Alberta Hansard — 25 April 1985, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 20, Session 3)

19850425

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

April 25, 1985 ALBERTA HANSARD 605 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Thursday, April 25, 1985 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, as Acting Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs, it is my honour today to introduce to you and to members of the Assembly a distinguished visitor in your gallery, His Excellency Kiyoaki Kikuchi, the Japanese Ambassador to Canada.

Although the Ambassador assumed his post in Canada some four months ago, he is no stranger to this country in that he first visited Canada in 1950, some three and a half decades ago, and he has been in this country on many regular occasions since that time. Accompanying the Ambassador today is the Consul General of Japan to the province of Alberta, Mr. Mamoru Funakoshi.

We're very pleased to note the interest that the Ambas sador has expressed in further economic relations between Japan and Canada, and, of course, we in Alberta have been increasingly aware in recent years of the significance of our relations with Japan. Well known is our special affiliation with the prefecture of Hokkaido, which began in 1972. There've been some 300 missions and exchanges between the province of Alberta and Hokkaido since that time.

We'd like to extend our warmest welcome to His Excellency and look forward to our association in the years to come as we work to further developing our very important relation ship with Japan. I ask that you all join me in the Assembly and give Ambassador Kikuchi a very warm welcome at this time. MRS. LeMESSURIER: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to introduce to you and to members of this Assembly three members from the cultural institute that is in the city of Edmonton. They are accompanied by Mr. Bob Griffin, the director of the institute, Mr.

Paul Schrijnen from Holland, and Eunice Shankland from the Philippines. Mr. Speaker, they are in your gallery. I ask that they rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. MR. LEE: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to introduce to you, and through you to my colleagues in the Assembly, a dynamic Alberta father-and-son team. Both pioneers, both entrepreneurs, together they direct the oldest company in the city of Calgary run by the same family in the same business. First, a resident of High River who is 75 years young but is raising bees and is well known for his contribution to the business community, Mr.

Frank Fallwell, Sr. Secondly, the general manager of the Billingsgate fish market in Calgary, the only federally inspected fish pro cessing plant in the entire province of Alberta, and the president-elect of the Alberta Food Processors Association and, I might add, the creator and founder of the buffalo fish. They're seated in the Speaker's gallery, and I might add, Mr. Speaker, it's junior on the left and senior on the right. I would ask members of the House to give them a warm welcome. head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 47 Special Forces Pension Plan Act MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill 47, the Special Forces Pension Plan Act. This being a money Bill, Her Honour the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, having been informed of the contents of this Bill, recommends the same to the Assembly. The purposes of this new Act, Mr. Speaker, are essentially to update and rewrite the legislation which has been in effect for seven years.

It has principles similar to the other four pension Acts which have been introduced, two which were passed by the Assembly last fall and two now on the Order Paper, in that it maintains all existing benefits, continues the government guarantee of them, clarifies the judicial powers of the pension boards and their role as appellate tribunals, and also provides an appeal route to the courts for pensioners on matters of law or jurisdiction. The unique parts of this pension Act relating to special forces are brought forward unchanged at this time from the way they've been set out over the past seven years.

However, an in-depth review of the actuarial situation, the recent Auditor General recommendations, contributions, and related matters has been commenced with respect to the relevant provisions of this Act and other related Acts. [Leave granted; Bill 47 read a first time] Bill 48 Members of the Legislative Assembly Pension Plan Act MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill 48, the Members of the Legislative Assembly Pension Plan Act.

This being a money Bill, Her Honour the Hon ourable the Lieutenant Governor, having been informed of the contents of this Bill, recommends the same to the Assembly. Mr. Speaker, this Bill is similar in principle to the new updatings contained in the other five pension Acts I've mentioned. It clarifies the various powers of the pension board, provides for an appeal procedure, and there's no change in benefits. [Leave granted; Bill 48 read a first time] Bill 58 Banff Centre Amendment Act, 1985 MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill 58, the Banff Centre Amendment Act, 1985. Mr.

Speaker, this amendment provides for similarity or parallel structure for the chairmen of the two boards, between the Banff Centre board and universities in the province, and provides specifically that the reappointment of a chairman can continue beyond the two-term period now prescribed in legislation. [Leave granted; Bill 58 read a first time]

606 ALBERTA HANSARD April 25, 1985 Bill 60 Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Amendment Act, 1985 DR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill 60, the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Amendment Act, 1985. This being a money Bill, Her Honour the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor has been informed of the contents of this Bill and recommends the same to the Assembly. Mr. Speaker, the Bill increases the limits payable from the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund for accidents occurring after January 1, 1986. [ Leave granted; Bill 60 read a first time] head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. M. MOORE: Mr.

Speaker, it is my pleasure this afternoon to introduce the president of the Alberta Gravel Truckers' Association, Mr. John Schettler. Mr. Schettler is here today meeting with me to discuss the completion of what he describes as the most successful winter works program ever undertaken by Alberta Transportation in co operation with the Alberta Gravel Truckers Association. Mr. Schettler is seated in the members' gallery. I would ask that he rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. MR. STEVENS: Mr.

Speaker, I have the privilege today to introduce to you, and through you to the members of the Assembly, a group of 10 students and their principal from a school in Banff-Cochrane that has just undergone a very serious circumstance. You may remember that on March 21 more than 120 students, their teachers, their principal, and their administration staff escaped unharmed from a fire which destroyed the Calgary Seventh-Day Adventist School which was located immediately west of the city of Calgary.

The story of their escape, the heroics of students and staff members, the battle of the city fire brigade, and the support of many neighbours on that cold morning has been told elsewhere. Principal Dallas Weiss advised me that although a few days of classes were lost, they have all been back to school in Calgary in temporary premises since April 1. They are pushing hard to finish their work. They hope to complete their school year on time.

They've asked me to extend a special thanks to Alberta Education and to the Minister of Education, who promptly provided assistance and made sure that the school books and equipment were replaced and that their curriculum guides and other materials were available. Mr. Speaker, 10 of the students are visiting today. The eleventh student, unfortunately, is in hospital today. These are 10 students from the grade 10 social studies class who, in fact, were in the vicinity of the fire breakout when it occurred and their principal. I wonder if they would rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. MR. KING: Mr.

Speaker, on behalf of my colleague the hon. Minister of International Trade, who is necessarily absent from the House this afternoon, I would like to introduce to you, and through you to members of the Assembly, 45 visitors from the Always Welcome seniors organization in Bonnie Doon, accompanied by the tour organizer, Mrs. Germaine Lehodey. I ask that they rise to receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. MR. GURNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce to you and through you to the other members here today, 12 students from the vocational skills program at Fairview College.

I think Fairview College is one of the really exciting educational institutions in this province, always coming up with new ideas and implementing them effectively. These 12 students are accompanied by their three instructors, Brenda Tosczak, Maggie Richardson, and Ken Rintoul. I had the bad news shortly before we gathered here to meet with them for a little while, and I had to share the fact that while it was cloudy and rainy in Edmonton the sun was shining, as it always does, in Fairview. They said that although they missed that, they're enjoying their time in Edmonton.

Many of them have visited the building before but haven't had the opportunity to see the Assembly sitting, so they're looking forward to their time with us this afternoon. I'd ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of the members. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Sunday Shopping MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the first question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Yesterday, in regard to consultations with municipalities, he asked me to read Hansard. We've done that and read the Blues, and we're still not sure of the answer.

So my question very specifically: did the minister sit down with municipalities and municipal organizations in this province and ask them directly what they would think of there not being one provincial law on Sunday shopping but rather the sort of proposal the government put forward yesterday? MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if I was standing up or sitting down when I discussed the matter with the president of the AUMA. I hope the Leader of the Opposition won't ask me to be definite on that particular point. However, what the Leader of the Opposition . . . DR. BUCK: Your arrogance is showing. MR.

KOZIAK: No, that's just a reflection off the bald spot on Mount Allan over there. Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. Leader of the Opposition knows full well that the Municipal Government Act now provides the authority for the regulation of hours of business within a municipality. There was never an intention to remove that authority. Were there to have been that intention, that would have been discussed with the associations. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question.

Is the minister saying that, after the Supreme Court struck down the Lord's Day Act yesterday, at this point there is really no change to municipal governments with the government announcement yesterday? Nothing has changed? MR. KOZIAK: What I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, is that the Municipal Government Act provides authority for muni cipalities in the province of Alberta to regulate the closing hours of retail establishments within the bounds of the municipality.

My colleague the Attorney General indicated yesterday that we would review the Municipal Government Act in light of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada and will be strengthening the provisions that now exist with respect to that authority.

April 25, 1985 ALBERTA HANSARD 607 MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, it's obvious from the answers that there wasn't much consultation. It's obvious by the press reports. AN HON. MEMBER: Question. MR. MARTIN: You'll get a question. You can ask a question too, if you like. A number of municipalities, including the city of Edmonton, are upset about being handed this hot potato. My question is: has the minister scheduled any sort of special meetings with municipal organizations to receive their views on the government's announcement yesterday? MR.

KOZIAK: There seems to be a considerable amount of confusion in the minds of the opposition, Mr. Speaker. There is no change. We have municipal legislation in the Municipal Government Act which provides authority for the municipalities to govern the hours of business within the municipality. Nothing that has been said relative to that has changed. The only thing we have said is that we are reviewing that legislation in light of the Supreme Court of Canada decision to make sure that there isn't a flaw in the current legislation, and we will be strengthening the level of penalties provided for in the legislation.

Unless certain people have finally found the Municipal Government Act and decided to look at the authority that's provided to them, I can't see how they can possibly be upset with a provision that has existed in that Act or its predecessors for decades. MR. MARTIN: It's this typical type of nonsense coming from this government . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. MARTIN: . . . people and municipal officials. The minister is well aware that the whole picture has changed. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR.

MARTIN: My question to the minister is simply this: before taking this step . . . [interjection] Petulant, yes, just a little bit. You would be too with those answers. Muni cipalities are too. Albertans are. Before taking this step, did the minister commission any study of the economic impact for various communities of a system where we could end up, for example, with different Sunday shopping rules in Stony Plain, St. Albert, Edmonton, or Sherwood Park? MR. KOZIAK: Mr.

Speaker, it's as if a spaceship has landed and the Leader of the Opposition has walked out to find out what the circumstances in the province are like today. He asks the question against a background of igno rance. He does not accept the fact that there are muni cipalities that have legislated in this area. He does not accept that. He does not accept the fact that there are cities that have legislated closing hours. He does not accept that, and he speaks today as if that didn't exist. It does exist. Your questions can't change the facts. MR.

MARTIN: That's obviously right until after the next election. [interjections] Look at them there, a bunch of little smart alecks. They know precisely what the people of Alberta think about them. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. There is no justification under any circumstances in this House for any member to call any other member or any other group of members ''smart alecks". DR. BUCK: Maybe "arrogant smart alecks". MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I'm not going to make an issue of it at the moment, but it certainly is not the sort of thing that can be allowed to go on. MR. MARTIN: I accept that, Mr.

