Alberta Hansard — 15 October 1981, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 19, Session 3)

19811015

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

October 15, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 1097 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Thursday, October 15, 1981 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to file with the Legislature Library the final response of Social Services and Community Health to the special report of the Ombudsman on foster care. In addition, I would like to file a copy of the Ombudsman's reply of September 16, 1981, to this final response. MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I wish to file a response to Motion for a Return No. 135. MR. HARLE: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to file three reports for the Legislature Library: A Compendium of Criminal Justice Statistics, Supplement 1980; Current Crime Trends in Alberta; and Current Crime Trends in Alberta: An Addendum. MR. McCRAE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to file a response to Motion for a Return No. 124. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. DIACHUK: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to introduce some 63 grade 6 students from Belmont ele mentary school in the constituency of Edmonton Beverly. After spending an hour or so with me some two weeks ago in their classroom, they are here visiting the Assem bly.

Accompanied by their teachers Mr. Bill French, Roy Oslend, Scott Zachary, Brian Aaberg, and Mrs. Valerie Behiels, they're seated in the members gallery. I'd ask them to rise and receive the usual welcome of this Assembly. MRS. CHICHAK: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleas ure today to introduce to you and to members of the Assembly a group of 15 students, with their group leader Don Whalen, from Grant MacEwan Community College, Cromdale Campus, which is within my constituency of Edmonton Norwood. I'd just like to say that during the sittings of the session, Mr.

Whalen has been an avid supporter of constantly bringing students from the cam pus who might otherwise not have been afforded the opportunity to attend the Legislature and observe, for at least some short period of time, the proceedings in the Assembly. For that I have to say congratulations. I'm grateful. On many occasions the students have expressed to me that they were very happy to have had the opportunity. I'd like to ask you and members of the Assembly welcome them. MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to you, and through you to members of the Assembly, Mr.

Dick Gruenwald, a former Member of the Legislative Assembly for Lethbridge West who served from 1971 to 1975. He is seated in the public gallery. MR. KROEGER: Mr. Speaker, in the visitors gallery is a special group from the village of Cereal. They're here to watch the workings of the House and, as well, to test our Premier today. I ask them to stand and be recognized. MR. R. CLARK: Is there a written exam? head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Interest Rates — Treasury Branches MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, today I wish to direct my question to the Provincial Treasurer.

It's in line with the theme we have established for this session; that is, the question from the man on the street, when the man on the street considers high interest rates. We heard yester day there's going to be no help for cattlemen. [interjec tions] We heard there's going to be no help . . . SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I'm not aware of any rule that requires the hon. leader to give a lengthy caption to the nature of the question about to follow. Perhaps he would come directly to the question. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. We would like . . . MR.

COOK: Sit down, Walt. DR. BUCK: Mr. Kooky, will you just wait. We'll all get a chance to speak. Mr. Speaker, seriously, many times in this Assembly we have asked if we are or if we are not following the precedents of the House of Commons in Ottawa. [inter jections] In the House of Commons, our Mother Parlia ment . . . [interjections] Well, Mr. Speaker, there are some Albertans who think they are Canadians. The Tories think they're Albertans and not Canadians.

I'd like to say that I am a Canadian. [interjections] The point I'm trying to make is: when the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons rises to place a question, you know, Mr. Speaker, and members of this Assembly know that they have much latitude in a pre amble. Otherwise, the question period in this Legislature becomes sterile and futile. What we are trying to do . . . [interjections] Well, fine. You get cut off all the time. If that isn't futile, I don't know what futile is. Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is trying to ask a question with some background.

I think the people in this province are entitled to have an answer to a question that's far ranging. MR. SPEAKER: As far as I'm aware, there is a Parlia ment known as the Mother of Parliaments at Westminst er, although the Parliament on the Isle of Man, which goes back a thousand years, sometimes disputes that title. Also, as far as I'm aware, among the Canadian parlia ments there are no mommas and papas. Although we do pay some regard to precedents in the House of Common- s, especially in cases where they've had experience and perhaps we have not had identical situations to contend

1098 ALBERTA HANSARD October 15, 1981 with, we don't follow those precedents slavishly. They work under a different set of Standing Orders, also under a different set of traditions, and I'm not responsible for what happens in that House. We are departing from the rules quite considerably, the ordinary rules of a question period, as it was envisaged when rules were written about it. There is considerable latitude. We've gone through this question of whether there was enough latitude a number of times in the past.

Certainly, within limits, a member, and sometimes a minister in answering, will work a sort of barb into the question or something that isn't necessary to either ask or answer the question. But when you go so far afield as to repeat a policy declaration time after time in asking the question, then I must intervene; I have no choice. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, in continuing to ask my question, the

preamble was most necessary because yesterday I sat in this Legislature for over two hours attempting to hear solutions to current problems. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. If the hon. Leader of the Opposition wishes to ask his question, would he please come to the question. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, the question is very direct to the Provincial Treasurer. It relates to the interest rates as one of the items I had hoped would have some air of answer yesterday, but didn't.

What plans does the Provincial Treasurer have to provide through the treasury branches some type of relief for the interest rates that are pressing Albertans into the ground at the present time? Has the Provincial Treasurer any plans? In the last spring Legislature the Provincial Treasurer said there were some actions we could take. Are those actions continuing, and if they are, what are they; and if not, why not? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, this government has continually been aware of and concerned about the nega tive impact of high interest rates on Albertans and west ern Canadians in particular.

The province will continue its very significant shielding of farmers, small businesses, home-owners, and municipalities. The responsibility, though, with respect to interest rates must be clearly placed where it belongs; that is, with the federal govern ment of this country in Ottawa. Mr. Speaker, as the Premier very effectively indicated yesterday, there is no need for the federal government of this country to have to automatically track American-made interest rates if we had policies from Ottawa that would come to grips with the problems of this country, and build on the strengths and use the . . . MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. As I perceive the ques tion, it was relating to actions of this government. MR. HYNDMAN: As the hon. member knows, the re sponsibility in respect of interest rates clearly belongs in Ottawa. This government will continue the many pro grams of rifling, shielding, and support for Albertans done over the last many months. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion. In the earlier part of this Legislature the minister indicated that the treasury branch interest would be held at 14 per cent, in terms of certain loans. Is that policy still in place?

Or has that policy changed, where the loans are now at a floating interest rate? MR. HYNDMAN: The hon. member is in error in making that assertion, Mr. Speaker. In the spring, when we were discussing the fact of 6 per cent loans for beginning farmers, 9 per cent loans under other farm programs, and very significant subsidies for municipali ties of 11 per cent, I indicated that treasury branches were loaning at 1 per cent less than prime, which was a major and significant reduction for those customers in the treasury branch. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

Is the minister proposing any new approaches with regard to the use of the treasury branches to meet interest relief at the present time, or is the 1 per cent below prime policy still in effect and will it continue? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, the 1 per cent below prime policy, which is not only very useful and beneficial but responsible, will continue. The treasury branches con tinue to be sensitive to modifications of existing pro grams, as they've done, for example, with regard to mortgages, and will continue to do so for the benefit of Albertans. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary ques tion, specifically with regard to mortgages. Is the minister looking at using the treasury branches as an instrument to provide low-interest mortgages for Albertans at the present time? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure whether the question period is the place to indicate the benefits of the treasury branch residential mortgage loans program, which has a number of features completely unique and beneficial to Albertans through the treasury branch as a financial institution.

But on the basis of the inquiry — and I can suggest that that is a special, beneficial program — I'll make it more widely known to the hon. member and to all Albertans. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, can the hon. Provin cial Treasurer assure the members of this Legislature that the treasury branches are providing mortgages at rates lower than any other financial institution in this province? MR. HYNDMAN: On average they're certainly compa rable or better than all other financial institutions. I can assure the Assembly of that, Mr. Speaker.

The treasury branch has been and continues to be in the forefront of being equal to or better than any other lending institution with regard to the provision of funds — remembering as well that the treasury branch has a responsibility to those people who have savings accounts in it. Rental Rates MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my second question is in line with the same type of questioning. It's a concern that is out on the street level of our cities and rural Alberta at the present time. My question with regard to rental rates, is to the Minister of Consumer and Corpo rate Affairs.

Could the minister indicate what actions, if any, are being taken with regard to rental rates, and what actions are being contemplated by the department?

October 15, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 1099 MR. KOZIAK: Well, Mr. Speaker, I share the concerns of the hon. member, together with others in this Assem bly who've expressed concerns to me about the rising rental rates in the province, particularly in the city of Calgary where the influx of a large population has added to problems which accompany the lack of availability of apartment space. I'm sure, by his earlier questions, that the hon. Leader of the Opposition is aware that Cana dians and Albertans are concerned about the abnormally high levels of interest rates that we're now paying.

It's those abnormally high levels of interest rates that are affecting not only the people in agriculture and business, and home-owners and their mortgage renewals, but also the landlord/tenant relationships, resulting in increased rents and, at the same time, as a disincentive to the construction of new apartment facilities. Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition asked what the government is doing. Of course my response — and perhaps the Minister of Housing and Public Works would want to add to my comments — is that we have put tremendous efforts into the provision of accommoda tion in this province.

Our budget for housing for this year exceeds by 70 per cent the entire budget of the govern ment of Alberta when we took office 10 years ago. And I'm sure that had we not embarked upon the programs to provide for housing in Alberta that we did, rents would probably be in the vicinity of $100 to $200 a month higher than they are today. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion to the minister. Has any consideration been given to re-establishing a rent review board to monitor the hap penings at the present time, or are the happenings so obvious that that type of board is not required? MR.

KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, it doesn't take a financial genius to determine that if an average apartment costs approximately $50,000 to build, including the land, if you're paying 20 per cent interest on the money for that $50,000, you've got $10,000 a year in interest alone. When you add to that all the other expenses in operating an apartment, the rents are approaching $1,000 a month. We do not have reports anywhere in the province of rentals approaching or exceeding what one might term the eco nomic rent required for an apartment.

Although there are substantial increases, in all cases the market rent is still substantially lower than the economic rent that would have to be charged in order to justify that type of investment. So at this point we see no benefits that can be gained from providing funds, employees, and manpower in the area of rent review. We're directing all our funds and manpower in the area of construction. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion to the minister. It's an anomaly that's been brought to my attention. It's with regard to the 6 per cent interest paid on renters' deposits.

I wonder if the minister has considered that that interest rate should be raised in line with current interest rates, or whether there will be a change in policy in that regard. MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, in response to questions that were posed to me during the course of the spring session, I indicated that it was not my intention to do so. I had real hopes that by the time fall session came about we would see a substantial drop in interest rates. That drop has not taken place.

My colleague the Provincial Treasurer and the Premier have indicated that there is no need for our rates to follow and track American rates. It was suggested that we could have a Canadian oil price, that surely we can have a Canadian interest rate. But it seems that that's not to be, and the high interest rates we're now paying will probably extend somewhat into the future, although there's some hope for some minor but not significant drops in the immediate future.

