Alberta Hansard — 15 May 1984, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 20, Session 2)

19840515

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

May 15, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 867 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Tuesday, May 15, 1984 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table the 1982 annual report of Alberta Hospital, Edmonton. MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table with the Legislative Assembly the annual report of Alberta Government Telephones for the year 1983. Copies will be made available to all members. As well, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to table a response to amended Motion for a Return No. 151 and to Motion for a Return No. 163. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. ALEXANDER: Mr. Speaker, today it's my pleasure to introduce to you, and through you to members of the Assembly, a large delegation of grade 7 students from St. Boniface school in the constituency of Edmonton Whitemud. There are 87 stu dents, accompanied by teachers Mr. Morris Sniher and Mrs. Jane Fillion. My information is that they may be seated in both galleries. Wherever they are, I ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. MR.

HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, it's my privilege to introduce at this time a slightly smaller but as high quality class from Laurier Heights elementary. They are 30 in number, and they are accompanied in the public gallery by their teacher Mrs. Woodrow. All of them are from the constituency of Edmonton Glenora. One young lady in the group is no stranger to politics. Her name is Anndrea Paproski, and she's the daughter of the MLA for Edmonton Kingsway. I ask now that the entire class stand and receive the welcome of the Assembly. DR. REID: Mr. Speaker, this is Police Week in Canada.

In Alberta I think we all believe in the rule of law, and we support the police forces in enforcing those laws. I'm using the oppor tunity of introducing two guests to remind Albertans of the fact that it is Police Week. Seated in your gallery are the com manding officer of K Division of the RCMP, Assistant Com missioner Dave Whyte, and Superintendent Sheldon Kelly. I would like them both to rise and receive the welcome of the Assembly. MR. COOK: On behalf of Norm Weiss, the MLA for Lac La Biche-McMurray, it's a pleasure for me to introduce a group of grade 9 students from Peter Pond school in Fort McMurray.

They're accompanied by teachers Mr. Mark Leverton and Mr. Amgad Rushdy, and by parent Mrs. Ruelling. They're in the public gallery, and I ask them now to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Fort McKay Health Study MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the first question to the hon. Minister of the Environment. My office has con tacted Chief McDonald at Fort McKay.

I ask whether the government, through the minister's department, has conducted any review as to whether the very high lead levels found in hair samples taken from six of the people tested in Fort McKay during October 1983 are in any way connected to hydrocarbon pollution in the Athabasca River. MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, my department has only recently been informed, via media reports, of the report the hon. leader referred to. My colleague the Minister responsible for Native Affairs recently had a conversation with Chief McDonald, and he may wish to amplify.

With regard to the specific, the hon. leader referred to hydrocarbons in the river system. I'm not aware that any study which relates to the specific issue the member raised has been conducted by the department. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Last May 12 the minister assured the Assembly that there is not any problem with regard to health in the [Fort McKay-Fort McMurray] area resulting from the [Suncor] emissions. Given his answer a moment ago, could the minister indicate on what basis . . . Was there any objective health study made to justify that statement of May 12? MR. BRADLEY: Mr.

Speaker, one would have to examine the water quality records of the department with regard to that specific river system, and one would also have to examine the source of supply for the natives in the area. To suggest any links at this point in time would, I think, be very tenuous. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question to the minister. Apart from the reports the minister alluded to, however, was any study dealing with this matter commissioned? MR. PAHL: Mr. Speaker, I might be able to supplement the answer provided by my colleague the Minister of the Environ ment.

In the winter and spring of 1982, there was a study done by the medical services branch of National Health and Welfare, inasmuch as it is an Indian band and they're responsible for delivering health services. The results of that study reported that all the values for various samples that were taken were within normal levels, with the exception of low serum vitamin C levels and one boy with elevated levels. So that was the basis of the conclusion that I think all those responsible came to at that time. Mr. Speaker, I might also add that I had a brief telephone conversation with Chief Dorothy McDonald today.

She indi cated that the source of her concerns with respect to high lead indications in the blood of six people within the community was based on a verbal report from a doctor in B.C., who apparently was taking another look at the data. She indicated to me that she expected a verbal report, which she committed to provide to me and which I in turn will pass on to my col leagues with responsibilities in the area. We'll go from there. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, as we go from there, will the government then request the Acid Deposition Research Pro gram, currently looking at the situation in Pincher Creek, to

868 ALBERTA HANSARD May 15, 1984 do any review of the health of Albertans in the Fort McKay area? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, the hon. leader is arriving at conclusions which, at this point in time, I can only say are tenuous. Upon examination of any reports which may be deliv ered to us — because the study that has been indicated is at a very preliminary stage — we will be in a position to respond. But to make the types of conclusions or suggestions the hon. leader is arriving at is very tenuous at this point in time. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of Social Services and Community Health. Given the facts that the only study the government has been able to doc ument at the moment is the federal study and that Chief McDonald has had to commit funds from the band to pay for the study by UBC scientists, what position is the government going to take with respect to reimbursing the band for a health study which should in fact be undertaken in the interests of Albertans who live in Alberta? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, at this particular stage it's a matter of gathering together the information.

It's my under standing that the research was commissioned by the Fort McKay Indian Band and involved four outside scientists, who did a survey using hair analysis. One of those scientists says that lead levels are such that we would like to see some blood tests done as a follow-up. In terms of the report itself and in terms of any proposals that might come from the band, at the moment we have to gather together all this information. If they want to make a proposal to us with respect to costs, we'd be happy to evaluate it. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, just so there's no misunderstand ing as Chief McDonald or other people read the transcript, in view of the initiative undertaken by the band, would the min ister look favourably on recommending to his colleagues pick ing up the costs of this survey that I've alluded to in the question? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, I find it a little difficult to under stand how I could evaluate the proposal favourably until we see the proposal. We will look at the proposal and look at the merits of the proposal, and then make a judgment. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, we know the survey has been done.

We know that according to the samples, six of the people tested apparently had higher lead levels than should be the case. To the minister: given that information, which is in the public domain, could the minister detail for the Assembly what specific public health follow-up he proposes? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, going back to what I said ini tially, at this point it's a matter of gathering together infor mation. We haven't seen any data. We haven't seen the report or the research that was commissioned. So until we see the data, I find it difficult to say how we will respond. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. Given the fact that Alberta has public health respon sibilities, yet the band has taken the initiative to acquire data, my question is: what directives have been issued to public health officials in the area to evaluate this data? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, I'm not in the habit of issuing to local health units directives with respect to their responsi bilities. If the local band has approached the local health unit, I don't know about it.

If the local band is going to approach the Provincial Board of Health or our department with pro posals, we will evaluate them accordingly. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, no doubt I'll come back to that. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I wonder if the hon. Leader of the Opposition and other hon. members would agree that we might hold the next question for a moment and allow the hon. Member for Wainwright to make an introduction of somebody who was missed earlier. Is it agreed? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS (reversion) MR. FISCHER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to introduce to you, and through you to members of the Assembly, 20 grade 10 students from Provost high school. They are accompanied by teacher Clara Blue, parent Darlene Harden, and bus driver Herman McMann. They have made a 300-mile round-trip to see our Legislature in action. I would like them to rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD (continued) Mount Allan Olympic Ski Site MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the second question to the hon. Minister of Tourism and Small Business. It's with respect to that remarkable mountain, Mount Allan. DR.

BUCK: The snowless one? MR. NOTLEY: That's right, the snowless one. The survey, a questionnaire, conducted by Ski-Action Alberta shows that among the skiers in this province, there is very little support for Mount Allan. [interjections] Since mem bers are getting a little nervous there, Mr. Speaker, I will table copies of this survey. I ask the hon. minister whether or not he has discussed this particular survey, which was sent to the hon. Premier? MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, if I follow the question — have I discussed this particular survey? No. MR. NOTLEY: That doesn't surprise me at all.

Could we pursue the questions, Mr. Speaker, and ask the hon. minister what consideration the government is giving to the concerns expressed by the skiers in this survey — but through Ski-Action Alberta and other ways — of lack of public input in the process of planning the Mount Allan decision? MR. ADAIR: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I haven't had an oppor tunity to see the survey, the list of names, the questions that were raised, or any other items that may be on that one. If I may spend a moment, I can go back over the process that has been involved, particularly for the last number of months.

We have had an environmental committee set up and headed by a gentleman from Energy and Natural Resources, fish and wildlife division, Mr. Tom Mill. He has handled all

May 15, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 869 the concerns raised to that committee and has responded to them. Over the months, we have had opportunities to work with the Canadian Ski Association, Alberta division and national division, and the various other parties involved in the Olympic site because of the fact that Mount Allan will not be just a recreational ski site but the site for the hosting of the six events for the 1988 Winter Olympics, and any other individual that may have had concerns. I've had a great deal of corre spondence with Ski-Action Alberta over that period.