Speaker, because I used the term "smart" rather loosely. My question to the minister is simply this: would the minister acknowledge that under the Lord's Day Act there was one law across the province dealing with Sunday shopping, that now has changed, and that is the difference? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. leader is simply dealing with questions of law. If he would like to deal with questions of fact, I'll be glad to recognize him for another supple mentary on this topic. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

He was saying the municipal Act was there, and I'm saying there has been a change, because the Lord's Day Act was changed. That's my question to the rninister. MR. SPEAKER: It's still a question of law, and the answer, I suggest, is really not . . . MR. MARTIN: On a point of order. I thought we had this debate where they had a ministerial announcement, that the Supreme Court yesterday had struck it down and it is no longer a matter of law. My question is to the minister. He is saying that the municipal Act has been there. Agreed. Nobody's questioning that, but I'm saying the circumstances are now changed.

I'm just asking if he acknowledges that fact? MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, I suspect we could probably reach a conclusion on this if the Leader of the Opposition would agree that what was struck down was a federal statute. By the way he phrases his questions, I think he presupposes that it may have been a provincial statute. It's a federal statute that was struck down. The provincial law dealing with the issue was what was and is still provided for in the Municipal Government Act. Then there was one other provincial law, the Alberta Lord's Day Act.

All the Alberta Lord's Day Act did was provide authority to muni cipalities to hold plebiscites on the issue of Sunday sporting and cultural events. That concept was municipality by municipality, knowing full well that the circumstances existing in one municipality may be different from the circumstances existing in another. That's the whole basis of local democracy, local government, that we live by. People in individual municipalities can determine what the circumstances in those municipalities are and act accordingly.

The province does not set the rules for all the municipalities, unless that's what the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting in terms of his party's position relative to local government. MR. MARTIN: I'd like to follow up with a question. Following the minister's logic, let's disband this provincial

608 ALBERTA HANSARD April 25, 1985 government and give all the power to the municipalities. Maybe we'll have some good government then. My question is to the Minister of Tourism and Small Business. Yesterday the minister said he had done no studies on the effect of open Sundays on small business. Given that this has been a matter of intense controversy at least in the last couple of years, can he outline to the Assembly why he deemed that not important enough to do? MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, two things. I didn't. He deemed that we did no studies.

I'm not sure how he worded that, but what I did say yesterday was that we have been working with a number of organizations, and individual businesses relative to the concerns, and the inference that we were not concerned about that is just not right. MR. MARTIN: If you've been working with them, what have you done about Sunday shopping and their complaints? MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, we have said to individual businesses collectively and individually that we were waiting for the results of the Supreme Court decision. It arrived yesterday. The Attorney General responded. MR.

MARTIN: Well, I'm sure they'll be pleased to know how you responded. My question to the minister is: has the minister brought his attention to any study which shows that wide-open Sunday shopping in fact increases unem ployment? MR. ADAIR: Was the question to me, Mr. Speaker? What was the question again? MR. MARTIN: Pay attention. Has his department brought to his attention any study which shows that wide-open Sunday shopping can lead to increased unemployment? MR. ADAIR: Mr.

Speaker, yesterday we made reference to the term "wide-open Sunday shopping." I haven't had any information given to me on this particular point relative to wide-open Sunday shopping. We've had discussions about openings and closings individually or collectively within a number of communities in the province of Alberta by businesses that were affected directly or indirectly. We've been working with them and, as I said yesterday, monitoring those particular kinds of problems that may be there for those particular businesses but not in relation to everybody open or everybody closed. MR. MARTIN: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I'll move on to the next set of questions, but I have a study . . . MR. SPEAKER: I thought we were on the second set. Kinetic Ecological Resource Group Ltd. MR. MARTIN: My second set of questions is to the Minister of the Environment. Could he confirm that nine separate charges were filed against Kinetic in Ontario today as a consequence of the Kenora spill? MR. SPEAKER: Let's not go through the newspapers and ask ministers to verify whether various newspaper reports are true. I'm sure the hon. Leader of the Opposition is as capable of reading the Ontario papers or our papers as the minister is.

It really is not within the minister's official duties to say whether he thinks those reports are right or not. MR. MARTIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, we're told by the government that we can never trust the papers, so I just wanted to confirm it. I have no way of knowing. The minister obviously knows. But I'll ask the Minister of the Environment this: has the minister asked his officials for any evaluation of the effect on the financial viability of Kinetic of defending itself against these charges and of paying for them should they be sustained? MR. BRADLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I think that type of ques tioning is really outside the mandate of my department, to make assessments of what certain court actions against private companies in the province would be. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question. That's rather an unusual answer given that the minister said his department has been in negotiations with this particular company about their line of credit. Is the minister saying then that their having to defend themselves against these charges will have no effect on the viability of this company in Alberta? MR. BRADLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I really have some difficulty with this line of questioning. The hon. leader is suggesting that certain aspects and things have been under negotiation with regard to a line of credit. I'm not sure where he would have gotten that information, and I don't believe the questions have any relevance. MR. MARTIN: Only you, Mr. Minister, would come to that conclusion. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Might this be the final supplementary on this topic. MR. MARTIN: That's one of the reasons we're in difficulty right now.

My question is: can the Minister of the Envi ronment confirm that Kinetic Ecological Resource Group Ltd. has 34 different credit claims filed against it in Alberta in Court of Queen's Bench? MR. SPEAKER: Surely ministers are not responsible for looking at what may or may not be before the courts in the province and then reporting on that to any citizen, such as the hon. Leader of the Opposition, who can go to the courthouse and find out for himself. MR. MARTIN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You're so anxious to intervene on this.

We've been having debates all week over their financial viability in this province, and we have government money tied into this company. We have the possibility of taking over 5,000 tons of hazardous waste. We have checked, and this is in fact the case. I'm asking the minister what he's going to do about it. MR. SPEAKER: That wasn't the question. The hon. member was dealing with whether or not this was a fact. Let's not be shifting ground in order to escape the point of order. If there is a question with what is before the courts in the matter of litigation, it's equally open to the hon.

Leader of the Opposition to get that information from the courts as it is for any other citizen. It's not a fit topic to take up the time of the House in the question period.

April 25, 1985 ALBERTA HANSARD 609 MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, again rather an unusual inter vention. But let me put it this way. Has the minister directed his officials to review these claims, as part of the review of the financial viability of the company? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, again the hon. leader refers to a review of the financial viability of the company. I'm not sure of the relevance of that in terms of anything which my department officials have been involved in. MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the final supplementary on this question. MR.

MARTIN: The minister has said that he has 5,000 tons of hazardous waste. We have the example of D & D, who have gone bankrupt. Does the minister not think that the financial viability of Kinetic is something he should be directly concerned about? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, I think I have described in the House the requirements which the department has of the specific company which is in operation in the province in terms of what mechanisms we're asking be put in place. That's on public record. Radioactive Wastes DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the Minister of the Environment.

This has to do with the transportation of radioactive wastes from the University of Alberta to their storage site. What involvement does the Department of the Environment have in monitoring the movement of radioactive wastes from the University of Alberta to their disposal site at Ellerslie? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that radioactive wastes are under the jurisdiction of the atomic energy commission of Canada.

There are lower level radio active wastes which I believe are in the Department of Workers' Health, Safety and Compensation under the radia tion protection branch, but I believe the specifics are a federal responsibility of Atomic Energy of Canada. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transportation. Can the minister indicate what involvement the Department of Transportation has in monitoring the movement of these hazardous wastes through the city of Edmonton to the storage site? MR. M. MOORE: The Department of Transportation has no involvement in the monitoring of those wastes, Mr.

Speaker, but Alberta Disaster Services, in working with the municipalities, does a considerable amount of monitoring of the movement of hazardous goods. When the recently made public regulations for the transportation of dangerous goods are passed and put into effect, probably about the end of this year as I indicated earlier, Alberta Disaster Services, through the transportation of dangerous goods section, will have a considerable amount of control and policing, if you like, of the transportation of the kind of goods the hon. member refers to. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of the Environ ment.

Does the Department of the Environment do any monitoring of the storage and disposal site at Ellerslie to make sure there is no leakage or contamination of the air or the water? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, I believe that's the respon sibility of the federal atomic energy commission. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, to the minister. When the material is broken down and discharged into the air — is the minister now telling me that is not the responsibility of the Department of the Environment of Alberta? MR. BRADLEY: With regard to the specific substance, Mr.

Speaker, as I understand, it is not within the respon sibility of the Department of the Environment of Alberta. It's a federal Atomic Energy responsibility. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, to the minister. When the material is broken down and then discharged, surely the minister can't tell this Assembly that it's not the Department of the Environment's responsibility at that time to monitor the air and the water? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, the monitoring and regu lation of the specific substance, as I understand, in terms of these high level radioactive wastes, is under the juris diction of Atomic Energy of Canada. DR.

BUCK: Mr. Speaker, to the minister responsible for workers' health. Can the minister indicate what involvement the minister's department has in ensuring that the safety of the workers that transport this hazardous material is being looked after? MR. DIACHUK: In response to the supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, the department of occupational health and safety provides a support role, because as my colleague the Minister of the Environment indicated, the transportation, disposal, and overseeing of the radioactive material comes under the Atomic Energy Control Board.

May I add that we've had excellent co-operation, and the Atomic Energy Control Board people welcome the expertise and the support that occupational health and safety provides. Alternative Fuels MR. MUSGROVE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. Has the minister taken any steps toward the promotion of compressed natural gas as a primary fuel in vehicles? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The approach of this government with respect to the use of alternative fuels to gasoline, such as compressed natural gas or propane, has been an initiative based upon providing information to the public; an educational approach, if you will, which we have done, for example, by way of information to fleet operators as to the economics of compressed natural gas and propane as alternative fuels. That has been the overall philosophical thrust.

The view of this government has been that the final decision should be made by the consumer, based upon the economics as they assess them rather than, for example, getting involved in subsidies to particular fuels. So it's been, on the one hand, a matter of providing information to the public and, on the other hand, at the same time, allowing the public to make their judgments about which fuel they feel is most appropriate for their own vehicle.

610 ALBERTA HANSARD April 25, 1985 I should add, Mr. Speaker, that

whereas in some other jurisdictions they have, for example, removed the sales tax for CNG-powered vehicles or a road tax, we're not in the position of being able to do that in the province of Alberta. We don't have any of those taxes. Finally, Mr. Speaker, on a governmental basis I have been involved with a number of my colleagues in cabinet with particular responsibilities in this area, in discussing how we as a government might take some specific initiatives with respect to CNG utilization.