Under those circumstances, when one considers that the interest rate pegged on damage deposits, security depos its, when the Act was first introduced and passed at the beginning of this Session of the Legislature — the rate was set at 6 per cent then. If one assumes that the rate was correct, having regard to the change in rates since then, perhaps a review of that has to be made. I'll be undertaking a review of the interest rate we are requiring to be paid under The Landlord and Tenant Act, with perhaps some legislation being introduced this fall. Interest Rates — Mortgages MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Housing and Public Works. Could the minister indicate whether he's had any recent com munications with federal officials with regard to giving some aid to home-owners now renewing their mortgages? MR. CHAMBERS: No, Mr. Speaker, other than media reports. I would say, though, that the provincial housing ministers have tried to encourage, in a very significant way, the federal housing minister to assume his responsi bilities in terms of interest rates and to do something about it.

He has indicated he hopes — at least this is what I understand he is saying — that in the fall budget something will be done to alleviate hardship cases, so one would look with some anticipation to what might be done in that area. MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. Has the minister had an oppor tunity to study the proposal that was presented to the federal finance minister by the Bank of Nova Scotia and the Bank of Montreal with regard to giving credits to loan certificates and passing the credits back to the mortgage holders? MR. CHAMBERS: Mr.

Speaker, I've had nothing on that in a direct way, so I don't think it would be a particularly good idea for me to comment on the basis of something I might have read without seeing anything definitive. I would like to underline the fact that, as the Provincial Treasurer said, interest rates are obviously a responsibility of the federal government. I'm sure there are hardship cases, and I think everyone in this Assembly is concerned. It has to be a responsibility of the federal government to solve the problem of high interest rates.

And again, I completely agree that there should be no reason the Canadian interest rates have to track the American rates. MR. MANDEVILLE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If they had this relief as far as tax rates are concerned, the province would be picking up a third of this. If the finance minister goes ahead with this program, would it be the intention of the province to approve it, since the Alberta government would be obligated to pay a third of it? * *See page 1103, right column, paragraph 3

1100 ALBERTA HANSARD October 15, 1981 MR. CHAMBERS: Mr. Speaker, I really can't comment on a hypothetical area. I have no idea whether the federal minister is going to propose anything like that. I think we just have to wait to see what's contained in that area in the federal budget. But again, I'd like to underline that high interest rates are a responsibility of the federal government, a policy of the federal government, and therefore it's up to the federal government to solve that high interest policy. MR. MANDEVILLE: A supplementary question to the minister, Mr. Speaker.

In light of the interest rate de creases we've had with the Bank of Canada over the past month and a half, and today they went down another 0.64 points, is it the intent of the minister to decrease our mortgage loans to home-owners that right now are 19.5 per cent? With the Bank of Canada rates the way they are now, I think mortgage rates with other lending institutes are more preferable. MR. CHAMBERS: Mr.

Speaker, I'm glad that question was raised, because I think it's useful to clarify that the mortgage rate through the family home purchase pro gram, which I'm assuming the hon. member is asking about, is a floating rate. It's adjusted at one point over the borrowing rate of the Home Mortgage Corporation. The massive subsidies which exist are related to afforda- bility. In other words, at the very lowest income level of $14,000 a year, the rate has been as high as $585 a month, and that's direct subsidy payment to the home-owner. I hope I'm clear on this.

The rate floats and is adjusted from time to time depending on what the borrowing rate of the corporation is, recognizing that the rate would never exceed the lowest available commercial rate. All of the subsidy appears in one direct payment. MR. MANDEVILLE: One final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I understand from the minister's office that in the past when these increases were put on they were phoning Home Mortgage personnel and telling them that this day they increase the rates, and it caused such a hardship on so many applicants.

I wonder if the minister had any complaints from applicants, where their applica tions came in the day after the phone call and they weren't processed at the old rates. I got a lot of phone calls on the last increase, from 18.5 to 19.5 per cent. Is the minister planning to take some steps to give some notice before the increases are applied in this area? MR. CHAMBERS: Mr. Speaker, I think the only way it's possible for the corporation to operate in this field is that when an adjustment is required the adjustment has to be made at that point in time.

But perhaps there's a misconception in terms of affordability, because the sub sidy levels are adjusted along with the mortgage rate. In other words, if the mortgage rate goes up the subsidy goes up. So affordability remains the same throughout the spectrum. Once people understand that, there's no difficulty. No, quite frankly I haven't had complaints in that area that I'm aware of. School Bus Regulations DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address my question to the Minister of Transportation. This is a follow-up to the question I asked yesterday about the use of flashing lights on school buses.

Will the minister first differentiate between using flashing lights in urban centres and using them in towns and villages. Is there a difference? MR. KROEGER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the best way to answer the question is that we are presently reviewing the total Act, with the view of clarification and improvement. So what exists today may not exist when we finish the review, and we're right in the middle of that at the moment. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if we can wait that long.

My question is: is the minister in a position to indicate right now if enabling legislation will be passed in this session so that towns and villages can, if they so wish, instruct their school bus drivers to use flashing lights? As it stands now, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Minister, they do not have that power. Will that be brought in at this sitting of the Legislature? MR. KROEGER: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure this will require legislation. I think it can be done by regulation, and that's the reason we're into the review at the moment.

The power a municipality, town, city, et cetera has, if they don't have it now, is to pass a by-law that flashing lights can be actuated if the speed limit is above 50 kilometres an hour. If the question is, what is the reason for this as it exists now, the thinking is that the interruptions of traffic, requiring all traffic at 30 miles per hour or under to stop in all cases, are themselves a hazard.

Keeping in mind that school buses unload on the side where the traffic wouldn't be, alongside sidewalks, and that there are intersections marked for pedestrian crossing now, to require school buses to stop all traffic is a little unrealistic. Nevertheless, we are reviewing the process now, and if it requires a change, certainly we will respond. DR. BUCK: Maybe the minister can let the municipali ties decide if that's unrealistic or not. A supplementary question. Can the minister or this government give us a commitment that the municipality can decide if it's reasonable or unreasonable to have this legislation?

We are asking if the minister can make legis lation at this fall sitting or regulations — if he deems it fit — that the municipality, the town, or village can decide if they would like their school buses to patrol the traffic so there's not a danger of children being killed. MR. KROEGER: Mr. Speaker, of course any regulations or legislation we have are aimed at that very concept: to remove the danger for the school children. But again, as I've already indicated, we're in the process of doing the review to see what flexibility we can give.

Certainly we can't have wide-ranging powers change from the depart ment and that responsibility to each jurisdiction doing their own. We do have the situation now where the regulations are standardized. I think a mix of new regula tions that would be different in every jurisdiction would add to the danger. We have to have standardization. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Solicitor General. Yesterday I asked if the minister could indicate if there is a significant number of prosecu tions as to violators, people passing school buses that have flashing lights on.

Can the minister answer that question today?

October 15, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 1101 MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, I can't. The reason is that there are 11 different municipalities that have their own police forces, plus the RCMP. It will take some time to circulate all those entities. Rapid Transit MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, my question, on the subject of urban transportation, is also to the hon. Minis ter of Transportation.

Could the minister advise the Assembly when he anticipates receipt of the report of his study group on LRT, and how soon thereafter he will be able to advise the Assembly as to the government's deci sion on the provision of additional funding for urban transportation? DR. BUCK: Don't forget, he's up for nomination tonight. MR. KROEGER: Mr. Speaker, the task force the hon. member referred to is working. As a matter of fact, they're away on their second tour now. The information to us is in the form of a verbal report every time they return from an inspection.

When they finish, which should be sometime in November, a final report will be developed. The interim ones are not written reports; they're verbal. The mayors of Edmonton and Calgary and I are in attendance. The task force reports to us. When the final report is in, the decision on how to handle that will have to be taken. I would see, though, that it should be public information, because the object of the exercise is to make the kind of pressures on cities public. I hope the kind of information they develop will help us to solve, or at least cope with, those problems.

The second part of the question that relates to funding is of course a separate question and will have to be dealt with by government policy. I think the member is aware that we're halfway through a six-year program of funding urban transportation. It has been reviewed. It has been increased. But if there are good and sufficient reasons, I'm sure any extra funding that would have to be used will be considered. MR. ZAOZIRNY: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

In light of the successful bid by Calgary for the 1988 Olympics, which will put added pressure on the northwest part of the city, and in light of the serious traffic and transportation problems in the northeast, can the minister at least assure the Assembly that in the course of its deliberations the government will be willing to give consideration to sufficient funding to allow both the northwest and northeast legs to proceed simultaneously? MR. KROEGER: Mr.

Speaker, I would not necessarily see any relationship between the proposed northwest- northeast LRT service in Calgary and the development of the Olympic program. It may very well have an impact, and I would expect to hear from people in Calgary. I have not yet heard any direct representation that says this route is important to the developing of the Olympic program. I'm expecting to hear something about that. Nevertheless, unless a route could be identified that has specific bearing on the Olympic program as it will unfold, I think we would be governed in the ordinary way.

It would be difficult to make decisions in isolation in one city. We've got 12 cities. Our urban program is built around the concept of urban transportation around all of them. There could be a special consideration for Calgary. Livestock Industry Study MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a ques tion to either the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Economic Development. It flows from the question I asked the Minister of Agriculture yesterday about the percentage of the Canadian meat supply generating from Alberta, that 43 to 45 per cent the minister responded to.

My question deals with the study being done by Dr. Horner. I ask either minister for the status of that report. When will it be made public? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, I understand the report in total will be available to us very shortly. After we've had an opportunity to go through the report, it would be made public. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, has the minister had discussions with Dr. Horner with regard to the recom mendations, so that some of the anticipated recommenda tions from Dr.

Horner hopefully can be incorporated, hopefully, into a program the province will put in place to help both the feedlot and the cow-calf operators? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, we've had the opportuni ty to discuss forthcoming parts of the report, recognizing the report wasn't complete — an opportunity to get some of the background material which we felt was necessary in trying to assess the livestock industry, where it is and where it should be going. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, is the minister in a position to indicate to the Assembly whether Dr.

Horner has recommended that there be a program to help protect the feedlot industry and the cow-calf industry in the province? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, as yet there's been no direct recommendation along those lines. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister, just so there is no misunderstanding. There has been no recommendation to the government from Dr. Horner and the report he is doing for the government on the preservation of the red meat industry in Alberta that in fact there should be assistance to the feedlot and the cow-calf operators. There's been no rec ommendation from Dr.

Horner for that kind of assist ance. Is that what the minister is saying? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, if there were any recom mendation for a long term, I would assume it would be in the total report. The discussions we've had in regard to the direction of the industry in total dealt with a few recommendations that were involved in some of the col lection of data over the period of the report itself, some numbers available to the industry from a packing point of view, and some of the information that was gathered on behalf of industries across Canada. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, one last question.