I have not had some for some period of time, but I'll certainly take a look at this. MR. NOTLEY: No question he will have more correspondence, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask the hon. minister what evaluation the government has made of the concerns expressed by Ski-Action Alberta with respect to the cost of snowmaking at Panorama, given the fact that we appear to be launching a major move into the snowmaking business ourselves? What assessment has been made of the overruns in the operational costs of artificial snowmaking at Panorama? MR. ADAIR: Mr.

Speaker, I'm not aware of any overruns in the private-sector development of Panorama. But certainly the involvement of machine snowmaking equipment in the Eastern Slopes — and that goes into the United States as well as Canada. A number of them are actually in operation both in the United States as well as in the province of Alberta on the Eastern Slopes. We have looked at all aspects of that in the interde partmental committee. The master-planning process has taken that into consideration. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister.

Given the fact that according to this survey, the skiers seem to prefer natural snow to artificial snow, what studies has the government undertaken to indicate whether . . . MR. JOHNSTON: That's wrong, Grant. MR. NOTLEY: It's wrong, is it? Well, one skier prefers arti ficial snow. It's not surprising. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to interject that I'd like to offer the Leader of the Opposition a small challenge: in 1988 I'll race him down Mount Allan. He will have to eat snow, and he will have to eat crow. [interjections] MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. MR.

NOTLEY: [Inaudible] can roller-skate down the moun tain. We could have an international championship. Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding that challenge from the min ister, concerning his interest in this artificial snow, my question to the minister relates to whether there has been any market study of the potential market for Mount Allan as a viable oper ation, given the apparent interest in skiers having natural snow as opposed to artificial snow. MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, there isn't any question that skiers have an interest in natural snow.

I might say that in the period of probably late October to early November, they have a great deal of interest in machine-made or artificial snow. One of the features we have talked about and I will go over again — possibly the hon. member wasn't here when I was talking about it before, or maybe he wasn't listening — was the fact that the artificial snow, or the machine-made snow factor, is a provision of ensuring consistency of starting as well as the provision of the need for stability for the Olympics.

So when you run into a series of years like we have recently had in the Eastern Slopes, not just on the site of Mount Allan — because there was snow last year but I had difficulty getting anybody to go down and look at it, again because it was hidden in the trees. I want to say that just so you understand that it was there. When you get into snowmaking, the feature there is really to provide, number one, consistency of starting and to com plement — to complement — the natural snowfall. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, we'll have an opportunity in the minister's estimates to determine how much complementary artificial snow we need — a fair amount, I suspect. Could the minister indicate whether either he or his friend, his sidekick, the Minister of Advanced Education . . . MR. MARTIN: The skier. MR. NOTLEY: . . . the skier, has undertaken any assessment of the concern Ski-Action seems to have about the wind veloc ity? On New Year's Day, average wind speeds of 81 kilometres and peak winds of 202 kilometres were reported. Two hundred kilometres an hour is even more wind than at a Conservative convention. Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to ask whether or not there has been any assessment of the impact on the safety of people in chair lifts, should we have those kinds of situations occur rapidly due to Chinooks. MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, I'm trying to keep from saying something about wind, because there's an awful lot of it coming and I'm not sure at what velocity or from where.

Keeping in mind the safety feature from the standpoint of Mount Allan, which I think is a serious point that was raised by the hon. member — possibly the only one — wind was certainly a factor and was taken into consideration and was part of the master-planning process. I think one of the things we have to clearly identify is that it doesn't matter which mountain you're on, there is wind blowing to some degree. You can stand at some point up there, and there may be very high winds. It may be for today, and it may for another day in July.

But keeping the average wind level in consideration and the fact that there is very little, if any, weather vaning at the tree line, where most of the skiing will occur on Mount Allan, it is covered in the master plan. When the master plan is filed and presented, I'd be more than happy to discuss it. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, when is that master plan going to be unveiled? MR. ADAIR: I'm surprised that you should ask. It will be tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, and I am looking forward to it. Municipal Taxation MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, my question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs is with regard to a change in policy, or the possibility of the implementation of a reduction in property taxes on machinery and equipment in plants such as oil refi neries and gas and petrochemical plants. Could the minister indicate at what stage of discussion that policy may be at the present time? MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, right now we're in the process of consulting with particularly the municipalities that have the

870 ALBERTA HANSARD May 15, 1984 highest levels of machinery and equipment taxation within their boundaries and, in addition, with the associations representing municipalities in this province. I expect that I will have their responses by the end of this month and that decisions will be made over the weeks following the end of this month, with implementation in terms of legislation, where legislation is required, in the fall session, and regulations during about the same period of time, to come into effect for the 1985 property taxation year. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister.

Will the policies include fertilizer plants as well as the other plants that I mentioned earlier? MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, the review of the level of assess ment of machinery and equipment in this province is not restricted to a particular industry but applies to all machinery and equipment. In terms of the comparison with other prov inces, we have to keep in mind the ability of our industry in this province to compete on national and international market levels. To be able to be competitive, input costs have to be considered. The level of property tax is one of the input costs that must be considered. MR. R.

SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. Outside of the factor mentioned — that is, being competitive — are some of the plants in Alberta faced with possible bankruptcy or closure at the present time because of the high level of taxation, or is the major and primary reason the competitive factor? MR. KOZIAK: Mr.

Speaker, representations made to my office were based primarily on the competitive nature of particularly the refining and petrochemical capacity that we have in this province, the sort of mutual desire we have to make sure that our industry is strong and the mutual desire we all share that would see us encourage additional growth and development of further petrochemical industry in this province. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question with regard to the proposed policy changes.

The change, by reducing the taxation in terms of machinery and equipment in oil refineries and gas plants, will have a significant effect on the property taxes of rural municipalities and counties. What steps will the minister take to counteract those significant effects on those jurisdictions? MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is more than likely aware of the fact that until recently, machinery and equip ment was in fact assessed at one-half the level of real estate and buildings. I think the figure was 22.5 percent of assessed value, at the same time as land and buildings were assessed at 45 percent.

The change in terms of making it consistent was made in 1981, I think effective 1982. That doesn't mean that machinery and equipment all across the province is assessed at 65 percent. In many cases machinery and equipment is still assessed at 22.5 percent, because they haven't gone into these new assessment levels. So it's not consistent across the prov ince. In many cases 1984 is the first tax year within which machinery and equipment has been assessed at the higher levels. So it's not as if there is a substantial disruption in any change.

The whole process is one which takes into account the fact that, as I indicated in my earlier comments, machinery and equipment is assessed at different levels in different parts of the province. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Whether the taxes will be reduced, there is a change in terms of the income to the various municipalities in the coming fiscal years. I am wondering what rationale the minister or the government has used to determine that the oil and gas industry needs greater government assistance through tax breaks.

Farm ers in the same area and throughout the province are experi encing severe financial problems, yet the government fails to really consider any tax reduction in those areas at the same time. MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, I think we have to keep in mind that what we're talking about here is machinery and equipment. For example, you don't find that the tractor or the combine on the farm is assessed for purposes of property tax, but we do in fact assess the moving equipment at Syncrude. The big draglines, the big trucks, and everything else are assessed. We have to keep that in mind.

That's not a system that's common across the nation. In fact we're one of the few provinces in Canada that assesses machinery and equipment for property taxation purposes. For example, we find that a plant in Sarnia may be paying one- third of the property tax of a similar plant in the province of Alberta. That's a direct reflection of the fact that in Sarnia, and in Ontario, machinery and equipment are not assessed,

whereas in Alberta machinery and equipment are assessed. Those things have to be kept in mind as we consider the economic strength of the province and the ability of the province to keep, maintain, and attract new industry. I think all of us in this Assembly want to see further devel opment of our potential in upgrading our resources here in this province, and we want to make sure there are no impediments in that process. As my colleague the Minister of Economic Development always says, we're three mountain ranges and 750 miles from tidewater.

When we're dealing with an inter national market, we have to keep that in mind and not add to the impediments that already exist in terms of our ability to compete nationally and internationally. It's a very important area and one that I know municipalities in the province share. The county of Strathcona, for example, which is home to a considerable part of our petrochemical refinery capacity, realizes and has taken steps on its own to ameliorate the adverse effect of increasing property taxes in this area.

So we've had good support, and we're working together in putting forward a solution which will improve the situation for industry at the same time as not being too disruptive to municipalities in this province. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. What concerns me is that we're taking potential income away from the municipalities, and the federal and provincial governments continue to take high royalty takes and tax rates. I am wondering if the minister could indicate whether that option was considered.