For example, the Minister of Utilities and Telecommuni cations may wish to comment on a project that's been undertaken by Alberta Government Telephones in that regard. MR. MUSGROVE: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has there been any promotion to manufacture vehicles that burn only compressed natural gas, given that this would take away a lot of the extra costs and that nowadays there are enough refueling stations in Alberta that there would be no problem for the person driving a vehicle that burned only compressed natural gas? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr.

Speaker, that's a useful suggestion, which we'll certainly take under advisement. A decision by a commercial automobile manufacturer would naturally be based upon the overall economics. Certainly, you would have to have a considerable run of vehicles. I wouldn't cite any specific numbers, but it would be in the range of thousands of vehicles on a particular run to make it eco nomical as far as the production is concerned. It would be crucial, of course, to ensure that there were adequate fueling facilities available throughout Canada and, in this instance, in Alberta.

In that respect the federal government has been involved with a program whereby new fueling stations are provided a $50,000 grant. I should add that a good portion of the funding for that program comes about through the market development incentive program which Alberta has been supporting in the past few years. Certainly, that has proven to be useful and to provide a potential for mass manufacture of CNG-powered vehicles. MR. HYLAND: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Public Works, Supply and Services.

As the operator of probably the largest fleet of vehicles in Alberta, has the minister a pilot project in place or plans for a pilot project to burn some of our natural gas in some of our government vehicles? MR. CHAMBERS: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should first correct an impression. While Public Works, Supply and Services does operate some vehicles, we primarily provide vehicles as a service to other departments. Over the past couple of years we have examined the economics of utilizing either natural gas or propane.

It did appear that the economics for fleet use of these products could be quite favourable in normal, commercial fleets. However, the government of Alberta doesn't pay federal tax; therefore, the economics tend to be more favourable for gasoline, certainly with the size of the fleets that we're operating. Dollar Dealers MR. NELSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Housing. Last Friday a master in chambers in Calgary gave an oral judgment to the effect that Alberta Mortgage and Housing Corporation couldn't collect money it lost as a result of a woman selling her home.

Is the minister familiar with this decision, and will Alberta Mort gage and Housing Corporation now re-examine the manner in which it deals with these particular cases? MR. SHABEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the matter referred to by the hon. Member for Calgary McCall. The policy of the Alberta Mortgage and Housing Corporation has not been reviewed subsequent to that decision, because in the normal course of events of matters before the courts the matter will go to the Court of Queen's Bench.

It wouldn't be appropriate for me to discuss the details of the matter before the courts, but consideration of a change in policy wouldn't occur until the normal course of events takes place. MR. NELSON: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. Could the minister now stop or at least slow further actions against many who are victims of licensed professionals who have placed these people in jeopardy by selling these victims' homes on their behalf? MR. SHABEN: Mr.

Speaker, perhaps it would be useful to provide the hon. member and all hon. members some information on the procedures being followed by the Alberta Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The corporation clearly does not pursue individuals for deficiency judgments where they have lost their homes on account of an inability to meet their mortgage payments. I'd like to make that clear to the hon. member. We've established a review process, and under that review process where individuals have lost their homes on account of an inability to meet their obli gations, they are not being pursued. However, Mr.

Speaker, there are cases where statements of claim have been filed against individuals who have benefitted as a result of failing to meet their obligations on their mortgage. Those are also subject to review. I think it might be useful to know that the dollar dealers or the scam operators, who operate in a variety of ways, have been skillful in managing to acquire properties by having vendors sign blank transfers, and then those transfers, for a dollar, are subsequently signed by an ultimate purchaser who rents the property and doesn't make any mortgage payments.

Those cases seem to have been on the increase in recent times, and it is difficult for the corporation to deal with these matters other than to file statements of claim. One of the results of the corporation's pursuing scam dealers has become evident to me in the first three months of this year. In examining the initial statements of claim that have been filed in the courts, about 12 percent of them involve Alberta Mortgage and Housing Corporation prop erties,

whereas final orders had been running at 20 to 30 percent of the foreclosed properties which were Alberta Mortgage and Housing properties. The conclusion we have drawn is that our efforts at trying to stop the scam dealers has been effective to a certain extent in reducing their activities. The tragedy of the activities of the dollar dealers, Mr. Speaker, is that it impacts on the vast majority of home owners who meet their obligations. Most homeowners pay their mortgage payments.

The impact of people who either deal with dollar dealers or are victimized by them, forces many properties on the market at reduced prices that drive down the values of the neighbouring properties and hurt the huge majority of people who would like to live in their

April 25, 1985 ALBERTA HANSARD 611 homes and meet their obligations. That's the difficult balance we have in the present circumstances. We recently made a decision not to market foreclosed houses in order that it doesn't further drive down the housing market. CMHC made a similar decision, and we believe other lenders have made similar decisions. There is evidence now that the housing market is recovering, and that con fidence is being evidenced in improved house sales and stronger selling prices.

It is a difficult situation, and the early statistics of statements of claim being filed for April and final orders for the first two weeks of April lead me to some confidence in that the worst of the present situation is behind us. But I'd like to have some further time to assess it before concluding that the matter has eased for homeowners. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spirit River-Fair- view, and then the hon. minister responsible for Public Affairs has some further information on a topic previously raised. Kinetic Ecological Resource Group Ltd. (continued) MR. GURNETT: Mr.

Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. After our little journey into the area of radioactivity, I'd like to return and ask a question about our old friend, PCBs, and follow up on the test results the minister tabled here yesterday. I notice that the results are all for levels in surface water. I'd like to know, given the results that the Official Opposition made public and that the minister's department obtained in 1983, which were of ditch soil samples, whether or not there were soil samples taken as well. MR. BRADLEY: Mr.

Speaker, yesterday I tabled the results of all the sampling the department took on Sunday. MR. GURNETT: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister asked his departmental officials for any study or assessment of whether the PCB levels of 3.4 parts per billion that were found in the ditch by the Kinetic facility, as compared to the .05 parts per billion that was found in surface water downstream, means that either the soil at the site is highly contaminated with PCBs that have accumulated there or there is some sort of continual move ment of these materials into the surface water? MR. BRADLEY: Mr.

Speaker, the results would appear to be similar to those results we received in 1983. I haven't asked the department for a specific review of the differences between the two sampling dates, but looking at the sampling, my initial review would indicate it's similar to the earlier results found in the area. MR. GURNETT: A question to the minister, then. In view of the fact that we have results for only surface water tests at this time, would the minister undertake to have soil samples done so that instead of a surmise we know whether the situation with the soil is unchanged or is getting worse? MR. BRADLEY: Mr.

Speaker, there has been ongoing groundwater monitoring over a period of time. The depart ment has been inspecting the site on a regular basis. If the department indicates that in terms of their enforcement measures with that specific site they feel that further samples are necessary, they will have them taken. MR. GURNETT: A supplementary question, then. The low levels of PCBs that were in the water both downstream and upstream seemed to be a reassurance to the minister earlier this week.

I wonder whether the officials of the department are doing any study of whether or not this situation indicates there is leakage from the Kinetic site that's seeping into the groundwater, into the water table, and accounts for the level being the same upstream as downstream. MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, ongoing groundwater mon itoring has been taking place at the Kinetic facility, and extremely low levels of PCBs have been found. In fact, the most recent samples, in September, would indicate that they are at or below the detection limit for those substances. MR. GURNETT: A final supplementary then, Mr.

Speaker, to the minister. The tabling of the results yesterday was helpful, and bit by bit the picture of PCBs in the area is being filled in. I wonder whether the minister would under take to table all results of soil, surface water, or groundwater sampling received since the sampling program began. MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd certainly undertake to table all the results the department has of its sampling programs.

I think it should be put on the record, too, that in terms of PCBs and their use in the environment, it is considered, and the regulations that are in place in the country and in other jurisdictions indicate, that levels of less than five parts per million are not considered to be a hazard. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question with regard to the tabling yesterday. Could the minister indicate the location of the sampling site as indicated by this document? Is the No. 7 ditch at the Nisku PCB storage site within the property fence of Kinetic, or is that ditch outside or surrounding the property?

MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, it is outside the property. MR. R. SPEAKER: A supplementary question. Could the minister indicate whether samples were taken on the site of the property inside the fence to see whether the PCB level was comparable to that found outside the fenced area? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, in all the results of the department's samples that were taken, the requirement for sampling was to look in terms of the rivercourses in the area to see what would be in the rivercourses, particularly Blackmud and Whitemud creeks, to see if there was any effect downstream.

That was the specific in terms of the actions on Sunday. Samplings were not taken within the Kinetic site. There was a report done in February of '83, I believe, which outlined some very detailed sampling both inside and outside the Kinetic compound. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Could the minister indicate the seriousness of the level of PCBs that was found in the soil. The document here indicates 3.4 — whatever that unit is — per litre. Could the minister indicate whether that is considered a serious level of PCBs or not?

Is it comparable to the .05 found in the water of nearby Blackmud and Whitemud? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, I can respond to the hon. member in terms of the regulations in place in the country.

612 ALBERTA HANSARD April 25, 1985 Canada's regulations are such that PCBs in levels of less than five parts per million are not considered to be in any way a problem. The regulations of the state of California, which has some of the strictest regulations in the country, state that: All retrievable liquids . . . with greater than 7 ppm PCB shall be recovered and managed as hazardous waste . . . So in terms of a spill in California, levels of less than seven parts per million PCBs would not require any meas ures.

It also says that: All contaminated solids (e.g., soil, rags, absorbent, and vegetation) with greater than 50 ppm PCB shall be recovered and managed . . . Their action level with regard to PCBs in the environment is greater than 50 parts per million for spills, and I mentioned what their action level was with regard to liquids. The levels found are much lower in terms of those action levels which other jurisdictions have and which we have in place in the province. MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the final supplementary on this. MR. GURNETT: A supplementary to the minister, Mr. Speaker.

We've heard some opinions about the level that is dangerous or not dangerous, and there are opinions that would be counter to that. My question to the minister is whether or not he will have his department officials undertake soil testing as well as surface water testing at the site and whether or not he will be tabling the results of all sampling that has happened at the site since sampling began. MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, I've already undertaken to provide the results of all the sampling. I've also indicated to the House that if the department feels that further sampling is necessary, it will take that action.

In terms of the levels that have been found and the regulations that are in place, I think I've indicated that they are significantly lower — at very low levels — at which anyone would have any concern in terms of a spill or a cleanup of such levels of these substances in the environment. They are extremely low. I'll have the department make an assessment of whether they feel any further testing is necessary at this time. MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps we could come back to this topic if there's time, but we're running out of time.

I've recognized the hon. minister responsible for Public Affairs, and I'd like to recognize the hon. Member for Edmonton Belmont for his first question. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The supplementary I was going to ask was clarification of a term just used by the minister: "feeling" something should be done. I don't know how governments decide when they should do something because they "feel" like it. I wondered whether there were criteria in place to determine when you "feel" like finding serious hazardous wastes like PCBs.