In the course of the discussions, has the minister asked Dr. Horner whether he will be including recommendation for some assistance of the kind mentioned in the House

1102 ALBERTA HANSARD October 15, 1981 yesterday and today? Or has the minister not sought Dr. Horner's advice in that area? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the hon. mem ber is aware that Dr. Horner made some comments to one of the meetings that was held in Boyle, I believe, on behalf of the livestock industry and on some of the work he had done. I'm sure some recommendations for some long-term solutions to the industry would be included in the report. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, one last, last supplemen tary question. Very specifically, has the Alberta Minister of Agriculture asked Dr.

Horner, the government's con sultant in the area of the red meat industry, for recom mendations as to how to help the cattle industry out of the jam it's in today? Has the minister asked Dr. Horner specifically that question? Because I take from the answer we had to date that that has not happened. MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, I would assume that the basic report Dr. Horner has been working on — first of all, on behalf of government.

The reason for a study was on behalf of the industry, and I'm sure that if the recommendations covered the total industry in recogniz ing the industry as it is today, recommendations would be contained in there as to what the future plans should be on recommendations for the industry. MR. R. CLARK: Why haven't you asked him, Dallas? MR. SCHMIDT: It's not important that I have to ask. The recommendations and the terms of reference for the report dealt directly with recommendations as to where the livestock industry should be going. Knowing Dr.

Horner, I can only assume that he will follow those terms of reference and will make some recommendations. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, prior to moving to Orders of the Day, I gave notice yesterday that I would like to raise a point of privilege, and I would like to do that at this time. According to the rules, I've given adequate notice and, I believe, adequate explanation with regard to the point of privilege, and I'd now like to make this statement with regard to it.

The point of privilege I wish to raise is regarding a clear contradiction between statements made to members of this Legislative Assembly last May 27 and 28 by the Attorney General, and a subsequent argument made on behalf of the Attorney General before the Court of Queen's Bench in Calgary. The statements relate to the argument put forward by the Attorney General in defence of taking action during the Committee of Supply on Vote 4 in Housing and Public Works estimates. That is the matter of the special warrant for the purchase of McDougall school in Calgary.

During Committee of Supply debate, members of this Assembly were told quite unequivocally that the question which was before the courts regarding the validity of the special warrant would not be affected by being referred to in this Assembly. This argument overcame misgivings by government members as to whether this vote could pro ceed without prejudicing the same issue. However, when the matter did come before the courts, Mr.

Speaker, the defence presented on behalf of the Attorney General was based entirely on the position that because the Assembly had already voted on the matter, it did not fall within the jurisdiction of the court to make a ruling on it. Indeed, that defence was accepted by the judge and no ruling was given. Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we regard this change of argument as a serious and willful deception of the members of this Assembly by the Attorney General on a matter involving a very important principle of fiscal responsibility and accountability. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to address just a few remarks in response to the point raised by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I note that he has limited his point not to what the Assembly did on that occasion but only to certain language used by me. Therefore, the point is quite a narrow one. Mr. Speaker, I think I would sum up what is raised in the point of order simply by noting that the expressions used in the discussion here at the time were with reference to two distinct procedures.

I referred to the fact that the matter being attacked by the hon. leader was an executive act and that we were in the process of a legislative act at the time. I pointed out that no parliament has ever put itself in a position where an estimate of proposed budget ary expenditure on behalf of a government could not be voted upon. No parliament has ever put itself in that position.

I was interested in the fact that in making argument in respect of the case, the legal counsel for the hon. leader suggested that by dealing with the matter the entire Assembly might have been out of order relative to Stand ing Order 22. I think that argument may distinguish itself by being the first time it has ever been uttered anywhere, because it has no merit whatever. I wonder if the distinctions made at that time need be dwelt upon, but I want to place them once again in the immediate memory of hon. members in order that the balance of what I have to say might be in that perspec tive.

In the process of debate, Mr. Speaker, I don't think the leader should have drawn any conclusion that I was, in effect, advising him as to what he should do. I may have opinions that I may express as to what he should do, but to call them advice is another matter. It was the hon. leader who commenced a lawsuit and decided to conduct it in accordance with the instructions he gave to his legal counsel. In all respects, I found it not a difficult matter to differentiate between that and the process the House was going through.

I pointed out that in the event all it took was a lawsuit to stall a budgetary procedure, no parliament could function, and suggested to the hon. leader that if at some future time, because a special warrant related to, say, some requirement to pay public service salaries, he proposed commencing a lawsuit he could stop the Assembly from paying its employees. He could stop the Assembly from agreeing to the con struction of a hospital anywhere in the province merely by commencing a lawsuit. Of course, the hon. leader says, I suppose, I would never do that.

He says, I'm a school site man myself and would not do this in other circumstances. Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. leader didn't draw from anything I said on any previous occasion — and by the way, the legal counsel on behalf of the government raised a number of points, not only the one the hon. leader has chosen to refer to. I hope he could see the matter in the way I understand the observations of the judge who

October 15, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 1103 heard the application took it into account. I believe that when the matter was referred to him in court, he commented that the statements made by me did not mean that the courts have exclusive jurisdiction in the matter but that in due course the matter would be in the courts, whatever the result might be there. As far as I was concerned, that was certainly the expression I conveyed to members of the Assembly, in substantially similar language, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: As I see the essentials of this situation, there had been an action commenced questioning or at tacking the validity of a certain special warrant which had been issued, agreed to, and executed by His Honour the Lieutenant Governor in Council. As the hon. Attorney General has mentioned, when that amount came before the Committee of Supply, the question of Rule 22(g)(1) was raised because the matter was already before the courts.

There is a parliamentary custom, and it's men tioned in our Standing Orders, not to deal with matters which are before the courts in such a way that might be perceived to influence a court's decision, either by show ing its independence in going the other way or perhaps by following what was suggested. As I understand the remarks made by the hon. Attor ney General, which are the subject of this complaint or point of privilege, he was expressing an opinion.

He was saying what was before the court, and that's always a matter of opinion because it's not always easy to say just exactly what is the question the court is supposed to decide. It's different if the court gets a written set of questions. I think we had a clear example recently in the Supreme Court of Canada where, I think, the widespread opinion held among Canadians was that the question was whether the constitutional package was legal. We got a judgment which said, well, yes, it was barely legal.

But evidently the court agreed that another point that was before the court — and it's quite easy to see from the submissions — was whether it was constitutional. Now that doesn't mean to say that people who thought it was just legal were telling lies or anything like that. Moreover there wouldn't be anything which would prevent a minis ter or any other member of the Assembly from expressing an opinion here and then expressing another opinion outside.

In this particular case, the opinion outside was expressed by a solicitor, who may or may not have gotten his lines written by the Attorney General but presumably he wrote his own lines because he was asked to act as counsel. It seems to me that what we're trying to say here is that a subsequent statement by counsel for the Attorney General has turned a previous statement into a falsehood, and possibly even a deliberate falsehood.

That does not seem to me to be a valid argument, in any event, and especially so when what was expressed here, according to its very plain text, was simply a matter of opinion and it was a point on which anyone in the Assembly was en titled to have his or her own opinion whether or not they wanted to go along with what was said. So I am unable to say that there is here, on the face of it, any question of a breach of privilege, and that's all I'm supposed to decide.

In passing, one of the things that crossed my mind — and it may not be directly relevant, but it certainly does arise from this question of privilege. It would cause one to wonder what would happen to one of the parliaments of Canada, which includes our own of course, if someone were to start a lawsuit and question the legality of all the estimates. Would that mean that the parliament could not go ahead and deal with the estimates and couldn't vote supply until it was given leave to do so by the court or there was a favorable judgment? It would seem to me that that would be a rather untenable position.

But to come back to the essentials, I am unable to see here any question of a breach of privilege. Perhaps it would be possible to put a construction on it that might give rise to an allegation of a grievance, and that is a distinction that has also been made elsewhere, both in Canada and, I suppose, in the United Kingdom. As far as breach of privilege is concerned, I'm unable to say that on the face of it that has occurred. MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might just rise on a point of privilege and correct a portion of the answer I gave earlier today.

It has been brought to my attention that when I mentioned the construction costs of apartments, I said apartment "building" at $50,000. I should have said apartment "unit" at $50,000.* While I'm on my feet, I might add that I was searching fo r the proper definition relative to the timing of the introduction of The Landlord and Tenant Act, and that was at the beginning of this Legislature rather than at the beginning of the session, as I suggested. head: MOTIONS FOR RETURNS MR. HORSMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if I might move that Motion 137 stand and retain its place on the Order Paper. [Motion carried] head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS MR. L. CLARK: I'm very pleased today to move Motion 210. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to read the motion into the record, because it has been a while since it was placed on the Order Paper. Motion 210 reads this way:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the government to give consideration to the funding of an experimental project to develop wind-driven turbine pumps, with a view to replacing electrically operated pumps now used in southern Alberta for the pumping of water for irrigation. In speaking to the motion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to concentrate on about six points.

The first would be the reasons for the motion, what the motion is really asking for, and how it would be funded; four, the potential of windpower in southern Alberta; and, very briefly, what developments have occurred in the rest of Canada and in other countries in the world; six, the Alberta/Canada energy resources research fund, better known as ERRF. Mr.

Speaker, to go back to the reasons for the motion being here today, the government has long recognized a need to diversify the Alberta economy through the ex pansion of agriculture, secondary industries, and Alberta- based technologies and scientific expertise. Conventional oil resources in western Canada are rapidly being used up. The government has stressed the need and finally received, after much negotiation with our federal gov ernment — very hard negotiation, I might add — a realis tic price for oil. Two of the main reasons for this are to *See page 1099, left column, paragraph 4

1104 ALBERTA HANSARD October 15, 1981 encourage exploration and to promote conservation. Why have we been so concerned about conventional oil? One of the main reasons is that light and medium crude oils, which are the most in demand in Canada today for our diesel fuels and gasoline, are also in short est supply. These oils are the only mobile fuel we have. Possibly we have new inventions down the road to re place it, but until that happens there should be some effort to conserve some of our light and medium crude oils for transportation and the production of foodstuffs.

Coal, of course, is also an important alternative for our thermal power generation. But even at 32 per cent effi ciency, it takes a large capital investment of 800 to 1,000 per kilowatt to develop it. It's also unfortunate — after being around on the surface rights committee for a year — that most of our coal lies under some very good agricultural land that would have to go out of food production. That leaves us with two alternatives, solar and wind power, that are yet undeveloped. The second point is: what does this motion ask for?

It simply asks the government to fund, from a fund already set up, a small project on wind power. There have been several small requests from private businesses to fund small projects out of the ERRF. But the one we have before us today has been a small project and is being put before the ERRF program to test, design, and prove the reliability and economic feasibility of pumping water for irrigation and for the expansion of drainage and irriga tion in southern Alberta. If successful, it will expand wind energy into an environmentally acceptable and un limited supply of renewable energy.