Or is the government boxed in at the present time, and can't reduce any royalty or tax rate that relates to the provincial level rather than to the municipal or county level of government? MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, the municipalities across the province appreciate the additional level of support they get from industry because of the siting of industry within their bound aries. The level of taxation is extremely significant, not only from machinery and equipment but from the land occupied by a plant and the physical plant built there that houses the machin ery and equipment.

The more of this type of development that

May 15, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 871 we can attract to the province, the stronger the municipalities are in terms of their tax base. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Might this be the final supplemen tary. We have a number of people waiting to ask questions. MR. R. SPEAKER: Some of the municipalities indicate — for example, the municipal district of Kneehill could face increased taxes of 18 to 20 percent. I've had one or two others give me information that they could have increases of up to 17 to 20 percent.

Has the minister done any study with regard to the potential effect of the increase in taxation relative to property in the respective municipalities across this province? MR. KOZIAK: The question was with respect to the incidence, did you say? MR. R. SPEAKER: The increase in taxation at the local munic ipal level. MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, a study of that nature would be something one would have to consider after a review of the actual decisions that would be made.

In terms of the process, I believe in my letter we suggested three different ways in which we could ameliorate the level of taxation on machinery and equipment in this province. My letter also was an invitation to municipalities to provide other recommendations. Once May 31 comes around and we receive all the responses, we'll be able to take a look at the responses in light of the suggestions I put forward and the suggestions that come in response to the invitation I put forward to the municipalities. Then decisions will be made with respect to what steps can be taken.

I don't know if those steps will include one or all of the suggestions set out in my letter, or one or all of the suggestions that come back in reply to that letter. So it's difficult to be able to respond to that question until the actual decisions have been made, and those won't be made until we've completed our consultation with the municipalities. MR. CLARK: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the min ister inform the Assembly whether or not this new assessment policy on machinery will be equally applied to all municipal ities, urban as well as rural? MR.

KOZIAK: The ultimate decision would apply equally across the province, although there are in fact municipalities that do not impose a machinery and equipment tax. For exam ple, the city of Edmonton does not impose a machinery and equipment tax. Because of that fact, there is a great imbalance in terms of the level of taxation on some of these types of plants within the city and outside the city. Services for Disabled Persons MR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address my question to the Minister of Social Services and Community Health.

Could the minister report progress on departmental initiatives following the March 1983 release of the Klufas Report on Services For Disabled Persons? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, the Klufas report, which was a very comprehensive, important document, made a number of recommendations covering a large number of departments. We had an interdepartmental committee consisting of approxi mately nine departments, I believe, review those recommend ations and prepare some kind of strategy. In the past year, they have done a lot of work in reviewing those recommendations. There were some 111 of them.

That particular report has been presented to me as minister responsible for Social Services and Community Health, and I have sent copies of the strategy plan to other ministers that are responsible. Once I hear from them, we would then proceed with our plan. MR. PAPROSKI: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to see progress being made, but could the minister inform the House when the government might be in a position to announce its formal action plan with respect to that report? DR. WEBBER: As I indicated, Mr.

Speaker, once other min isters have had an opportunity to review the proposed strategy, which was prepared by officials in each of these departments, we would then be in a position to determine when we would proceed. I might add that for over 50 percent of the recommendations, either we have already taken action or our officials feel we have adequately dealt with them. MR. PAPROSKI: A supplementary to the minister. With respect to the Klufas report, a major fundamental recommend ation dealt with public awareness.

Through that recommend ation, a booklet dealing with services for the disabled in this province was produced. I wonder if the minister could comment as to how the disabled community is reacting to that particular document? DR. WEBBER: If I recall correctly, Mr. Speaker, the particular document the hon. member referred to is one I filed with the Legislature approximately a year ago. About 15,000 copies of the document were prepared. I believe there are less than 5,000 copies left. The take-up in terms of the number of people who have requested copies of it has been excellent.

We've also sent copies to approximately 2,000 individuals in the province who we thought might be interested in it. MR. PAPROSKI: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Last month the minister announced the major expansion of the home care program in Alberta and, specifically, there was funding for residential services for handicapped Albertans. The Klufas report had a couple of recommendations pertaining to home care. Could I surmise that this particular expansion occurred because of the Klufas report? DR. WEBBER: Mr.

Speaker, in terms of a review of the home care program, there was ongoing review prior to the reception of the Klufas report. Certainly there was an examination of the home care program, as to how it might relate to the handicapped people who live in residential situations. However, in view of the fact that a couple of recommendations in the Klufas report relate to home care services, I guess all I can say is that we were thinking along the same lines. Regional Water Boards DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, my question to the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs has to do with the regional water com missions.

The announcement was made in '83, and the target to establish the new commissions was supposed to be January 1, '84. Can the minister indicate what has been done about setting up the five regional water commissions? MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, at the time we met with repre sentative municipalities involved in all the water boards that

872 ALBERTA HANSARD May 15, 1984 surround the city of Edmonton, we had expectations for a fairly early resolution of the matters facing those municipalities. We set up a system of working consultation with representatives from three departments involved in the process and represen tatives of the water boards and the municipalities that form those water boards. During the course of discussions and study of all aspects of those water boards, a number of facets came forward, each unique to individual water boards and not one that you could generalize across the board.

This process of trying to reach a solution that would be most satisfactory and would take into account the individual characteristics of each water board has resulted in the process being much more time-consuming than we had originally expected. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, in setting up this task force with these officials, they're supposed to have met with the different municipalities. At this time, has that task force met with each different municipality? Have they met with each, once? MR. KOZIAK: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

It's my understanding that the task force has met with all the municipalities involved and each of the water boards, obtaining information. I'm not sure of the actual form of the meeting, whether it took place with the water board and the members of the municipalities or whether in some cases there were individual meetings with each individual municipality. The idea was that the meeting dealt with the concerns of that municipality relative to that water board, not other matters that may affect the municipality. DR. BUCK: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

In some of the discussions that the minister's department has had with these regional water boards, has the question come up about what is going to be done with the debt that is in place and that's going to have to be taken over by the different commissions? Has that debt situation been discussed? MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, the debt situation has been dis cussed. The whole process — the one that was put forward — is that rather than the debt being paid by the taxpayers of each municipality, it would be paid by the water users of the muni cipalities in proportion to the water used by the municipalities. DR.

BUCK: Mr. Speaker, then in some of the discussions that have been going on, is the minister aware that, to use the example of the Vegreville water commission, if that debt was going to be paid by the users, there could be a rate as high as $10 per 1,000 gallons? Has that been brought to the minister's attention? MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, the Vegreville water corridor board rates are of course a reflection of the capital cost and the debt servicing of that particular line, plus local distribution charges.

A decision hasn't been reached with respect to the degree to which local municipalities would assume full respon sibility for the oversizing, or to what extent another approach might be taken. Once it's made, that decision will first be announced to the member municipalities of that water corridor board. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary to the minister, in light of the fact that most of the communities did have some type of water source available to them before the line went through, and a certain debt servicing was obligated to be paid at that time. Now there's a duplication on top of that.

Can the minister indicate what discussions have been taking place with these different municipalities, to see if there is some way this debt load can be lightened? MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, we have had discussions and, as I said, once our task force and the three ministers involved have reached their conclusions, those conclusions will first be transmitted to the members of the water corridor board involved. Unapproved Private Schools MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my question to the Minister of Education.

For what period of time has the minister known of specific illegal, unapproved private schools, and what measures has he taken to rectify that problem? MR. KING: We have been aware for some time of the existence of unapproved private schools in the province, Mr. Speaker. I can't be precise, but it would be in the order of four years. MR.

MARTIN: The supplementary question I ask is simply this: with his answer that they've known about it for four years, has the minister had any consultations with the Attorney Gen eral or the Attorney General's department regarding a policy for prosecution of illegal schools under the Department of Edu cation Act? MR. KING: I have not had those discussions, Mr. Speaker, but certainly senior officials in the Department of Education have had those discussions from time to time. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question.

Seeing that there have been no prosecutions, at least that I'm aware of, is it the policy of the minister and his department not to prosecute operators of illegal private schools even though they are clearly breaking the law? MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, our principal concern is with the students and the education of the students. During this time, we have been attempting to act in a way that will ensure the position of the children. MR. MARTIN: I'm sure all lawbreakers would. There are some other concerns I'd like to talk about with those children. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please.

The hon. member is neglecting to address the Chair in all his supplementary ques tions. I wish he would proceed in the proper manner. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Yes terday the minister said his department was contacting unap proved private schools in the province. I believe he said that some 26 schools were being contacted. However, the chairman of the [Committee] on Tolerance and Understanding has esti mated that approximately 60 such schools are operating without approval in the province. Has the minister had any discussions with Mr.

