. I wish to lend the hon. member my support for this motion.

I've always felt the distribution of alcoholic beverages is not a proper area for government involvement, just as the sale of all other beverages and food is not a proper area for government involvement. Just as government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation, it has no business being involved with the food and beverage dispensers of the nation.

Having said that, I'm also keenly aware that there is still a very real national problem with the abuse of alcohol, which has been discussed many times in this House and elsewhere as it relates to drunk and impaired driving, family and other violence, and the extra costs alcohol abuse imposes on the taxpayer-supported health system.

However, studies conducted into the question of the abuse of alcohol indicate very clearly that only a small percentage of the population — around 5 percent according to numerous studies done on the subject — are abusers and that the vast majority of the people are needlessly being regulated and harassed by the attempts of well-meaning but mistaken people to control a problem that applies to such a small percentage of the population. The hon. members for Calgary McCall and Bow Valley have spoken very well on the details of how privatization should be effected. I will not go into that.

I only wish to say that privatization should be effected in such a way that it causes the least possible disruption to existing employees of government liquor stores and to those in the private sector who are currently in the business of selling liquor by the glass.

This would mean a gradual phasing in of privatization of government liquor stores, giving citizens of Alberta the significant benefits to be derived from the efficiencies that will no doubt arise from private distribution of alcoholic beverages, especially in urban and rural areas of the province where the volume of business requires cost- cutting remedies that government operations are not prepared to make, because profitability, as we all know, is not as necessary a guideline for government as it is for the private operator.

In closing, I wish to point out that the advocacy of the private distribution of alcoholic beverages and less control on alcoholic beverage consumption has nothing to do with the moral question surrounding the consumption of alcohol. I wish to point out that any problems surrounding the question of alcohol are part of much larger problems, mostly of a personal nature, that people are beset with. My experience with alcohol over the last 50 years has shown me that the abuse or nonabuse of alcohol has nothing to do with whether or not the government or private individuals distribute liquor.

So why should we in this culturally mature province not turn to a system of alcoholic beverage distribution that not only is more efficient but will also open additional opportunities for taxpaying individuals? Turning to the moral question behind the consumption of alcohol, I have a long-standing interest in it which goes back to my boyhood years. Incidentally, that was a time when controls on alcohol were much stricter and when serious abuse of alcohol was much more prevalent. I remem ber very well social events in those years when people drank themselves silly and made real fools of themselves.

Lucky for everyone at that time, there were few cars and hence few accidents. Controls on the sale and consumption of alcohol have been greatly relaxed over the last 50 years. I witness a lot less abuse of alcohol today than I did 30 to 50 years ago. People are getting more responsible with alcohol. The excellent programs on minimizing alcohol abuse, such as AADAC, are working and are doing an excellent job of educating the public. Law enforcement with respect to impaired driving is strict and is working as well. The people themselves are getting the message of the need for moderation with respect to alcohol.

In fairness, then, let us give them a break by giving them the benefits that privatization of alcohol distribution brings and bringing them into the main stream of the civilized world. Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone in this Assembly to support this excellent motion. Thank you very much. MR. LEE: Mr. Speaker, colleagues, and particularly the Member for Highwood, this is a timely and enabling res olution. I commend the hon. Member for Calgary McCall for its initiation. It provides us an opportunity to give some direction to the government at a philosophical level.

Charles Kettering once said: "It's easy to build a philosophy [if] it doesn't have to run." I'd like to take a run not just at the philosophy but at the practical aspect of this resolution. We'll perhaps have an opportunity to get into more of the practical application when Bill 250, the Food Store Wine Sales Act, comes up for debate in this Legislature a little later. Mr. Speaker, there are four items I would like to address in my remarks today. Number one, the concerns of some private groups; secondly, what I believe are problems in

April 18, 1985 ALBERTA HANSARD 465 the present distribution system; thirdly, the issue of pri vatization; and fourthly, the issue of the present monopoly system under the Alberta Liquor Control Board. I know some groups will have difficulty with this motion because there's a concern that if we move towards priva tization it will contribute to more alcohol abuse. It's a valid concern. Mr. Speaker, 2,500 people were killed in alcohol related accidents last year. There are an estimated 50,000 alcoholics in Alberta. The average Albertan spends $360 a year.

In my own childhood I remember that alcohol was the cause of the breakup of the marriage between my mother and father and the bad, ugly scenes it caused. So we should be very concerned about them. But those are the reasons I believe the time has come for us to privatize. The current system is not adequately serving the social system we enjoy. It is not working to anybody's satisfaction. I know that in last year's debate the hon. Member for Vegreville said: if it ain't broken, don't fix it. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is broken. We recently saw an

article in the Journal that alcoholism is up; related traffic deaths for alcoholism are up. There is a problem and the present system is not working. I haven't seen a study yet that shows there is any relationship whatsoever between abuse of alcohol and avail ability. There is a relation between consumption but not abuse. It didn't work during prohibition and it doesn't work today.