How would this be funded? As I said, in the province of Alberta we now have a fund called the energy re sources research fund, which was set up for the purpose of supporting and promoting existing and potential ener gy resources in Alberta. I would like to come back to that ERRF program a little later in my address, because I feel it is very important to the part of this motion. Point four is: what potential is there for wind power in southern Alberta? The Lethbridge area has a much great er wind-speed average than any other place in Canada except for Saskatchewan and parts of Newfoundland.

That may be because of all the members we have down there; I'm not sure. MRS. CRIPPS: What about Drumheller? MR. L. CLARK: But only Newfoundland and Saskatch ewan have a higher wind average. According to the Wiggins report, Prospects for Solar and Wind Energy Utilization in Alberta, published by Alberta Energy and Natural Resources, solar wind in Alberta, if developed, is 500 times greater than the production of all other energy in the province. With technology, that energy can be developed. It can be produced anywhere with no harmful effects to the environment.

It can be developed as it's needed with no great capital outlay. I would like to give you a couple of examples of some of the windmills we're talking about. I think the average wind in southern Alberta is 13.6 miles per hour. If you took a 15 mile an hour wind average and a 200 foot diameter fan, which is small by today's standards, you could produce 200 horsepower year round in southern Alberta. Another example: if you took the same 200 foot diameter blade and put it to pumping water, you could pump 400 acre-feet per day, 8,000 acre-feet in a six- month period.

This is enough to irrigate 5,000 acres at a foot and a half per acre. [Mr. Appleby in the Chair] Now I would like to make point five: what develop ments have already taken place in Canada and the other countries in the world? I'm just going to touch on this very briefly, because I feel it will be brought up later, maybe by the next speaker. Wind turbines are being developed today in Holland, Great Britain, Denmark, Sweden, the U.S.A., and even Canada, where they have quite a project to develop a large Darrieus or eggbeater type of windmill in Quebec.

In Goodnoe Hills, Washing ton, they have developed three 300-foot diameter wind turbines at a cost of $30 million. This is just a quick overview of some of the research being done in other countries and parts of Canada. I'd now like to spend a little time on the ERRF program, energy resources research fund. Before I do, I would like to say that the amount of money being spent on wind research in other parts of the world and other countries is in the tens of millions of dollars. Alberta's commitment in this area has been slightly more than a million dollars in the last four years.

With that, let us look at the ERRF program: why it came to be set up, what it's being used for, and it's objectives and guidelines. The Alberta energy resources research fund was created as a result of the March 1974 oil pricing agreement between the provincial and federal governments, to minimize the crude oil price increases at that time and admitting that Alberta was the owner of a resource and was selling it at lower than world price. In recognition that Alberta was selling its oil at lower than world price, the federal government set out funds to assist Alberta in strengthening and diversifying its economy.

These mon eys amounted to $144 million, with $96 million directed to energy-related research projects to be used over a six-year period, starting in the fiscal year '76-77. Agree ment was reached on the terms of reference for the fund, and the Alberta energy resources research fund was formed. What I believe is important to understand — and I suppose many of you know it, because you were probably in this Legislature in '76 when that came down — is that the $96 million is available to Alberta with very few strings attached.

In other words, Alberta may initiate proposals for research and decide which proposals are acceptable and which are not. When looking at this motion, I believe it's important to remember that fact. What are the guidelines of the ERRF program? Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I would like to read these into the record from the Alberta resources research fund fourth annual report.

The two main objectives were: to promote and support research into the develop ment and efficient use of Alberta's existing and po tential energy resources, having regard for the prov ince's and Canada's medium and longer-term energy needs; and This is the second point: to encourage the development of Alberta-based scientific and technical expertise in the field of ener gy research and development.

Now, the guidelines in this were very simply: one, to develop potential energy resources; two, to give prefer ence to applied projects rather than research, to en courage Alberta's private sector to participate — I think it's very important you remember that it was there to encourage the private sector to get into the act — and to give maximum preference to Alberta-based engineering and scientific expertise. It excluded the oil sands projects.

October 15, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 1105 Keeping these objectives in mind, let us look at one of the proposals that has been before this fund since 1978 and briefly follow it through to its present stage. The project was for the designing and testing of a 75-foot prototype delta blade wind turbine, coupled with a variable-capacity pump. The objective: to demonstrate under actual field conditions the reliability and cost of pumping large volumes of water for use in irrigation, storage, drainage, hydropower, commercial use, and rec reation.

This is the first stage of what could well be a major development of an extensive use of Alberta's wind energy. The proposal: to install a 75-foot prototype wind turbine in the Bow River Irrigation District at Lost Lake, where the basic water facilities were already in place. You might ask: does this proposal meet all the guide lines under this program? Well, let's look at it. It was proposed by a Calgary-based engineering firm, and the fan was invented and designed by Dr. Kentfield of the University of Alberta.

In co-operation with the Calgary- based firm, they went ahead and built a 130-inch diamet er delta-blade prototype. This prototype windmill was sent to the National Research Council, tested in their wind tunnel, and proved its aerodynamic efficiencies to be somewhat greater than the Darrieus and almost equal to the variable pitch. It also had several other advantages over its competitors.

It was self-starting, even under load; it could produce power through a full range of speeds, rather than relying on the narrow band of high speeds that was required by the Darrieus; and it was a very slow-turning fan which produced power but less noise. It would seem that this project would ideally fit under, and be helped and encouraged by, a program such as ERRF. As I stated, assistance was asked for under this program in May of [1978]. Now, you might say: where is the program at present?

At the time this motion was put on the Order Paper last fall, there had been no progress whatever in assistance with this project, although only about $14 million of the $96 million had been expended and there was less than one year to go in the agreement. Since that time, howev er, the project has received assistance for the first stage. I would like to compliment those people involved for doing this, because I think it shows they are interested in bringing another resource to Alberta.

The first stage is really just the planning and designing, but what is really uncertain now is whether or not the assistance will be continued to the completed project. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I believe it's very important that Alberta begin to look at alternate forms of energy in Alberta, so when the time arrives that we are faced with a shortage of light and medium crude oils that we use for food production and transportation, we won't have to go outside and import the technology.

I would also like to add that I would hate to see a project of this importance fail or stop for lack of support. Now that it has been deemed important enough to be funded for the first stage, surely we should continue to support the complete proposal and see if we cannot get a real step into an alternate energy source in Alberta before we're forced into it. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would urge the Assembly to support this motion. MR. KUSHNER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. Member for Drumheller for bringing Motion 210 before the Assembly today.

I think it's not only an interesting subject but a timely and important one, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this motion this afternoon. The motion before us deals with one very specific application of wind energy in the agricultural sector; that is, the use of wind-driven turbine pumps to pump water for irrigation purposes in southern Alberta. As an urban member of this Legislature, I don't propose to stand in my place this afternoon and pretend to be an expert on agriculture. If I did that, my remarks would be met with well-deserved skepticism.

Therefore, my comments re garding the use of energy in the agricultural sector and the feasibility of using wind power to meet some of the energy requirements of agriculture in Alberta will be very brief, very general, and based upon expert advice given to me in the course of preparing for this debate. Mr. Speaker, my real interest in this motion goes beyond the very specific use of wind energy mentioned in the hon. member's motion. The motion asks us to urge the government to support a research project.

It is the very nature of research that it can often open up new avenues of inquiry, exciting new possibilities for improv ing our way of life which no one ever dreamed of at the time the research was first begun. So I want to devote most of my time this afternoon to discussing not so much what the motion actually calls for but what it implies potentially for the energy future of this province. I intend to point out a number of other possible applications of wind energy in Alberta which a research project like this might very well lead to.

I also intend to focus on the economic side of the picture, the question of marketabili ty of wind energy technology, in an effort to show that there are strong arguments in favor of devoting more of our time and money to applied research in this area. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I intend to conclude with a few observations on the way in which energy-related research is funded by this government, and how this government's sound performance so far might be made even better.

Let me begin by quoting briefly from an Alberta agri cultural report entitled Energy Requirements of Agricul ture in Alberta which was presented to the energy re source requirements hearing of the ERCB earlier this year. According to this report, forecast increases in agri cultural output will require increased energy use of close to 100 per cent within the next 25 years. Higher energy prices will have the largest impact upon the most inten sive production systems. Indirect energy costs in the form of chemicals and machinery are as significant as direct increases in fuel costs.

Farmers' response to higher energy prices may well include a reduction in the use of energy- intensive inputs, particularly fertilizer, which would result in decreased production. Mr. Speaker, I am especially concerned about the im plication of the last sentence of this quotation. The world in general certainly cannot accept any decrease in agricul ture production at this point in time. For Alberta in particular, a falling-off of agriculture production would mean a very serious blow to our economy.

Consumers in the urban areas would feel the effects when food prices begin to rise far more dramatically than they have in the past few years. I feel very strongly, Mr. Speaker, that this scenario must not be allowed to take place here in Alberta. It is our responsibility as legislators to do all we can to prevent it from taking place. This is precisely why I am convinced that wind energy is an alternative we should be pursuing now, especially in southern Alberta where the wind blows hard enough, often enough, and sometimes in unlimited supply, if I may use that expression.

Going back to the report I quoted earlier, it stated that

1106 ALBERTA HANSARD October 15, 1981 energy requirements for agriculture in Alberta will double by the turn of the century. Surely we cannot expect all these energy requirements to be supplied from current conventional sources. For one thing, there's every chance conventional sources will be depleted by that time and, for another thing, the cost of the conventional energy sources that remain will most likely be extremely high, much higher than we should ask the farmers to bear. No, Mr. Speaker, we simply cannot go that route. We must explore alternate energy sources for agriculture, and we have to start now.

As I said, I'm convinced that wind energy is a very promising possibility in this respect, and I would like to give my reasons for thinking this way. I note, for ex ample, that the report I referred to earlier goes on to state, and I will quote: wind energy is well-suited to the farm environment. Indeed there are pumping applications in southern Alberta where wind energy is already a prac tical alternative, such as the use of small wind pumps for low-lift drainage outlets along irrigation canals. A num ber of sites have been identified where large-scale wind systems could be used for control of lake levels.

These are ideal applications for wind energy because intermittent pumping is acceptable, thus eliminating the need for expensive energy storage systems. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to know more about those sites which have been identified, and officials in the Depart ment of Agriculture were glad to help. A report on irriga tion development in the Milk River basin, to mention one example, identifies 87 different locations where wind- driven pumping systems could be installed, resulting in some 90,000 additional acres being brought under irriga tion. And that is in the Milk River basin only.

If we look at all southern Alberta, there is a potential to increase irrigated land from the present 1 million acres to 9 million acres. Mr. Speaker, if we have to rely on conventional fossil fuels to supply the energy for this vast increase in irriga tion pumping, I just don't see how we're going to be able to afford it. The great advantage of wind is that you pay for the initial cost of putting in the wind machine, and after that, with the exception of a little bit of main tenance, your energy costs are nil. Mr.