Ghitter about this matter, and could the minister give us an assessment of whether the committee's estimate is cor rect? MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had an opportunity to discuss that particular matter with the chairman of the Com mittee on Tolerance and Understanding. I have spoken to the chairman and have arranged to meet with the committee, at which time this will be one of the matters I will discuss. In the meantime, no one has provided us with any information in

May 15, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 873 addition to that which is currently in the possession of the department. We have written to every unapproved institution that we consider to be operating as a school within the province. The number is 26. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What steps are being taken by the department to discover the locations and operators of all other unapproved schools in the province? My specific question: is there an ongoing search for these unap proved, illegal schools? MR. KING: Mr.

Speaker, we have not sent police scurrying to every comer of the province, and we are not looking under haystacks in any part of the province. The question is princi pally one of how the Department of Education might best use its staff resources for the good of the children in the province. We have decided that we will direct them to constructive pur poses. When the hon. member has advice to the contrary to offer me, I'd be pleased to receive it. MR. MARTIN: Well, I have all sorts of advice to offer the minister. He probably wouldn't like it, Mr. Speaker.

Rather than talk about police scurrying around and hays tacks, in talking about the good of the children, we're sug gesting: is it good for the children to be in illegal schools that aren't certified by the department? If we're talking about the good of the children, my question is simply: what steps has the minister taken to notify the fire prevention branch of the Department of Labour of the existence of the 26 unapproved schools identified, so the branch may inspect the school prem ises for any violations of Fire Prevention Act regulations? This would be for the good of the children. MR. KING: Mr.

Speaker, I want to make it clear that while the hon. gentleman is entitled to characterize these institutions as illegal schools, neither he nor I are lawyers, and that has not been established as a fact as of this moment. I'm very carefully referring to them as institutions which we believe are operating as private schools. We are attempting to contact them. First of all, we are going to try to persuade them that they should operate with the knowledge and approval of the Depart ment of Education. We are prepared to consider alternatives in the event that they do not relate to the department on that basis.

At the moment, it has not been established that they are in fact illegal schools. As to the question of inspection by employees of the Depart ment of Labour, the schools are in any case operating in public facilities that are subject to the control of the health and safety laws of the province. The Department of Labour does not need the assistance of the Department of Education to carry out its mandate. MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could supplement my colleague's answer and also assist the hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood, who has been struggling under a severe strain on this issue for a couple of days.

All schools, all buildings which are converted to a different use must obtain a building permit from the local authority in the ordinary course of events. When they obtain a building permit, that indicates the nature of the renovations, in which case they are then identified and would normally be inspected. If they don't have to obtain a building permit, if they don't have to be renovated, then obviously they should be in buildings conforming to the regulations in the first instance. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, that's . . . MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please.

We have already gone past the time for completion of question period. I realize the hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood probably has further supplementaries he wishes to place. Perhaps he could return to that topic in another question period. I've also recognized the hon. Member for Drayton Valley. If the Assembly agrees, perhaps we could allow her to place her question. Would you agree? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. DR. BUCK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely the gentleman who has the floor could complete his questions. Would that not be reasonable? MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was already going to point out — I should have; I meant to do that — that there have been an excessive number of supplementary questions today. DR. BUCK: You should have cut them off sooner then. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Had I known that question period was going to end this way, I would have terminated some of those supplementaries sooner. However, the hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood has already asked about seven of them, I think. If he wishes to continue his questioning on the same topic tomorrow, or on any other topic, he will have the oppor tunity to do so.

I recognize the Member for Drayton Valley. DR. BUCK: You haven't received unanimous consent, sir. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order. DR. BUCK: He has not. MR. R. SPEAKER: I said no. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Drayton Val ley. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. You well know that you have to have unanimous consent . . . MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. DR. BUCK: You know that. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. I asked the question, if the Assembly agreed. I heard the agreement. DR. BUCK: You didn't hear that. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did. MR. R. SPEAKER: I said no. DR.

BUCK: I said no here. [interjections] MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. The question period has expired. If the feeling is that there was not unanimous consent, we'll proceed to the next order of business.

874 ALBERTA HANSARD May 15, 1984 ORDERS OF THE DAY head: WRITTEN QUESTIONS 171. Mr. Notley asked the government the following question: With regard to the "team" of people reviewing information compiled for the Alberta Securities Commission in the matter of the receivership and bankruptcy of Abacus Cities Ltd., iden tified in the Assembly by the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs on Monday April 16, 1984, (Hansard, page 482), and for each person on that team: (1) what is the person's name; (2) on the basis of what expertise, official duties, or other factor(

s) is that person a member of the team; (3) in what capacity and by what person or institution is that person normally employed? MRS. OSTERMAN: Agreed. 172. Mr. Notley asked the government the following question: With regard to the "team" of people reviewing information compiled for the Alberta Securities Commission in the matter of the receivership and bankruptcy of Abacus Cities Ltd., iden tified in the Assembly by the hon.

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs on Monday, April 16, 1984, (Hansard, page 482): (1) as of what date did the team officially commence its review; (2) who assembled the team and under what authority; (3) what are the team's terms of reference; (4) what is the total amount of public funds budgeted for expenditure to cover the work of the team, and what are the major expenditure categories within that overall budget: (5) out of what voted appropriation will the team's budget be funded; (6) to whom is the team directed to report; (7) will the team's report, and any recommendations arising therefrom, be tabled in the Assembly?

MRS. OSTERMAN: Agreed. head: MOTIONS FOR RETURNS 174. Mr. Martin moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing copies of the report Interprovincial Compar ison of Government Policy, Formal and Informal — Toward the Voluntary Sector, prepared by Mr. Jean Bernard Robichaud and submitted to the planning secretariat of the Department of Social Services and Community Health around November 1983. DR. WEBBER: Mr.

Speaker, in this particular motion the hon. member is asking for a copy of a report which was commis sioned by the Department of Social Services and Community Health and prepared by the said Mr. Jean Bernard Robichaud of the Canadian Council on Social Development. The report contains information supplied by other provinces. Since we don't have permission from these other provinces and it is a report that was commissioned by our department. I recommend that hon. members reject this particular motion. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, just a moment. [interjections] Oh, our Minister of Advanced Education is still in his place. Isn't it nice that he's not out attempting to skateboard down Mount Allan. Mr. Speaker, what we are asking for is a report that is embarrassing to the government. If the government wanted to add the clause "subject to concurrence of the other parties", as they frequently do, they could have moved an amendment and we would have accepted that. That's the normal practice. But that was not the position taken by the government.

I suspect the reason the government doesn't want to release this report is that it shows that despite all the ballyhoo we hear from this bunch across the way about their commitment to the private sector, our track record in terms of assisting the voluntary sector is very poor. Certainly that's a concern we've had brought to our attention by volunteers, whether it be volunteers in the church community or in private social service agencies.

We are told that despite the government's so-called commitment to voluntarism, in fact this government is so overladen with two things: bureaucratic indifference, especially by many of the politically appointed top civil servants — not the people in the firing lines, I might add. We have first-class people working for this government, but too many of the people at the top are political appointments. The other problem is the tendency of this government to make political decisions on almost everything, to bring partisan politics into almost every conceivable, possible choice for pub lic decision-making.

The fact of the matter is that despite the hon. Minister of Advanced Education — he's grinning like a Cheshire cat at the moment; nice to see that — we don't have a very good record as far as encouraging voluntarism. Other provinces are doing a much better job; no question about that. It has nothing to do with embarrassing the other provinces. The minister is shaking his head. The only embarrassment is this government. That's what we're dealing with. Mr. Speaker, let us be clear on what's at stake here.

Once again, without presenting any reasonable option, without pro posing the normal amendment, which would be the practice we've followed with respect to a communication with another level of government, we are slamming the door for one hundred percent partisan political reasons. That may fool a few of the people, but I have a sneaking suspicion that, as sometimes occurs, reports of this nature find their way into the public domain.

How unfortunate it is that a report of this nature will find its way into the public domain by the back door, when we put forward a perfectly reasonable request to get it through the front door. This government, with its penchant for secrecy, hides behind the minister's closed door, huddling over this report because it's embarrassing, because it shows we aren't doing anything to help the volunteer in our society. Instead of fessing up and improving our track record, what we have is: no, the public can't have access to this information — a very shameful position taken by the minister today. [interjections] MR. R.

SPEAKER: You guys are going to give them government? What's the matter? Mr. Speaker, I'd like to speak to this motion as well and make two points. First of all, in terms of the minister — and this relates to other ministers as well — whether the report is negative or positive toward government, the government could be a winner. If it's negative, the minister could come into this Legislature and say: look, here's a report that indicates we haven't done our job in terms of voluntarism; I'm going to do three things to put the policy in order, take hold of it, and show leadership in the whole business.