In fact, I found an interesting little song they used to sing during prohibition: Four and twenty Yankees, feeling very dry Went across the border to get a drink of rye When the rye was opened, the Yanks began to sing "God bless America . . . but God save the King!" Mr. Speaker, we have a second problem, and that is the current distribution through the ALCB. Because of the limited availability, when an individual finally finds a liquor store that's open, they stock up. It's called the stocking- up syndrome. I'm embarrassed to go to my own liquor store.

I get there about four times a year, so you can imagine what happens. I have to go to different liquor stores . . . [interjections] I hear that when we get into this debate we hear from those concerned about policing. Last year I had the oppor tunity to meet with the city of Calgary police, and there is very strong support amongst the rank and file to privatize the sale of beer and wine, particularly wine. Why? Because it doesn't make sense to have a limited number of outlets where there's such a huge congestion at any limited time.

Anybody who spends any amount of time there will tell you of the policing problems that are encountered. They believe there is better use for a police officer's time, and so do I. Mr. Speaker, when you have that limited availability, there's the problem of drinking and driving. You have to drive to get to the liquor store. Bob Edwards said in the Calgary Eye Opener, 1906: "When one is driven to drink, he usually has to walk back." What are we doing with our legislation? Literally forcing people, after they've con sumed alcohol, to drive some distance to get some re- enforcements. MRS.

CRIPPS: If you put the saddle on the right way . . . MR. LEE: My colleague is trying to talk some horse sense here. Mr. Speaker, the year is 1985. This Legislature just heard the Treasurer announce a tripling in our tourism budget. We spend millions to bring people to Alberta from all over the world. And then what happens? They travel 300 miles across the border and finally find a liquor store. It's Monday and it's closed. So they have to drive another 50 miles to the next community, and they get there and find it just closed 10 minutes earlier. Finally they say.

"To heck with the bottle of wine; I'll settle for some beer." They go to the local hotel and find that they have to pay an arm and a leg for a case of beer. And we wonder why they don't come back. Mr. Speaker, tourism is the key issue. I have in my file a letter from the Banff Chamber of Commerce: Almost every day we hear comments from visitors to Banff on the ridiculousness of Alberta's antiquated liquor laws. No doubt this tarnishes the reputation of Banff as a progressive resort and prevents the Town from competing on an equal basis with American resort areas such as Lake Tahoe, Aspen. Vail, etc.

I can hardly wait until the Olympics get here. The president of the IOC comes into Banff and says, "I'd like to get a bottle of wine for dinner." The guy says: "I'm sorry; the liquor store is closed. You'll have to drive to Calgary." Good public relations. Mr. Speaker, let's look at the issue of privatization. In keeping with the free-enterprise aspects of this government, I'm very proud that we've announced a policy of privatization and deregulation. There are a number of excellent examples. We sold PWA.

Contracting out many services in the cor rectional area: number one, community residential services are now contracted out; we've contracted out two out of 10 of the province's minimum security forestry camps; pharmaceutical services in Alberta correctional centres have been contracted out. Alberta Transportation has just about totally phased out any contracting it does on roads. Rec reation and Parks is contracting out firewood procurement. The name check service of the Corporate Registry has been contracted out.

Examination of prospective real estate sales men has been turned over to the Alberta Real Estate Association. Maintenance work in government buildings has been turned over. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of examples of good initiatives we've taken to privatize. The list goes on and on. Privatize those areas that don't make any money; let the private sector have those areas that don't make a profit. But what do we do? We keep the one area that turns a profit. Isn't that good of us? Last year the Alberta Liquor Control Board made $289 million. MRS. CRIPPS: Hospitals spent $2 billion. MR.

LEE: More good advice from my colleague over here, Mr. Speaker. The problem is that we have a monopoly in the truest sense. I haven't been able to figure out why government thinks we need to sell consumer goods, because that's what alcohol is. Cigarettes are consumer goods, automobiles are consumer goods, and my colleague mentioned that drugs are consumer goods. But you don't see the government with an Alberta automobile sales board.

The difficulty I have with this profit is justifying to my constituents how a family-run corner store — an immigrant couple living in Canada for 12 years, working 85 or 90 hours a week — can barely make a go of it, yet the

466 ALBERTA HANSARD April 18, 1985 Westbrook Shopping Centre liquor store in Calgary Buffalo made $4,859,000 last year. Yet we have private enterprise; we talk about being for the little guy. We have private enterprise of half a dozen small stores in the neighbourhood barely getting by. I'd like to make my point here. I'd like to table with the Legislature an illustration of the contra diction. I have here an equivalent of $4,890,000 worth of Monopoly money. I want to table it with the House to show the absurd contradiction.

