Alberta Hansard — 6 November 1984, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 20, Session 2)

19841106

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

November 6, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 1381 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Tuesday, November 6, 1984 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] MR. SPEAKER: The tragic loss of our late colleague, Grant Notley, Leader of the Opposition, has thrust this House and its Speaker into a situation which is difficult and without useful precedent. We have at this moment no Leader of the Opposition and no clear indication of who that should be. There appear to be three possibilities: 1.

To designate the Independents as the Official Opposition, which would make the leader of the Independents the Leader of the Official Opposition; 2. To designate the hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood; 3. To designate no one as Leader of the Opposition and to arrange a sharing of salaries as permitted by

section 47 of the Legislative Assembly Act. None of these would be totally wrong; neither would any of them be totally right. As recently as March 11, 1983, it was necessary to deal with such a question in a different context. As is well known, we had at that time an opposition consisting of two equal parts. Because of that equality within the House, it was necessary to try to find outside the House a possible basis for selecting an Official Opposition. Such a basis was found in the results of the 1982 provincial general election.

These results show that New Democratic Party candidates in that election received a far greater number of votes than those cast for any other nongovernment party. Hence it seems likely to the point of certainty that a larger number of voter concerns from around the province, and thus a larger amount of work, would be directed to the NDP members rather than to the Independents.

It therefore seemed just and equitable that the additional funding and staffing provided for the Leader of the Opposition should go to the leader of the New Democratic Party, and that is what was done on the basis of the statement made to this House on March 11, 1983. That statement also acknowledged that the selection of an Official Opposition at that time rested on a very narrow basis and that a change in opposition numbers in the House could or would result in changing the designation of an Official Oppo sition. In this regard the following points must be recognized: 1.

The present change in number in the opposition has not resulted from a resignation, retirement, or change of alle giance in this House but from the sudden death of a mem ber. 2. The number change may be temporary, depending on the result of a by-election which must be held by April 17, 1985. 3. The Legislative Assembly estimates approved by this Assembly last spring provided Official Opposition funding for the current fiscal year to March 31, 1985, on the basis of the NDP being the Official Opposition. 4. As a result of that funding, certain staffing and other arrangements are in place. 5.

There is no provable reason to assume that the prepon derance of opposition work resulting from certain voter concerns or inquiries will now shift from the NDP to the Independents. 6. The statement on the Official Opposition made to this House on March 11, 1983, was not intended to refer to a temporary or short-term change in numbers. The simple reason is that such a very temporary situation was not expected or even foreseen. 7. The designation of the hon. Member for Edmonton Nor wood as Leader of the Opposition would mean, in effect, a leader in this House without followers in the House.

When the late and respected Ernest Watkins was the only member of his party in this House, he remarked in regard to the possibility of his being designated a leader in the House that he could talk to himself, he could be beside himself, but he could not lead himself. 8. What we are concerned with here, however, is a special workload and function deriving in part from our Standing Orders. This function is quite apart from leading a group.

In other words, here we are not concerned so much with leadership of a group in the House but with additional functions, staffing, and funding which should be available to someone in the opposition. Referring now to the Legislative Assembly Act,

section 47, there is authority for the Speaker to divide among two or more members the salary which would otherwise be payable to the Leader of the Opposition, if there were one. Under the cir cumstances, this would not solve the problem and would not give us a Leader of the Opposition as contemplated in our Standing Orders. What has occurred to this House is a disruption which should be minimized to the extent possible. It is not for a Speaker to guess when either a general election or a by-election may be held. However, there are certain legal and practical considerations which are known to anyone who cares.

Accordingly it seems safe to say that the date of the by- election will be very much closer to the end of the fiscal year than we are today. Disruption in staffing, funding, and other arrangements will likely diminish as we get closer to the end of the fiscal year. Pending the outcome of the forthcoming by-election, and for all the foregoing reasons, I recognize the hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood as Official Leader of the Opposition for the time being.

I thank the members and staff of the opposition offices and our Parliamentary Counsel for their friendly assistance in deal ing with this difficult question. head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, it's my honour today to intro duce to you, and through you to members of the Assembly, some distinguished visitors to the province of Alberta from another North American country, namely the Republic of Mex ico. Alberta, Canada, and Mexico have had friendly relations that are being improved upon by the visit to our province of His Excellency Jose Andres de Oteyza, who is now standing in your gallery.

I would like to have him joined by Mr. Jose Luis Atristain, who is the trade commissioner in Toronto, as well as by a distinguished Albertan, Angus MacDonald, who has been appointed by the government of Mexico to act in northern Alberta as the honourary consul for the Republic of Mexico. Will members please welcome these distinguished visitors.

1382 ALBERTA HANSARD November 6, 1984 head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 96 Judgment Interest Act MR. STILES: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce a Bill, being the Judgment Interest Act. This Bill is essentially similar to the Act introduced as Bill 6, the Pre-judgment Interest Act. It contains the same provisions and principles, but in addition it contains provisions for the payment of interest after judgment as well as before. [Leave granted; Bill 96 read a first time] MR. CRAWFORD: Mr.

Speaker, I move that Bill No. 96 be placed on the Order Paper under Government Bills and Orders. [Motion carried] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, at his request, I rise to table for the information of all members a copy of a communication I received from Mr. Douglas Blain, until recently the Clerk Assistant in this Assembly. The memo has to do with the untimely death of the former Leader of the Opposition. MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table with the Legislature the 1983-84 annual report of the Alberta Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Commission.

Copies have been made available for all members. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I file motions for returns 209 and 210, as well as the annual report of the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology to June 30, 1983. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MRS. CRIPPS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce to you, and through you to the members of the Assembly, 100 students from St. John's School at Genesee, in my constituency. They are from grades 7 to 12 and are accompanied by Headmaster Peter Jackson, organizer Paul Woolnough, Assistant Head mistress Sheila Woolnough, Assistant Headmaster Simon Jeynes, Mr.

Keith McKay, Paul Nordah, Mr. Blaine Thaa- berger, Patrick Williams, Lois Nelson, Kevin McAsh, Dave Scott, Miss Hilary Noblett, and Mr. Colin Belton. They are from all areas of the province, Mr. Speaker. Many of them had the opportunity to meet with their members, and I understand they've have good discussions. I know the students from St. John's would like me to thank Cathy Finlayson for all her work in arranging the meetings. I also note that some of the members have met with you, Mr.

Speaker, to discuss the constitution for their model par liament, and I understand that you gave them some excellent suggestions. Mr. Speaker also told me that he'd written a num ber of pages and decided nobody would go through it, so he'd rather talk to them. I'd like to draw members' attention to the fact that I'm wearing a St. John's uniform today, quite by lucky accident. They're seated in both galleries. Would they rise and receive the warm welcome of the House. MR. STROMBERG: Mr.

Speaker, this afternoon we have in our members' gallery some 30 students from the Hay Lakes school, situated in my constituency, along with their teacher Mr. Morley Dunlop. I ask Mr. Dunlop and his students to rise and receive the welcome of this Assembly. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Natural Gas Feedstock Pricing MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my first question to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. It has to do with the natural gas prices to the petrochemical industry announced yesterday.

Has the minister asked his officials for a study of the Alberta border price charged to the U.S. gas export market as compared to the natural gas price to Alberta's petrochemical producers? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, I'd be happy to comment about that situation. As hon. members will be familiar with, since July 7 this year we have had in place a new natural gas export policy in Canada, announced by the federal government after a great deal of consultation with the producing provinces and industry.

Under that new policy, there is much greater flexibility in the price at which natural gas can be sold into that vital U.S. export market. That having been said, Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that under the current export policy there is established a floor price based upon the Toronto city gate reference price. That was not part and parcel of the recommendations of industry in the pro ducing provinces but is part of the current export policy.

The reality of the situation is that when one compares that export policy and the price at which gas can be sold into the U.S. market with the circumstances here in Alberta, there is abso lutely no question that the circumstances in Alberta provide a marked opportunity and advantage for our Alberta-based indus try which we wholeheartedly support and which has been a conscious part of the policy of this government to ensure that industry based in this province has the opportunity to purchase feedstock at a favourable price. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question to the minister, Mr. Speaker.

In our discussions with natural gas producers in the province, they've indicated some concern over the fact that at present there's roughly — it varies, as the minister well knows — a $1 per 1,000 cubic feet difference between the U.S. gas exports and the prices paid by the domestic petrochemical industries. Has the minister received any projections as to whether gas producers will be looking in future toward selling their gas to the U.S. market rather than to the petrochemical industry in this province? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, there's certainly no evidence that that would be the case.

A very active market exists here in the province. One of the major advantages of sales to our domestic market is the fact that, with the petrochemical industry for example, it provides a year-round and constant market for natural gas without the peaks and valleys that obtain by virtue of other arrangements. The reality of the situation is that in addition to that type of advantage to domestic sales, there is a very significant avail able supply of natural gas in the province. Our reserves are in the order of some 70 trillion cubic feet overall.

We're satisfied that our current reserve situation ensures that we will be able to service not only the domestic market, both within and beyond Alberta's borders, but the export market. As the sales firm up, which we are seeing happen already, the prospects and oppor-

November 6, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 1383 tunities for further natural gas exploration and development are very promising. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would indicate to the minister that some of the gas producers told us that that's precisely what they're going to do — look toward the American market. I'd like to go to the National Energy Board's September report and quote two sentences, because they apply directly to what we did here yesterday. The prospect exists for a substantial expansion in pro duction in the Middle East.

Accordingly, the prospects for the Canadian industry and, correspondingly, its expan sion plans are considerably more modest than they were even two years ago. Projections of a petrochemical feed stock demand are particularly uncertain. My question to the minister is: what is the government's assess ment of this disturbing report, which came out as late as last September? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister for Eco nomic Development may wish to supplement with respect to the prospects for the petrochemical industry.

In addition to the comments I've already provided, I should add the very important observation that there exists in this province a 25-year domestic supply arrangement whereby we first of all ensure that there is an ample supply of natural gas available for the needs within Alberta. That also prevails with respect to Canadian demand before natural gas is afforded for sale into the U.S. market. So that is very much part and parcel of the existing policy, to ensure that the Alberta and Canadian needs can be met. Only beyond that will natural gas be exported.

My comment on that is simply that we are satisfied that there is an ample supply to satisfy all those market cir cumstances. With respect to the prospects for the petrochemical industry, I invite my colleague to comment. MR. PLANCHE: Mr. Speaker, just to supplement that adequate answer, the international competitive circumstance of petro chemicals is something we're going to have to live with. The players are mainly multinationals, with the exception of a cou ple of very strong Canadian players. They will make decisions on a worldwide demand, based on their preparation to invest in a worldwide supply.