I look back at some of the things Dr. Homer used to do in this Legislature as Deputy

May 15, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 875 Premier and Minister of Agriculture. That was how he took those situations; when there was a negative, he made it a pos itive. I think this government should try to remember some of those good lessons that the earlier leaders of this Conservative Party, the Lougheed party, initiated after 1971. I was impressed with some of those things. But after 12 or 13 years, those early lessons, those early initiatives, and that enthusiasm have been lost, and we're moving back into a position of wanting to hide behind our authority and our massive majority.

That document is most likely harmless and will gather more dust on some shelf in some department. Nobody will ever look at it again. In my 21 years, I've seen thousands of those sitting on many shelves and, regretfully, I initiated some of them. They have beautiful covers and nice bindings, but I would doubt if two people looked at most of those $150,000 or $200,000 reports. Most of the recommendations are still ignored, and it goes on and on in government. What is the best use of a report? Expose it to the public. Place it before the legislators.

If the opposition takes issue with it and presses the government and something happens, who benefits? The people. In terms of the argument I've just made, the government [should] reassess what kinds of documents they present to the Legislature. I take an attitude of tabling it. If it's negative, we'll fix it up and make it work for the people. If it's positive, we'll take the benefits and stand up for half an hour — the minister had the opportunity here. He could have stood up for half an hour and told about the great things we're doing for voluntarism in Alberta, supported by the evidence of the report.

But we've missed that opportunity, and it happens many, many times in other situations across the floor. That's a bit of advice. What do we also do with the Department of Social Services and Community Health? The former minister hired a set of propagandists across this province. One sits up here in the gallery, hired from the press gallery, to tell the story as the government wants it told. We have another one sitting in Leth- bridge that writes newsletters to try to tell southern Albertans how good work for welfare is, how well the department is doing, and the great things the minister is doing.

He writes these things and I see them in the paper, but I know they're written with a political undertone, not the facts as they are. We use this kind of technique. If this report were reported to the public through the two propagandists, the one sitting here and the one in Lethbridge, we'd have distortions. Let's put the evidence out on the table. The hon. members of the NDP have asked for a document to be presented. Why don't we do it, so we have the information up front in this Legislature? We don't do it that way; we've got to do it their way. DR. WEBBER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. The hon. minister has a point of order. DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, if I recall correctly, the hon. Member for Little Bow indicated that there were distortions in terms of some of the information that he was receiving. If he recognizes some distortions, I would like to have evidence of that. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly pass them on and underline them for the minister. The only reason the minister doesn't understand, when he approves the newsletters, is that the distortions support the Lougheed party, make the Lougheed party look good.

That's why it's not recognized as distortion. I can underline them and send them to the minister, but most likely he won't understand them. DR. WEBBER: You can't find any. MR. R. SPEAKER: I can't find any? Read any one of the articles; they're not telling all the facts in terms of the situation. If that isn't distortion, I don't know what it is.

If you examine the work of these fellows you have on public payroll and com pare it to some of the writings of the press gallery, where they look down objectively at some of the things that are happening here — maybe a little critical, maybe investigating what's going on, but that's the way they see it. They don't have to write it to try to tell the public a story that is not as it is. Mr. Speaker, I can't understand why the minister in this circumstance can't take advantage of a situation that could be very positive.

Whether it's against the government or for the government, presentation here could be positive to the government's progress, positive to their image. But if they want to go that direction, fine, let them go. Hopefully in a year or two the people will deal with that accordingly, the way it should be. [interjection] Now we hear the hon. Member for Drayton Valley making comments about phoniness. What she should do once in a while is check around in her own constituency and see what they're doing out there, what their attitude is toward their member at the present time.

They'd like to look at some of these documents we're asking for here. They'd like to see what this government is doing in comparison to other governments. They'd love to see an interprovincial comparison of government policy in terms of Alberta versus British Colum bia versus Saskatchewan. MR. COOK: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The hon. Mem ber for Little Bow has used two words that are specifically cited in Beauchesne as unparliamentary language. One is "dis tortion". It's on page 106 of the most recent edition of Beau chesne, Citation 320.

The other one he's used for us this afternoon is "phony", and that is specifically dealt with in the same citation. I wonder if the hon. Member for Little Bow might want to withdraw those remarks. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order that was raised. I haven't Beauchesne in front of me, but the hon. member reads Beauchesne. When I direct to some specific person in the Legislature that (

a) they're phony, or (

b) they are distorting something, that certainly is unparliamentary. I would withdraw it under those circumstances. The way the words were used was in a general sense, in terms of the information that was being disseminated by some of the workers. I think that's a little different and acceptable in this Legislature. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member for Little Bow has really made a point that is clear, as far as if it's not specific regarding an individual, it's not considered uncompli mentary. Perhaps the member would complete his remarks. MR. R. SPEAKER: I have, thank you. SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Question. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? MR. MARTIN: No, no. This is more fun than I've had for a while, so I want to participate in the debate. The members opposite seem to be getting a little exercised.

876 ALBERTA HANSARD May 15, 1984 I go back to that glorious term I recall from the past. It was "open government", Mr. Speaker. One of the Attorney Gen eral's comments that I recall from sitting over here was that there is no need for conflict of information, that information is free flowing from this government any time. We were told that this is open government at best. To be quite honest, Mr. Speaker, we did not know this particular document — it seemed innocuous enough.

It certainly seemed like a worthwhile report to take a look at, for both government and opposition members in a democracy in the Legislature, to look at government policy. I remind the minister that one of the things the government has been talking about most recently is the whole need for voluntarism. We've heard a lot about that and what the private sector can do, and we've been bragging about it. I recall hearing about how excited we are with the food banks. The people running the food banks aren't, but the government seems to be.

The minister was bragging about how well we're treating the volunteers and how important they are. I've heard that so many times. We just want to take a look at what is really going on. Whether it's favourable or unfavourable, as the Member for Little Bow said, is irrelevant. Surely when this is a cor nerstone of government policy and they're talking about it this much, this document could be laid out in the Legislature so members on both sides could take a look at what is going on with the actual facts.

If the minister is so worried now that he would embarrass other provincial governments, he could have checked this out. I doubt most of them have the same penchant for hiding behind closed doors as we do. I can't see why they wouldn't want this debated in their legislatures. He could have checked that out, and I don't think the minister did. He just made the excuse that he has to check with them. Or as my colleague said, we could have had an amendment and said that we're quite pre pared to do this on checking with our own people. Frankly, Mr.

Speaker, regardless of whether or not it is complimentary toward the Alberta government, it's still the type of information we as legislators in this province should know to do our jobs properly on both sides of the House. Especially if, as I said, the government is talking about vol untarism and privatization, let's look at the actual record of the study. That's all we're asking for. I don't think that is a great deal to ask from this government. Frankly, I am surprised. I didn't think Motion for a Return No. 174 would create any problems at all. I thought the minister would be overjoyed to table this.

I am surprised, but I expect none of the government backbenchers will have the political courage to ask for it. They should want to take a look at it too, but I suppose they probably don't care. Maybe that's the nature of this government at this particular time. AN HON. MEMBER: Speak for yourself. MR. MARTIN: Then vote. The hon. member says "speak for yourself". If you want to take a look at this document, you have an absolutely good chance to stand up and vote for it so it comes into this Assembly where it should be. I call on the government members.

If they want to start doing their jobs, let's start taking a look at some of these documents we as legislators should be looking at instead of hiding behind closed doors. It's not going to be the end of the provincial Conservative government in those safe seats if you put out a document at this particular time so we can all do our jobs. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I just say I am absolutely amazed that we're even into this debate over such an innocuous document. I hope the minister would reconsider, or the mem bers here would tell the minister to reconsider, and table it in this House. [Motion lost] 175. Mr.

Martin moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing, subject to the concurrence of the author in the case of correspondence sent to the minister or his department or its agencies, copies of all correspondence, reports, and other documents received by, sent by, or prepared for the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care or his department and its agen cies, with regard to: (1) the principle and policy concerns underlying the blue card system of health care coverage introduced in the fall of 1983, and (2) the administrative aspects of the blue card system of health care coverage. MR.

RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, after the debate on the last motion for a return, I almost hate to say I'm going to recom mend that members vote against this motion for a return for two reasons. Number one, frankly I think it's very badly writ ten. Goodness knows what the hon. member is asking for. Secondly, even if we were able to determine — and I'm going to give a couple of examples in a moment — what the hon. member wishes to know, I'm afraid we would have such an expensive and voluminous motion for a return that it would be useless to the member and certainly a waste of public funds.