But don't go away; at the same time, let's show the profit the private sector made last year — two cents. That is a contradiction, and I haven't been able to explain it to my constituents. Mr. Speaker, when I speak of "Monopoly money", I think it's an appropriate adjective. DR. BUCK: You're not serious, are you? MR. LEE: The golf course is closed. DR. BUCK: So is the bar. MR. LEE: The time has come to look at alternatives to monopoly. But not just to look at alternatives, or consider alternatives or consider philosophies. I think the time has come to take some action.

The bottom line is simply this: do we or do we not trust our citizens to do what's best for themselves? I ask my colleagues to answer that fun damental question. In speaking to this issue today, Mr. Speaker, I've briefly reviewed four areas. The very honest, legitimate concern of private groups who are impacted by alcohol abuse: I support them and I share their concern. Some problems with the present distribution: the limited availability does not serve the public interest. The third issue is privatization. Essentially we have a contradictory policy today, and I believe it's an embarrassing one.

Fourthly, the issue of monopoly. The time has come to end monopoly. We don't permit it in any other area where there is competition. Why do we permit it here? I believe there is a strong case to be made for change. Oftentimes in this House it's been said that we might approve of something in principle. I believe it is time to say and recognize that there is good support tor this in principle. A Gallup Poll taken at the end of last year indicated that on the whole the vast majority of Albertans supported the change. In Calgary alone 69 percent of those surveyed said.

"We support this change." In Edmonton is was close to 60 percent. We can acknowledge and recognize that perhaps there are communities that aren't as enthusiastic about this as, say, the Banff community. But any legislation that we introduce can acknowledge the need for local autonomy. In closing. I'd like to leave with this remark. The German ruler Bismarck once said: When a man says he approves of something in principle. it means he hasn't the slightest intention of putting it into practice.

I support this motion in both principle and practice, and I encourage all members of the Assembly to consider it seriously. There are many other arguments to consider, but with regret, Mr. Speaker, the time has ended. I notice the lateness of the hour and, wishing to continue. I beg leave to adjourn debate. MR. ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is it agreed that the hon. member adjourn debate? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is so ordered. head: PUBLIC BILLS AND ORDERS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Second Reading) Bill 203 Farming Nuisance Claim Protection Act MRS. CRIPPS: Mr.

Speaker, Bill 203 is the Farming Nuisance Claim Protection Act. I'd like to read it into the record so that if the debate is reviewed later, it can be reflected back toward the Bill. It's very short. In this Act we're talking about agricultural land. That means land that (

i) is zoned lor agriculture pursuant to the Planning Act and is actually being used for agriculture, or (ii) is assessed for municipal taxation on the basis of" being used for agriculture; (b) "farming operation" means an activity con ducted on agricultural land in connection with the commercial production of agricultural produce; (c) "Minister" means the Minister of Agriculture. 2 A Farming operation on agricultural land, that (

a) is not negligent; (

b) conforms to generally accepted practice for similar farming operations; (

c) does not endanger human health or safety; and (

d) does not contribute to flooding or water pol lution; shall be deemed (

e) not to be a public or private nuisance if it is carried out in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Minister pursuant to

section 3; (

f) not to be a private nuisance in respect of a neighbouring parcel of land that has had a change of use or zoning if the same farming operation was conducted prior to the change of the use or zoning, in a similar manner and at similar times, and would not . . . have been a private nuisance with respect to the neighbouring parcel of land. 3 The Minister may by order establish guidelines for the conduct of farming operations so as to protect the continuance of established farming operations as far as is reasonable and to minimize conflict between farming operations and uses of land other than farming. Mr. Speaker.

Bill 203 attempts to protect Alberta farmers from lawsuits brought against them by new, nonfarming residents who claim that the nearby agricultural activities create a nuisance. In so doing, Bill 203 asserts the primacy of agriculture and guarantees the farmer the right to farm. The protection afforded by this Bill applies only to bona fide, responsible farmers. It does not give farmers licence to act negligently and without proper regard for the rights of others. Mr. Speaker, agriculture is important to the total economic welfare of this province.

Farming and its spin-offs generate employment for one in three Albertans and create $8 billion worth of activity yearly. The very best soil happens to be in the proximity of the major urban centres of the province. Sixty percent of the prime number 1 farmland in the province

April 18, 1985 ALBERTA HANSARD 467 is located in the Edmonton-Calgary corridor. The high concentration of this population has led to subdivisions and acreages being developed in the prime agricultural area. The intrusion of an urban life-style into rural areas has resulted in conflicts between farmers and their nonfarming neighbours over the by-products of farming: dust, noise, and odours. In a few cases these conflicts have involved local authorities, such as public health boards or even courts.