To me that question couldn't be asked tomorrow, because by then we may "feel" a little differently. It's unfortunate to see the government running on feelings rather than on logic. MR. SPEAKER: I have a feeling that the clock is proceeding inexorably, and I really would like to . . . MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should just sup plement that and say that if in the judgment of the officials it is necessary to do further sampling, they will undertake to do it. MR. MARTIN: Depending on how they feel. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister responsible for Public Affairs. [interjection] Sorry.

We're running out of time, and the hon. minister has asked to be recognized, and also the hon. Member for Edmonton Belmont. I have a feeling that we may be able to come back to this topic tomorrow. Government Telephone Number Changes MR. PAYNE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to share an additional feeling, and that's in response to questions directed to me earlier this week by the Member for Lethbridge West regarding the recent change of the telephone number prefix of the government telephone system in the Lethbridge area. I'd like to provide some additional information.

As the member may be aware, we've been seeking for some months to improve the response time to calls on the RITE lines in the Lethbridge area. In order to change to improved digital switching equipment, a new prefix had to be adopted. We're now proceeding to install upgraded equipment and significantly speed up the time required to answer and connect calls. That equipment change is sched uled for early June. As well, Mr.

Speaker, if I may, in response to his question whether I'd commit to placing sufficient or addi tional advertising to inform southwestern Albertans of the phone number change, during the week of April 22 this one-quarter page advertisement, as the member may be aware, appeared twice in the Lethbridge Herald as well as in some local community newspapers. In addition, as men tioned in the House, Alberta Government Telephone oper ators are informing people who dial the old phone number of the change and the new number.

I have reason to believe that local media coverage in the area has added to awareness of that prefix change. We've had an official down there in recent days mon itoring the development. Our best information is that while there's been some individual and isolated resistance or reaction to the change, most citizens seem to be aware of the need for the change and are tolerating what we hope will be a very brief inconvenience.

Of course, we will continue to monitor the situation, and if before August, when the new AGT telephone directories are distributed, a reminder message is required, we will be more than prepared to place an additional advertisement. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Sunday Shopping (continued) MR. SZWENDER: Mr. Speaker, I hope my question will still be relevant even though most of the media have left. My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and follows earlier attempts at questioning regarding the Munic ipal Government Act and local bylaws restricting the hours of business.

Could the minister indicate whether he or his department has done any assessment on the effectiveness of bylaws in those municipalities which currently have local bylaws restricting hours of business? MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, I don't have a scientific assessment, though I am aware that certain of the muni

April 25, 1985 ALBERTA HANSARD 613 cipalities that have bylaws have not been enforcing them lately because of the challenge and the low-level fine pro vided for in the current Municipal Government Act. That is one of the reasons we'll be reviewing the Municipal Government Act relative to the level of fines that are permitted. Of course, with the Supreme Court of Canada decision, it will be important that bylaws municipal governments frame pursuant to the Municipal Government Act in fact take into account the decision the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously rendered. MR. SZWENDER: One supplemental, Mr. Speaker.

Could the Attorney General indicate whether he has had any representation from those municipalities with local bylaws restricting shopping requesting stricter penalties and what the request is? MR. CRAWFORD: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. It's possible that some formal or informal representation might have been received within the department, but none has come to my attention. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: Might we revert briefly to Introduction of Special Guests? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS (reversion) MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure today to introduce to you, and through you to the Assembly, 32 pioneers from the Drumheller constituency. They're actually from the Carbon, Morrin, and Munson areas. They are accompanied by their leaders Dale Hector and Ellen Sharp. I believe they're going to stay here overnight because it's still storming and snowing down in their country. They're going to do a little shopping in West Edmonton Mall and leave a little more money there like the last group did. I ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. They're seated in the public gallery. MR.

LEE: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of my seatmate the hon. Member for Lac La Biche-McMurray, it's my pleasure to introduce to you, and through you to members of this Assembly, 90 bright, spirited, and enthusiastic grade 10 students from the J.A. Williams high school in Lac La Biche. They're accompanied today by their teachers Mrs. Corinne Hedley, Bruce Adolf, and Paul Hawthorn. They are seated in the members' and public galleries. I ask them to stand and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr.

Speaker, just before Motions for Returns are called, perhaps I can move that Motion 137 stand and retain its place on the Order Paper. [Motion carried] head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 208. Moved by Mr. Paproski:

Be it resolved that the government continue its program initiatives in the area of job creation and training and that the Assembly urge the government to consider further ini tiatives in co-operation with both the private sector and the federal government in programs such as a year-round hire- a-student operation, entrepreneurship programs, native employment programs, tourism training, and others. The government is also urged to investigate the impact and opportunities of high technology on the work force and the workplace. MR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce Motion 208.

In leading off this debate and bringing this motion to the House, I am attempting to do three things, the first of which is to bring clarity to the vast number of initiatives this government and especially the Minister of Manpower have brought forward in the area of job creation and job training. These initiatives have created thousands of jobs and have trained thousands of Albertans. I might add that these many programs in place will extend to assist Albertans for many years to come.

I believe somewhere along the line, hon. members in the opposition, the socialists and those in the other party, must become aware of what the Progressive Conservative government is doing to help those unfortunate citizens who are unemployed. A second reason for bringing this motion forward, Mr. Speaker, is to provide ideas and suggestions to help create more employment opportunities for Albertans.

It has been said by the Premier, the Minister of Manpower, in the Speech from the Throne, in the budget, and by many hon. members that there must be extensive initiatives by the private sector to create opportunities for work. Our government definitely believes in this philosophy and direc tion. In addition, however, it has been stressed that in this federation called Canada, the Ottawa government must also show leadership in solving our present and future unem ployment woes, not alone but in concert with provincial and local governments, business, industry, and labour.

A final reason for bringing this resolution forward, Mr. Speaker, is to star, to flag a major area of change in our society that has impacted on many citizens, workers, and employers. That is the impact of high technology on the work force and workplace. With technological advances came many positives. Unfortunately, many negatives have resulted as well. This third area alone is so extensive that this member contemplated placing a separate motion on the Order Paper.

Perhaps this may be done in the future, but I felt that all these areas are so intertwined and interconnected that one resolution might suffice at this particular time. Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to broach a subject of such magnitude in a short period of time, but I will attempt to do so.

Elected members of all political stripes, of all political parties, and at all three levels of government have had to struggle with the seriousness of unemployment — its sta tistics, its impact on the human condition, its impact on all of Canada, and its impact on the citizens of Alberta and indeed the citizens of the entire country. The issue is likened to an octopus with its tentacles extending in all directions of life. The present scenario was not in anyone's master plan. It was not intended; it is not liked by any member in this House. But it is a reality that many — young and

614 ALBERTA HANSARD April 25, 1985 old, skilled and unskilled, professional and nonprofessional, men and women — are experiencing unemployment. It is nonsense to bury our heads in the sand and simply weep about this problem, Mr. Speaker. It is nonsense not to strive to alleviate this condition for citizens. It is nonsense to blame this group or this body or this segment of society or this segment of elected officials. It's nonsense because we have to move to rectify it, to change the employment picture, to create jobs, to stimulate the creation of jobs, and to establish a positive environment for business growth.

But whose task is it? I believe every citizen has a role to play in this area. Mr. Speaker, your government has taken extensive new initiatives to create employment, to stimulate job creation, and to help Albertans retrain themselves. These initiatives do not force people into employment, but they provide assistance to those who want to hire, to work, to retrain, to be employed once more. I believe the vast number of initiatives announced by the Minister of Manpower over the last few months do just that. Mr. Speaker, let's look at some of the government initiatives in the last few months.

The Alberta wage subsidy program creates new job opportunities in the private sector. Wages are cost-shared up to a maximum of $2.50 per hour for full-time employment. A total of 45,000 positions will be funded out of a budget of $90 million over the next three years. Up to March 15, 1985, 18,318 employees have been working because of this program. The summer temporary employment program provides full-time job opportunities during the summer months in the provincial government, in nonprofit organizations, or on farms.

Wages are up to $5.50 per hour for government employees or $3.80 for those working in the private sector, with the employer's assistance. A total of $60 million has been expended in this area and will be up to 1987. It is predicted that a total of 30,595 positions will be funded. Up to November 16, 1984, 10,140 citizens of this province were employed under this program. The priority employment program provides temporary job opportunities during the winter months. Wages paid to provincial government departments are $5.50 per hour, other employees are subsidized at $3.80 per hour.

A total of 8,600 positions will be funded out of a budget of $39.5 million over the next three years. Up to March 15, 1985, 4,078 Albertans have been employed under this particular program. The Alberta environment employment program supports environment projects of municipalities, nonprofit community associations, and provincial government departments. Mr. Speaker, $14 million has been allocated to this program for the next three fiscal years. A total of 1,800 positions will be funded. Up to March 15, 580 citizens have been employed under this program.

The employment skills program provides work experience and skill upgrading within provincial government departments for people receiving social assistance. Mr. Speaker, $5.50 per hour again; a total of $10.5 million will be expended over the next three fiscal years; 2,440 citizens will be funded. Up to this point, 711 citizens of the province are employed because of this unique program. Mr.

Speaker, there are so many others: the special placement work experience program; the Quebec/Alberta student employment exchange program; the Alberta youth employment and training program, designed to assist young Albertans to establish careers through career guidance, work experience, and training, effective from November 1, 1984, through March 31, 1987. A total of $123.2 million will be expended over the next three fiscal years. A total of 16,140 Albertans will benefit. To this point 1,761 citizens of the province have benefitted from this program.

The Alberta training program is a training incentive program to assist Albertans in upgrading and developing their job skills. A total of $38 million has been allocated in this program. A total of 14,000 individuals will receive training, and up to March 15, 8,309 citizens have benefitted. Mr. Speaker, the opportunity corps program could be discussed. The whole area of private vocational schools that are funded extensively by our government have assisted over 2,937 students to obtain employment through private schools funded to a great extent by the Department of Manpower. Mr.

Speaker, one final program is the hire-a-student program. This Alberta hire-a-student program is a co-oper ative activity sponsored by the federal and provincial governments and by business, community, and student groups concerned with the placement of students in summer jobs. Last year in this province, through this one program, over 32,000 students were placed in the world of work because of the hire-a-student initiative. That is a difference from 1980, for example, where 24,000 students were placed. Just a super program.

Of course, I could also talk at length about the employment counselling and relocation services of the Department of Manpower that have assisted people to move from one end of this province to the other to obtain employment. Mr. Speaker, Challenge '85 is a joint federal/provincial program aimed at providing 16,500 summer jobs for Alberta students. In addition, it is very encouraging to see that our federal counterparts are increasing their investment in job creation and employment in Alberta. I am sure all hon. members will agree that this is quite a record that I have just listed in this Assembly. Mr.