I'm going to suggest that if there are specific items of infor mation the hon. member wishes to know about the health card insurance plan, I'd be pleased to provide them. If I could give an example, it's very all-encompassing and asks for copies of just about every kind of piece of paper that the department or our agencies or agents put out or receive. Looking at subclause (1), dealing with the principles and pol icies, for example, the policy is that everybody in Alberta has to have a blue card.

Does this mean we're obliged under the motion for a return to provide for the member a copy of every Albertan's blue card? Obviously not, but that in fact is what the motion says we're ordered to do. If you don't do it, of course you're in contempt of the House for not providing that information. I'm simply saying it's extremely badly written. Whoever wrote it for you is grossly overpaid, and I hope you'll reprimand them.

Secondly, if we were able to decipher what it is you want, certainly the expense involved in going through every Albertan's file for his blue health care card and getting per mission from every Albertan to table a copy of the correspond ence that deals with it is obviously not what the member had in mind. For those reasons, I think the motion should be defeated and reconsidered. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have per mission to close debate? Are you agreed? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. MARTIN: As usual, the minister tries to be flippant.

The only person that's grossly overpaid in this Legislature is the minister sitting over there, and his salary should be reduced to $1 for what he's doing to medicare. The minister says it's badly written. Maybe it's because the minister can't read. Maybe that's why we're in all the problems of medicare. Obviously we didn't know specifically. The government came to a policy over blue cards. It seems fairly clear that what we're asking very simply is, what determined that policy? There

May 15, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 877 must have been some reasons or some studies. It has nothing to do with every Albertan, and the minister well knows that. He's just trying to be smart-alecky in the House again. That's what he's attempting to do. Mr. Speaker, we want to know why the government came to this policy. Obviously we do not know every document nor are we asking for every document, and the minister well knows that. Knowing what we want to do — it's clear that we want to know why we came to this policy — the minister could have determined.

I know the min ister is getting a little red in the face and exercised again, but if he would listen, he could have picked the relevant documents, why we came to that specific policy. Those are the types of things we want to know in this Legislature. Those are precisely the things we want to know. The minister can make all sorts of flippant remarks. But the people of Alberta know what this minister is doing to medicare, and they want to know why it's happening.

That's our job in the opposition — to try to find out what's happening behind a government that is closed in its nature and afraid of coming clean with the public. Then they can be flippant and talk about things that are fairly straightforward. I checked this out with a kid in grade 1. He seemed to understand it, so the minister had better take his assumptions from there. Maybe he should go into early childhood education so he can learn to write. If the minister wants to come back, we'll ask for some specific things, and we'll keep asking them. That's our job.

Next time I hope the minister, rather than trying to rationalize and be smart-alecky about it, will attempt to come to some real matters, so we can do our job in the Legislature. [Motion lost] head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 203. Moved by Mr. Jonson:

Be it resolved that the Assembly urge the government to con tinue its research efforts with a view to developing a workable program to deal with hail suppression, rain increases, and snow- pack augmentation. [Debate adjourned March 29: Mr. Clark speaking] MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, it's been some time since I started my remarks on this motion. I would like to say at the outset that I really fully support it. But I think I should go into some of the history of why we have the hail suppression and rain increase program in Alberta and who started it in the beginning.

The reason we started to have a hail suppression program in Alberta was simply that there was an area in south-central Alberta where the hail was so devastating, in the late '40s and early '50s, that hail coverage could only be had through Alberta hail insurance. They required a premium of 20 percent before they would cover the farms there. That was in the maximum area, and it ranged anywhere from 10 to 18 percent in the rest of the areas. The fact that it was so expensive — if you wanted to put on $100 an acreage coverage, it was going to cost you $20 an acre.

In those days it was almost out of sight for the average farmer. The farmers got together in four different municipalities to see what they could do to prevent hail. They were the first ones to start it. They invited a gentleman by the name of Dr. Irving P. Krick to look at the area and see if he could come up with some program to prevent hail. The reason Dr. Krick was really interested in that area was that it is, I believe, the highest hail belt anywhere in North America. At the same time, they had started a hail studies program in Alberta.

We thought at the time that the projects could work in conjunction and co-oper ation, so we could have hail suppression programs funded by farmers and the government could examine the results and let us know whether or not we were wasting our money. Co operation between the two groups never really seemed to come about, as far as I understand. They always had a little bit of: this area is mine and that area is yours, and you're not doing it right. There was a debate over it, and it still goes on today.

The fact remains that in the area now covered by the hail suppression research program, those 20 percent hail insurance coverages of the 1950s have dropped to 12, and those in the 18 percent bracket have dropped to 10. So as far as hail insur ance is concerned, I guess the benefits are there for anybody to see. The hail insurance people are not easy to convince. They thought it might be a trend, but after the 28 years it's been in effect, the premiums have lowered. To start with, there were two ways of funding this.

You could go and get donations from your neighbours, or you could try to put it on the taxes through the four different MDs and counties involved. Of course in the beginning, all the farmers went that route, because it was much cheaper if everybody was paying than just a few. But the plebiscites that were required, required a two-thirds majority, which is very hard to get even in an issue that wasn't quite as hot as this, and they were mostly turned down. I think there was only one plebiscite that passed. At that time, those who believed in the project continued and tried to raise the money in another form.

My first door-to- door experience was trying to raise money for hail insurance. At times it was very much like going out in an election campaign and getting into opposition territory. But it was an experience that people were either very much for it or very much against it. We kept it running in that manner for several years, col lecting on a door-to-door basis from the farmers. But as time went on, it became more difficult to get people to go to their neighbour and ask for money. Some dropped out, and it made the expenses a little higher.

The higher it got, the harder it was to collect, and we finally dropped it. So for one year, there was no program running in that area. It just happened to be the highest hail year on record for quite a few years. The next year they started the experimental hail research program. It has run very well in the last few years, but we still have an uncertainty of funds in the program. We are still in the experimental stage, which means that if you're experi menting with something, you look at a storm and say: well, let's let that one go and see what happens, see if it hails.

The guys that happen to be underneath that hailstorm are rather unfortunate. Even after 28 years of this program, it's still very difficult to prove positively whether or not hail suppression and rain increase really have much effect. From experience in the field under conditions, we've also found that in many years when you seed fertilizer, it doesn't have much effect. Sometimes when you go out and spray your crop, it doesn't have effect. But if you look at it over a term of 28 years in crop production, you'll see a difference.

I believe that's the way you have to view hail suppression and the rain increase program. Mr. Speaker, I've gotten way behind, and I'm ahead of my notes. I don't know how long I spoke before. I can't remember a time in the last few years when it's been as dry as it has in the last four or five years in our area. We have had no snow whatever. There's been no moisture in the winter and not much in the fall. But in the growing season, during the time when the hail suppression was on, we seemed to get adequate rain through the summer to grow better-than-average crops.

878 ALBERTA HANSARD May 15, 1984 In closing my remarks, I would like to say thank you to the hon. Member for Ponoka for putting this motion forward. I believe rain increase is just as important as hail suppression and goes hand in hand with it, although the hail suppression is much more spectacular than the rain increase. I was listening with interest to the debate on Mount Allan here today, and I wonder if we could use a little snow increase on Mount Allan sometime when we need it. It might be a good place to exper iment.

I would again like to thank the Member for Ponoka for putting this forward, and I urge everybody in the Assembly to support it. Thank you. MR. STROMBERG: Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker. I believe it was back in May 1972 that the following report was com missioned, and I would like to quote from it. The Executive Council's order of that day was addressed, approved, and ordered by Grant MacEwan, the Lieutenant Governor. The Executive Council has had under consideration the report of the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture, dated August 9, 1972, stating that:

WHEREAS by a Resolution of the Legislative Assem bly of May 19, 1972, it was resolved that the Government appoint a Crop Insurance and Weather Modification Com mittee consisting of certain persons: THEREFORE, upon the recommendation of the Hon ourable the Minister of Agriculture, the Executive Council advises that the Lieutenant Governor in Council hereby appoints a CROP INSURANCE AND WEATHER MOD IFICATION COMMITTEE, consisting of the persons and for the purposes specified [below]. Mr.