Speaker, allow me to be even more specific by giving some examples of private sector involvement, companies that are taking advantage of our free enter prise system and that have enough confidence in the future of wind power to put their own money at risk. An Ontario company has invested $15 million in the manu facture of large propeller blades, up to 300 feet in diamet er. A Montreal firm has devoted five years and over $1 million toward development of large wind machines, and is only now starting to show a return on that investment.

They have just signed a contract to deliver a number of machines to Hydro-Quebec. The machines will provide a total power output of 30,000 kilowatts. The company is presently negotiating contracts with utility companies in Ontario and the maritimes. To the south of us, an American-based firm has spent approximately $15 million on wind energy research, and they too are now finding excellent markets for their product. They have sold 20 large wind machines to the state of Hawaii, an additional 16 machines to the south ern California Edison Utility Company, and 12 others to the Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

All of this has taken place within the past year. That manufacturer is now negotiating contracts for over 100 more machines with various other utility companies throughout the U.S.A. In addition, there is a Seattle-based firm which last year signed a contract with the U.S. Department of Energy to build a 300-foot wind propeller, with first option on additional units if the prototype proves successful. Mr. Speaker, there are many, many other examples of the kind of confidence being shown by the private sector in wind energy, not only in North America but through out the world. But I think my point is made.

We all know that the private sector would not put in risk capital of that magnitude unless they are able to satisfy themselves that the project would be a viable, paying proposition. Let me cite just one more example, which I consider very relevant to the province of Alberta. The MAN Company of West Germany is currently working under government contract to produce a variable-pitch wind propeller system similar to the U.S. models I referred to earlier. The plan is to make use of these for electrical power generation along the north shore of Germany.

The significance of this for Alberta is that both the West German government and the MAN Company consider the north shore winds to be economically viable as a source of energy. The average wind speed in that part of Germany, Mr. Speaker, is only 11 miles per hour,

whereas, as my colleague the hon. Member for Drum- heller mentioned earlier, the average wind speed for that portion of Alberta from Red Deer to the U.S. border is 14 miles per hour. And there are many places in southern Alberta where the average wind speed is more than 20 miles per hour, as my hon. colleagues from Lethbridge, Pincher Creek, Crowsnest, Cardston, and Macleod will probably confirm.

If an average wind speed of 11 miles per hour in Germany is sufficient to prompt the government and the private sector into spending millions on harnessing wind energy there, surely the kind of wind regime we are fortunate to have in southern Alberta would be, if any thing, more adaptable to harness as an energy source. I'm not a scientist or an engineer, Mr. Speaker, but I can say that the scientific and engineering literature I have ex amined in preparing for this debate most definitely indi cates that this in fact is the case.

To summarize, I suppose I could say that my enthusi asm for wind energy is based on two factors, technical and economic. The literature I've examined has con vinced me that wind as an energy source is technically feasible, especially in southern Alberta. When I discover ed what kind of private sector commitment is being made to wind energy elsewhere in the world, that was enough to convince me that wind energy technology can be not only technically possible, but also economically viable and marketable. With these two things in its favor, Mr.

Speaker, I would suggest that the province of Alberta ought to have a major involvement in this area. At this point, I can anticipate that some hon. members might raise a few objections, one being that since the technology is being or has been developed elsewhere, how can we justify putting money into research? Wouldn't we just end up duplicating the research that has already been done? Why can't the private sector or government, as the case may be, simply purchase the wind machines already on the market?

Another objection might be that since the private sector elsewhere has enough confidence to spend its money on wind energy technology, why can't the Alberta private sector do likewise? Why should public funds be spent if the private sector can carry the ball on its own? These are important points, Mr. Speaker, and I would

October 15, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 1107 like to take a few moments to deal with them. First, the question of duplication of research: let me begin that the point is certainly well taken. There are wind machines of varying sizes now on the market at cost-competitive prices available through Canadian distributors. I have seen advertisements for an Australian line of wind ma chines available through a Vancouver distributor. In ad dition, Swiss-made wind machines are distributed in Canada by an Ontario-based company.

Therefore, we do indeed have to be careful that our research is not geared to developing something for which an acceptable substi tute already exists. However, that being said, there are two rebuttals which could be made in response. The first is that Alberta's climate is more unusual in many respects than many members may realize. Not only do we have extremes of temperature as great as anywhere in the world, but we also have the chinook, a very unique kind of wind in terms of velocity and the time of year that it occurs.

So, when we talk about wind energy research here in Alberta, we're talking in part about discovering how to take exist ing technology and apply it to Alberta conditions. I'm talking about applied as opposed to basic research. I'm sure hon. members will appreciate that the problem of duplication becomes quite irrelevant in this context. But, Mr. Speaker, I also wish to make the point that Alberta now has the opportunity to make a meaningful contribution even to basic research into wind technology. About four years ago, as my hon. colleague from Drumheller mentioned, Dr. J.

Kentfield of the University of Calgary invented a new type of wind propeller, known as the delta blade. This wasn't the type of discovery that gets flashy headlines like insulin or polio vaccine, but it was a very significant breakthrough. As I understand it, the delta blade has two very important advantages over other types of wind systems. One, it is self-starting; that is, it doesn't require an initial boost from some other energy source.

Two, it is able to operate through a full range of wind speeds, anywhere from 8 miles per hour to 45 miles per hour, unlike most other systems, which are able to operate effectively only within a much narrower range of wind speed. I should point out that I am not simply repeating here in this Assembly the claims made by the inventor himself or by the Alberta-based companies that want to develop and market this new invention. Mr.

Speaker, tests com pleted in Ottawa by the National Research Council indi cated that the delta-blade turbine is potentially 30 to 50 per cent more efficient than the most common type of wind propeller, a model known as the Darrieus. I guess what I'm saying is that we do indeed have to be careful to avoid duplication of research but, at the same time, there's a lot of scope for both innovative research based on an idea born right here in Alberta and applied re search which seeks to adapt existing technology to Alber ta conditions. With proper care, duplication of research should not be a problem.

I urge hon. members to set their minds at ease, should they have any hesitation about this motion from this point of view. Let me make a few remarks now on the second possible objection, being that the private sector ought to be able to carry out this sort of activity at its own resource. I would begin by saying, Mr. Speaker, that we must realize what sort of skill we're discussing here.

The companies I mentioned earlier that are presently negotiating contracts for the manufacture and supply of various wind systems are very large firms, able to generate substantial amounts of internal funding for projects that will not show a return for a number of years. We must therefore be realis tic and accept the fact that we don't have firms in that particular situation in the province of Alberta. However, there are Alberta-based companies that do possess the necessary engineering know-how, and have the enthusi asm and desire to forge ahead.

But these companies do not have the required internal cash flow that would allow them the luxury of waiting a few years for a return on that investment. That is especially true in the kind of miserable economic climate that now exists in this coun try, for which we have the Ottawa government to thank. Mr. Speaker, another point to note is that even though these large companies do not always depend on govern ment grants to fund their research, they often look to government or government-owned utilities as a potential market for their product.

Once again, we must be realistic and remember the fact that government now accounts for over 40 per cent of the gross national product in Canada and the U.S. Like it or not, government is involved with the economic prospects of companies of all sizes. My final point in dealing with the objection, Mr. Speaker, arises from a reading of the objectives and guidelines of the energy resources research fund, to which the hon. Member for Drumheller referred in speaking to his motion. The program lists eight objectives. With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote just two: 3.

Preference will be given to applied or mission- oriented research projects, although some con sideration will be given to funding of appropri ate basic research projects. 7. The Alberta-based private sector will be en couraged to participate directly in the program, through submission of appropriate research proposals and through representation on spe cific project management and technical advi sory committees. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the situation is pretty clear.

Here we have $96 million specifically earmarked for research, and the objectives clearly state that the private sector is to be encouraged to participate. Therefore, in response to the objection that government should not or cannot afford to provide funds to the private sector for the type of research called for in this motion, I suppose I have several rebuttals, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that what it really boils down to is that we should do what is necessary to bring together the technical expertise and the financial support so that we can go on with the research.

In the present Alberta context I feel the simple way to approach this is to provide research grants to private firms that have the expertise and are willing to do the work. There are private firms in Alberta that are anxious to put their efforts into wind energy development, and that have real prospects for success. I think it's time we gave them a boost. Since I've already mentioned the energy resources re search fund program, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to raise a concern I have with regard to that fund.

According to the latest annual report of the ERRF, less than $14 million of the total federal commitment of $96 million had actually been spent or committed to be spent on energy research projects. More than $3 million of the $14 million was spent on buildings. My understanding is that there has been no problem with receiving the transfer payments from the federal government, and that only the final instalment of $24 million remains to be received. My concern is simply that we don't seem to be taking full advantage of these federal funds, for which Alberta in

1108 ALBERTA HANSARD October 15, 1981 effect has the authority to decide how to spend. I can understand that we can't just spend money for the sake of spending money, also that we simply can't fund every proposal that comes along. But I have to wonder, Mr. Speaker; is there such a lack of ideas and good, promis ing research proposals from Albertans that we have only been able to make use of such a small fraction of the $96 million energy research fund available to us? I don't think so.

I'm personally familiar with proposals that have been before the ERRF committee for many months and have not received a final decision one way or the other. I'd like to suggest that we should take a good look at this fund to see if we could in fact be a little bolder, show a little leadership, and be a little more innovative in the way we use it. It seems to me that an experimental project such as the one called for by this motion would be an excellent place to start. I'd like to touch on just one more area, Mr.

Speaker, and that's the possible long-term applications of wind energy over and above the agricultural sector. What I'm talking about is the possibility of eventually taking elec trical power produced by wind energy and feeding it into the province's main utility grid. I have no illusions that wind-generated electricity will be able to supply the power needs of major projects such as the oil sands plants. Obviously, this will not happen in the immediate future.

A 1978 report by the Department of Energy and Natural Resources states: the large-scale central genera tion of electricity from solar or wind energy is likely to be far in the future in Alberta, for a number of technical and economic reasons. I make these comments simply to emphasize the fact that there is no magic solution for our future energy supply requirements. I would not want hon. members to think I am suggesting that wind energy is the complete answer. That is certainly not the case. Nevertheless, I think we should consider that wind energy research might very well lead to such developments.

It is my understanding that the technical problems of integrating wind-generated electricity into the utility grid, to which I alluded in the report I quoted earlier, have been pretty well resolved in the three years since the report came out. Certainly the fact that the three large American utilities I referred to earlier are moving ahead in this area would indicate to me that technical or engi neering problems are no longer a serious obstacle. I am told that the real problem now is producing wind- generated electricity on a large scale at cost-competitive prices to the consumer.

I suspect that if we go into it in a big enough way, wind energy will prove to be cost competitive as compared to conventional fossil fuels, at least in the long run. I might also point out to hon. members that my in quiries have revealed to me that utilities in Alberta have no objection to the concept of wind-generated electricity. I stress the word "concept", Mr. Speaker, because even though a company like Calgary Power, now known as TransAlta, may have no problem with the idea in theory, it is quite another thing to actually go ahead at this time.