Speaker, let's not forget other major initiatives of this government that have provided impetus to employers to start and expand business, to hire, and to improve our employment rates. Extensive efforts by the Minister of International Trade to market our goods and services through out this world have helped create thousands of jobs. Vencap Equities Alberta Ltd. has stimulated new work opportunities. The Alberta small business equity corporation has provided large pools of funds to initiate new projects, new work, new jobs.

The Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research supports more than 1,000 scientists with grants from the earnings on the $300 million endowment it was given in 1979. The Alberta Research Council, the Farming for the Future program, the Alberta Opportunity Company, the Electronics Test Centre in Edmonton, the new initiatives in high technology recently announced by the Minister of Economic Development, and the recently announced LRT electronics initiatives are all providing tremendous numbers of opportunities for Albertans to work. Mr.

Speaker, the House should remember that in addition to a sampling of some of the programs I've just listed, our government has taken the initiative of allocating close to $2 billion this fiscal year for capital projects. That is close to $2,000 million. Everyone knows the vast number of occupations, the vast number of jobs these funds will generate, but we can do more and I'm sure we will do more. But we need extensive new initiatives by our federal counterparts.

The Ottawa and Alberta governments need to work more closely so that each province is not competing with another and there is not extensive overlap and dupli

April 25, 1985 ALBERTA HANSARD 615 cation. I believe the federal government should start stepping forward on their own with some new directions and sug gestions. One area that simply must be emphasized is the current growth in the service sector in this country. The Conference Board of Canada recently stated that more than 70 percent of Canadians who work have jobs in the service industry. One component of this sector that requires more initiative is the tourism industry.

I am encouraged that the federal government has finally appointed a minister totally respon sible for tourism, an industry that it has been predicted will be involved with $1 trillion by the year 2000. The recent Alberta budget stressed a tripling in tourism related areas. That is simply great, Mr. Speaker. The jobs are there and should be more plentiful in the future. I urge the government to pursue this area with even more vigor, to co-ordinate in a better fashion the entire industry with those directly involved in the industry.

I would further suggest the estab lishment of a unique training institute in this province to complement the present excellent training facilities, so Alberta will become known as the leader in Canada in training the thousands that could benefit from jobs in this vast, growing industry. The second suggestion pertains to the hire-a-student program. This program has been important to me for many years in that at one time I was involved as a member of the board of directors of the Edmonton hire-a-student society. It is time, Mr.

Speaker, to open a full-time hire-a-student office in at least the two major urban centres in Alberta, Edmonton and Calgary. Employers would benefit from this initiative by knowing they have a constant contact if they require young people for work. Students would benefit greatly from the knowledge that there would be one location all year round that they could depend on to be a filtering point for jobs that may come for the asking. Many, many postsecondary students throughout Alberta are employed in part or full part-time employment while they're studying.

Many secondary students, as well, are employed or are looking for work. This idea, then, of an all-year hire-a- student program would indeed assist those students. A third initiative that I believe would create more employment is the development of entrepreneurship pro grams. The man or woman with desire, an idea, a plan, with the guts to jump into the world of work on their own to manufacture a product, market a product, or offer a service is growing more in this province. A number of initiatives can be taken here. First of all, many entrepreneurs are successful in developing their plan of action.

They proceed on their own initiative. They gather their own finances and they are successful. Bravo to this group. They are growing in numbers; there is no question of that. But more could be done for a minimal outlay of capital to help those starting out. Unfortunately, many entrepreneurs do not succeed. They fail due to the lack of some basic skills in business acumen or finances. I note with interest that some postsecondary schools in the province offer entrepreneurial skill courses. These are great for citizens on-campus.

But I would like to share the idea presented to me by a constituent, a businessman, and a close friend by the name of Dirk Hiel — an idea he has seen work in Europe, where he was born and educated, and seen through other areas of this country. That idea is that postsecondary institutions be approached to have their graduate students or students in various programs offer their know-how, education, and ideas to the budding entrepreneur.

Surely an arrangement could be worked out with the various postsecondary institutions to provide those off-campus entrepreneurs with direct assist ance in how to deal with lending institutions, how to apply for a loan, how to budget, how to bookkeep, how to set up proper accounting procedures, how to best market their goods or services. Perhaps a small, token fee for service could be arranged. I urge the Minister of Manpower to work conjointly with the Minister of Tourism and Small Business and the Minister of Advanced Education to attempt to see this idea implemented.

Another area I'd like to suggest is entrepreneurial pro grams sponsored by the provincial government, where cit izens who have an idea, a plan, and the drive but don't have enough funds could receive a start-up allowance. Just two days ago in the House the Minister of Tourism and Small Business mentioned the student loan program. Students are slowly approaching his department and taking up this assistance. That program is an excellent one but, I believe, should be taken one step forward, be formalized and put to work for budding entrepreneurs.

I am not talking about the investment of tens of thousands of dollars per individual. I am referring to the man or woman who has scraped up $2,000 but needs double that amount to get an idea moving along, to get a business rolling — a business that could blossom and employ more people, take people off social assistance and UIC, and give these individuals needed inde pendence and needed income. Ontario, Nova Scotia, and other provinces have such programs.

Let me quote, for example, from a publication by the Ontario government on their entrepreneurial program entitled Youth Enterprise: Youth Enterprise offers young risk-takers the advice and financial backing they need to get new businesses off the ground. This Ontario government program brings together the expertise and resources of bankers, business groups and government to develop entrepreneurial talent for tomorrow. New businesses not only create jobs for their owners but also for their employees. And small business is the leading job producer in Canada.

Already, more than half of new businesses in Ontario are started by people under the age of 30. So an investment in Youth Enterprise both promotes young careers and helps create economic prosperity lor Ontario. The program supplies the venture capital. The young entrepreneur supplies the hard work, imagination and commitment. It's a winning combination. How does this program work, Mr. Speaker? Youth Enterprise is operated locally through the Royal Bank of Canada and the Ontario Chamber of Commerce.

They promote the program, advise young entrepreneurs, review and assess loan applications, make recommendations for loan approvals and monitor approved businesses. Under Youth Enterprise, the capital flows in two streams: 1. Youth Venture Capital which offers interest-free loans of up to $5,000 to help young people out of school start a year-round business, and 2. Student Venture Capital which offers interest-free loans of up to $2,000 to help students — who will be returning to school — launch a summer business. Mr. Speaker, it's a suggestion. I think it will work.

I urge the Minister of Manpower and the Minister of Tourism

616 ALBERTA HANSARD April 25, 1985 and Small Business to consider the implementation of such a program in this province. A final area I'd like to discuss pertains to improved initiatives in native employment programs. All members are aware that Indian, Inuit, and Metis people experience the highest rates of unemployment in this country. I looked with interest at a new publication from Alberta Native Affairs entitled A Guide to Native Business, a publication that shows a growing number of native-owned and native- operated enterprises. I also looked at a report of the Native Venture Capital Co.

Ltd. presented to its shareholders in March this year. Mr. Speaker, funding was approved for 11 new businesses and 51 full-time jobs. These figures are somewhat encouraging, but could we expand our initiatives in this area? How much do we do to stimulate knowledge of this fund's availability? I suggest that there is a need for improved methods of communication throughout the province to advise natives of the exciting initiatives in the Native Venture Capital Co. It is my belief that improved consultation is in order.

Extensive communication must be maintained with our federal coun terparts, especially in the case of small communities in areas remote from the main urban centres. The federal and provincial governments must continue with extensive out reach programs. With respect to Indian, Metis, and Inuit who move to cities, programs and organizations must be maintained and adequately funded to help train, retrain, and provide career guidance to our native population.

It is my suggestion as well that there should be a concerted effort to train more native teachers, counsellors, and teacher aides for high schools, community colleges, and universities where there is a high native enrollment. I urge the Minister of Manpower to work conjointly with the Minister responsible for Native Affairs and the Minister of Economic Development to review training and employment programs in existence and obtain feedback from our native population with respect to new initiatives that are required and would be beneficial to them.

I also ask the minister to move on a recommendation from the report of the MacEwan joint Metis/government committee to review the Metis Betterment Act and regu lations. The recommendation on page 58 of this report indicates the following: It is recommended that the Departments of Economic Development, Agriculture, Tourism and Small Business, and Manpower undertake a comprehensive review of the economic development opportunities on and related to Metis settlements.

The Metis Development Branch of the Department of Municipal Affairs has initialed some creative opportunities in the areas of forestry development and small business but clearly it has neither the resources nor the mandate to undertake the kind of analysis that is required. I believe we should get on with that. I have now come to my last comments regarding the impact of high technology on the work force and the workplace in this province. Much has been written outlining that we are easing out of an industrial age and into an information age.

Much has been recorded about the upheavals that have occurred in our work force and our workplaces due to the advances in technology. Terms like microchip. Silicon Valley, informatics, and robotics are new and are here to stay. To quote from a report issued by the Economic Council of Canada, the persistent high rate of unemployment can no longer be attributed solely to the recession. Clearly other factors are at play, including a changing labour market, new and different employment opportunities, and a wealth of new technologies.

The report goes on: all sectors of the economy will likely be affected by technological change in the future, but it is extremely difficult to predict how and at what pace these new developments will be implemented. Mr. Speaker, fear, ignorance, and lack of understanding of what the future holds for us and future generations abound. I appeal to this Assembly to take a slow, long, cautious, and intelligent look at this area. Many citizens are waiting for a return to the late '70s, but will it ever come back?

There are scary predictions made by those more knowledgeable than I that by the year 2000, due in large extent to the proliferation of the new technologies, perhaps 40 percent of citizens of North America will be unemployed. That is scary, but thank goodness it is only one study. Everyone knows that some employees have already been displaced and more are predicted. It's true that new jobs are being created, but what of the upheaval of jobs, those citizens skilled in certain areas who see their jobs disappear? It's happening. Will it continue?

I ask members and the citizens of the province to answer that particular question. But how do we answer? It is my suggestion that we have a major study in Alberta initiated by this provincial government to investigate the positives and negatives of the new tech nologies on our work force and our workplace. I thank members for listening. I am optimistic for new initiatives. I look forward to the comments from hon. members entering the debate, and I ask for your support in passing this resolution. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. WOO: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by commending my colleague the hon.

Member for Edmonton Kingsway for bringing this motion to the floor, because I believe it is both timely and certainly a very important issue. I'd like to begin my remarks by referring to three specific items, because I think the contents of these items reflect the philosophy that has been talked about by the hon. Member for Edmonton Kingsway and certainly reflect the thoughts and remarks that I am going to make. The first one relates to a recent advertisement that appeared in the local newspapers.

It stems from the Westerra Institute of Technology and has reference to a new computer engineering technology course which is being offered by that institution. That in itself is significant, but more sig nificant, Mr. Speaker, are some of the statements that are made in conjunction with that advertisement.

First of all, the advertisement indicates that extensive market research has been done on this program with major firms which are leaders in the field of computer and electronics design, manufacturing, and service, and that this research has led to a completely new and unique combination of skills targeted by business and industry as the most sought after in employ ees. Further on it states that over $2.8 million in federal government skills growth funding has been received for initial development and delivery of the computer engineering technology program.