Speaker, that committee, which I was chairing, held approximately 33 meetings throughout Alberta, from the deep south to the Peace River district. Besides, two members of that committee attended a worldwide weather modification confer ence in Rapid City, South Dakota, and also in the state of Texas. In this report were not only our recommendations but the recommendations of the farming community of Alberta. I would like to quote the recommendations as they pertain to weather modification. The committee suggests the following procedures, etc., to carry out recommendations number 22 and 23. (

a) The Legislative Assembly pass a "Weather Modifi cation Act" which would establish a Weather Modifica tion Corporation or Commission to be operated and administered by a Board of Directors consisting of 9 mem bers, made up of [the following]: 2 Full Time Members, 6 Farmer Members, 1 Councillor for M.D, or County Member. All board members to be appointed by the Government with the Association of rural M.D.'s and Counties to nominate the council member. (

b) The said [Committee] to be responsible for action programs to effectively control hail and also for hail research programs. The Corporation be instructed to call ail people who have been involved with hail research or hail suppression and clearly establish what research is to be done, eg. by whom and how the research and action (committee] will be evaluated. (

c) The Weather Modification Act should give the Cor poration the following authority and/or responsibilities: 1. Responsible to administer a weather modification experimental program in Alberta. 2. Responsible to administer a hail research program in Alberta. 3. Responsible for a continuing evaluation with an annual report. 4. Authority to hire and/or contract with private indi viduals or public agencies to do (

a) research on hail suppression (

b) an active hail suppression program (

c) an evaluation of both the research and action [committee] and (

d) other programs deemed necessary to effec tively control hail. 5. Authority to establish, with the consent of the Lieu tenant Governor in Council a hail research and hail suppression area to be operated as a unit by the Corporation. Said area to be established by the Cor poration. 6.

Authority to hold a plebiscite [and I think this was very important] in the area established at least one year before the end of the 5 year experimental or trial period to determine whether the Corporation should continue with the hail research, hail suppres sion and evaluation programs on the basis that the costs of the Corporation programs be shared by the farmers, in the area on a mill rate basis, the Counties, M.D.'s, or I.D.'s in the area, and the Government of Alberta. The portions to be funded by each of the three (farmers.

Counties and Government) be estab lished with the Corporation prior to this plebiscite. The Corporation should establish the portions each should pay by discussions with the Alberta Government, Department of Agriculture, the Asso ciation of Rural Municipalities and Counties and discussions with farmers at public meetings. 7. Authority to have the Counties, M.D.'s or I.D.'s collect a mill rate to cover the farmer's share of the programs. 8. Authority to hold a plebiscite at least every five years after the first plebiscite. 9. Authority to do other things usually given to Cor porations and/or other Commissions.

Mr. Speaker, the history of hail suppression in Alberta has been given here by several members. I would like to mention that the Weather Modification Board was set up by the Minister of Agriculture, and it was doing a very good job. However, at the end of the five-year program, it was decided to bring the Alberta Research Council into this weather modification com mittee. And what do we have now? We have a Weather Mod ification Board that I believe has had its teeth pulled. It's taking its orders and funding from the Alberta Research Council. What has happened at the end of the five years?

What recommend ation have we got? More research. We are now into the next five-year program. It will be finished next year, and I'll bet you dimes to dollars that no one will have an answer and the recommendation will be more research. I am sorry to say, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps we've developed a program that is keyed around research for the sake of research. That's not the message the rural MLAs, especially in east-central Alberta, are receiving from the farming com munity. They are saying: to heck with the research; get those planes up in those clouds and start seeding them.

We had a good program five years ago. We were seeding in a area in about a 90-mile radius from Calgary. We were taking in the storms that were coming from Red Deer south, Red Deer north, basically to the Battle River. However, due to budgetary cuts, there is basically no cloud seeding done north of Red Deer. How do you explain to someone who has taken a loss of one year's income due to a hailstorm — and he knew there were planes sitting on the runway at Penhold — that we didn't have the dollars to seed that storm?

May 15, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 879 I find it rather interesting. Mr. Speaker, this is documen tation of the Third Conference on Weather Modification held in Rapid City, South Dakota. This came out in 1972. As I go through it, I can't help but see many, many areas we are now researching in Alberta that have been researched throughout the whole world. There are better programs today in the United States, Nairobi, Africa, Russia, Switzerland — they're years ahead of us. But what are we doing? We're taking experimen tation that was tried several years ago throughout the world just to see if it works up here.

Hail is still hail; I don't care if it's in Africa or here. My point is that there's a tremendous amount of duplication. An example is what we're trying to do in Alberta with hail suppression, rain increase, and snowpack. In other parts of the world, they're also working on fog and ice crystals — ice crystals at airports in Alaska. The situation today in Alberta is that we have a serious problem, and the Member for Chinook is quite aware of it. In southern Alberta there is no snowpack in those mountains.

The Lethbridge Northern Irrigation District is going to be very short of water and will probably run out in June. I understand the Eastern Irrigation [District] is facing the same situation. For two years now, the Weather Modification Board has been asking for cloud seeding/ground generation in the foothills and in the mountains back of the Highwood Range to try to increase snowpack. Any spring moisture coming from the Eastern Slopes into the irrigation districts is the melt that takes place in June and July.

For certain people to say that if we set up a snow increase in the mountains, it's going to be hard on the ranchers in the Lundbreck area — I suggest that that snowpack will be falling several thousand feet high, and if it came that far down, it would probably be in the form of rain. Speaking of duplication, in 1972 at this conference in South Dakota, there were papers presented by San Jose State College on Sierra snowstorms and cloud seeding and on the target area of cloud seeding for snowpack. There was another one from Bozeman, Montana, on randomized winter seeding. All of these showed that it works.

From the ground generator in the moun tains, they get a snowpack increase that vees out. Of course in the United States that means dollars, being that they're short of irrigation money. But here the Weather Modification Board has had to go to the irrigation district boards and ask for funding so that the Alberta Research [Council] can go and study whether it's feasible to seed clouds. Gosh, they flew a plane up and down the mountains on the clearest days we've had.

All you have to do is live in that country and just look to the west at those — if there are no clouds over the mountains, you know darn well you're not going to get snow. Why couldn't we spend a few dollars, put up the ground generators, and do the research after. Let's get some snowpack into that country. I was a little surprised to hear the hon. Member for Wain- wright — and he's not here — mention that perhaps we're chasing the hailstorms from western and central Alberta into eastern Alberta. I would like to point out that 92 percent of the storms that originate in the foothills never cross Highway No. 2.

The area he lives in has been dry for a thousand years. He mentions the grasshoppers — some people call the area fringing on a desert. I would like to point out to the Member for Wainwright that I recall about three years ago that he had a severe drought. One morning he was walking across his yard, and a little cloud went over Irma. He was standing in the middle of his yard, Mr. Speaker, looking straight up at this cloud with his mouth wide open, wondering if it was ever going to rain. And lo and behold, one drop of rain came down and hit him right between the eyes.

It was such a shock to the Member for Wainwright that he fainted. His good wife saw this from the kitchen win dow, and it scared her, gave her quite a shock. She ran out there as fast as she could, and she had to throw three bucketfuls of dust on him to bring him back again. Mr. Speaker, I think what is needed in Alberta is that we continue cloud seeding and that it be expanded not only north of Red Deer but into northern Alberta, because in the last 50 years, the history of hail has been that it has been progressively moving north.

There was a time, 10 or 15 years ago, when the Barrhead district of Alberta never knew what hail was. They've had three or four storms one right after the other. I think we have to have more co-operation with the United States and the different states. The Alberta Research Council has a plane that's flying into the clouds. Good heavens, they've been doing this for years in Colorado. Why can't we use one plane?

Start it in Texas when it starts to hail in June and, as the hail season moves north and ends approximately in Sep tember in the Peace River, use the plane the whole way through, with a combination of American research scientists and our people, and get away from some of this duplication. And quit hiding behind the argument that we don't want to expand hail suppression because we might end up in court. Surely the Legislature has the authority here to change Acts that can protect us from someone suing.

I heard the Member for Drayton Valley mention that she cannot get any hay up these last few years because of all the rain out there. I might point out that there's more rainfall in that area of the province than there is through the central or eastern area. It's always rained out there. That's not hay country. [Mr. Purdy in the Chair] Mr. Speaker, my experience with hail at the farm we live on — and my son will be the fourth generation — is that we'd never had a hailstorm until the year the Premier appointed me a director on the Alberta hail and crop insurance commission. AN HON.

MEMBER: So things went all to hail. MR. STROMBERG: They sure did. I was attending, on behalf of the board, a meeting out of province. I phoned home, and at that time my seven-year-old son answered the phone. I said, what's happening. And he said: Dad, it's been raining ice cubes. That was quite a shock. I came home, and that was quite a hailstorm. Mr. Speaker, the severity of that storm was such that it drove the fence posts six inches further into the ground and took every barb off the fence. Thank you. MR. MUSGREAVE: Mr.

Speaker, that's a pretty hard act to follow, but I feel I have to get in and say a few words. First of all, I'd like to point out that at the Alberta Research Council, we don't do research for the sake of doing research. We are doing it for a purpose, a mission. If after a five-year period we find we are not achieving that mission, we shut the program down. If the hon. member wants us to do more work on that, all he has to do is convince the members of the agriculture caucus committee, the government caucus, the Provincial Treasurer, and a few other people, and we'll do all the research he wants.