TransAlta just doesn't have the time, resources, or exper tise to devote to this kind of prospect when the return would be several years down the road. To me, this is all the more reason we should seriously consider providing the funding for the type of project called for by this motion. If we push the idea, help the development, show by example that the idea can work, then the private sector can pick up on that point. Should the reasons show that the idea won't work, that's okay too. We'll have learned something.

That's exactly what research is all about, to help people make good decisions on future development. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that wind energy is not just airy-fairy stuff. It's a very real possibility, especially for southern Alberta. I fully support this motion, and I urge all hon. members to do the same. MR. HYLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to rise and speak on Motion No. 210, brought forward by the hon. Member for Drumheller. I've heard the Member for Drumheller and the Member for Calgary Mountain View talking about how good such a turbine would be in windy southern Alberta.

I would suggest that if you take the roof off this Chamber, attach a turbine to it, it might be far more effective here than in windy southern Alberta. We are dealing with hot air, and there seems to be a great amount of hot air released from here. MR. COOK: You're from southern Alberta. MR. HYLAND: Well, some of them from Edmonton have a lot of hot air, too. MRS. CRIPPS: Hot air rises. MR. HYLAND: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the motion, we've heard the previous two speakers deal a lot with the history and a certain amount of mechanics that would be involved in such a project.

I would like to deal for a short while with its possible use in irrigation. It would probably work well for large amounts of water being lifted, as has been suggested, either from a reservoir or into a reservoir. The project at Lost Lake is a project where water is sitting, and it just builds up year after year. It has to be drained to save other areas from being flooded. I can see a project such as this being of great assistance.

I can see it being of great assistance along a canal system where a drainage tile has been installed and you may have one or two miles of canal running into a sump, where it would cost a lot of money to get power in and the amount of water that would have to be moved wouldn't be that great. A small wind-driven pump could indeed work well to lift the water out of such an area. I can see it working where you would use an open-ditch system of irrigation, where the amount and frequency of water coming wouldn't be as crucial as it would with the sprinkler. I can see it being used with a gated-pipe system.

But to use it with a sprinkler system, the wind blowing at the proper times — once you start sprinkling, you have to keep going. You can't stop for a day and start again. You have to do something with the water that's there. Unless technology is vastly changed so that it would indeed take very little wind to operate the system at full pressure, I can see problems there. But these kinds of problems I said I could see are indeed things that such a motion might be able to answer, because the motion requests "funding of an experimental project", a project that would take place in Alberta.

Regardless if the units are built elsewhere, they could be tested here. They would be tested under our wind and weather conditions, and see if they work. Maybe some of them can be built in Alberta. I know some of them are. Some units built here look as if they're as far advanced, or further advanced in many cases, as units built elsewhere in Canada or the world. But we could still test them here and see how they stand up to our wind conditions. I think history may almost be going around in a circle

October 15, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 1109 in some 20 years. It wasn't all that many years ago — and I'm sure there are members of this Assembly who were on the first REA councils when they were formed in their area to bring power to the farm. Previously they had wind generators, a lot different technology than is pro posed now; the technology now being supposedly far superior in the production and use of the generator and the amount of wind it takes to turn it. But we could almost be going in a circle in our looking for alternate energy uses. Mr.

Speaker, I suggest this might be an opportunity where we could lead Canada or the world in technology. We have spent a great deal of money in the Health Sciences Centre in Edmonton, for example, hoping to lead the world, at least Canada, in medicine and new ways of practising medicine. I think this would be an opportunity to lead the world in another form of tech nology and to be able to partake quickly of the technolo gy, because technology changes. We could be in on the ground floor to do something in this technology. Pre vious members have said we are a country where we have lots of wind.

We have it all year, maybe not steady. What some people call a breeze, in southern Alberta we would think there was no wind. What we would call a breeze, other parts of Alberta would call a storm. So, all over the province this kind of technology could be tested. I think this one, even just exploring the use for the pumping of irrigation water, would be a start, though I wouldn't like to see it stop at that.

I'd like to see an experiment carried further and the technology tried in other aspects of drainage water, the lifting of drainage water, and any other way that wind and wind generation could be used in the province in future. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to urge members of the Legisla ture to support the motion by the hon. Member for Drumheller, in requesting funds for an experimental project, funds that could be either totally paid by the government or shared on cost-sharing dollars with indus try interested in developing such technology and devel opment of such projects. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr.

Speaker, I'm pleased to partici pate in the debate on Motion 210. I'd also like to congratulate the Member for Drumheller for bringing this important motion to the floor of the Legislature. To supplement an energy-based economy in the long term, the government of Alberta has recognized a need to diversify Alberta's economy through expansion of agri culture, secondary industry, and Alberta-based technolog ical and scientific expertise. Oil is presently the only mobile fuel we have.

Possible new inventions will replace it, but until that happens every effort should be made to conserve it for transportation and farming. Of course, coal is an important alternative for thermal power generation, even at 32 per cent energy efficiency with large capital investments of $800 to $1,000 per kilowatt. Mr. Speaker, that leaves our solar and wind powers a yet undeveloped source of power. Fortunately, wind energy in Alberta is greater than in most provinces and states.

That energy occurs mostly in southern Alberta, which also has 40 per cent of the elec trical power demand but only 20 per cent of our power generation. An Alberta-based wind energy development project promises to be a major step in developing our wind energy, and ties in directly with expansion of agri culture, greater use of available water resources, and the development of Alberta's secondary industry and techno logical expertise as well.

There are now 1 million acres of irrigation in 13 irriga tion districts, and immediate potential to add 100,000 acres within the districts, plus 300,000 to 400,000 acres of expansion. Total potential for irrigation in the province is approximately 9 million acres. Currently under way is the irrigation reclamation program by Alberta Agriculture in the irrigation districts. A reservoir and canal program by Alberta Environment is also under way. Individual irriga tion systems have proved successful, pumping directly from rivers.

Considerably more land could be irrigated by separate systems if the long-term economics of pumping are favorable. The use of sprinkler systems increased the areas of land otherwise not suitable for irrigation by gravity, resulting in increased demand for electrical power and water, a demand that even now cannot be met. The Wiggins report, Prospects for Solar and Wind Energy Utilization in Alberta, published by Alberta Energy and Natural Resources in 1978, shows that solar and wind energy in Alberta is 500 times greater than our present total energy production in all forms.

It has no harmful environmental effects. The wind energy in south ern Alberta is greater than most populated areas of Canada, with an average wind speed over the year of 13.6 miles per hour. Only in Newfoundland and a part of Saskatchewan are the average wind speeds higher. For example, even one wind turbine of 100 feet in diameter can be expected to produce about 200 horsepower year round. That is not a large turbine compared with the 200- to 300-foot diameters being developed in other countries.

In the U.S.A., several news articles report that NASA and the U.S. department of energy are sponsoring the development of large propeller wind turbines. The American wind energy association also expects that 1.3 million smaller wind turbines will be in operation, with a fuel saving — and listen to this — of 490,000 barrels of oil per day. Confidence in the wind energy developments is indicated by the investment of $15 million by one company, Hamilton Standard.

To start making the large turbine propeller blades, the powerhouse as large as a boxcar and weighing 150 tons holds the propeller, gear box, and generator on top of the 260-foot pole, and it is being made in Sweden. They expect wind power genera tion in many areas of the United States, with the most favorable along the Rockies on the west coast. In Canada, the National Research Council is support ing several projects to develop large Darrieus turbines, the appearance of a large eggbeater to generate electricity. Several units constructed at a Toronto firm are operating in Newfoundland and Saskatchewan.

One such unit, 30 feet high, is being tested on Vancouver Island as a joint project of the National Research Council and B.C. Hydro. Experiments show that the larger the machine, the cheaper the power. A Darrieus turbine 350 feet high is proposed to be built in Quebec by the National Research Council and Hydro-Quebec at a cost of $18 million, and is expected to generate 3,800 kilowatts of power. In Europe, wind turbines are being developed by sever al countries, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, and Great Bri tain.

In Germany, as in Japan, large centres employing up to 30,000 people are constantly working in research and development. They consider the north shore winds averaging 11 miles per hour as economically viable for wind energy — winds less than in southern Alberta, I might add. In expanding Alberta's economy, Alberta industry is hard-pressed not only to catch up with the industrialized centres in Ontario and Quebec but also to compete in new developments. Canada Supply and Services reports

1110 ALBERTA HANSARD October 15, 1981 that a total of $148 million federal funds were awarded for the resource and development projects, and $116 mil lion went to projects based in Ontario and Quebec. At the same time, only $3.5 million was awarded for Alberta- based work. This order of support has been provided for many years. Alberta has higher levels of available wind energy than most provinces and states, and there is little doubt that some time in the future that energy will be harnessed.

With 41.6 per cent of the gross national product being reported as government expenditures at all levels, indus try must rely to a great extent on government support and incentives to advance technology and development, at least for the initial higher-risk stages. This applies particularly to smaller companies if there is no immediate return on investment or where new developments are primarily for general benefit. The present Alberta energy resources research program provides incentives in this direction.

The objectives of the 1976 energy resources research fund program are to promote and support energy-related research and devel opment and efficient use of energy to diversify Alberta's economy. Briefly, the objectives are: to develop potential energy resources, to give preference to applied projects rather than basic research for both short- and long-range pay-out results; to encourage the Alberta private sector to participate directly; to give maximum preference to Alberta-based engineering and scientific expertise.

The program is administered by the manager of research programs, Alberta Energy and Natural Resources, with approval in principle by the energy resources research fund committee on the scope of the program and the list of projects to be carried out. The Alberta delta blade turbine wind energy proposal: the project which was proposed in May 1978 is for the design, installation, and testing of a 75-foot diameter delta blade wind turbine coupled with a variable capacity pump.

It is to demonstrate under actual field conditions the reliability and the cost of pumping large volumes of water for use in irrigation, storage for hydro power, and commercial and recreational use. The proposal is to in stall a large prototype in the Bow River Irrigation Dis trict at Lost Lake, where the basic water facilities are already in place. An Alberta-based project: the project is based entirely in Alberta. The delta blade turbine shape was invented by Dr.

Kentfield, who is a professional engineer and col league at the University of Calgary, with design construc tion and testing by Abacus Engineering Limited of Cal gary. The Alberta delta wind blade turbine proposal meets all the criteria of the energy resources reserve fund and the fundamental requirements for successful research and development. The Alberta delta blade turbine has several technical advantages compared with the high speed Darrieus or the propeller. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time for consideration of the motion for today has expired.

The member will, of course, retain his speaking order on the next day the motion is called. head: PUBLIC BILLS AND ORDERS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Second Reading) Bill 220 The Energy Conservation Building Standards Act MR. COOK: Mr. Speaker, the last time I rose in the House to present an idea, I got into hot water with some of my rural colleagues. In the interests of conserving energy, I thought I'd tone down my remarks a little and try to conserve some of the hot water that I hope not to get into.