There has been no indication from those folks that they're necessarily prepared to trade off the price of feedstocks for the security of supply that Canada offers. There is also no question that we control neither the demand nor the supply of petrochemicals. We've got to concentrate on the economics of getting it to tidewater, and that's what we're going to do. So to forecast a competitive circumstance is dif ficult. We'll have to deal with the Middle East as a competitor in a world situation. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question to either minister. I think this is the crux of the problem.

The Middle East has ample feedstocks and, as you said. Alberta does also. But the same argument could be made. They are saying that it would be very competitive in the long range. My question is: are we not in the process of perhaps having to subsidize an industry for many, many years because of that competition? MR. PLANCHE: Mr. Speaker, we're not subsidizing an indus try at all; we are doing some interim financing to allow them to get to a market-driven price level within the province.

The reason they're not there now is an anomaly in law, which my colleague will correct through the amendment he proposed yes terday. So that's simply not the issue. MR. MARTIN: You can call it interim financing or subsidies; I'm not concerned about semantics. But with the market indi cated by the National Energy Board, my supplementary ques tion to the minister is: are we not in danger of having to interim finance for many, many years to keep our industry competitive? This will cost the taxpayers of Alberta a lot of money. MR. PLANCHE: Mr. Speaker, the answer is, clearly not.

What we're doing is affording this segment of the petrochemical industry the same access to feedstock that other segments of the petrochemical industry already have. The announcement for interim financing while the private sector gets together on their contracts for the longer term has a sunset of July 1986, and that's firm. We expect the producers and consumers of ethylene to have their arrangements in place by that time. MR. MARTIN: It seems to be by hope, more than anything else.

My supplementary question to either minister is: does either minister's department have any objective study to show that the volume of natural gas sales to the petrochemical indus try will offset these lower prices after July 1, 1986? MR. PLANCHE: Mr. Speaker, we're continually assessing the competitiveness of feedstock. There is nothing to indicate that they will be lower or higher or anything else. What we're striving for is a marketplace pricing structure. It's also well to remember that the Middle East is primarily depending on associated gas.

If their petrochemical industry requires gas to be drilled for as gas for feedstock, then they're going to be in a very different pricing situation. The decision they will have to make is whether or not to subsidize their feedstock prices. We're counting on security of supply, market-driven price of gas, and political stability. The people who are players and investors have indicated to us that that's a very real consider ation in their future planning. We're optimistic about the results. MR. MARTIN: Perhaps some indicators from around the world would not be so optimistic for the province.

My supplementary question is back to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. The main beneficiary of the government's latest gas pricing agreement will be Alberta Gas Ethylene Company Limited, which I point out is 100 percent owned by Nova. Last year Nova reported $50 million in net profits from its petrochemical division. Can the minister advise the House what considerations led to Tuesday's natural gas pricing announcement, given the healthy profit shown by Nova in the previous year? MR. PLANCHE: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the benefit won't flow to the ethylene plants at all. If the hon.

Leader of the Opposition would read the press statement and understand the issue a little better through his research before he asks the question, he would know that the people to whom the benefit will accrue are the users of ethylene and that they are in a world competitive circumstance. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary. MR. SPEAKER: Followed by a supplementary by the hon. Member for Drayton Valley, and then the hon. Member for Red Deer.

1384 ALBERTA HANSARD November 6, 1984 MR. MARTIN: I'd follow up on that, but seeing I only have one more . . . In the ministerial statement yesterday, the min ister quoted the government's white paper in stating that two of the most promising areas in diversification and creation of new jobs in Alberta are in agricultural processing and petro chemicals. According to an April 1984 report prepared by the petrochemical industry in Canada, a gross investment of $510,000 is required for every job created in the petrochemical industry, and that's using 1982 figures.

My question is: what is the government's projection of the number of new jobs that will be created by the new price marketing agreement? MR. PLANCHE: Mr. Speaker, first of all, whatever the figure is, the $510,000 is not a government investment; it's a private- sector investment. We look forward to an industry that's treated the same as any other intra gas upgrader within the province. We now have some 6,000 people directly employed in skilled jobs. Some of those jobs are at risk if this anomaly is not corrected.

Clearly the future of expansion within the province is in doubt unless this anomaly is corrected, so it's important that the 6,000 people who are now in place and all the service and ripple effect that that causes are protected, simply by giving them the same access to pricing that others in petrochemicals have within the province. MRS. CRIPPS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, going back to an earlier question by the Leader of the Opposition. The prob lem is the market for gas and the lack of drilling in the province because of that.

What percentage of the natural gas available is shut in at the present time in the province of Alberta? MR. ZAOZIRNY: To give a precise answer, Mr. Speaker, I'd have to take the question as notice. MR. McPHERSON: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, following the question by the Member for Drayton Valley. Can the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources give any indi cation of the percentage the Alberta-based petrochemical indus try consumes in terms of domestic consumption in the province of Alberta? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr.

Speaker, when that industry is operating at full capacity, I believe the number is 38 percent of the Alberta domestic consumption. MR. McPHERSON: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister give any indication of the increased amount of con sumption that would take place if the petrochemical industry were able to carry forward its cancelled or delayed projects, worth approximately $4 billion, which were originally announced back in 1981? MR. PLANCHE: Mr.

Speaker, I can't give a precise number for that, simply because that industry is always in flux and growing, and the decision-making changes from time to time. The numbers are as high as from 80,000 billion cubic feet to 100,000 billion cubic feet in incremental sales. But I can't be very precise at this time. MRS. CRIPPS: Mr. Speaker, maybe I can rephrase my question and ask the minister if he's been given an indication by the gas producers of the province that there are adequate gas supplies for both the petrochemical industry in the province of Alberta and the export commitments they expect to be able to make.

MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, I think it's fair to say that adequacy of supply has not been the issue in the natural gas industry in the last year or so. As a matter of fact, we've been focussing on markets, and I think the announcement made yesterday by my colleague the hon. Minister of Economic Development is very much consistent with our endeavours to both sustain and enhance markets for natural gas.

We believe that with the combination of increasing domestic sales outside Alberta, to other parts of Canada, and into the United States, and moves such as the one announced by my colleague, the prospects for increased consumption of natural gas are very encouraging. That will logically lead to a significant upturn in natural gas drilling activity in this province in the months and years ahead, which is of course something we're striving to ensure happens. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, the minister seems to be taking this a bit flippantly.

In the days when we had good, responsible government in this province, we had a 50-year reserve, and then it went down to 40. I believe the figure of 30 years has now been used. Can the minister indicate to this Assembly, and assure the people of this province, that we have a minimum 30-year reserve of natural gas down the road before we use it, sell it, or whatever? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, again I'm somewhat puzzled by the hon. member's concern about adequate supply. I don't know where they've been for the last couple of years. The problem is one of markets.

Just to give a very simple response to the question in a very serious way, Mr. Speaker, the current estimated known reserves of natural gas in Alberta are in the order of some 70 trillion cubic feet. That is a conservative figure which doesn't speak to the level of reserves that can be brought on stream with a reasonable increased measure of drilling activity, so that num ber has to be looked at in that context. Our total gas sales in the preceding year were in the order of some 2 trillion cubic feet.

Again I just use those numbers in terms of consumption in the preceding year and known reserves without taking into account the increase in those reserves that can readily be brought about through an increase in drilling activity. To sum up, Mr. Speaker, I don't think there's any question that the circumstances of the late 1970s and early 1980s have demonstrated that Alberta and the western Canada sedimentary basin have ample supplies of natural gas. The circumstance is one of marketing.

As that marketing succeeds, we will see increased drilling activity and the sustaining and enhancing of those supplies and reserves. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, can the minister guarantee this Assembly and the people of this province that there is at least a 30-year supply in reserve? That was the question. Never mind the trillions and the zillions and the markets. Is the minister able to guarantee the people of this province that there is at least a proven 30-year reserve of natural gas in this province? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, I'm not in the habit of granting guarantees of that nature.

I can simply advise the member that when the Energy Resources Conservation Board is going through the process of examining any export applications and gas removal permits prior to their coming to the government, it very much takes into account that reserve situation. That is a standard procedure that is conducted in the normal course of the approval of a gas removal permit. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, directly to the Premier. Using the present figures and some projection, can the Premier, as chair man of Executive Council and the Premier of this government.

November 6, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 1385 assure the people of this province that there is at least a min imum 30-year gas reserve in this province? Yes or no? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, one of the few positive accomplishments of our predecessors in office was the Energy Resources Conservation Board, and we're pleased to rely on their good judgment. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, again to the Premier. Is the Premier willing to answer the question about the people of this province having at least a 30-year reserve of natural gas, or is he not? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I answered the question. DR.

BUCK: In other words, he doesn't want to because maybe he doesn't know or care. Youth Unemployment MR. MARTIN: I'd like to direct the second question to the hon. Minister of Manpower. It has to do with reported quotes in The Calgary Herald of a speech delivered in Calgary as part of the kickoff to Canada Career Week. I'll quote the minister, Mr. Speaker, because I think it's important in terms of government policy. I believe we have a responsibility to ourselves and oth ers to think and talk positively about the future, especially when we're dealing with young people.

Young people are very impressionable and easily influ: enced by the mood of the moment. They need to be told the picture is not nearly as black as it's sometimes painted . . . SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order. MR. SPEAKER: With great respect to the hon. member, I had misgivings about the approach when it started. It's a pretty well-known principle in the question period that one doesn't ask about statements made outside the House. Instead the cus tom is to ask the question directly about the topic. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that, but it has to do with government policy.

Just one more: "I'm a firm believer in mind over matter.'' SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order. MR. MARTIN: Can the Minister of Manpower confirm that these remarks are actually representative and accurately describe, at least in part, his department's policy with regard to youth unemployment? MR. ISLEY: Mr. Speaker, I think I can verify that what the hon. Leader of the Opposition just read was part of the speech I delivered in Calgary yesterday morning. If he would like the balance of it, I would be pleased to deliver it to his desk. MR. MARTIN: That's not my question.

I'm sure it will go down as one of the great speeches of all time, and people will be buying it after the minister is defeated in the next election. Are these statements the minister made representative of the government's policy, and is this a new thrust in terms of dealing with youth unemployment in the province? MR. SPEAKER: I think we really should have regard to the rule that the same question shouldn't be asked twice know we had an example of it just a moment ago, when the same question was asked three times. But perhaps we could get back down to one. MR. ISLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I'd be quite prepared to respond to the direct question. Those comments were made in conjunction with the opening breakfast for Canada Career Week, which is running nationwide on the theme: stay ahead with a good atti tude. That theme grew out of a theme developed by the Alberta Career Week committee last year, and I'm proud that the entire nation accepts it. Certainly it is part of the policy of the Department of Man power and this government that people should think positively. You don't have to think negatively just because times are dif ficult and because you're facing difficulties.