The second item I refer to comes from the publication Folio, which comes from the University of Alberta. It talks about a co-operative agreement between IBM of Canada and the University of Alberta. Under the recently negotiated three-year agreement announced on April 18, IBM will donate to the University more than $2.2 million in equipment, software and personnel, including more than 160 IBM Personal Computers. The Government of Alberta, through [the Minister of]

April 25, 1985 ALBERTA HANSARD 617 Advanced Education, will provide a cash contribution of $431,000 to be used for services in support of this project. The agreement will also provide a classroom/lab for students in the Faculty of Engineering to learn advanced computer skills for analysis and design. As part of the agreement, IBM will donate an IBM 4341 system, to be housed in the Department of Computing Services. The third item I refer to, Mr. Speaker, is also a publication from the University of Alberta, but it deals specifically with the faculty of business administration.

It identifies what is known as an advisory council and certainly gives an indi cation of the role of that particular council. The council in itself is made up of various substantive people from both the public and private sector. Amongst them are people like Mr. William S. McGregor, president and chief executive officer of Numac Oil; Sandy Mactaggart of Maclab Enter prises; Arnie Nielsen, president and CEO of Canadian Superior Oil; Mr. Chip Collins, our former deputy provincial treasurer; Donald Cormie; and Eric Geddes.

I would like to quote specifically from this publication in terms of some of the objectives, because I think they're relative to the debate that's taking place this afternoon: The Council is a select group of public and private sector leaders who are committed to the further strength ening of management programs at the University of Alberta. Their contribution to this end has been sub stantial.

The primary objective of the Council is to relate the Faculty and its programs more effectively to the chang ing needs of the management community by 1. providing feedback on the effectiveness of existing programs and advice on new programs and devel opments; 2. serving as a communications bridge between the Faculty and other sectors of the community; 3. assisting in identifying means by which the busi ness community can contribute to the strengthening of the Faculty of Business. In relation to these specific items, Mr.

Speaker, the suggestion that is left with me is that there is a need to broaden, to include in the area of job training and job creation a number of other relevant areas. They include the area of general education, universities, technical colleges, specialized industries, labour, students, the present work force in specific trades and professions, and certainly the private-sector entrepreneur. From their particular perspec tives all of these have a vested interest in how best to mount effective programs.

I think we must move from the tendency to examine the issue from a traditional government point of view, which has perhaps too often been narrow in concept. New knowledge, new information, and changing demands replace old initiatives and continually add new dimensions to how we interpret the necessary elements that will establish worthwhile and functional job creation as the objective of government programs.

An example that I believe is very important is the recent proclamation of equality provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which will bring a new focus not only on government programs but also directly on the workplace and employment practices as they relate to women, the physically disabled, minority groups, and Canada's aboriginal peoples. The interesting thing about this, Mr.

Speaker, is that it will be the courts, not governments, who will make the judgment and bring down decisions that will have far- reaching consequences for our economic and social well- being in relation to both work opportunities and employment practices in this province. It will ultimately be the respon sibility of the private sector to make adjustments to accom modate whatever those court decisions might be. The motion calls for a continuance of government program initiatives in the area of job creation and training, but with all due respect, Mr.

Speaker, I am often of the view that government should get out of job creation and redefine its role as a catalyst amongst those agencies that have a direct interest in job creation and job training. These include educational institutions, private-sector industry, and entre preneurs, who can perhaps do a better and much more relevant job. I suppose that sort of statement can generate any number of arguments. But I think one certainly has to look at the billions of dollars of public funds that have been injected into all sorts of job creation programs by all levels of government.

I am speaking about government programs initiated over the course of the last dozen years or so. At times I don't really believe the government track record in job creation is anything to crow about. Again, I must say that I firmly believe there must be a redirection of funds to the private sector. I think the only valid concern that leaves us as governments is to provide accountability as to how we expend those funds. Mr. Speaker, I believe judgment decisions are best made by those who must stand or fall by those decisions.

When it comes to job creation, long-term employment opportunities, job security, I think private-sector industry — whatever it might be — is best equipped to make those decisions, because they have a direct, vested interest in the labour force and their investment and survival depend upon it. If we look at the human resource needs of industry on a sectoral basis, we should have a greater appreciation, a recognition that government programs cannot be all-encom passing to the extent that essential labour requirements of private-sector enterprise can be adequately met.

If what I say is true, I believe we are only doing half a job. If we are indeed only doing half a job, perhaps we shouldn't be doing it at all. How much do we as government programmers know about the labour requirements of such areas as the energy and nonrenewable resources sector, the mining area, engi neering, the broad agricultural industry, forestry, tourism, manufacturing, the needs of science and technology, research and development, the international trade area, finance and law, business development, transportation and communica tions, and product design and marketing?

Each sector, quite naturally, looks to its own needs in terms of labour require ments, and that is as it should be. However, I believe governments must look at all these sector components as part of a totally integrated economic entity when we pose programs that will hopefully maintain a balance to avoid, as best possible, an oversupply or undersupply of trained workers in any given field. We profess to know a little something of everything, but at times I wonder if we really know something of anything? If we are to continue on that basis, it is apparent to me that the more we profess to learn the less we know.

I have said that government must redefine its role in job creation and training. Mr. Speaker, I believe that redefinition should consider the role of government in terms of innovational leadership in the development, funding, and monitoring not so much of job creation as of job training programs in co-operation with our learning institutions and industry. The process of job creation would more realistically

618 ALBERTA HANSARD April 25, 1985 require government to create an attractive economic climate that would attract investments, which will ultimately lead to a natural diversification of our present industrial base. Certainly, the consequence and incentive would then be there to encourage the development of brainpower and management expertise, new technical skills, new job classi fications, and new professions, and still leave a need for the more traditional occupations and trades.

We would have our own three major base strengths — the petroleum industry, agriculture, and our rich human resources — to give impetus to such an initiative. I believe we have the leadership in government, our learning institutions, and industry to give meaning to such new directions. Mr. Speaker, we tend to overlook a number of important considerations when we go about the business of developing job creation and job training programs. For one thing, I believe we will become increasingly dependent upon what happens in other countries in the world for the types of jobs we will undertake in the future.

Sectoral and global trade will certainly have a major impact, as will market demand and supply, changing needs in goods and services, the advance of technology, the introduction of new and innovative products, global climatic conditions, and geo political spheres of influence. All of these will have an effect on our future employment opportunities. I believe we as a government must develop the ability to forecast those changes.

We have very little control on external influences, and that requires us to ensure flexibility and a continuing review of what we do in establishing job training and job creation programs. Certainly, technically advanced nations will hold the higher profile job opportun ities, income, and standard of living. If we do not move with changes, the alternative is quite apparent. We will become work poor, because all we will have left is poor work.

A number of areas which I believe will require attention are those that train people not only through programs for existing jobs but also the types of programs we will utilize to train people for jobs which we can reasonably anticipate as future opportunities. This will again require some accurate forecasting and some degree of accuracy as to industrial needs and domestic and global economic initiatives. We must develop mobility in our work force, because a number of component jobs will not come to those who wait. This is particularly true in the case of training programs directed towards our native communities.

Mr. Speaker, another important thing we have to get out of is the smug attitude we as Canadians hold that causes us to reject out of hand those models and experiences which have been successful and which have been developed by foreign countries. I'd like to use Japan, which provides us a good example. I don't think we should reject out of hand models or experiences simply because they are Japanese. If there is a need to reject them, I think it should be on the basis that the principles involved have no application to our economic conditions.

We have talked of the need to retrain some of our existing labour force, and the hon. Member for Edmonton Kingsway mentioned it to some extent. One of the areas that we should be addressing is with respect to the illiteracy rate of some members of our existing labour force, who, through no fault of their own, have not had the opportunity to gain the types of literary skills that are necessary, and we should make the opportunity available and have them retrained. I think there's a need then to create a balance in terms of the trainable work force and those that we look upon as possibly difficult to retrain.

I had hoped to make a number of other remarks in relation to technology and its impact on the work force, Mr. Speaker, but in deference to other hon. members who wish to speak, I will simply conclude by saying this: I think that by way of precedent and practice we as governments have usurped that particular area which has generally been the purview of private-sector industry in defining the types of parameters, training programs, and job requirements which in turn are addressed by our learning institutions and government programs.

As a result of that, I believe future programs must address the concern of coming to grips with what amounts to an economic and social imperative: defining the role of human resources in the area of employment to and for the future of Albertans. Thank you. MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this important topic. By way of introductory remarks, I'd like to recognize many of the current initiatives that are being undertaken by the government, particularly the Department of Manpower.

We have the Alberta youth and training program, the Alberta wage sub sidy program, the priority employment program, the Alberta environment employment program, and the hire-a-student program, all of which have been elaborated on by previous speakers. I'd like to make two comments on the programs currently in existence. I think one difficulty, rather a specific one, is that there is going to be an increased responsibility falling upon government to monitor the application of some of the aid we're providing under these titles.

As many of these programs follow from year to year, quite often they become accepted and expected and have a rather deadening effect on the initiative and creativity that might be out there on the part of students and employers in terms of creating new jobs. I can't help but relate an experience I had recently, when the town council in a fairly large town was thinking about building a new public works building. They had the revenue available — in fact they had a rather healthy surplus — and had the men engaged and so on.

Members of the town council decided they could save some money if they could tap into some of these work programs. Consequently, the money was applied for and gained, and it did not in fact create any jobs that weren't already funded and planned for. That is just a caution I thought I would make about these programs that go on from year to year and become rather institutionalized. The second overall comment I'd like to make and what I want to address most of my remarks to is that we have to sit back and look at the whole job creation effort, because the times are changing.

We have to look at future trends, some trends that we see are definitely in place and others that are being speculated upon. As the future unfolds before us, we need to look at exactly what or who we can count on to create the jobs of the future, the particular areas of need within occupations and business enterprises, and the education and experience background that students need and that we need to look at initiating programs to provide. Mr.

Speaker, I think the term that's commonly used now is that we need to look at the structural changes that are taking place in our economy and how those are going to affect opportunities for entrepreneurship and employment. A rather extensive review of secondary education has recently taken place in the province. Much of the material, many

April 25, 1985 ALBERTA HANSARD 619 of the presentations made to that review have dealt directly with the whole area of occupational need in the future. Mr. Speaker, there are a few points I'd like to make, because they certainly bear upon what we're going to be able to do in a co-ordinated way among governments as far as job creation is concerned. It is predicted that 80 percent of new jobs between now and the year 2000 will be in small businesses which are not yet in existence.

There will be an increase in contract, short-term, and part-time relationships with respect to occupations — something we have to plan for. Skills and knowledge will be recognized as a marketable commodity in many new areas. As the previous speaker mentioned, the whole area of international and interprovincial activity is something that has to be looked at and the needs taken into consideration.