I'd like to also point out that there are a number of comments that the Minister of Labour, and perhaps the Minister of Housing and Public Works, will probably take some issue with. I might still succeed in generating some hot water this afternoon. We'll take it from there, Mr. Speaker. Bill 220 is before the House for the first time this year. It provides for energy conservation or energy consump tion standards for buildings. It's a performance-oriented piece of legislation. That means it attempts to set out objectives for design and construction of new buildings.

It does not set out the specific mechanics for doing that, Mr. Speaker. For example, it does not say to an architect that you have to provide for a given amount of insula tion, so much glass area in a building, or any number of technical details. It simply states that there is a BTU value that can be assigned for a building in per-square- footage terms and that the building cannot exceed those consumption standards. It's a concept that was pioneered in the United States and is now being taken up by the province of Quebec.

Its genius is that it frees the engineer and the architect to do as he or she will to meet those objectives. It encourages creativity and innovation rather than slavish adherence to some regulations. I think all good free enterprise Progres sive Conservative members of this Assembly would like to see that: get away from prescriptive standards which are regulatory to performance standards which provide for incentive and innovation. Surely those are key points in the Progressive Conservative philosophy. This bill has that inherent beauty in it. It's performance oriented rath er than prescriptive. Mr.

Speaker, the standards will be set for commercial, industrial, and residential buildings in this province. The standards should be set after a series of public hearings are held by the Minister of Labour, in this case, designed to elicit from the public what they think is practical and efficient in terms of setting those consumption standards, those objectives, that we would provide for architects and engineers. Members are probably asking themselves why Alberta has to worry about energy conservation. I think there are a couple of answers to that.

This bill is part of a package of programs that has been presented to the House over the last few months to encourage a debate on energy conservation. This province has a leadership role as a producer of energy. We should be setting a standard for other provinces to follow. We have a good conservation record in our production of energy, but I'm sad to say that this province is falling behind. It's certainly not a leader when it comes to conservation in consumption. Other Canadian provinces are way ahead of us — Quebec and Ontario, sad to say. There are a number of reasons. This province subsi

October 15, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 1111 dizes inefficiency. That seems incongruous for a free en terprise party, but we subsidize inefficiency. We do not use the market system, the pricing system, to discipline our consumers. We subsidize the cost of home heating by about one-third through our natural gas price protection plan. Secondly, because Alberta is such a hot place in terms of construction, a lot of outside architects, people from New York, Los Angeles, and Toronto, are hired by developers, and they do not consider the climatic condi tions, the very harsh prairie winter.

So we have a lot of people from the outside basically packaging a building, and planting the same building down in Minneapolis, Kansas City, Edmonton, or Calgary. I've talked to the architectural association about this problem. I'm told that up to half the large commercial buildings in this province are designed not by Albertans, not even by western Canadians, rather by people from the United States and eastern Canada. They are simply buildings that they just take the wraps off — same design, same standards they would have in another jurisdiction. We're faced with a building boom in this province.

I understand we're going to double the commercial and industrial building space over the next 15 or 20 years. We're going to reproduce once again what we've got now. That infrastructure, those buildings, is going to be with us for the next 50 years. What we do today, Mr. Speaker, will affect not just people with us in the province in 1981 but will affect people well into the next century. Alberta's energy conservation program has some good intentions and has some very good people working to develop ideas, but it has a couple of major flaws. It relies almost exclusively on public awareness and education programs.

There have been some very minor prescriptive changes in our building code for new home construction. We've upgraded the insulation standards, but that's about all. We have not tried to use pricing as an incentive for consumers to become more efficient in their use of ener gy. And efficiency, Mr. Speaker — again, I go back to the point — is surely the inherent quality in the philoso phy of the Progressive Conservative, and I emphasize "conservative", Party that I am a member of.

Some members of my party might wonder about my philosoph ical bent at times, but I think in this sense I am more conservative than some of my more right-wing colleagues, in the sense that I am trying to develop efficiency and conserve a very valuable resource. We know, Mr. Speaker, that by designing energy effi ciency into a building before it's constructed we can save as much as 60 per cent of the fuel costs of a similar sized building that doesn't have those design features. I'm thinking of a couple of examples here in Alberta.

Gulf Canada Square in Calgary consumes less than half the energy a building like Principle Plaza here in Edmonton would. The new Scotia Bank building in Edmonton is going to be a good building from an energy conservation point of view. But, sad to say, those are the exceptions, not the rule. They feature heat insulation. They feature reflective windows so summer heat build-up is prevented; cooling costs are very great in summer. They use and recycle body and machine heat. They have heat pumps.

There are a number of very simple features that engineers and architects can build into a building, at very little cost at the outset but are very, very expensive to try to retrofit. Let me try to put this down to a political level, and this is going to scare some of my colleagues, or at least it should. On the basis of the new energy pricing agreement negotiated on September 1, the city of Edmonton esti mates that the costs to heat an average 1,200 square foot home in the city of Edmonton — this is a modest bungalow — will go from about $440 in 1981 to almost three times that, $1,225.

Those numbers are based on the energy agreement we've already negotiated. We know those are the prices that are going to be charged. Mr. Speaker, can you imagine the impact of an irate constituent, especially a senior citizen on a fixed income, calling the hon. Member for Three Hills, for Edmonton Gold Bar, or for Calgary North Hill and saying, I have a heating bill of $1,200 this year and I can't afford that. I'm a pensioner on a fixed income. My heating costs have risen by a factor of three, but my income hasn't. What are you going to do to help me? That's not an isolated case, Mr. Speaker.

There are going to be a lot of people in this province. There are cases in New York state of senior citizens actually turning their thermostat down during some very cold winter days and being found frozen in their homes the next day from hypothermia. I don't want to be scary, but we're seeing it happen in other jurisdictions where they have faced the high energy costs we're going to face. Senior citizens on fixed incomes have reacted in precisely that way. That should scare members of the Assembly. There are only two ways to solve that kind of problem.

We can shelter them by cutting some of the costs, by paying out rebates. Or we can be a little bit gutsy now and perhaps take on some of the building contractors who are very conservative in their nature; conservative not in the sense of conserving a resource, but somewhat stodgy. We can take some political heat now and save ourselves a lot of political heat later — again, conserving energy. Let me make a couple of other quick points. The energy saved in Alberta can be exported at a premium price to the United States.

Thanks to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and the Premier, we suc cessfully negotiated a feature of the new agreement, which is simply that we do not have an export tax on natural gas sales. Gas is probably our ace in the hole as an Alberta economy based on the export of energy. Instead of encouraging domestic consumption, with no appreciable rise in the standard of living for Albertans, we should really be trying to encourage conservation, because we could earn money with that saved energy. There is in fact a cost in not following that course of action.

Right now we pay out some $120 million to $140 million in the natural gas price protection plan. That's a cost. But over and above that, the energy that is wasted, that is not exported, is lost to us as well. We derive a considerable amount of revenue as a province from that. This province is dragging its feet on energy conserva tion. As I mentioned, we have a tremendous record as a province in the supply side. We have a tremendous record with the Energy Resources Conservation Board. But this province really has a pretty dismal record when it comes to helping citizens save energy in their consumption.

I'd like to turn briefly to Bill 220, examine a couple of its features, and point out why it is a worth-while venture. I mentioned earlier that it's performance oriented rather than prescriptive. Performance standards basically just set global or block consumption standards and allow freedom and innovation, as I mentioned. Prescriptive standards are the way we've handled building codes in the past, and they set out very detailed regulations on what you may or may not do. For example, it might say you have to have 6 inches of insulation as opposed to 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, or 9. A performance code is more flexible. That's

1112 ALBERTA HANSARD October 15, 1981 what Bill 220 is: a performance code. It sets out a number of features. The performance code would only be set after public hearings and only after we have determined what is readily available in the way of technology and what is economically practical. For example, we might design an energy code that would have features that would pay themselves back in about five or six years. [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] I think we would have one other feature in this Bill. It calls for natural gas rebates not to be paid to any build ings, whether old or new, that do not meet standards.

This province should not be in the business of subsidizing inefficiency. Another piece of legislation I introduced in the House earlier would provide for grants and loans which, in effect, would take the place of those lost natural gas rebates, the one-third price support, and roll that back to the consumer in the form of a loan or grant to retrofit their buildings. So if this Bill were to be passed, natural gas rebates would not be given out to inefficient users of energy in commercial, industrial, or residential buildings. It's very simple in its concept, Mr. Speaker, and that's the essence of the Bill.

Let me just try to wrap up my points. I'd like to quote from Walter Levy, who wrote in the Foreign Affairs quarterly this summer. Mr. Levy is a pretty well respected economist and consultant on energy. AN HON. MEMBER: Very expensive. MR. COOK: Yes, he is very expensive. He's very good, and I like his ideas. He said — I think he wrote this

article in June or July of this year — the Middle East is unstable. The experience of the 1970s has taught us that. In spite of the present oil glut that we enjoy in the world market today, the outlook in the 1980s looks very pre carious. It would be extremely imprudent if oil importers were to base their planning for the future on current market conditions. Those aren't my ideas. Those are the ideas of a pretty well respected energy consultant. He goes on to say that optimum energy conservation efforts must be pursued through the operation of the price mechanism, tax incentives, and other suitable meas ures.

Again, those are not the ideas of the hon. Member for Edmonton Glengarry but of a pretty well respected energy consultant, and this province is not following any of those suggestions. Finally, he goes on with a few other points and suggests that major research efforts should be made. Here is a good example of the point of the hon. Member for Drumheller on wind turbines or fusion, which is an idea that has been put before this House. Alberta and Canada should be developing major research programs to develop wind power, tidal power, nuclear power, and fusion.

Walter Levy points out that the Middle East is unstable and we cannot rely on Saudi Arabia. For example, the royal family there is politically vulnerable; it's unstable. We may ask ourselves, what has that got to do with us? If Canada imports oil and energy, it's the east coast that's going to suffer. My friends, that may be true in a sense.

But if energy supplies are seriously disrupted on the international market place, we have an agreement with the International Energy Agency which states briefly this: if there's a 7 per cent reduction in the world oil supply due to some catastrophic event, all nations must share that loss equally. That means Canada has an internation al commitment to ship any available energy supplies it can to those countries that are even more seriously af fected than we are; for example, Japan, or western Europe.

So while we may suffer initially on the east coast, Albertans are going to share in that international respon sibility we have, by having to cut their consumption of energy here so that we can ship it abroad to our allies and assist them through some difficult times. Mr. Speaker, there have been three energy cuts by the OPEC nations in the '60s and '70s. History is of no value to us unless we profit from history and not repeat earlier mistakes.