You will still have more success in life if you think positively. MR. MARTIN: I'm sure the unemployed, the people facing suicide statistics and all the rest of it, will love that answer. Understanding these bold new initiatives from the minister's department, what steps are being contemplated by his depart ment to ensure compliance with this new positive attitude? For example, are we going to make cheerfulness compulsory for people under 21? Are we going to hand out rose-coloured glasses to everybody? What are we going to do with this new policy? MR.

SPEAKER: If the hon. member has a serious supple mental, he might go to that. MR. MARTIN: I thought it was quite serious. I'm specifically asking what they are going to do with this new policy of pos- itiveness. MR. ISLEY: Mr. Speaker, we are going to implement as effi ciently and positively as possible the Alberta youth employment and training program, of which I'm sure the hon. member is fully aware. We made a $123 million commitment over the next 30 months to recent graduates of our Alberta postsecondary institutions and to recent high school graduates.

For the young people out there, I'm sure that was positive news and will be received in a positive mood. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question to the minister. The latest statistics estimate youth unemployment at somewhat over 50,000 at this particular time. Is it the assessment of the government, and particularly the minister's department, that if these unemployed youths had the right attitudes, they could all find permanent employment? MR. ISLEY: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question would definitely be no. MR. MARTIN: That's interesting; we finally got to it. In other words, the speech didn't mean anything.

A supplementary question. Given the minister's faith in mind over matter, can he describe what exertions of his will he's currently undertaking in an effort to reduce the presently ruinous levels of youth unemployment in this province? MR. SPEAKER: I have difficulty with that question, and I was hoping the hon. leader would have as much difficulty in asking those questions as I have in dealing with them. The hon. leader is asking a question which obviously could take the rest of the question period, in the form of a reply listing the various steps

1386 ALBERTA HANSARD November 6, 1984 that are being done. It seems to me it should be a little more specific than that. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I'll just leave the mind over matter. That's what he believed in, and I thought he would have something for us. I'll go to another question. The minister also announced yesterday that his department is preparing a film designed to motivate young Albertans to start independent businesses. I understand it's due for release in January.

Will this film also be shown to the 748 businesses that declared bankruptcy in Alberta in the first eight months of this year, in an attempt to improve their attitudes? MR. ISLEY: Mr. Speaker, just to put some clarity on the situation. Under Alberta Manpower we have the Alberta career planning division, which supports the Alberta career centres and prepares a variety of materials for counsellors to use in dealing with Albertans of all age levels who show up at the career centres. There are booklets on the transition from school to work.

There are booklets on making a mid-life career change — booklets many of us in this House will probably read with interest. Currently we are working on an entrepreneurial film to be used as a counselling device. That film will recount some of the experiences young people have had setting up their own businesses and point out some of the difficulties, the pitfalls. A lot of it was developed from venture programs that were carried on with young groups, and even older groups. When I'm talking about young people, I'm not talking about school- aged children. I'm talking about people into their mid-20s and 30s. Mr.

Speaker, we would be pleased to allow the hon. Leader of the Opposition to view that film when it is ready. It may give him some understanding of the business world and the free-enterprise system. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I have one final supplementary for the mind-over-matter minister. It has to do with career change, and I want to be positive to the people of Alberta. It's a very serious question. Has the minister given any thought to resigning because of his statements and his absolute, total fail ure in dealing with unemployment in this . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

I must put this question in the same category as its predecessor, which I regret not having interrupted. MR. PAPROSKI: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister of Manpower please outline the intent of Canada Career Week in this province? MR. ISLEY: The intent of Canada Career Week, Mr. Speaker, is to create in people an increased awareness of the importance of career planning. I specify career planning, which is not the same thing as job search. Job search is part and parcel of career planning. MR. PAPROSKI: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Could the minister please outline who is involved in organizing Canada Career Week? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The previous question was not in order, and this one is along the same line. Surely there has been enough publicity about this week that the minister doesn't have a responsibility for answering it, especially when it's a national matter. The hon. member is simply providing oppor tunities for making announcements about things which are already public knowledge. MR. PAPROSKI: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the Minister of Manpower briefly, in one sentence, alluded to Canada Career Week.

Today the hon. member of the opposition indicated in a very negative way his views of Canada Career Week. As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Speaker, I believe this Canada Career Week committee is doing an excellent job in this province. I've just been asking the minister to clarify that particular organization. MR. SPEAKER: It really doesn't change the nature of the question or the nature of my objection. Seizure Exemptions Legislation MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Attor ney General, the House leader.

Many unemployed and finan cially struck people in this province are anxiously awaiting the passage of Bill 29. I am wondering if the minister could indicate whether that Bill will be passed in this fall session, as it has sat on the Order Paper for some time. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I don't think the premise of the question has very much to do with the content. I would just say with respect to Bill 29 that it's still in its place on the Order Paper. I have had some representations in the intervening months, as has the sponsor, the hon. Member for Barrhead.

But no final conclusion as to the government's view has yet been reached. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Would the minister indicate whether a decision will be made this week as to whether or not the Bill will proceed to passage? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I hope the decision can be made by the day after tomorrow. Compressed Natural Gas as Vehicle Fuel MR. MUSGROVE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. Is the minister presently working on a policy to promote the use of compressed natural gas in vehicles? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr.

Speaker, I'm happy to respond. I would say at the outset of that response that the general policy of the government has been to ensure that consumers are the ultimate decision-makers in terms of fuel utilization in vehicles, whether that be gasoline, propane, or natural gas. In line with that general policy approach, we have put forth an information program to apprise the public about the advantages and qualities of particular fuels, whether they be propane, compressed nat ural gas, or gasoline. In terms of particular initiatives, Mr.

Speaker, I can advise the Assembly that in the September 1981 energy agreement with the federal government, the government of Alberta agreed to utilize the market development incentive plan in part for the development of compressed natural gas stations across the country. In combination with the federal initiative, that has resulted in a program where up to $50,000 is available per public CNG fueling station, as well as a $500 federal grant for vehicle conversion.

November 6, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 1387 Mr. Speaker, I should also add that not too many months ago this Assembly passed a resolution on the specific subject of CNG utilization. Flowing from that resolution, in the white paper document there is a specific reference to modification of our existing policy. We'll be looking to those changes in the months ahead. MR. MUSGROVE: One supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister contemplating converting any vehicles that are owned and operated by the province? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

That subject has in fact received some recent consideration, and I might invite my colleague the hon. Minister of Utilities and Telecommunica tions to respond more specifically. MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, if I might supplement my col league's response, arrangements have been made for the con version of 15 vehicles owned by Alberta Government Telephones and operated out of one of the yards in Calgary. It's my understanding that the arrangements will be completed within the next few weeks, and those vehicles will have been converted so that they can use compressed natural gas.

There will then be a test period during which the telephone company, along with the supplier of natural gas, will monitor the program so that we can learn about its applicability to other parts of the province. MR. PAPROSKI: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. It is my understanding that Northwestern Utilities in Edmonton has been utilizing compressed natural gas in some of their vehicles. Can either minister indicate whether there has been communication with that company about their operation of those vehicles? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr.

Speaker, I can't say that I have had any personal conversations or communications with them. I could only say that we as a government department are encour aging increased utilization of the product. One of the other areas we're going to be looking at is research into utilization in farm vehicles, which I think has promise as well. Lethbridge CPR Station MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the hon. Min ister of Culture, and it concerns the designation of an historic site in my constituency.

The CPR station, which is one of the larger ones in the province, is sitting alone down there because they've moved the rail yards out of the city. There's a certain fear that that place may be destroyed. Could the minister advise this House, specifically me, of the status with regard to des ignating that an historic site? MRS. LeMESSURIER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In 1979 the Depart ment of Culture began negotiations with the CPR on this very station, and I believe application was made on behalf of the city in 1981.

Since 1982 we have been waiting for the CPR to turn over the title of that station to the city of Lethbridge and the province. MR. GOGO: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I thought the city of Lethbridge and the province of Alberta took title to that and now own the CPR station. If that is true, could the minister advise me that she'll make a commitment to pursue the fact that it becomes an historic site as quickly as possible? MRS. LeMESSURIER: Mr.

Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that Alberta Culture is very interested in that station, as it dates back to 1905 and is one of the best preserved CPR stations in Alberta. Electric Energy Marketing MR. HIEBERT: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Utilities and Telecommunications and arises from second reading of Bill 78, the Electric Energy Marketing Amendment Act, 1984.

Yesterday the minister indicated in the House that the city of Edmonton would benefit some $9 million from its membership in the agency, yet it has been publicly reported that it would cost the city of Edmonton some money with regard to being a member of the agency, to the effect of $9 million. Could the minister clarify what the issue is all about? MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the seriousness of the question, but it seems to me to be eminently suited for debate on the Bill. Possibly it could be dealt with in committee or at third reading. MR. HIEBERT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday there was information given in the Assembly, yet there appears to be some confusion. Could the minister clarify? MR. SPEAKER: It seems to me that the time to clarify con fusion in debate is during debate. Federal Throne Speech MR. NELSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs. I am wondering if the minister has had an opportunity to evaluate the impact on Alberta of the throne speech in the House of Commons yesterday, in particular the lack of comment relative to the very important oil and gas industry. MR. HORSMAN: Mr.

Speaker, the subject of energy and the Speech from the Throne yesterday have been a matter of some communication between me and people in Ottawa. I think mem bers of this Assembly and Albertans should be reassured that the government of Canada has not proposed to neglect that very vital industry. In fact, as recently as this morning the Hon.

Don Mazankowski indicated quite clearly that that will be the subject of discussion during the forthcoming financial statement by the Minister of Finance; plus considerable program devel opment in that area will be announced within the coming weeks by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Speech from the Throne, as brought forward yesterday, is of course available to all Canadians to read and interpret. We shall have to await and see the actual legislative and other actions which will flow from the new session of the federal Parliament.

I have reviewed the speech, and I have also followed up on what I think is a concern expressed in the question by the Member for Calgary McCall. Continuance Fees for Businesses MR. SHRAKE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask a question of our Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I am wondering if she could inform us if there has been a recent change in the policies regarding limited liability companies. Have they been assessed a $200 fee? This would be for a lot of the small businesses that are hurting at this particular time. MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I can only assume that the hon. member is referring to the continuance fee with respect

1388 ALBERTA HANSARD November 6, 1984 to the provisions under the Business Corporations Act. Possibly members of the House will recall that when the Business Cor porations Act was passed, a three-year period was given for companies in which to make a decision as to whether to continue or not. In the first year there was no charge for that continuance. In the second year there was a $50 fee, and that was in place so that we would have companies continuing not all at one time but over a period of time. There are now a number of companies continuing in this third and last year.