We have all heard and accept that the young people now in our schools and soon to be out in the world of work need above all to learn how to learn, to be attitudinally prepared to accept occupational change, and to be flexible in career planning and career acceptance.

In terms of relating a few of these examples, the final point I'd like to make is that although some people say we are going to have to prepare for a leisure society, the reality that is pointed out over and over again is that we are going to be facing a more competitive society in which quality performance in the occupation we're involved in is going to be more and more essential than ever before for Canadians.

I agree wholeheartedly with the previous speaker by stating that we as Canadians cannot afford any degree of smugness, if in fact that smugness exists, when it comes to looking at the quality that's going to have to be involved in the work we do in the future. In terms of reflecting back on the changes I've mentioned, there's one caution I would like to make; that is, as we're looking ahead to new job areas, new industries, and new occupations, we should not neglect the fact that the nature of work, the nature of the occupations of our traditional industries, is changing very rapidly as well.

We see that new skills, new approaches to agriculture, the energy indus try, the forestry industry, and tourism, are in place as well. As we run out of time, I'd like to try to just skip over or move very quickly through a number of points I had intended to make, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to deal with two matters. First of all, when we're looking at the educational needs we're going to have to prepare our students to have, I've looked through a great deal of material that has come from the business world to the secondary review, which I've been involved in.

I'd like to relate to the House five or six points that come up over and over again. They do not sound very profound. They would almost be considered basics, but people who are looking down the road, whose business success depends a great deal upon these things, have come up with these particular points. When we in government are planning ways we can help prepare students for the future, I think we have to keep these in mind.

At the top of the list in terms of what people are looking for in our students and student graduates is the need for a high level of literacy, a need which goes far beyond the basic literacy of reading and writing and involves the ability to analyze, organize, and write reports — that seems to be a continuing need — and to understand complicated instruc tions. Overall, we're talking about basic literacy and the ability to manage information. Second, mathematical ability is also predicted to be crucial.

Bookkeeping and accounting in commerce, technical and mathematical expertise for certain types of jobs, and an understanding of mathematical theory are going to continue to be very, very important. People are going to need to have skills in handling and communicating with the general public, because our service industries are predicted to be one of the most rapidly growing employment areas in the future.

In terms of what is going to be needed by our students in the future, above all is a positive attitude and an overall appreciation, as I said before, of the need for quality performance and how essential it is to the health of our economy. I'd like to conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker. I was going to go on to talk about some of the areas of job or occupational need which are predicted to be the big growth areas in the future.

But I'd just like to conclude by saying that I think we need to back up somewhat from our current initiatives in job-creation programs and look at an overall strategy which might involve some things that are not traditionally thought of when we look at how we aid this activity. I noticed that one of the hon. members has made a proposal with respect to a tax credit system which might inspire business to invest more heavily in training and the hiring of young people. I think that's one of the ways we have to go.

We have to back up in the ways we provide job creation programs and look at things other than the traditional activity type of job for students. We need to look at entrepreneurship opportunities, travel opportunities, and community service opportunities. Those things can be worked into and recognized in some of our initiatives. Finally, I'd like to say that there are certain things in the overall structure of our labour laws and so on that could be looked at to make the whole business of accessing jobs easier for students.

One of those would be to look at our school year and postsecondary school year and provide entry points for employment at times throughout the year other than the traditional summer break. MR. SPEAKER: I regret interrupting the hon. member, but I believe the time allotted for this debate has come to an end. MR. JONSON: Thank you for that indication, Mr. Speaker. I was racing along, but I didn't quite beat the clock. I'd like to conclude by saying that I'm glad to have had the opportunity to speak to this important motion. I move that we adjourn debate on Motion 208. MR.

SPEAKER: The adjournment of the debate is automatic under the Standing Orders. head: PUBLIC BILLS AND ORDERS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Second Reading) Bill 206 Alberta Development Fund Act MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to participate and, first of all, give some rationale before we get into the contents of Bill 206, the Alberta development Bill. Of course, the whole purpose of the Bill has to do with diversification of the economy. I'd like to make some initial comments about why we've come to this position of advanc ing the Alberta development Bill at this particular time. I'll go back.

I won't quote the whole thing, but it seems to me that we've talked about the Premier's famous bold statement — and it led to the heritage trust fund — made

620 ALBERTA HANSARD April 25, 1985 to the Calgary Chamber of Commerce on September 6, 1974. I couldn't agree more with what he said at that time. A couple of quotes: We have perhaps another decade left to diversify our economy to become less dependent . . . Of course, he was talking about being less dependent on the sale of depleting resources.

He went on: Frankly, I despair of the short term thinking of a few Albertans who believe we can coast on the sale of our depleting resources for our continued prosper ity . . .Relying upon the sale of unprocessed resources for [the] next generation's prosperity is folly in the extreme. Well said. A very good speech. We think that speech could be resaid by the Premier 10 years hence. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the government seems to have gone in a different direction, and I say regrettably so.

When we talk about diversification as the Premier alluded to it in 1974 in Calgary, we see what has happened in Alberta. I think it's important to put these figures out to indicate to Albertans what has happened over that period of time. Alberta entered the '70s, I believe, with some real potential for diversification, and certainly the Premier was aware of it at the time. Agriculture still played a substantial role, although admittedly it was limited to what it had been, accounting for 14.9 percent of our gross domestic product. Manufacturing accounted for 21 percent.

However, the danger signs were there, between mining with 35.5 percent and construction, which was heavily related to mining proj ects at that time, with another 22.6 percent. At that time, in the early '70s, the economy was already leaning dan gerously toward overdependence on nonrenewable, raw resource production. In 1976, Mr. Speaker, it was getting worse. Mining with 43.2 percent and construction with 22.6 percent now accounted for some 65.8 percent of our GDP by goods- producing industries. Manufacturing had slipped to 17.2 percent, and agriculture had slipped to 12.5 percent.

Finally, in 1981 fully 69 percent of Alberta's gross domestic product by goods-producing industries was accounted for by mining and construction. Manufacturing and agriculture had con tinued to slip to 16.5 percent and 10.2 percent respectively. Mr. Speaker, when the recession hit in 1982, there was still enough impetus in the oil and gas and related con struction industries to carry the mining and construction sectors on at 53.5 and 19.5 percent respectively. But as a result of that, their total had grown to 73 percent of the gross domestic product by Alberta's goods-producing indus tries.

Agriculture had slipped to 8.2 percent and manufac turing had slipped to 14 percent, continuing their slide towards insignificance. Thus, through overdependence, planned or otherwise — and only the government knows that — on the raw nonrenewable resource, the Alberta provincial economy was set up, I say, for the long fall we experienced through the years 1983 and 1984 and into 1985. Mr. Speaker, that's the reality. That's what's happened over the years as we've slid.

The point my late colleague Grant Notley and I, and some members of the heritage trust fund committee, have consistently made basically agrees with what the Premier said in 1974, that there is that overdependence. But it wasn't just us who made these points. I think it's important to go back and look at a study that was done for the Lougheed cabinet on the prospects for the Alberta economy. This was, as you're well aware, the Foster and associates report for the government, done in 1980. I think a couple of comments they made pretty well sum it up.

It doesn't have to be just an opposition position; this was a government document, given to the government at the time. They said: Why does such a strategy have to be pursued with significant, imaginative and potentially difficult Pro vincial Government policy actions? They're setting it up. They go on to say: The Alberta government has the opportunity and perhaps the obligation, to take some of the bold initiatives required.

Further, they say that only with major public policy initiatives — I stress that — will the provincial economy be able to reduce its dependence on the resource sector and diversify its relatively small manufacturing base. Mr. Speaker, I think we begin to see the problems. The government's white paper came back and indicated some of the concerns the Foster report did. To quote the government's white paper, on page 41 they said: With the economy growing rapidly during the past decade, the government's role was to foster private sector activity and to play only a nominal

part in focusing government assistance to specific industries. They admitted in that white paper that they had not followed the direction of Foster and associates. To come to government thinking, in 1983 the Minister of Economic Development said in the Calgary Herald: The thing about diversification you have to remember is with oil and gas being such a dominant feature in our economy, diversification has always been belittled because of its (low) contribution to treasury. A government minister said that.

So we have to question the seriousness of the government in dealing with diversi fication when the Minister of Economic Development makes that statement. We've come to Bill 206 basing some of our thoughts on what the Foster report said. They gave seven arguments, and I only want to list three or four. They said that a continuation of attempts to restructure the economy so it is less dependent on the natural resource and energy sectors is a key, and they suggested some ways to do it. They listed seven things. Let me just quote two or three or four of them, depending on how I feel, which led us to Bill 206.

They say there are severe risks in pursuing a strategy which relies upon energy sector developments as the only major driving force to maintain and increase economic momentum. For example, when projected levels of oil sands development were reduced, the predictions of the Foster report were borne out. We've had a drop since then. They also said that focused diversification is essential to ensure improvements in the equality of employment opportunities. Need I say more about where the unemploy ment rate is in this province today? The fifth thing they say, Mr.

Speaker, is that diversification will not occur if massive energy projects are relied upon. To directly quote from page 33 of the Foster report: "It will only occur as a result of the implementation of specific strategies by government." I say that to my friend Adam Smith over there. The other thing they said at that time was that now is the time to act, before the ultimate decline in hydrocarbon- based resource activity. That was 1980, Mr. Speaker. We are now in 1985. But I'm a born optimist, I think positively, and I have lots of confidence and all sorts of things the members talk about.

I think there's still hope; I think there's still a chance to turn it around. This why we have advanced Bill 206. I know all the government members will jump up to support

April 25, 1985 ALBERTA HANSARD 621 it, simply because they want to follow what the Premier said in 1974 and they want to follow the Foster report. Besides that, they see the eminent good sense of this Bill. Mr. Speaker, let me say that the original principle embodied in the heritage trust fund was a good one. When the government brought in the heritage trust fund, the original principles were good ones.

One of those was to assign a substantial proportion of the province's rapidly accumulating nonrenewable resource revenue to a special fund and to use that fund to secure a more stable and resilient long-term economy for Alberta. No argument with that; it's a good principle. I believe this also had the added benefit of preventing the provincial Treasury from becoming overly dependent on nonrenewable resource revenue, if I may, from becoming royalty junkies, basing our income on some thing that was depleting. I suggest that it was a good idea.

It has left the Treasury in far better shape as resource revenues have continued to decline, as we now know. First of all, let me say that we agree with that overriding principle of the heritage trust fund. But I say to the government, Mr. Speaker, that I believe this principle has been violated in the year-to-year operations of the current trust fund. Rather than being used to diversify the provincial economy, I suggest the trust fund has been tied up, frankly, in a depressing series of unimaginative investments.