In one well-publicized case the health unit charged a farmer for failing to remove some cattle from an area adjacent to — they called it a feedlot. The Alberta Farmers' Advocate, Helmut Entrup, said the health inspector didn't know the difference between a feedlot and a farmstead. By the way, the county council had previously unanimously approved the farmer's use of the site. In fact, if my memory of the incident is correct, it had been used for the same purpose for a number of years.

In Alberta today a farmer may have to defend himself against litigation for causing a private nuisance if his activ ities interfere with another person's use and enjoyment of his land or a public nuisance if his actions endanger the health and safety of a number of people. In either case the court may order the farmer to stop the activity or change his actions to reduce its impact. [An hon. member walked between the Chair and Mrs. Cripps] MR. ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. The hon. member knows very well that you do not walk between the Chair and the person speaking. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame. MRS.

CRIPPS: This could hamper the farmer's flexibility in making future management decisions, which could threaten the viability of an agricultural industry. The legislation involved in this issue includes the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, both under Alberta Envi ronment, and Alberta regulations 297-72 under the Public Health Act, which govern the distances between residential buildings and livestock operations such as feedlots at pig geries. These laws and regulations governing the public nuisance would continue to have pre-eminence even if Bill 203 were passed. On November 20, Mr.

Speaker, the county of Wetaskiwin introduced a primacy of agriculture resolution at the annual meeting of the MDs and counties, and this resolution was passed. I'd like to read it into the record.

WHEREAS agriculture is vital to the prosperity of Alberta; and

WHEREAS more and more non-farm people are moving into agricultural areas; and

WHEREAS some of these newcomers object to tra ditional and necessary farming practices, such as manure spreading . . . Mind you, I heard a lot of that just recently. . . . and crop spraying and attempt to curtail them through legal action; and

WHEREAS the courts and regulatory agencies have on several occasions imposed restrictions on farm oper ations which make it difficult or even impossible for a farmer to continue; THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this conven tion request the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Social Services and Community Health to introduce legislation which will guarantee the primacy of agri culture in rural areas, and which will restrict the ability of non-farm residents to take legal action to restrain or to restrict agricultural operations. Mr. Speaker, that received the required three-fifths majority at the November 20, 1984, annual meeting. More jurisdictions are finding it necessary to introduce this type of legislation.

As fewer people have agricultural backgrounds, there is less and less understanding of the functional and fundamental problems and practices which are part and parcel of an agricultural operation. More than 30 U.S. states have some form of right-to-farm laws on their books. They vary in approach and complexity, but most establish that as long as a farmer conducts his farm chores in a manner that is not a threat to public health and safety and is in accordance with generally accepted farming practices, he cannot be found liable for nuisance.

Many of the U.S. right-to-farm laws, along with Bill 203, affirm the "first in time, first in right" principle. Since the farmer was there first and has been carrying out his farming activities all along, his rights to continue with those practices should take precedence over the rights of the newcomer. In the absence of right-to-farm legislation, the U.S. courts have rarely upheld the first in time, first in right principle as a defence against nuisance claims. Manitoba is the only Canadian province to have legislation like this.

Called the Nuisance Act, it was passed in June 1976 with the intent of protecting not only the farmer but other businesses as well. In the extreme, we have environmentalists suggesting that rivers and streams ought to be fenced because once in a while the cows drop something in them and pollute the rivers and other waters. It's never indicated that wild animals also use these same streams and rivers and may have the same problem the cows have.

In Ontario Women for the Survival of Agriculture have a newsletter, and I want to read a paragraph from it: The encroachment of urban lifestyle, (please no smelly farming practices in our suburban paradise) is threat ening agriculture in Ontario. A new approach with which to deal with these conflicts is in order ensuring that agriculture is allowed to survive, in rural Ontario the farming population makes up only 22% of all country dwellers, evidently some of the non-farmers object to odours, noise and dust resulting from farming operations.

Farmers must be assured of their right to carry on with the practice of farming free from har assment from people who do not want farming con ducted near their residences. I note that in a speech made to MDs and counties last fall, the Minister of Agriculture indicated that he felt that if people chose to live in the country, they had to take the good with the bad and had to accept that agriculture was the primary occupation in those rural areas. Mr. Speaker, I haven't gone into the explicit examples, and I know there are many in the province. I might just briefly mention a few.