They are being charged the full $200 fee. MR. SHRAKE: A supplementary question. If they have any difficulty paying this in one payment, are there some arrange ments whereby they could pay this over a period of time? MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr. Speaker, we've made no such arrangement. I'm not sure what administrative complications there would be with respect to trying to phase in a $200 fee. But if the hon. member has a particular company in mind and there were some way of our extending a special policy for them, I'd be happy to undertake a review. MR. SHRAKE. Thank you. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. MARTIN: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to request unanimous assent of the Assembly for moving the following motion at this time. I'll read it, and you can make a ruling.

Be it resolved that all items of business standing on the Order Paper and on notice in Votes and Proceedings in the name of the late Member for Spirit River-Fairview, stand and retain their places on the Order Paper and on notice in Votes and Pro ceedings under the name of the Member for Edmonton Nor wood. HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: The Assembly has obviously agreed to accept the motion without notice. Does the Assembly agree with the motion? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: It is so ordered. head: MOTIONS FOR RETURNS MR. HORSMAN: Mr.

Speaker, we propose to deal with two of the motions for returns in the name of the hon. Member for Little Bow on the Order Paper today but hesitate to do so in the absence of the mover unless the hon. Member for Clover Bar is prepared to deal with them today. DR. BUCK: If they are called, Mr. Speaker, I'd be glad to. MR. HORSMAN: Then we move that just Motion for a Return 183 stand and retain its place on the Order Paper. [Motion carried] 182. On behalf of Mr. R. Speaker, Dr.

Buck moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing details of all expenditures of public funds for the 15 government and school officials who travelled to Japan and South Korea in May 1984, showing for the trip: (1) the itinerary and date of departure and return; (2) total cost in each category of transportation, meals, accommodation, and entertainment; (3) the names of the government officials who went on this trip; (4) the written reports by the deputy minister and the group's findings of the Japanese and Korean school systems. MR. HORSMAN: It was my understanding that the hon.

Min ister of Education would be dealing with that matter. Since he is not here to do so, perhaps the hon. member would be kind enough to allow that matter to stand until Thursday of this week. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague I will withdraw Motion No. 182 and hold it until Thursday next. [Motion withdrawn] 184. On behalf of Mr; R. Speaker, Dr.

Buck moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing, for the special promotions undertaken under the "Canadian umbrella" in Washington, New York, Chicago, Dallas, Cleveland, Pittsburg, and London, England, as reported in the Department of Tourism and Small Business annual report for the year ended March 31, 1983, page 14: (

a) the nature of the special promotions, (

b) the type of response received, (

c) the costs of the special promotions. [Motion carried] head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 210. Moved by Mrs. Koper:

Be it resolved that the Assembly consider the desirability of legislation in Alberta to provide for the mandatory use of child restraint devices in motor vehicles for children from birth to five years of age. [Adjourned debate May 1: Mr. Pahl] MRS. KOPER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Since this motion was first proposed to the Legislature early this spring, the Minister of Transportation has introduced Bill No. 83, the Child Transportation Safety Act, and it has passed second read ing. That Bill carries out the intent of this motion.

Because the government has responded in this way to the issue of the safety of children being transported in motor vehicles, I hereby beg leave to withdraw Motion No. 210 in my name on the Order Paper. MR. SPEAKER: Under the circumstances, I believe with drawal of the motion might require unanimous consent. Does the Assembly agree that the motion be withdrawn? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: It is so ordered.

November 6, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 1389 211. Moved by Mr. Cook:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly encourage the government to commit long-term funds to create a biotechnol ogy centre of excellence in Alberta and thereby enhance Alberta's agricultural industry. [Adjourned debate May 3: Mr. Woo] MR. WOO: Mr. Speaker, I last had an opportunity to address this motion during the course of the spring sittings. At that time, following a number of other speakers, I spent some time talking about the international perspective of biotechnology, its advancements, achievements, and future prospects.

I also spent some time and detail speaking on our land base because of the agricultural orientation of my hon. colleague's motion. I con cluded those portions of my remarks with the statement that many of our agriculture-related problems could be resolved through the advancement of biotechnology and its successes in this province. It would certainly be a case of enhancing two related industries and strengths of Alberta: agriculture and ranching. In continuing debate on this motion, Mr.

Speaker, I want to digress for a moment and pick up on some of the statements made by my colleagues from Edmonton Glengarry, Calgary McKnight, and Cardston. Their statements reflect the reality that biotechnology is not simply a freestanding discipline in itself. That is something many of us have a tendency to over look. In fact biotechnology has a number of scientific and technological elements which, in combination, direct them selves toward certain specific goals which are related to or based upon agriculture for purposes of this particular debate.

It may be of interest to hon. members to hear some of the more recent

definitions of biotechnology, as put forward by a number of countries which are deeply involved in this relatively new science. My source for these

definitions is a report to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, which was set up under a convention signed in Paris on Decem ber 14, 1960. Canada is a member of that organization. The report is titled Biotechnology: International Trends and Per spectives. I have taken the liberty to transcribe some of the

definitions and put them down in such a fashion that they might be of benefit to members of the Assembly for a better understanding and appreciation of what biotechnology is about and what it involves. From the Federal Republic of West Germany comes this definition: Biotechnology is concerned with the use of biological activities in the context of technical processes and indus trial production. It involves the application of microbi ology and biochemistry in conjunction with technical chemistry and process engineering. That is a fairly recent definition. The United Kingdom and Canada have also come forward with their respective

definitions: the application of biological organisms, systems, or pro cesses to manufacturing and service industries. Canada later added: the utilization of a biological process, be it microbial, plant, or animal cells, or their constituents, to provide goods and services. From a study from the Netherlands, Biotechnology: A Dutch Perspective: The science of applied biological processes. The science of the production processes based on the action of micro organisms and their active components, and of production processes involving the use of cells and tissues from higher organisms.

Medical technology, agriculture, and tradi tional crop breeding are not generally regarded as bio technology. A number of institutes of biotechnology, pure and applied chemistry, and science and technology offer two other defi nitions which assist in understanding what biotechnology is about.

Firstly, the integrated use of biochemistry, microbiology, and engineering sciences, in order to achieve technological industrial application of the capabilities of micro-orga nisms, cultured tissue cells, and parts thereof; and lastly, the application of biochemistry, biology, microbiology, and chemical engineering to industrial processes and prod ucts, including here the products in health care, energy and agriculture, and the environment. Mr. Speaker, at this point I think it is necessary to recognize the importance of four major sciences upon which biotechnol ogy is dependent.

They are microbiology, biochemistry, genetics, and engineering. I believe it is evident that if we are to support biotechnology as an important factor towards the enhancement of the agricultural and livestock industries in this province, it goes without saying that we must equally support the ongoing development of these four basic sciences in our universities and research centres. Mr. Speaker, research into biotechnology in agriculture is being undertaken in a very intensive way in a number of coun tries.

The best example can be found in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, which comprises 24 member nations. Of these, the most active countries in the field of biotechnology are the United Kingdom, the United States, the Federal Republic of Germany, Japan, France, Australia, the Netherlands, certainly Canada, and also a new nonmember country, the People's Republic of China. Our neighbours to the south, the United States, have quite clearly recognized the important role of biotechnological sci ence in agriculture.

A United States market research firm has projected that by 1995 biotech-developed products will con stitute 26.6 percent of the United States' $70 billion health care products market and 21.5 percent of the $470 billion agricul tural products market. Based upon these projections, the United States government is currently spending between $200 million and $500 million a year, all of which is being directed towards biotech research and development of goods and services.

What this will lead to is a much superior advantage for U.S. agri cultural products and agriculture-based goods and services on a competitive basis on the international market. I believe that if we as an agricultural exporting nation and province are to maintain a competitive position in international markets, we must make some very definitive and long-term commitments to the advancement of agricultural biotechnology, by way of both policy and funding. As I mentioned earlier, Mr.

Speaker, research into agri cultural biotechnology is being pursued in a number of countries in order to produce plants with better disease resistance or nitrogen-fixation capabilities; to produce cheaper and environ mentally safe herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers; and to increase meat and milk production from livestock. In cases such as this, and in many other areas of biotechnology. Alberta has made some very significant gains.

We are certainly for tunate to have the expert and professional people of the sci entific community within our research centres, universities, the Alberta Research Council, agricultural colleges, and experi mental stations. These are the expert professionals who under take biotechnological research and development on behalf of the agricultural and livestock industries of this province.

1390 ALBERTA HANSARD November 6, 1984 Mr. Speaker, advancements made in Alberta are given inter national meaning when taken in the context of our sister rela tionship with two provinces in the Pacific Rim community: the prefecture of Hokkaido in Japan and the province of Heilo- ngjiang in the People's Republic of China. Both these provinces in the Orient have established northern areas research centres with strong biotechnology components.

In this and other agri culture-related areas, Alberta and the governments of our sister provinces are working toward the strengthening of relationships in the spirit of scientific and economic co-operation.

Because of high-profile institutions such as the Alberta Research Council and the Alberta heritage medical research centre, we have a tendency to neglect or to recognize the various departments of government that are playing a very important role in matters which we debate in this Assembly — for exam ple, our Department of Agriculture, particularly the role its people play with respect to our activities in the area of inter national agricultural science exchange and technical co-oper ation. Dr.

Art Olson, the assistant deputy minister who heads Alberta Agriculture's research and resource development divi sion, and Dr. Mahone, the director of the agricultural research division, are two gentlemen with distinguished records in agri culture. These two senior officials have visited the People's Republic of China and Heilongjiang province to effect co operative discussions and to co-ordinate research efforts which will provide mutual benefits to both provinces in both countries. Quite naturally, because of existing similarities, there is a spe cial emphasis on cold-climate agricultural interests.

In return, Alberta has received a number of China's delegations and cer tainly a number of scientific delegations from Harbin, all of which were to further our discussions and tour our research and scientific facilities. I might also mention, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Barry Mehr, the assistant deputy minister in change of the marketing division of Alberta Agriculture, has made a number of visits to China with regard to genetic engineering in the areas of artificial insemination and embryo transplants, in an effort to assist in the improvement of cattle herds in northern China. Mr.

Speaker, I believe these examples of Alberta's inter national activities in the area of biotechnology are indeed important. I believe that such activities really reflect the integ rity and scientific capacities and capabilities of our various research centres and the expert people who staff them, both in government and in the private sector. There is no question that biotechnology is a rapidly growing and highly competitive area with great potential benefits. But it is also a frontier area.