I look at 14.7 percent — I know the Member for Barrhead is going to change it with his recommendations next time. I'm going to show you how unimaginative they are: 14.7 percent in deemed assets; I don't know how that's going to diversify the economy. Four percent in private energy industry cor porations, precisely where we didn't need diversification; 52.1 percent in loans to our own Crown corporations. I made that speech the other day, and I notice the Treasurer has not followed when the heritage trust fund committee told him three times that that wasn't too wise.

I want to know about our clout the next time we do this. And 7.9 percent in marketable securities. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the heritage trust fund has not done the job it was originally set up to do. Frankly, as a result of provincial government mismanagement, I believe we have now become trust fund junkies.

I point out — and the Treasurer and I agree on these figures — that in the entire estimated 1985-86 budgetary revenue, 16.3 percent of our general revenues come from the heritage trust fund and 6.9 percent come from the 15 percent of nonrenewable resource revenue which, of course, until 1983- 84 would have gone directly to the trust fund. Almost one- quarter of all estimated budgetary revenue will now come from raiding the trust fund as it was originally established. I suggest to you, Mr.

Speaker, that this has happened because of the Conservative inability to move the provincial economy away from overdependence on nonrenewable resources. I believe we've failed to use the fund imaginatively to diversify and strengthen Alberta's economy, and we now have a provincial Treasury dangerously based on the trust fund fixes. We expect it will have to go into it more and more if we do not diversify the economy. The Bill I'm talking about, Bill 206, the Alberta Devel opment Fund Act, really attempts to bring us back to the original principles of the heritage trust fund, Mr. Speaker.

We're looking for and expanding principles that were orig inally embodied in the creation of that trust fund. One of the things we suggest in this is the devotion of a substantial proportion of the province's nonrenewable resource revenues to the fund. That's in

section 3, Mr. Speaker. We also suggest the return of the fund's investment revenue to the fund in

section 4. We suggest the use of the fund "to strengthen and diversify the economy of Alberta." That's in

section 6(1)(b). Admittedly, Mr. Speaker, we have gone beyond the original trust fund concept in several important respects. We've made this point many times in the Legislature, and I expect we'll hear it many times more. It seems to us that one way to help the economy now, and also to diversify it through the small business sector and bring agriculture back to at least some of the stature and prosperity it held at one time, would be to have this development fund allow the granting of long-term, low-interest loans to individual Albertans in three areas: farmers, small-business people, and homeowners. That's in

section 6(1)(a). Mr. Speaker, I know all the arguments. I've heard them before — that it will dry up the credit and the banks will not deal with Alberta and all the rest of the things. But the point is that this is nonsense. We've had these things and they work. They would stimulate the economy faster than almost any way we could do it. I make the point that it wouldn't give the trust fund away; it's money that would come back into the trust fund. It would help Albertans to help themselves become successful. Surely this government can't . . . AN HON. MEMBER: Giveaway. MR.

MARTIN: The little member from Edmonton wherever says "giveaway". He doesn't understand low-interest loans. Maybe the Member for Barrhead will tell him. I know he's a little young for the Legislature; maybe he will understand it then. The other thing we suggest in the Bill is an investment committee overseeing the operations of the fund, which would be much more democratically constructed than it is now, Mr. Speaker. We're suggesting representation from the legislative opposition. I know that's heretical, but it seems to me that, as small as we are, we were still elected the same as anybody else.

It seems to me it would be a good debate to have. The government members would still have the majority on that committee, as they should have, and nobody would argue with that. I'll be coming up with another Bill, which I know members will be on the edges of their seats waiting for, for our economic council, and of course they would also be involved in that. Mr. Speaker, one of the key things in the Bill is that the Legislative Assembly would have final approval over all major loans from the Alberta development fund.

It seems to us that one of the rules of British parliamentary democracy is that the parliaments and the legislatures are supposed to control the purse strings. I thought I learned that in school. But in many areas in the heritage trust fund that's just not the reality. I'm glad that the hon. Member for Barrhead is here. He heads up the committee and does a good job; even I have admitted that from time to time. I just wish they would listen to him a little more. Mr.

Speaker, the legislative committee which would review the operations of the fund every year would have much more power and would be required to hold annual public hearings on the use and operations of the development fund. Being the kind person I am and always thinking of my fellow human beings, I wanted to help out the Member for Barrhead. I think he'd do an excellent job on something like this. Admittedly, the Bill will not by itself ensure the emergence of a resilient, diversified, and stable Alberta economy.

622 ALBERTA HANSARD April 25, 1985 AN HON. MEMBER: Agreed. MR. MARTIN: That's good that somebody agrees, but it would sure go a long way. There are two other elements needed, Mr. Speaker, and this is where I think it breaks down. The Member for Red Deer is with me right here on this. We need an activist government committed to the progressive fostering of such an economic base in the province; in other words, a government with the political will to get the job done as envisaged by the Foster report, to take some risks and some chances.

We also need an independent source of ideas and evaluation through which all sectors in the Alberta economy can bring their con siderations to bear on public economic policies. MR. COOK: The PC caucus. MR. MARTIN: PC caucus. I just about had a heart attack when you said that. Mr. Speaker, it may come as a shock to the Member for Edmonton Glengarry that all the great thoughts in the world do not emanate from this dome, that other people have ideas. MR. COOK: I'm shocked. MR. MARTIN: As shocking as it is, it's true. That's why we would have an Alberta economic council. Mr.

Speaker, we will have the opportunity to debate that in two weeks. If the Member for Edmonton Glengarry wants to come, I'll even bring Laxer along for him so he can straighten him out a bit. MR. COOK: Please do. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, this is a serious proposal, and the Member for Edmonton Glengarry will find out how serious a proposal it is after the next election.

We advance that and say quite frankly and sincerely that the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund as originally conceived was a commendable attempt to establish a framework within which the provincial government could pursue legitimate economic development goals. [Mr. Cook and Mr. Szwender left the House] Look, there they go, the Bobbsey twins. Come on back. I thought they might get into it. Mr. Speaker, the current government, frankly, has failed badly to use the potential of the fund to achieve any perceptible economic diversification. I've already gone through the figures on that.

In fact, as I mentioned, two years ago they were forced to alter the fund's very nature by slashing the nonrenewable resources revenue, going to the fund and cutting it in half, and appropriating all the fund's investment income to general revenues because of the complete failure in diversification. Mr. Speaker, being always the optimistic person I am, and with confidence beaming out of us over here in the opposition, feeling good and positive and all the things that they want us to feel, we fervently hope and believe there is still time to return the fund to its original purposes.

We just want to help the government out, to bring it back to the times when they believed in the heritage trust fund and to augment these purposes in a constructive and progressive way. AN. HON. MEMBER: Sounds like Moses. MR. MARTIN: No, hon. member, I'm not Moses, just an Albertan with some common sense; that's all. If that's Moses for this government, then they're really in big trouble. Mr. Speaker, we believe there is still time to implement a real economic diversification program in Alberta. There is still time to help Albertans who are facing difficult times.

And I say frankly to government members that Albertans do not understand why their own heritage trust fund that we hear so much about cannot be used to diversify the economy and, in particular for low-interest, fixed loans to the three groups I've talked about, to help Albertans to help themselves become successful. People are asking those questions. Mr.

Speaker, the Alberta development fund is a tool whereby government committed to Alberta and Alberta's real economic development could use the time remaining — unfortunately, it grows shorter every day — to aid in the construction of a stable, diversified, and resilient pro vincial economy. The purpose of Bill 206 is to start to forever rid this province of the curse of boom-and-bust anarchy. I know the government members have now seen the wisdom of what we're advancing, and I wait to hear them stand up and praise this Bill. Thank you. MR. DROBOT: Mr.

Speaker, in rising to speak on Bill 206, which is before us, I have to ask myself: why replace what is already a very successful program? Since 1976 the heritage fund has proven its worth. As we farmers say, if the machine ain't broke and working beautifully, why in heck take it apart? The Conservative government has devel oped the heritage trust fund to save for the future, to provide supplementary income, to strengthen the economy, to improve the quality of life in Alberta, to provide hospitals, senior citizen services, education, and health services, and to make all of Alberta grow and prosper.

Heritage fund programs have been very sensitive to their economic consequences. Capital projects are built when need is demonstrated. On all these counts the heritage fund has been a success. Bill 206 would create an Alberta development fund, but what is its goal? To interfere in the economy, to increase taxes, and to require that all capital projects be funded through the General Revenue Fund. These are very dubious goals. Interest shielding has been introduced only for specific time periods and specific sectors.

The Alberta Opportunity Company, the Agricultural Development Corporation, Alberta Home Mortgage: all these act as a lender of last resort. These programs recognize that Albertans receive government assistance without damaging the private sector. The Bill 206 development fund has no sensitivity toward the private sector. Forty percent of provincial resource revenues would be used to have Crown corporations and Crown lenders unfairly compete with private-sector business. On the government side, where do we make up all that lost revenue? On the private-sector side, you might as well pack up and leave.

You can't compete against government. Mr. Speaker, since 1976 the heritage fund has evolved into a very effective and useful tool for development: $10 million in workers' health and safety grants, $100 million in scholarships, $9 million in library development, recre ational facilities and parks, cancer and health research, hospitals, oil sands recovery, housing projects, senior citizen projects, Farming for the Future, irrigation, food processing, the Prince Rupert terminal, grain hopper cars, reforestation, land reclamation. The list can go on and on, but the point has been made.

These are programs that help all Albertans

April 25, 1985 ALBERTA HANSARD 623 and, most importantly, make provision for future Albertans. Bill 206 with its ill-conceived fund would drastically change all this. It would see government money used to a much longer and larger extent to compete with private-sector initiatives. On a final note the NDP development fund proposes that an investment committee be struck, to be composed of members from cabinet, the opposition, and the proposed economic council.

This proposal would slow down the decision-making process and transfer some of the legislative control from elected individuals to members appointed to the council. With the current numbers in the Legislature the proposed development committee would be composed of five government, four opposition, and four economic council. With this level of opposition, it's easy to understand and to guess who sponsored Bill 206. Mr. Speaker, the public is generally very pleased with the heritage fund. The heritage fund has proven its effec tiveness while maintaining its assets.

It provides economic stability and long-term benefits. I urge members to continue to support an innovative but well-thought-out concept, the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund. This can be done by voting against Bill 206 and the proposed Alberta development fund. Thank you. [Two members rose] MR. SPEAKER: I believe the hon. Member for Lacombe caught my eye first, followed by the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview. MR. R. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to this Bill sponsored by the hon.

Leader of the Opposition, I feel confident that the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund can compare very favourably with the Alberta development fund. The proposed Alberta development fund is foolhardy to say the least, ill-conceived, and could have disastrous economic effects, while the heritage fund has proven its worth since 1976. There are numerous helpful programs, outlined by my colleague speaking ahead of me, that have assisted th

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19850425
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L20 S3 19850425 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	206d9ceee57e6063bd439b17f33f92ecd446bc78

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