There are the deer problems in Sherwood Park, where the Criminal Code was used to charge a farmer for trying to protect his crop from deer damage. A farmer in Stettler found himself in court because he used some of his land as a feeding area. He was sued by the people he had sold an acreage to. A High River feedlot dispute over several years — because a small acreage owner and sculptor and a group opposed the livestock men's plan to increase the feedlot operation. In a Benalto case the farmer was sued and thrown into court by a health

468 ALBERTA HANSARD April 18, 1985 inspector who didn't know the difference between a feedlot and a farmstead. In the case in Stony Plain, small acreage owners are complaining that they are discriminated against because the farmers receive better treatment under the water well recovery program than they do under their wild rivers and streams programs. There are a lot of examples. I don't want to go into them, because I know other members have specific examples.

But I think it's important that farming not be hindered by nuisance claims which really, in effect, cause the farmer to be unable to complete his farming operation or make plans for his farming operation in a judicious and prudent manner to make the whole operation worth while and continue with it. With those few words, Mr. Speaker, I hope members will support second reading of Bill 203 and protect the farmer's right to farm without undue harassment. Thank you. MR. ALGER: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to rise on this occasion and offer a few comments on this most interesting Bill introduced by Shirley Cripps, the Member for Drayton Valley. To farm or not to farm; that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the [minds of men] to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them? That's precisely what we have to do, Mr. Speaker. The introduction of Bill 203, the Farming Nuisance Claim Pro tection Act, brings to light a number of considerations, and it is these I would like to speak on this afternoon.

Speaking as a farmer and rancher, I can understand the potential problems associated with the infusion of urban settlements into agricultural areas of the province. Such a combination sets the stage for the development of a number of conflicts between these two parties. To urban dwellers a move to the countryside represents an opportunity to lead a quiet, peaceful life. Country living holds all the promises of clean, fresh air, lack of noise pollution, and a chance to have some privacy, all of which are rarely found in the city.

When an urban dweller moves to the country and finds himself living downwind from a feedlot or next door to a mixed farming operation, it is not surprising that he has a rather rude awakening. Agricultural smells, noise from farming operations at all hours of the day or night and particularly at harvest time, dust, and chemical spraying are pretty far from his notion of an idealistic life in the country. On the other hand, the presence of nonfarming neighbours presents some new and serious problems for the farmer.

Farmers have complained about problems such as indis criminate dumping of garbage on farmers' fields; dogs from neighbouring residences roaming free, harassing and some times killing livestock; increased traffic congestion; and the increased incidence of trespassing, theft, and vandalism of farm machinery, crops, and livestock. In many respects I can appreciate the urban dweller's desire to enjoy a country life. He has the right as much as anyone to choose where he wants to live and to enjoy that choice to the fullest.

At the same time, however, I think it is important that we put this whole issue into perspective. Farmers also have a right to earn their live lihood. Aside from the question of rights, the agricultural sector is of primary importance to the viability of Alberta's and Canada's economies and is basic to the survival of the human race. These farmers are producing goods which are essential for our day-to-day existence.

The idea that a nonfarming neighbour who is unhappy with the smell or noise from farming operations has the power to affect or bring to a halt these operations is one that does not sit well with me, Mr. Speaker. As the author of Farming in the Shadow of Suburbia states so well: People tend to overlook the fact that agriculture is an industry. It is an industry which, not unlike steel production or auto manufacturing, involves a degree of physical danger, makes some noise, and creates a certain amount of air pollution. It is an industry that cannot provide plant security by locking the factory gates.

And above all, it is an industry that requires a lot of wide open spaces for production. Attracted by the beauty of the countryside, people who would not think of moving into the middle of an industrial area build new homes in agricultural areas. Only later do they find that just like all other industries, the agricultural industry can affect neighbouring homeowners. Someone once posed in jest that there should be a rural immigration law so that people contemplating a move to the country would first have to prove they know what country life is really all about. I'm not suggesting, Mr.

Speaker, that we would ever seriously consider such a thing. But I do think it points out a need for city folks to realize that modern farming is not what it used to be or what they think it is now. Farmers need to be able to perform their normal chores without fear of harassment or retaliation from their non- farming neighbours. In most cases the inconveniences experi enced by nonfarmers are unavoidable by-products of the production of agricultural goods. Farmers need confidence in their future survival, especially at a time when they are already facing problems on a number of other fronts.

I commend the chairman of the caucus committee for the very fact that he has us meeting almost three times a week to discuss these same problems. Yes, you're excused. I would like to point out one concern I have with the Bill, Mr. Speaker. It comes from a letter I received from the municipal district of Foothills in my constituency. The council points out that the Bill does not make clear who is responsible for proving that there is or is not a nuisance.

They feel that the onus should be on the nonfarming person to decide whether he wants to live beside the noise, odours, dust, and fumes that go with the territory. I'm no lawyer, Mr. Speaker, but since Bill 203 does not clarify the question of onus, it seems to me that farmers may still find themselves in court, even though the Bill would provide a ready defence. I'd also like to elaborate a little on one other consideration in relation to this issue, one I feel is extremely important; that is, the increasing expansion of urban development into our prime agricultural land.