I understand some experts predict that 90 percent of biotech techniques, goods, and services have yet to be developed or refined to a point where practical agricultural applications can be effected. I suppose the bottom line to all of this is long-term financing. If we are not to be left behind, if we are to be able to put our agricultural products on the international market on a competitive basis, I see a need to establish, from both national and provincial points of view, a well co-ordinated and adequately funded program for biotech- nological development on a long-term basis. Mr.

Speaker, I certainly support and recommend this motion to the Assembly. MR. STILES: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to congratulate the Member for Edmonton Glengarry for having put this motion before the Assembly and to speak in support of it. I'm a little reluctant to stand up and begin speaking about this subject, the specific details of which I know very little. It's a very sophisticated, technical subject, and not one I'm particularly familiar with in terms of actual specifics.

However, I'm certainly aware of the tremendous advances that have been made in this field in the very recent past and the huge potential for the future of the agricultural community. In looking into the subject further, in the general area of research in our province and particularly in the agricultural field, I find that Alberta has made a significant contribution to farm research. I'm looking at a newspaper

article in which the figures are put forward that Alberta spent $17.8 million in 1982- 83. It's suggested in this

article that Alberta is second to Ontario in spending in this area, in the sense that Ontario spent some thing in the order of $29 million on agricultural research pro grams. However, if one calculates the population difference, you find Alberta probably spent in the area of $7.75 per capita on agricultural research,

whereas the province of Ontario, the one claimed to be the higher spender in this field, spent only $3.85 per capita. That's quite a difference — 2 to 1. From the same article, I should point out in addition that the spending for Canada is quoted at $177 million. In fact that works out to about $7 per capita, so on a per capita basis Alberta is also a bigger spender in the area of agricultural research than our federal government. I think that's encouraging, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly those of us who live in agricultural communities and are familiar with agriculture are very much aware of the efforts made in this area by the Farming for the Future program. I think it would be unfair if I didn't mention Farming for the Future and some of the statistics of that organization. It was begun in 1978 with an initial investment of $10 million by this government. By this year it had expended another $25 million, and the program has been extended until 1987 with a further commitment of approximately $15 million. The expectation for 1984 is some where in the area of 500 applications.

Incidentally, it's interesting to note in passing the spending in that area which has gone to Agriculture Canada. Alberta's Farming for the Future program has put $7 million into Agri culture Canada projects to enhance the federal government's commitment to speed up the work on those projects of special interest to Alberta, such as canola, bee culture, and forage crops. Another $7.6 million has gone to the University of Alberta, where we have a competent agriculture faculty. I should mention that they have made a significant contribution to the Farming for the Future program.

Looking through some other publications in this regard, I couldn't help but notice the Agriculture department's Agri- News. Going through it just in the last few months, we were able to identify 15 to 20 articles which have dealt with the biotechnology area — new discoveries and suggestions arising from biotechnological research. So we are certainly into the era of developing biotechnology and applying it in our agri cultural community. Biotechnology is a specific area of biology.

I think most of us — those of us who are not chemists or biologists — probably think of it more in the field of genetic engineering than any where else, certainly in relation to its application to our agri cultural industry. Of course it includes a lot more than that. The areas of cell fusion and enzyme development, enzyme processes, and plant cell and tissue cultures are all included. As I said earlier, one of my weak spots in schooling was chemistry, and I don't dare get into the discussion of the spe cifics of biotechnology. But why should we have a biotechnological centre in Alberta?

The question was addressed in part by my colleague for the constituency of Edmonton Glengarry, but I think I should reinforce some of what he had to say. Agriculture is one of the two key industries in this province. Certainly it

November 6, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 1391 involves a tremendous number of our residents in Alberta, both the primary producers on the farm and that tremendous infra structure we have developed in support of our agricultural com munity. We recognize that at the moment we certainly have more severe unemployment than we have experienced in recent years in our province. I should point out the multiplier effect of agriculture in that area.

I'm not going to get into quoting from where the figures have come, but it is generally accepted by the academic community in this field that for every dollar of primary production, the spin-off effect is approximately 7 to 1 — $7 in the infrastructure for every dollar of primary production. The effect on unemployment in that area, Mr. Speaker, is even more significant. There are those who will say that it is higher, but the minimum effect is 12 people employed in the infrastructure for every individual engaged in primary produc tion.

So in every instance that we enhance the primary pro duction sector of our agricultural industry, we can create 12 jobs in the infrastructure.I think that's significant. In addition to that, in the recent past we have begun to see the development of a number of opportunities in the export area, not so much in terms of production and commodities but of technology. In the area of livestock exports, we now find we're receiving demands or requests for purebred livestock stock, in the Pacific Rim countries in particular.

For example, I'm aware of a recent request from China for purebred swine, which is going to have a substantial impact on the purebred- swine breeders of our province. In addition there is interest in our cattle, and that should be followed up by our purebred industry. Alberta happens to have a very well developed pure bred livestock sector, and that kind of development can be nothing but good news for them. The whole area of genetic engineering is fascinating for the livestock breeder, the purebred breeder in particular.

We've now recognized the advantages of crossbreeding, and they have been put forward and debated in the industry. Of course the purebred breeder has a significant role there, because you must have the foundation purebred stock to start from in any cross breeding program. Today we have the development in bio technology of cloning and genetic controls, the possibility of producing identical animals having characteristics suitable to particular climates and regions.

The capability of producing animals that have a potential for producing twins, for example, is going to have a significant impact on our livestock industry in the province. Also, the export of that kind of technology will enhance our agricultural sector even further. Without the centre proposed by the hon. Member for Edmonton Glengarry, I don't believe we will have the direction or development our agricultural industry in Alberta needs. I'm told the centre of biotechnological development at the present time is at Guelph.

If Alberta doesn't take some significant steps in this direction in the fairly immediate future, that development is likely to stay at Guelph. The development of a centre as proposed by this motion will tend to provide the impetus and encouragement for the further development of these biotech nological techniques in Alberta and certainly encourage the agricultural industry to be more innovative and exploratory in their efforts. We have the well-established faculty of agriculture at the University of Alberta.

We also have the flagship agricultural school for western Canada located at Olds College, where the transfer of the technology we develop at such a centre can take place in the field. That transfer of technology can be conducted over a period of time to the students studying agriculture for the purpose of going into the business, as opposed to the research scientists. Mr. Speaker, I'm suggesting that a centre such as is proposed in this motion will enhance, further develop, and encourage our agricultural industry. As the hon.

Member for Edmonton Sherwood Park pointed out, probably 90 percent or better of the work in this area has yet to be done. We are at the beginning. The white paper on industrial and science strategy for the 1985- 1990 period recently put forward by our government points out that there should continue to be a focus on the applied needs of the agricultural industry and that the newer technologies of biotechnology, in conjunction with computer-based systems development and genetic engineering techniques, should be incorporated into research programs. That's the position of this government.

I believe the development of a centre such as is proposed in this motion would be a first step in achieving that objective. MR. PENGELLY: Mr. Speaker, as a caucus member of the Alberta Agricultural Research Council, I rise this afternoon to comment on the merits of Motion 211, as well as to commend the Member for Edmonton Glengarry for providing the Assem bly with the opportunity to discuss the potential of biotech nology in agriculture. Mr. Speaker, I believe the future of agriculture depends on the amount, quality, and direction of the research applied to it.

The success of few other industries is so closely linked to the success of its research development. By several measures, in a huge industry and under favourable domestic and inter national conditions, agriculture has vast potential. Its indirect and direct impact is registered throughout all sectors of the economy. Since household incomes in rural Alberta are so tightly linked to the success of agricultural production, it seems rather obvious that any improvements to agriculture dramati cally improve the whole economy. Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to address the biotechnology issue by talking about some of the research already taking place in Alberta. The Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund made over $7 million available to the Farming for the Future project in 1983-84. The program was developed in 1977 to improve the net farm income and long-term viability of Alberta's vital agri cultural sector. Over 150 individual research projects were con ducted last year, ranging from development of high-yielding crops to farm management.

Farming for the Future's mandate is to support the advancement of agricultural technology carried out by universities, private industry, and agencies of the pro vincial and federal governments. Mr. Speaker, I wish to review some of the biotechnological advances that have been made under this most worthwhile program. One of the main objectives of Farming for the Future is to breed higher yielding and more disease-resistant varieties of cereals and oilseeds. One such project has resulted in the licensing of a new high-yielding, early-maturing variety of barley designed for the Peace River region.

In general, how ever, plant-breeding projects require much time and energy in order to produce crop varieties with desirable characteristics. Alfalfa plants are able to convert atmospheric nitrogen into a form which helps a type of soil bacteria called rhizobia, which in turn boosts the ability of alfalfa to fix nitrogen in the soil. Through the Farming for the Future program, scientists have determined a better method of screening this for use in ino- culants, found two strains of bacteria suited to soils in northern Alberta, and developed a better method of applying inoculants.

Preliminary results of a long-term project have indicated that high-moisture silage can be cut and stored without danger of spoilage when sulphur dioxide is applied as a preservative. Current research includes studies on methods of conserving soil

1392 ALBERTA HANSARD November 6, 1984 nutrients, optimizing production of gray-wooded soils, and crop utilization of nitrogen in soils. Besides these mainstream agricultural research projects, Farming for the Future provided financial assistance to an inves tigation which established the significance of root disease in peas and beans. An integrated control program involving fun gicides, crop management, and sanitation was developed to overcome gray mold on cucumbers. Mr.

Speaker, there is no doubt that inmeasurable research has been conducted in the area of biotechnology through the Farming for the Future program, yet there is potential for even greater advancement. For example, as prices of fossil fuels increase, so does the cost of fertilizers and the petroleum to transport those fertilizers from the point of manufacture to the point of use. Biotechnology holds the key to reducing or totally eliminating the need to apply some fertilizers to agricultural crops.

Biotechnology has the potential to create a second green revolution in agriculture, because optimal yields will be obtained by applying bacteria instead of fertilizers in the seed furrow at a fraction of the cost of fertilizer. In the agricultural sector. Alberta already has a basic foun dation in biotechnology, particularly through the Farming for the Future program. It is fortunate to have outstanding facilities in such places as Olds, Fairview, Lakeland, and Edmonton. There is a corps of recognized workers in biochemistry, micro biology, and plant physiology.

It is also interesting to note that three Alberta teams were recently awarded major grants for work in biotechnology. Mr. Speaker, I believe any additional support we in the Legislature can give to the field of biotechnology would benefit the constituents of Alberta. Therefore I support passage of this motion, and I urge all other members to do the same. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure for me to speak today on Motion 211. I congratulate the Member for Edmonton Glengarry for bringing it forward. I don't believe that Canadians and Albertans have ever found it so necessary to compete in world markets.