I think we should realize, by looking at the Iranian and Iraqi war, for example, or the crisis in Egypt of a few weeks ago, that we're going to be faced with some very difficult international times ahead, and we're vulnerable. If anything happens to the Saudis, western Canada — Albertans — are going to be suffering by having to ship energy supplies to our allies. Energy conservation works, and we should be trying to design into our buildings a system where we can cut energy use. Wind turbines are a good way. Incentives for housing retrofits are invaluable. These are just a couple of quick ideas, Mr. Speaker.

They're not in Bill 220, but I'm making reference to them in this debate to try to prompt the debate in the Legislature and in the government caucus. There are a number of things we should be doing, and we are not. We are not developing wind turbines, a housing retrofit program, and a teleride system, which advises consumers of bus services — and I'm one today, because my car is rather ill. The teleride system will allow a bus user to know when the next available bus will be coming along. It encourages bus usage and has been shown to be very effective.

We should be providing bus passes rather than parking stalls to government employ ees. The Minister responsible for Personnel Administra tion might consider that in the next negotiations. We should be eliminating all price shelters if we possibly can. Again, if this is a free enterprise and conservative gov ernment, we should be trying to let the market provide some discipline to consumers. We should be providing grants and loans of equivalent value to the rebates we will have foregone for retrofitting buildings.

We should con sider the imposition of a gas tax, to allow the market mechanism, the price mechanism, to discipline consum ers, and use that revenue to pay for very expensive items like LRT, which the hon. Member for Calgary Forest Lawn alluded to today in question period. We should be trying to provide van pooling incentives. People from St. Albert, for example, should be given priority, I would think, if they want to travel on the freeway to Edmonton. If they are in a van pooling system or a car pool, I think those people should get a priority lane right through to the heart of Edmonton.

That's common in most major cities in the United States. We should be changing our urban design so that our cities are more compact, so we don't have the urban sprawl we see today. We should be looking at smaller lots, smaller homes, and less roadway space. We should be trying to change our building codes, Mr. Speaker. That's what this Bill is an attempt to do. For my rural member friends, we should be trying to change our farm practices to reduce tillage and fertilizer inputs. We can do that very easily, with more emphasis on legumes to fix nitrogen in our soils.

It would be beneficial both from an energy cost point of view and to the soils, because our farmers are literally mining the soil. I made this comment earlier, Mr. Speaker. Our farmers are literally mining the soils, and energy is being wasted by very aggressive tillage. Also, we're finding that our soil

October 15, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 1113 structures are breaking down, and we're faced with dust storms in the spring. Mr. Speaker, all I advocate in that

section is more research into the development of legume crops that are practical and economical in Alberta and more research into different tillage techniques. I'd like to wrap up my contribution and debate this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, by basically making these points. Alberta is embarking on a construction boom. We're going to double the commercial, industrial, and residen tial stock we have in place now, and if we don't design in energy efficiency today, we're going to be saddled with an inefficient housing stock and inefficient commercial and industrial stock for the next 50 years.

It's cheaper for us to design in those simple conservation techniques now, before we build those buildings. That's what the building code should be used for. Alberta, this government, has interfered with the market place by providing subsidies on high energy costs. We're sheltering consumers, and we've sheltered our consumers from reality. We should be going back to our free enterprise ethics and using the market system to discipline consumers. By intervening in the market place, Mr. Speaker, I think a countervailing, corrective action is necessary.

That is in actions like the program I outlined a little earlier in my speech. Finally, the tremendous advantage of Bill 220 is that it is a performance oriented building code rather than a prescriptive building code, and sets design standards and allows architects and engineers the freedom they need to be innovative. Also, it allows them to change their tech nologies as new ideas develop. So, Mr. Speaker, in wrapping up my comments, I think Bill 220 is simply part of a package that has to be developed by this government and is long overdue.

This government has a leadership role as the producer of energy in this country, and we have not yet met that responsibility. I'm confident we will, and I'm looking forward to the comments and remarks of my colleagues in the House. I hope to hear positive suggestions on how we can implement this Bill and perhaps improve it. With that, Mr. Speaker, I'll finish my comments. Thank you. MR. MUSGREAVE: Mr. Speaker, it was not my inten tion to engage in this debate because I felt I owed it to the hon. Member for Edmonton Glengarry not to cross swords with him too much this fall session.

The reason I'm speaking, though, is that he asked me to participate. I told him I would be glad to but I wouldn't necessarily support his point of view. So that's why I'm on my feet. Someday I hope the hon. member will introduce Bills into this Legislature that will be aimed at reducing the amount of government regulation, that will try to limit the size of our civil service, that will do what he says he is suggesting; that is, disciplining the consumer but not by having more government. As an aside, I make a point of leaving my car in Calgary when I come to Edmonton.

I walk wherever I can, and if it's too far to walk, I scrounge rides with whoever happens to be going my way. So I think I'm doing my bit as far as conserving energy is concerned. [interjections] Yes, a true Scotsman. Mr. Speaker, I see this Bill as another intrusion into private lives and private business. I read just recently that government is like cooking fish: you need a light touch, and if you're too heavy-handed, you end up with mush. This is what is worrying me. In many parts of the world today, Mr. Speaker, many people are trying to get freedom.

All we need to do is think about Afghanistan or some of the problems in South America; think of Poland wrestling with the Rus sians right now trying to get freedom. Mr. Speaker, this Bill has noble objectives. The longer I listened to the hon. member, the more I was beginning to agree with him. However, I agree we should all be good stewards of the earth's resources and all the rest of it, but that's where the Bill starts to fall down.

I would suggest that if he had been in my shoes for the last year or so and known the frustrations and problems I've had with getting a simple occupancy permit from the city of Calgary — if I then had to get an energy efficiency permit on a building, I would not want to be involved in building anything, including a doghouse. What he's sug gesting is more government employees, more government regulations, that slavish adherence to more and more and more. And we want less and less and less.

He wants to give a very significant amount of ministerial power, that the minister in effect would be able to cut off a very strong source of money for a company that, say, is using gas to heat its building and doesn't happen to have enough solar windows on the roof. Solar windows are really not of that much value in Alberta because the sun is at the wrong angle when you need the heat, and when you don't need the heat the sun is right there. So solar panels create more problems, and yet he has that in his Bill. [interjection] He mentions insulation; I'll get to that later.

In Europe they have a system in hallways and hotels, and in public meeting places. On the surface rights committee, we learned many things other than just sur face rights. We learned that when you're in meeting rooms in government buildings, they have a lighting sys tem whereby the lights go off when you leave a certain area. You just flick a switch, the light goes off, and that's it. We could start introducing things like that. These switches are placed in key areas so that if you want to go up some stairs, you flick a switch and get enough light to get up there.

By the time you get there it's gone off, so you've got to flick it again. I would like to refute a few things the hon. member mentioned. First of all, he complained that he'd talked to the local architects. I have some business partners who are architects, and I've listened to their cries ad infinitum and ad nauseum. They'll tell you it's the developer, and they don't like these fellows who came from eastern Canada because they've taken all their big projects away from them. Then in the same breath we talk about developing our own technology to export it.

Now, when you do that, you're obviously going to be a foreigner somewhere else. So it's a two-way street. He mentioned how efficient the Gulf Square building is. It uses heat from the bodies of individuals working there; it uses heat from the lights; it uses heat from various machines: the copying machines, elevators, what ever you have in the building. He mentioned that it's well insulated. I also understand they're having real problems with that building because the bills to cool it in summer time are astronomical. So you have to balance one thing off against another.

He mentioned the suffering of aged people. I think we are able to make sure that their incomes are such that they won't be suffering as people in New York state. If you take a look at the situation in New York state, you'll find that the economic support of their elderly has no comparison with ours. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to suggest a way the hon. member could achieve what he's after. Last fall I was honored to

1114 ALBERTA HANSARD October 15, 1981 represent the Minister of Government Services at a 3M conference in Calgary, a 3M products show. I'd like to tell members in the House that I'm not an owner or shareholder of 3M products, nor ever have been. AN HON. MEMBER: Do you use Scotchtape? MR. MUSGREAVE: Yes, I use Scotchtape. Mr. Speaker, this company has a fantastic array of products that are used in hospitals, offices, businesses: every imaginable place you can think of. They have thousands of employees, and are a world-wide organiza tion.

They have a competitive system within their com pany whereby individual groups are competing against one another, and the challenge is to come up with new products and make money for the company. I have a letter written in September from Abraham, the corporate and public affairs manager. He said to me: Some companies have little contact with the gov ernmental process. They pay their taxes and obey laws and regulations affecting their activities, but otherwise remain very much in the private sector. He goes on to say: This is not the case with 3M.

Governments and public agencies at all levels are major users of many of the products we manufacture, and public sector purchasing is a very important part of our business. He goes on to say that almost all purchasing decisions in Alberta are made on a competitive basis, with appropri ate regard for cost and quantity. He also says that they realize the importance of keeping elected officials aware of advances in technology which affect particular areas of government activity.

They feel we should be made aware of the fact that we have to be responsible for the prudent expenditure of public funds, and the company is going to try to keep us abreast of developments which can im prove the delivery of services to the public. And obvious ly, they're going to try to make money, and that's what they should be doing. Mr. Speaker, here are some of the things this company is doing. I would suggest to the hon. member that these kinds of approaches are going to be important to the conservation of energy.

First of all, they've come up with a new product that provides for efficient heating and cooling of offices and apartment buildings. They have developed a system in London, Ontario, called Commute- A-Van service. One hundred and eighty-eight workers have a system whereby they band together and move back and forth to work, to their place of business, using vans supplied by the company and insured and covered in the normal way. In one year, they are saving 432,000 litres of gasoline. Mr.

Speaker, I suggest those are the kinds of savings that are going to be generated by the market place because of the costs of the product. Another interesting one is a metalized window-fill, which they market under the trade name of Scotchtint. By precision-coating clear polyester film with a micro- thin layer of aluminum, they are able to create a sort of two-way mirror. This film, applied to windows, uses a water-activated or pressure-sensitive backing, and allows a passage of visible light while reflecting solar rays from the outside. It comes in a variety of densities and colors and is fast and easy to apply.

This would really appeal to the hon. member from Edmonton. It can lower summer air conditioning costs by reducing the solar heat entering buildings up to 75 per cent. In winter it helps eliminate the hot spot problems created by large windows in high- rise apartments or office towers where local heating is difficult to control. These are some of the things just one company is doing. As I said earlier, the reason they're doing it is to make money. But these are the kinds of things we shouldn't be encouraging by giving another minister more power and hiring more civil servants.

We should be encouraging it by letting the market place provide its discipline, as the hon. member has said. If the govern ment wants to get into the business of encouraging improved efficiency in buildings, we could give tax write offs for research in that area. We could give tax write-offs by way of accelerated depreciation on those kinds of buildings that have followed a certain code. But we don't need to be hiring a government agency to police this.

If we're trying to save money in the government area, maybe a novel approach would be to, first of all, say we're going to have small cars for all government em ployees, excl

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19811015
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L19 S3 19811015 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	2b40043593fb27f64bdfc9cd8c0782af7212f333

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