The Member for Drayton Valley expounded on it a bit. I want to continue with this phrase, because the figures I have before me indicate that between 1976 and 1981, a five-year period, 267,000 acres of agri cultural land were taken out of production for nonagricultural subdivision and annexation alone. I must point out to all of you here that this is land that will never be reclaimed for agricultural use. In any discussion of the right to farm, we have to consider the broader question of land use policies.

What is the point of enacting a right-to-farm Bill if land use policies continue to allow the penetration of urban land uses into the country? The most extensive area of annexation and

April 18, 1985 ALBERTA HANSARD 469 subdivision in this province is in the Calgary-Edmonton corridor, and ironically enough the land in this corridor amounts to 60 percent of the total amount of class 1 land in Alberta. That, of course, accounts for why you can grow such great gardens right in this city. Mr. Speaker, in my constituency of Highwood we are blessed with several hundred families who live on, for the most part, very beautiful acreages. To the best of my knowledge our farmers and ranchers down that way have had little or no trouble with these law-abiding citizens.

We have lots of farms, ranches, coyotes, feedlots, gas plants, auction markets, trains, truck traffic, and aircraft noise, and thousands of people who have to live with it all. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it's a way of life devoutly to be wished for and enjoyed by all who live there. However, as time goes on and populations increase, as urban areas continue to expand into the rural countryside and mix with existing farms, I think it is inevitable that there will be a degree of increasing incidences of confliction between these two parties.

Indeed, some of my readings of conflicting opinions in the provinces are enough to scare a person off the farm if the banker already hasn't. I believe the Bill the Member for Drayton Valley has introduced is a most timely one. I am confident that a move such as this would help to ensure that the right of the farmer to make a living is protected while at the same time encouraging responsible farming practices. However, I would also like to make a few suggestions which I feel would aid in developing and maintaining a peaceful coexistence between farmers and nonfarming property owners.

First, I think the prospective nonfarmer property owner should carefully assess the location of his proposed residence, and he should not build adjacent to a mixed farming operation if he does not like smells, noise, and sights associated with farming. Sec ond, there should be serious consideration given to restricting certain new urban development on prime agricultural land. There are plenty of homes already situated on good acreages that are for sale for one reason or the other. There is really no necessity to build any more for a long, long time.

Thirdly, the farmers must recognize that they have respon sibilities too. They could, at little expense or inconvenience to them, act to avoid a conflict in the first place. Another point connected with the farmer's responsibility in this matter has to do with the selling of parcels of land for nonagricultural subdivision. The state of Washington has a right-to-farm Bill on its books specifically denying pro tection to farmers who do this, because the lawmakers there felt that farmers who sell a parcel of their land for residential use are contributing to the problem. Mr.

Speaker, in cases like that, farmers cannot have their cake and eat it too. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I have one more suggestion, as serious as my others but perhaps on a lighter note. This comes from a Mr. Mike Bennett, a waste management specialist in the province of Alberta. He suggests: Fresh paint can change a person's perception of smell . . . if your barn and other facilities look bright and shiny, there's a greater likelihood they'll be accepted. The neighbours reason that you are doing the best you can and therefore are more ready to live with the situation.

When I see a livestock operation near a community, I recommend that the owner install prefinished siding on his buildings. And I know just where to get it too, Mr. Speaker. In conclusion, I would like to congratulate the Member for Drayton Valley for introducing this Bill. As I said earlier, it is a most timely Bill and the topic provides us with the opportunity to discuss and emphasize the importance of agriculture in this province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. LYSONS: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to get into the discussion on Bill 203, the Farming Nuisance Claim Protection Act.

I applaud the Member for Drayton Valley for bringing it to the House. We often wonder who the nuisances are in farming. Of course, farmers themselves are a great nuisance when they're moving machinery and so on. The city folk have been very patient and in most cases very tolerant of the problems that farmers create in their moving of machinery, livestock, and so on. With nuisances, I suppose one farmer is as much a nuisance to another as the worst possible scenario we could have.

What I believe this Bill is attempting to illustrate is the fact that once you are farming, you've committed your life to farming, and then somewhere down the road someone buys some land or changes the use of the land and many times you are denied that right to carry on as a normal farmer. When towns and cities annex land — and many thousands of acres are annexed almost yearly — a lot of that land has to sit barren until it's developed. But the farmer that would normally be farming that land is really denied his normal farming because of all the restrictions.

A common practice in rural Alberta these days is to spray rape crops and other grains with airplanes. When you get an industrial or residential area built up around you, you certainly can't use aircraft as you would like to. That is a very serious situation, particularly with canola, because canola gets certain diseases, bugs, armyworms, and so on that have to be sprayed. You can't go in with ordinary machinery; it has to be done by aircraft. In most areas that are annexed to a town or city, the use of aircraft is virtually eliminated; therefore, you can't grow canola.