The only way they're going to do that is with research and development into agritechnology and biotechnology. I've listened to the other speakers, and they have gone over the subject very well. I would just like to say that we in Alberta, with 2 million in population, have done very well in developing our high tech nology and industrial development. We have led the way in heavy oil technology, tar sands development, and tertiary oil recovery. We really haven't done that badly in agriculture either. If you look at Canada, we certainly produce our share of the food for the population we have.

Of course we have borrowed some of our technology from our good neighbours to the south. We have also developed a lot of it here with Farming for the Future and our Alberta Research Council, which was put forward so well by the MLA from Sherwood Park. I won't go into that, because it has already been said. I would like to concentrate a little bit on the importance of this type of research and what research has done before for agriculture. If you look back a few years, it wasn't called biotechnology in those days.

If you look back to 1914, when my dad came to farm in this country, it was said that you couldn't grow wheat north of the Canadian border because it just wasn't successful. But with one man's ability to make a new wheat from Red Fife and a few other varieties, we came up with the Marquis variety of wheat that allowed us to produce wheat much farther north. After Marquis — of course they did it by picking strains and by manipulation of the seed — we've come up with a lot of varieties of grain. I'll always remember that 222 was one the government outlawed on us. It was a very successful wheat.

Another was Canus wheat; it was a bearded wheat. I grew that one year and it never did get ripe. AN. HON. MEMBER: You must be pretty old. That was a long time ago. MR. CLARK: That's the beauty of it, you see. You can always go back, look at the mistakes you've made, and see if you can do something about them. With the northern advance of wheat, we now have many varieties, and we can grow it quite successfully clear up into the Peace River district. The research in those days was done by selecting the strains. They were taken down to Mexico, where they could grow two or three crops in one year.

That's one of the ways they developed them in those years. My dad came from Iowa, and he used to say that was the corn centre of the U.S.A. He said: someday I'm going to take you back there, and I'm going to show you the old mill farm and where they really grow corn. We did have occasion to go back in about 1954. To our surprise the land there was selling for $450 an acre. In our country at that time, before the land speculators got into our land, it was selling at its usual price of $25 to $30. I wondered how they could pay for it.

Just to show you the importance of development in agriculture, our friend there told us it was simply the hybrid seed they had developed, which raised the productivity of an acre of corn from about 40 bushels an acre maximum to 100 or 120. That was a development through the manipulation of plants and seeds. It brought a great deal of wealth to the agricultural industry in the United States, and it's still going on. I don't believe I've heard yet that we've developed any hybrid wheat at this time. But if we ever could, it would be a real godsend to the wheat growers.

As one of the other members suggested, in the future we will look at the cloning of animals, trees, and plants. AN HON. MEMBER: And then members. MR. CLARK: Heaven forbid. We're one of a kind here; they couldn't clone us. That's the exact duplication of animals or plants. They have done it with sheep in Britain. They've also done it with trees in B.C. If you can get certain types of characteristics you like to see in a tree, and it matures 10 or 20 years earlier than natural trees, you really have something that is desirable for that indus try.

The same with the livestock industry — in fact they say that through genetic engineering of livestock by preselection of sex and the high incidence of twins, the benefit in the United States will be $50 million to $100 million within the next five to 10 years. I guess one of the other members said what other countries are doing. I'll just run over it briefly. In Germany they spend $100 million on biotechnology. In the U.S. they are spending $91.5 million through the health research centre, and the National Science Foundation spends another $15 million on biotechnology.

As usual, the United States is in first place in this technology. But from what I understand, France has a real push on. They are going to spend $28 billion in the next five years, and they believe they will be able to gain control of 10 percent of the world market. If you are looking for benefits to agriculture, forestry, or the pulp and paper industry, I guess you have to look at what it will produce. If you find a product that will give you double the production, or you'll be able to harvest it 10 years earlier in the case of a forest, then these are some of the benefits that we could have from this area.

November 6, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 1393 One of the other benefits has been developed in chemicals and weed sprays. The first chemical was developed during the war, and it was called 2,4-D. It was developed to take the leaves off the jungle so the Americans could see what they were shooting at. But it ended up being very beneficial to the farming community. I had occasion to start using the chemical in 1948, the first time it hit our town. I bought a sprayer and started doing some custom work. It worked very well on the wheat.

But when we did about 100 acres of flax for a neighbour, we went out the next day and it was lying flat on the ground. AN HON. MEMBER: The neighbour or the crop? MR. CLARK: The crop was lying flat on the ground. He said, that's it. He thought I'd killed his crop. I wasn't too sure I hadn't. It was the first year it had ever been used. Anyway, by the time fall came around, he was wishing that we had done the whole crop. Everybody knows now that flax wilts a little, but we didn't know that then. It's been one of the biggest technological advances for agriculture I have seen.

In my estimation, if you take that and add the many other sprays they've come out with — the selected sprays that will pick wild oats out of your crop, take the quack grass, and do many things — those and the development of seeds have been the biggest benefits of technology to farming. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say that if we are to ensure that Alberta and Canada stay in the food production race, we have to come to grips with technology, not just bio technology but all the technology in the farming industry.

I wonder whether we should leave all this research to the uni versities or to Alberta Research. They're doing good work. Many of our developments have developed out of the univers ities. Alberta Research, and Farming for the Future. They're all doing good work, but there are still areas in technology that are being developed by private industry in our area, in some small factories and even some of the farms, that never seem to get off the ground.

Besides supporting experimentation and technology in uni versities and all the other areas, I think it's time that we started saying to people that research and development is not a sure thing. If somebody has a good idea, I think we should help him develop it with the facilities and technical knowledge we have behind us. In that way, private enterprise can also get in on the act. If we can use our facilities in co-operation with private enterprise to help them develop some ideas they have, I believe it would be an excellent way of going about it. That's about all I have to say.

I would again like to com pliment the member for bringing the motion forward. I urge members to support the motion. Thank you very much. MR. FISCHER: I'd like to rise in support of Motion 211, proposed by the hon. Member for Edmonton Glengarry. The agriculture industry is the anchor of our Alberta econ omy. If we want it to stay that way, we need to remain com petitive in this highly competitive world market upon which we are so dependent. We need to take advantage of every new idea we can get our hands on in biotechnology.

It is important that we keep up with or go ahead of the rest of the world in the quality and quantity of our crops and livestock production. That means keeping up with new ideas and using those ideas to boost our production. There are many ways biotechnology can do this. Biotech nology means using living organisms or parts of them to make new products or to modify existing ones to develop new vari eties of plants and animals. These ideas are very important to our agriculture industry. Biotechnology research can produce new varieties of crops which are more suited to our climate, soil, and weed conditions.

It can develop disease- and pest- resistant varieties or crops with nitrogen-fixing capabilities. The Member for Innisfail made mention of the great possibilities of crops with nitrogen-fixing capabilities. With the high price of nitrogen fertilizers today and the amount that is used, I think you can appreciate just how valuable this kind of research is. If we could produce grains with nitrogen-fixing abilities, it could save the farming industry in Alberta an estimated $200 million to $300 million a year.

Biotechnology also has applications in soil reclamation and in making marginal lands suitable for agriculture. In the live stock line of things, genetic engineering, which is one branch of biotechnology, can produce bigger, hardier, and healthier animals. Research in biotechnology has also looked at devel oping new medicines and vaccines for livestock. If we encourage the development of biotechnology in Alberta, it means the research being done will be related to our local concerns. It is not good enough to wait for the other countries to come up with new ideas for increasing our pro ductivity.

We have to stay competitive, and the way to do that is to have the research done in Alberta so it will be focussed on our specific problems. It is not enough either to encourage research in a haphazard, short-term way. Long-term funding for biotechnology is nec essary to attract creative people to the field, to make sure that good research people stay in Alberta, and to draw specialists from other places to this province.

Research is already going on in the fields related to biotechnology — like biochemistry, genetics, and so on — but we can help those people co-ordinate their efforts by taking some initiatives in this area. We can help make sure that expensive research is not being duplicated, and it is important to provide research people with an incentive to focus their work on the practical problems that face Albertans. Mr. Speaker, it is true that this motion states that making Alberta a biotechnology centre of excellence will enhance agri culture in Alberta.

But we should keep in mind that there are many applications of biotechnology — in forestry, mining, medicine, and the environment. For these reasons, I am in favour of this motion, and I encourage all the members to support it. MR. NELSON: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleas ure to stand in my place to discuss this motion put forward very ably by the Member for Edmonton Glengarry. I can't say I'm particularly an expert in the area of bio technology. It's unfortunate that you're not an expert on many things that happen here, but you certainly make every effort to participate . . . MR.

WOO: And sound like one. MR. NELSON: Yes, maybe even sound like one. Mr. Speaker, over the last number of weeks and months, people in my constituency have discussed agriculture to some length. I guess we all need to be concerned and to consider agriculture in our environment in Alberta. It is, as one member said — and maybe I'll just help him out a bit — a half of the hook of the anchor, the other half being the oil and gas industry. The future of agriculture depends on the amount, quality, and direction of research applied to it.

The success of few other endeavours in our society is so closely linked to research and technology transfer. Mr. Speaker, as a result of this very close linkage, I suggest it is critical that farmers, agribusiness, and researchers have a very close and profitable working relation-

1394 ALBERTA HANSARD November 6, 1984 ship. It's unfortunate that especially in times of difficulty we tend to pull apart a little bit rather than pull together. During times of high activity, we may pull apart even further. As we all know. Alberta is a landlocked community, and we need to consider further development of our resources by processing. To do that, we need the technology development to ensure that the future of our province is put in the forefront.

It's very easy to examine what's going on around the world — the United States and particularly France, where it is esti mated they're going to spend some $28 billion on biotechnology research. That is a tremendous amount of money, and they feel that that kind of input will give them some 10 percent of the world biotechnology market by 1990— 10 percent in one small jurisdiction. Mr. Speaker, in the main in Alberta I guess we talk about the growth of our cereal grains. One difficulty in the future will be the deterioration of soil on our land. How long can we add nitrogen to the land?

It's suggested that some years ago, when we started adding nitrogen, it increased production by two-plus bushels per acre in any given year. I believe that production now may be as low as half a bushel of additional production over the base in 1971. Therefore our land base, our soil, is deteriorating to such an extent that we cannot continue to grow the seed that is available today.

We need to continue to reinvest money and technology in our agri-programs to ensure that our agricultural industry is viable and profitable in the future, not only for the farming community but also for those who develop the equipment and other materials related to that community. In consideration of developing a biotechnology industry, it may mean that we as a Legislature have to examine the area of another endowment fund, similar to that which we've set aside for medical research, for technology in science and engi neering. That is also being recommended to this Legislature by the Heritage Savings Trust Fund.

It's very easy to stand and talk all the time about what everybody else in the world is doing. Rather than playing a catch-up role in the development of the major technology we need, maybe we should again take a leadership role. We've taken leadership roles in many areas: medical science research and of course research through Farming for the Future. Although it's a great start, it certainly needs to be expanded, probably with more dollars and more research facilities. The white paper recently distributed by the provincial government certainly recognizes research in our agricultural industry.

It says that future research should continue to focus on the applied needs of the agricultural industries which is a very bold statement. Making a bold statement is relatively easy, but it's a matter of follow-up to ensure that we do in fact develop and recognize needs for these industries. It goes on: As the newer technologies of genetic engineering (bio technology) and computer based systems mature, they are being incorporated into research programs.

Specific prior ities related to maintaining and expanding soil and water conservation resources, to crop and livestock production and to agricultural processing are recognized. The estab lishment of the Food Processing Development Centre at Leduc is an example and will assist the private sector to expand its processing opportunities in Alberta. [Mr. Purdy in the Chair] Mr. Speaker, this is only a start.

We must make a com mitment to expand the technology in the development of our agricultural industry, both in the growth of grains and livestock and in the growth of our natural environment, such as trees and so on. I guess I can relate to Pine Ridge nurseries as being a tremendous start in the area of trying to develop biotech in research for replanting our forests. Tremendous achievements are being recognized and developed at Pine Ridge. I think all members, including the public, should have every opportunity to make a visit to this facility. It is an outstanding effort.

In my opinion it is money spent in the best possible manner for the future of all Albertans, at least those who are interested in our environment, water resources, and of course the devel opment of future forests for us to view and also to use for lumber, domestically or internationally. Mr. Speaker, there are many interesting aspects to the appli cation of biotechnology, and we should all examine this issue in a most enthusiastic manner. New technology can respond to a number of society's needs. These can include efficient food production.

When we talk about efficiency in food production, I think Alberta right now can look high to the sky; we are probably one of the best in the world, especially in efficiency. We need to examine the area of waste conversion. We do some detoxification of human and animal wastes, but at the present time this can interrupt our environment — our rivers and what have you. I think we should expend dollars in ensuring that the environment is examined and looked after when we talk about waste conversion. Pollution control is another area we must examine to ensure that our environment is looked after.

Technology can respond to human and animal disease diagnosis and treatment, and resource conservation or recovery. Further, biotechnology applied to industry could provide renewable feedstocks. It could provide new products. We can provide a whole new industry that can assist in enhanced manufacturing processing. It can assist in management of biodegradable waste, decreasing energy consumption. Mr. Speaker, there are dozens and dozens of areas that can be examined in biotechnological research. As has already been indicated, to do these sorts of things of course costs money.

Also, a government must make a true commitment. In Canada the development of biotechnology is probably in extreme dis order. It's very disorganized, and it is short of money. Maybe by placing a motion of this nature before the House, the Member for Edmonton Glengarry has placed before us a little twig to say: hey, guys and gals, we're ready to go; let's jump in and become a leader. What's the first step? Let's examine our universities. Let's examine their priorities. Can we in fact develop students and encourage them to enter the field of biotechnological research? Yes we can.

We can offer this opportunity by a commitment to the university or to an outside research council. I know that when I use the term "research council" — certainly there are activities going on within the present Research Council, but it may mean that because of the wide range of activities in this particular area, we could expand into other areas, with the universities being a starting or focal point, whilst our young people are being educated in the field of biotechnology. I guess we can also look at some of the successes of bio technology in Alberta.

I don't know how many members are familiar with the research that has gone on in the development of a special bee for wintering in Alberta. That is what I would call one of the most magnificent, tremendous developments of our time, particularly if you're in the beekeeping industry in Alberta. But it took a lot of years, a lot of dollars, and a lot of time to develop this special process. Mr. Speaker, when I stand here and discuss some of these issues, I often consider: what is the spin-off to the community

November 6, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 1395 at large? The government may invest moneys to assist in the development of various commodities or products, buy research. Is that investment a cost, or is it strictly an investment we are to have a return on? Of course being in the business community, I like to think that when we invest in something we should get a return on the bottom line for that particular investment. In biotechnology, or any other technology for that matter, there is. If we keep our finger on the pulse, we are going to have industry develop around proven technology.

That industry development is going to enhance our economy, which of course creates jobs and allows us to diversify to the extent where new industry being made available and also developing is an encour agement to not only our existing residents but our future young people who will be in the workplace. That goes back to encour aging our universities to develop and giving direction through policies of the government so that they may continue to educate our people in those areas that are going to be good for the future of Alberta. Mr.

Speaker, the discussion on this biotechnology could go on for hours and hours, because it has so many far-reaching aspects to our community and the future that we must develop for all Albertans. There are one or two things I'd like to say in conclusion. First of all, we should not downplay the fact that we have biotechnology activity in Alberta. As I mentioned, we have some in Farming for the Future, and there is a con siderable amount of money being put into that area. We have the Alberta Research Council, which is developing many activ ities rather well.

Through the federal government, we have the Beaverlodge research station and the Lethbridge Research Sta tion. As I mentioned, we have another area, and that is the Pine Ridge nurseries northeast of Edmonton. We should not discourage but should enhance those programs. But let's not forget that we are at least doing some things out there. Mr. Speaker, in the area of business and industrial devel opment, the application of biotechnology, and more particularly the genetic engineering technology, will stimulate the devel opment of new companies and also affect existing and estab lished industries.

Some of the examples that we could expand on as far as new companies are concerned include molecular biology companies. These could develop new strains of orga nisms, they could modify and enhance existing organisms, and they could also bank and transport organisms. Computer spe cialty companies can also provide interesting engineering pro cesses; new fermentative process engineering companies involved with the construction of batch or continuous fermen tative processes that are automated and computerized. The far-reaching aspect of developing biotechnology within Alberta is great.

The number of new industries and available activities that we can develop from the existing feedstock we have needs leadership from the government to ensure the future and prosperity of Albertans in a diversified, strong economy. To do that, we should all make every effort to support the intent of this motion, because it is given in sincerity by the Member for Edmonton Glengarry. I urge that support so we can enhance the development of Alberta and young Albertans through their education process. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. ZIP: Mr.

Speaker,I too am pleased to rise to speak briefly in support of this motion, which was very well thought out by the Member for Edmonton Glengarry. Other honembers have spoken about the excellent opportunities that are raised in the fields of agriculture and forestry by the creation of a biotechnology centre for Alberta. Other members have dealt with the possibilities such a centre would have in food pro cessing and other manufacturing, and also the possibilities such a centre would raise for environmental improvement and pro tection.

Such a centre also raises very important possibilities and implications in the fields of medicine and pharmaceuticals. One thing I would like to emphasize is the opportunity such a centre would create and provide for students in biochemistry and in other sciences. Biochemistry particularly is a very rig orous field with an almost unlimited list of subjects, offering possible, practical benefits to society. One of the problems students in this field face is employment upon graduation.

A biotechnology centre in Alberta would provide an opportunity in this field in their home province, without their having to leave for elsewhere, and would also encourage students from other areas to come to Alberta and create a centre of creativity in this highly important field. That would encourage other stu dents to take up this study at university. Looking at some of the woes students currently have in finding jobs on graduation and finding a useful place in society, that in itself is a very important benefit to this province. I heartily endorse this motion.

In view of the time spent on it, I wish to adjourn debate. Thank you. 214. Moved by Mr. Cook:

Be it resolved that the Assembly encourage the government to further develop the electrical engineering and computer science departments at Alberta universities to support the new and grow ing electronics industry. [Adjourned debate May 10: Mr. Woo] MR. WOO: Mr. Speaker, for someone who has difficulty changing light bulbs, I'm usually involved in debates regarding engineering, sciences, and so on. I do have an interest in motions of this nature, particularly this one, in a very specific way and certainly within the broader context of education and what this motion implies.

In rising to support the motion of my hon. colleague the Member for Edmonton Glengarry, I am reminded of the many statements that have been made in this House, and certainly where interested groups and academics gather, in terms of the link between education and industrial diversification, research and development, and science and technology. At the same time, I am reminded of the debate concerning our educational institutions being provided with the necessary resources to carry out their mandates. Given our current time frames,I am beginning to find myself wrestling with the chicken-and-egg theory.

Which comes first? Education, which will then shape what economic activities take place? Or do we identify what we believe to be our economic priorities and then educate and train people toward those activ ities? Depending upon who you talk to, in general I suppose a case can be made on either side of that proposition. But given our current circumstances, I'm not so sure that we are any longer in a position to be afforded the luxury of simply debating the issue; nor do I believe we can control the outcome to satisfy the narrow perspectives based simply upon provincial concerns, as important as those might be.

As I read it, there is a lot of space between the beginning and the end of this motion, particularly when I look at it within a much broader universal context relative to the microelectronic and high technology industries. From a provincial standpoint, the two immediate concerns that come to mind are, firstly, the need to identify and fulfill provincial objectives and respon sibilities and, secondly, the conflict of both public and private pressure of having to do more but wanting to pay less for it. I agree with the hon.

Member for Edmonton Glengarry that electronics or microelectronics, in all its high-tech forms, will

1396 ALBERTA HANSARD November 6, 1984 continue to change the face of our society. We cannot stop that change, nor do I think we should. I think the challenge we face today in terms of those changes is: how do we control and adapt to changes that will ensure the upward movement of the quality of life, the enhancement of living standards and, in this instance, the role of our educational institutions, particularly our universities, colleges, and technical schools?

Today we continually hear of the need for and the shortage of university graduates with international experience and exper tise in commerce and law, engineering and design, scientific and medical research, computers and technology. On the other hand, I hear the debates within universities and educational interest groups as to whether or not a balanced or right mix of graduates is leaving our campuses in sufficient numbers and armed with a sufficient variety of knowledge to meet the chal lenges of a society that is constantly changing.

My hon. colleague's motion tells me that there is a need to preserve and enhance our present expertise in the electrical engineering and computer science departments of our Alberta universities and technical schools. I think it is important that such institutions continue to contribute toward the development of highly qualified manpower to support our electronics indus try. We need graduates to work in the field of research and development, we need to develop new products and industries in the field of microelectronics, and we need expertise to improve products and performance of our local industries.

Much of this can be done through computer-assisted design and computer-assisted manufacturing. All of this leads me back to another very important issue, that of university funding within the context of rising costs and restraint. I am personally inclined to see an increase in funding to our universities and technical schools. Given our current circumstances, in terms of where we find ourselves today, I think it is time we did as much as possible toward a revised framework. Mr. Speaker, it has always puzzled me why every university in this province must be all things to all students.

When only one university existed in this province, it seems to me that as complete a range of different faculties as possible within one institution made sense. But I'm not sure that should hold true today, considering the number of universities and technical schools we now have. What is wrong with the view that each university should specialize in four or five select areas and move toward excellence in those areas?