Inasmuch as this Bill doesn't specifically mention aircraft, I'm not so sure it shouldn't. I have a little farm. Most of the farmers around this building would call it an acreage, but to me it's a farm. I've never been bothered that much by the people that have moved in around it, and there have been several. For the first while there were 13 dogs, but somehow or other they got thinned out. They will continue to be thinned out as long as they roam around. What I did was make a nuisance of myself when I bought some cows. A neighbour wanted to have a garden at my place. I said.

"Sure, you can have a garden." In the fall everything got dry and nothing was green. His wife had these lovely big cabbages. The cows needed something green at that time of the year, and they went in and ate right down to the roots and even pulled some of them out by the roots. I was the nuisance there, because I didn't have a fence that was strong enough to hold out the hungry cows. We got rid of the cows eventually, and we thought we had that problem solved. The fellow that had the garden built a good, strong fence. We got some horses. Horses were worse than cows.

They went in and cleaned up a good part of the fellow's garden. We never got in any serious trouble, although we got some long looks. But it just goes to show — I'm trying to illustrate what happens. The other situation is the children that come around. Certainly all farmers love to have people come to their farm and look at things and so on. The children that have come to our place have for the most part been just normal children and haven't caused any problem. But on occasion

470 ALBERTA HANSARD April 18, 1985 we have the 18- to 25-year-old children with their four- wheel drives who think that because there's no gate on the property they can go out and carve up a nice summer fallow field. That's when the nuisance factor comes in from the other direction. Mr. Speaker, I could probably relate many, many instances where the shoe fits both ways. But I would really encourage the minister to have this made a government Bill, so we really have a basis to start from, where we can have agricultural land as agricultural land and have it farmed as the normal practice.

I know there are situations where farmers do things that annoy other farmers, and that's a fact of life. But when you have a coulee or draw or ravine running out of your land and dirty water runs out of that and across the road or wherever and into a watercourse and is gone, as happens every spring, no one complains about it until you have a residential acreage or residential subdivision. Then you're in big trouble. It can be a very serious problem. We're always concerned at our place, because we have an auction mart on the same quarter.

My wife used to worry a great deal about the flies and so on, but we're used to it now. It doesn't bother us. We've never got sick because of anything the flies have done. We're used to animal smells, flies, pests, and all the other things that go along with agriculture. But if we had people that were normal city dwellers and they had the problems that come from that auction mart, I'm sure we'd have serious com plaints. One of the more serious ones, of course, is in the fall of the year, when people wean their calves and bring them to the auction mart.

Those cattle bellow for up to three weeks, depending on the cycle the farmer happens to be in with their weaning and selling and his harvesting and so on. You can hear those calves bellowing for miles and miles. They don't bother us, but I have heard complaints. When the auction mart was at the edge of our little town's limits, people used to complain about the smell and noise. I remember one evening when I was in the hospital. They were dunging out the corrals. You could just about cut the air in the hospital with a knife. I was about to be on council at the time.

It was suggested that we try to have the auction mart relocated, because they needed to build. So we went to some effort to have the auction mart build in the country. It solved our problem. That auction mart was there for many years, and had it stayed there, I'm sure they would have run into much the same problem as the Agrimart did in Calgary, where I believe they spent in the neighbourhood of $2 million for pollution controls. There was just no way that Agrimart could sustain that capital expenditure. Consequently, through that and probably other things, it couldn't survive. It went broke.

That was a very major traumatic thing for the agricultural industry, the beef cattle industry in particular. That could happen to an individual farmer time after time, and we don't hear about it and don't hear the alarm. But when something as large as the Agrimart goes down, of course, we hear about it. It gets much more notice. I have to compliment the member who preceded me for his discussion about Farming in the Shadow of Suburbia. It's a very interesting document, a tremendous

article about case studies in land use conflict. It doesn't blame anyone in particular. But if we had this little law on the books, when cities and towns are annexing land or people are buying land to build on, I think they would have some idea that there is something out there to watch for and look for. [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] One situation that has bothered me for a long time is a real-life thing where a farmer bought a

section of raw bush land. Several people were living in an acreage setting alongside this land. Everything had been comfortable and going for years and years with no problem. The farmer who owned the

section sold it to his neighbour. The neighbour came in with big machinery, cleaned off the land, and started farming it as he had intended to. He changed the use of the land from pasture to intensive farming. These people got all upset about the fact that this man had destroyed all this habitat and all these other good things and so on, and had really ruined their homes. I had to go and visit these people one at a time and talk to them and say: "Well, what did you expect? That somebody would keep land out of production forever?