For example, the University of Alberta could specialize in medical research, engineering, computer science, and northern, cold-climate agri cultural research; the University of Calgary could specialize in oil and gas technology, finance, and mining and minerals; and the University of Lethbridge could specialize in agricultural sciences and research, and experimental research. Certainly I recognize the need to balance such programs with appropriate courses in the arts.

I believe that such an approach could allow, for example, the University of Alberta to specialize in the area of electrical engineering and computer sciences, as one element in its new format. I think we agree that as we enter further into the infor mation age of high specialization, we are going to need more highly specialized graduates within industry, government, finance, and other areas of telecommunications.

Specialization carried out in the manner I suggest would not only produce those graduates but allow for the rifling in of funding to specific objectives rather than spreading insufficient dollars over such a wide area that all we end up with is a full slate of mediocrity. At the same time, finely tuned faculties and research units adequately funded in this way will go a long way in retaining and enhancing teaching, and research expertise. Traditionally, Mr. Speaker, for a variety of reasons we have not been as successful as we would like in retaining expert academic staff.

Certainly enhanced long-term funding of pro grams and salaries has a lot to do with this. But I think there is another equally important factor. That is the further extension of electrical engineering and computer sciences to those oppor tunities which will allow for greater postgraduate and doctoral training to be carried out at the University of Alberta and, for that matter, at all our universities in the province.

As it is now — and I think this is occurring in many areas, especially in medicine — many of our top graduates are leaving the country to further their postgraduate training in specialized areas or in the doctoral area. Many of these highly skilled people, whether they go into teaching or the private sector, do not return to this province. We as a province are that much poorer because of that loss.

If government and industry, along with our univers ities, colleges and technical schools, are serious about making our learning institutions more responsive to job demands, I think we must collectively consider increased funding and how best to use it. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, two additional things come to mind about relevance in terms of education. Firstly, I believe that ties between our universities and industry must be strength ened. I know, for example, that industrial councils have been established in a number of countries to act in an advisory capacity to the broader university community.

At the same time, they have the ability to zero in on those faculties which produce graduates those industries require. Another benefit that results from such a relationship is one that I think would serve a very useful purpose if we adapt it to our own postsecondary systems. This is a situation where practicing engineers — in this instance electrical engineers and computer science technicians — were actually used in part-time teaching positions to augment or supplement from a practical point of view the academic staffs of universities.

Industries involved in such programs paid the salaries of their staff on a continuing basis, and the time such staff spent in universities was not a financial consideration in the education budgets of those particular universities. The effect was that on the one hand, universities had additional expert staff at no cost and, on the other hand, industry benefitted by getting graduates trained directly in their employment. The second point I make is simply this, Mr.

Speaker: it is my view that this particular debate and those other debates that dealt with science and technology, research and development, biotechnology and so on, and education in its broadest terms bring into perspective this government's white paper for an industrial and science strategy for Albertans, 1985 to 1990. I believe it is important that Albertans take a serious second look, and if necessary a third and fourth look, at that proposal in terms of subjects we debate in this Assembly, particularly within the context of Motion 214.

It seems to me that the white paper and motions such as 214 go hand in hand. Thank you. MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on Motion 214, I'd like to tackle a few topics that perhaps have not been dealt with by previous speakers. Certainly a great deal of information has been given on the details and the various applications and potential that could arise from the passage and implementation of the theme of this motion.

The motion clearly deals with the area of expansion and development in our modem-day world, and it's certainly an area of development in which Alberta could play a very major part both nationally and internationally. I note that the motion is directed at university education. The previous speaker referred to the fact that when we're looking at development in this area, we should be looking at its broader

November 6, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 1397 application among postsecondary institutions and that there should be a plan, there should be articulation with technical institutes, colleges, and various other agencies in the field of postsecondary education. I'd like to point out that in my view — at the present time it's my view, but I think there would be others who share it — the area of grade school education, grades 1 to 12, has to be included to make any overall program of development in the field of electronics and computer science effective in this province.

Right now I think some progress is being made within our school system, but certain things have to be addressed in the immediate future if we're going to provide to the univers ities, which are spoken of in this motion, the type of high school graduates who will have the background and the enthu siasm for this discipline that the universities will need. There are at least three areas of study at the grade school level which it would have been nice to see included in the motion or perhaps included in the debate before this.

First of all, we have to take initiatives to make sure that students become familiar with the world of computers and their application very early in their school careers. As is the case with taking a second language, there is a great deal of evidence which indicates that young children learn and adapt very quickly to the use and application of computers. It's very important to have students be comfortable and familiar with the application of electronics and computer science right from the beginning of their education. Secondly, Mr.

Speaker, throughout the grade school system there has to be integration and use of computers so that when our graduates are heading for univer sity, they're going to be competitive and very capable of enter ing quickly into the high level of computer and electronics work that the universities are going to be developing.

The third area we could be taking initiatives in to complement the mes sage of this motion is that of developing an electronic infor mation network throughout the province, so that the capability, the usefulness, et cetera, of computers and a highly sophisti cated electronics network would be before students throughout their educational endeavors, right up to the level of university. They would not be looking at computer science as something that was a bit beyond them or something they were starting with from scratch when they headed into their selection of a university program. Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to mention a second area that is very important to this motion, and to some degree the previous speaker dealt with it very well; that is, the element in the motion of there needing to be some direction to universities to meet certain areas of need in the province right now for the training of our young people. We've gone around this particular issue quite often in the field of education. Certainly there is merit in the liberal arts approach of our universities, in the offering of a broadly based education.

In the meetings I go to where we have general discussions on education, I'm always impressed by the extent to which not only the students but the general public support the view that our educational system should serve the interests of students. Perhaps they don't always mean this, but sometimes they are thinking in terms of education relating more to the students' area of interest than to the realities of the world in which they're going to have to find employment.

This motion zeros in on by far the most talked-about, the most obvious area for the government to work with universities to set a priority on further training. But I see many examples of obvious areas where our postsecondary institutions could be providing graduates educated in Alberta, and they are not doing so. I know they're caught in a kind of overall dilemma because they want to serve the interests of students. They have various restrictions in terms of budgeting, and they have a very large and cumbersome system of allocating the resources.

Never theless, for years we've been short of speech therapists in this province. We've been short of physiotherapists and have imported them from outside the province at a time when there was an overall surplus of workers within the province but they didn't have the specialized training needed in these areas. I would suggest, Mr.

Speaker, that when we're talking about such a major matter as the preparation of students for the world of computers and the application of computer capability, we cannot afford to go for years with a lack of direction and production from our universities in the area of electronics and computer science. Perhaps one alternative to the message of the motion might be to establish in the province of Alberta an institute of com puter science separate and distinct from our universities. I hope that is not a direction we have to consider immediately.

I feel it is very important at this time — in fact it's probably past the time at which it should have been done — that a model for the development of programs and co-operation among uni versities, business, industry, and government be developed so that resources can be directed in certain areas, such as the one mentioned in the motion. That doesn't have to be battled with on the basis of being a violation of university autonomy. If approached in the right way, I think the universities would certainly see the need for and the benefit of this type of co operation.

It would mean, however, that universities and all concerned would have to look at the application of specific amounts of funding, perhaps paying salaries beyond and in a more flexible manner than the usual university salary scale and a whole host of other more flexible and innovative approaches to staffing, equipping, and offering a program than currently seems possible within our universities and postsecondary insti tutions.

A third area I would like to mention with respect to this motion is that although I realize I'm not quite up on all the jargon of the electronics industry, I find that the motion refers specifically to electronics and computer science. Perhaps pre vious speakers have dealt with this adequately, Mr. Speaker, but I think it should be emphasized that it does not seem likely that Alberta is going to be a world leader in the development of basic computer equipment.

I'm certain that IBM, Apple, Commodore, and a host of other very established companies are well on their way in that particular area, although it would certainly be great if they would consider expanding and estab lishing branch operations in Alberta. I imagine the intention of the motion is that the emphasis should be on programming — the application and development of software — and the mod ification of developments in that area to the areas of expertise that we have in the province.

Certainly we can point to — and previous speakers have — the areas where we're already some what of a world leader in the application of computers to indus try: agriculture, the oil and gas industry, and telecommunications. I think that is the area we have to work within. I'd like to make a couple of other comments on the motion. First of all, there is certainly a role for government to play in this area to enhance and augment the efforts of private industry as well as that of the universities.

I can see and understand that universities could be the leaders in certain aspects of developing this type of industry within the province, but I hope that we never put all our eggs in one basket, so to speak, in terms of looking for leadership in research and development. The whole area of the computer industry is very flexible and very mobile. A new type of cottage industry is developing, because work and progress in this area isn't tied to a massive physical plant in one particular part of the province or the world. We can

1398 ALBERTA HANSARD November 6, 1984 look for a great deal of worthwhile research and development and a great deal of useful application of that development from private industry, from our smaller colleges and technical schools, and from a host of other areas besides the universities. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer one other thought in terms of the direction pointed by this motion, and that is that perhaps this has to take place at the grade school level that I started talking about.

But along with our effort to develop a competitive industry in this field, I think we have to look at making people aware of how it will affect their life-styles and the various implications this is going to have for the way we live and operate within the province in the years ahead. I do not think attention to that has to in any way inhibit the devel opment of electronics and computer science.

In fact in the long run I think it will enhance it, because we will have a population of young, middle-aged, and old people who accept and work to their advantage with the developments that come out of this area of industry. I would like to put on the record that I commend the Member for Edmonton Glengarry for bringing forth this motion. I cer tainly support its overall direction and, if passed, I hope some of the aspects of the application of this motion that I brought forward could be considered down the road. MRS. KOPER: Mr.

Speaker, I'm pleased to speak on this motion regarding electrical engineering and computer science programs. I feel that the reasons the Member for Edmonton Glengarry gave for presenting this motion to the House are now more important than ever. He felt the motion was timely because there was an economic strategy paper about to be presented at the time and the education curriculum was being reviewed. He felt it was extremely important that we focus on this type of motion in light of these two facts.

I think members all recognize the changes in our province over the years that have made it important to consider different strategies for our universities. We note that there have been drastic changes in our economy. The people in the work force have changed from largely agrarian workers to more workers in the information field. We now have a greater interest in export markets, and we have a position in world trade as a province. Because of that, Mr. Speaker, I think the new tech nologies present a great opportunity for us.

It's interesting that over the last 12 years, there have been a staggering number of breakthroughs. For instance, the power of the computer has increased 10,000 times in the last 14 years, and the price of each unit of performance has decreased 100,000 times.

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19841106
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L20 S2 19841106 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	2936f5701d862447758c9545f116280b1f155662

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