Couldn't you imagine that someday somebody would come in and break up that land?" I wasn't very popular, but I was right. These people, who were actually profiting and benefitting from someone else's gen erosity, expected that things would go on forever. If we bring in this Bill, possibly we should have a little amendment that would confirm that farmers could in fact improve their land and their farming to generally accepted farming standards. It may be implicit in the Bill; I'm not sure. If it isn't, I wish it would be. With that, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to say I will certainly support the Bill, and I wish the minister would ask that it be a government Bill. Thank you very much. MR. HYLAND: Mr. Speaker, as I start to take

part in the debate on Bill 203, the Farming Nuisance Claims Protection Act, many other members have outlined the problems that occur when farming areas are encroached on by acreage holders. Some of my colleagues have told me to say as much as I can for as long as I can with the amount of notes I have. I don't know how long that's going to take. I tried out a couple of stories on my colleagues near me, and they told me not to use those stories. So I guess we'll have to deal with the facts. First, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Vermilion-Viking outlined the problem he had with a garden.

He said there wasn't much of a problem with it. But I noticed that when he talked about it, he only talked about talking to the husband. I'll bet you a dollar that, as it is on most farms, the wife was doing all the gardening. I wonder what she thought of the problem. Mr. Speaker, often property is purchased adjacent to farms. The farmer may have a feedlot on the property, and it may not even be full at the time that people purchase property near it. All of sudden people seem to feel that because they've purchased the property, they have more rights than the farmer who was there before.

They feel they have the right to go to the county or MD or whatever the municipal area is and have that operation stopped because it's something they don't like. They don't like the smell or the noise from it. I think this is very unfair, because property adjacent to these places is often purchased for considerably cheaper amounts than acreages elsewhere. They purchase it at a cheap price, and then they start making noises about its infringing on their rights, that they shouldn't have to smelt the feedlot, and stuff like that.

We heard from the Member for Drayton Valley about the long-delayed attempt to have a feedlot near High River. All these people don't want to have the smell of these operations around them, but they sure like to go out on

April 18, 1985 ALBERTA HANSARD 471 their acreage in the evening and set up their barbecue and barbecue a steak. I don't know where some of them figure the steak comes from. From anything I know about farming, there's a certain amount of smell associated with raising steak till you can get it to the stage that it lands on the barbecue. AN HON. MEMBER: But it's a healthy smell. MR. HYLAND: One of my colleagues says it's a healthy smell, and people used to say until a short while ago that it was the smell of money. I'm not too sure that it's a smell of money anymore, but it's probably still a healthy smell. Mr.

Speaker, there are also other problems that occur. I can think of one example in my constituency. A farmer had buildings on a certain site. The buildings were on a farm he took over from his parents near Hilda, a small hamlet in my constituency. A Hutterite colony was started a couple of miles away. Of course, with that kind of operation, there is a significant number of feedlots, hog barns, and chicken barns. This gentleman has persistently tried to get something done about the smell. It seems, at least to him, that every time the wind blows the lagoons of the barns are emptied.

He feels that that is affecting him. He was there first; they were after. Yet anytime any government checks this operation out, it's found to be within the guidelines of how these facilities should be operated. By the time it's reported and the inspectors get out, of course, the wind in that country has blown for a few days and the smell has blown away. By the time the inspectors get there, the smell isn't there anymore. So in some cases, Mr. Speaker, it isn't just encroachment of people buying acreages.

There are times when there is a change of agricultural use in these areas and to a more intensive use that makes it very uncomfortable for people in adjacent holdings who have often been there longer than those that exist. In this case there has been, at least up till now, little the landowner could do. Of course, this hasn't made him very happy, because it would be very costly for him to move his house and outbuildings to a different location. He doesn't feel he should have to pay for that, because he was there first. I think that outlines a problem that can occur.

It's not necessarily people who have just moved into the area who complain and cause those kinds of problems for a farming operation. We also often hear of problems with irrigation reservoirs where people forget what the reservoir was initially put in for. They believe that it should be totally recreation, that that's all that should be on it, and they get upset when the water level drops down because there's a heavy draw of water in the summertime for irrigation. My point in using that illustration, Mr.

Speaker, is that the problem is not only with farms and adjacent farms but also with other things that are associated with agriculture such as irrigation. We must remember why some of these reservoirs were constructed and realize that irrigation water has the first call on them and that they are subject to wide fluctuations of levels when the water is needed in the summertime. Mr. Speaker, there are probably other members who would like to speak on this Bill at another time.

As I said when I started, I don't know any stories I could tell that would be appropriate, and my colleagues have advised me not to use any that I tried out on them. So I would like to thank the members for listening and urge

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19850418
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L20 S3 19850418 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	1c59b6fcd398edf500c856fd6030a80e75f533b3

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