I would like to point out though that on March 29, the hon. Member for Ponoka mentioned in his motion that farming com munities support such programs — not, as the hon. member has pointed out, that there's some objection. I'd like to make a few observations with regard to his remarks.

880 ALBERTA HANSARD May 15, 1984 We are conducting a weather modification program and doing scientific research, and much of it is being done inside clouds. We have to do it this way because weather varies so much, and the high variability of weather has prevented us from showing with confidence that hail is reduced by cloud seeding. This applies not only to our research in this province but to the hail projects being carried out in other parts of the world. Although indications have given scientists as well as farmers good reason to be optimistic, I'd like to refer to the statistics.

Independent of cloud seeding, variations of hail loss/ risk ratios can be as great as a factor of three to one on a year- to-year basis. Variations in summer rainfall are often as high as 20 to 30 percent and can be as high as a factor of two in regions of the province on a year-to-year basis. Because of such variability, our current measures are unable to give results which would convince a skeptic or a scientist. This is a clear message from the cloud seeding program during the 1970s and studies of Alberta weather patterns over the past 40 years.

I don't know where the hon. member got his statistic about the rain in the last thousand years. I don't think the printing press was invented that long ago. Therefore weather modification research is still attempting to verify the theory that cloud seeding has enough effect on the internal physics of a cloud to modify its precipitation-forming processes and lead to less hail and more precipitation.

Research in weather modification is proceeding at this time on three fronts: first, the potential to increase the supply of water to rivers by increasing the winter snowfalls in the Rocky mountains; second, the potential to increase summer rainfall by encouraging clouds which normally produce little or no rain to in fact rain; and third of course, the long-standing hail suppression research programs. The meteorological conditions required to realize the goals of these projects are not sufficiently understood for Alberta, which I point out to the hon. member has its own unique weather characteristics.

Research into these unknown aspects is therefore part of each project. The first project, concerned with creating more spring runoff through the extra accumulation of snow on mountain peaks, is considered to have the most solid basis. Work in the United States and other countries has continued to produce for many years convincing evidence that this type of weather modification does work under certain conditions. But regrettably, we have a problem in Alberta. Alberta has a colder climate than most other areas where this type of research is conducted.

We must also deal with the fact that we are on the downwind side of the mountain range,

whereas other areas where this type of research is successful and is being conducted are generally on the upwind side of mountain ranges. The basis for the second project, an increased rainfall, is not well founded. Although a few projects such as the one in Israel have shown success in increasing rain, the successes have not occurred under conditions similar to Alberta in the sum mertime. They also have not occurred generally in clouds over the plains area of North America. Nevertheless, we are still doing research in Alberta, since rain seeding experiments have been combined with a hail research program.

The suppression of hail is the most complex of the three projects. In spite of nearly three decades of research here and in many other countries around the world, it remains scientif ically the furthest from our goal. In the words of many people, it's witchcraft at best. There is yet to be a test anywhere in the world to demonstrate with confidence that hail can be sup pressed. However, the new research thrusts in Alberta are more encouraging. For the first time, they are producing evidence to support some steps in the scientific theory for suppressing hail.

I will give you some specific research results from cloud seeding experiments in the past two summers in Alberta to make my point. Through our controlled seeding experiments in single storms, we have established that cloud seeding pro duces dramatic effects inside clouds where the seeding material has been applied with aircraft. The principle is that the silver iodide or dry ice particles introduced to a storm cloud results in hundreds of ice crystals in cloud regions where none occur naturally and in thousands of ice crystals where they do occur naturally.

These ice crystals grow from time to potential hail embryos. The theory is that seeding with an artificial ice nucleate will produce many additional hailstorms to compete with the natural hailstorm, which will be limited to a small size and therefore less destructive. With the research aircraft, scientists have actually been able to document for the first time that seeding produces many more potential hailstorms. Hailstone samples collected on the ground have shown that more hailstones fall from seeded storms. It remains to be determined how much competition there is between natural and artificial hailstorms.

Therefore researchers have demonstrated that seeding produces real effects in a hail- bearing cloud and that the effects documented so far seem to be consistent with the seeding theory. These real advances have only been made in the past years, thanks in large part to the use of our new research aircraft, not the one that comes from Texas and flies to the Peace River country as mentioned by the hon. member. This is a very sophisticated airplane, loaded with computers and all sorts of highly technical equipment costing hundreds of thousands of dollars and very sensitive to operate.

The results from using this airplane are encouraging. We now have a few documented cases of summer cumulus clouds which would not normally have been expected to rain naturally. They have produced sub stantial amounts of rain after cloud seeding. What remains to be determined is the range of cloud conditions which allow this seeding to succeed, how often these conditions occur, and the best seeding method to achieve this effect. Again, the research aircraft has been our primary measuring tool.

Moving now to the mountain snowpack project, it was only initiated two winters ago and does not yet involve cloud seed ing. To date the project has concentrated on documenting the characteristics of snow clouds over the Rocky mountains and southern Alberta. With our aircraft, the researchers have observed occasional regions of liquid water with no ice crystals, suggesting that the clouds are somewhat inefficient in producing snow. This in turn suggests that some potential exists for increasing snowpack. I noticed that the hon.

Member for Ponoka was unable to find any statistics regarding adverse effects from cloud seeding. The reason he wasn't able to find them is that there are none available. The possibility that cloud seeding in one area alters precipitation in another area has not yet been demonstrated. The possibility of some long-range effects, however minor, of course cannot be totally discounted. However, these effects are considered unlikely for a number of reasons, including the greatly varying paths of weather systems and the continuous supply of moisture to them and the atmosphere from the ocean surfaces.

The oceans completely resupply the atmosphere with moisture about every 12 days. It must be remembered also that in dry areas, water which falls is not really lost from the atmos phere. Almost all the water reaching the surface is re-evapo rated, much of it having done its work by passing through plants. Thus you can appreciate increases in rainfall in one area without significantly decreasing it in others. I would like to make some specific comments, Mr. Speaker, with regard to some erroneous statements in Hansard of March 29.

First of all, with reference to the Member for Ponoka, he mentioned a devastating hailstorm north of Red Deer on July

May 15, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 881 21, '82, that was not seeded because of some radar coverage problem. This is not true. The storm was not seeded, as the area north of Red Deer was not included in the cloud seeding operational area during the summers of '82 and '83. The only seeding done in this area during those summers was isolated seeding of storms on a few occasions as part of the single storm seeding experiment. Regarding the situation in British Colum bia, legislation was enacted in '73 requiring modification oper ators to obtain a permit before seeding could commence. So far no permits have been issued.

I'd like to make one last reference to the Member for Ponoka, who mentioned Mr. Peterson's reports, saying that very sound statistical evidence of 65 percent effective is an actual portrayal of his initial conclusions. But that is not the complete story. Peterson's initial report was very positive, but his analysis included an incorrect assumption that the relationship between the target area and control areas studied remained constant during the entire study period, when in fact he later discovered that this relationship did not exist. There is one last point I'd like make. The hon.

Member for Innisfail, near the end of his speech, said that loss in hail damage was $1 million in a year. This should probably have read $100 million a year. MR. ZIP: Mr. Speaker, I wish to briefly enter the debate on Motion 203. I will not go into the argument centred on hail suppression as it affects rural Alberta. Previous speakers have presented its importance very well. I wish to commend the hon. Member for Ponoka for introducing this motion. Since I grew up on the farm, I've had many firsthand experiences with the trauma of hail damage to crops and rural property.

I would like to point out its importance to urban Alberta and the exposure to huge losses that major urban centres like Calgary are sub jected to by hail every summer. Over the three decades that I've lived in Calgary, I've witnessed several disastrous hail storms in the city. The worst was the storm that hit the city on July 28, 1981.

The losses sustained by city residents from that storm, in terms of damaged homes, dented motor vehicles, and other property damage — not to mention the flattened gardens and flower beds that broke the hearts of tens of thousands of garden lovers in the city — exceeded $100 million by far. According to the Insurance Bureau of Canada, the resulting insurance claim settlements from this storm reached $98 million. This is one of the largest insurance claim settlements Canada ever experienced from a single disaster.

Viewed from the context of the $5 million this province spends annually on hail suppression research, the sum is small compared to the potential benefits it could bring to all residents of Alberta, both rural and urban. Calgary's experience with hail alone focusses on the need for research to take remedial action in order to avoid repetition of such events in the future and to prevent the horrendous hail losses major urban centres are subjected to from time to time. In view of the vital interest of both urban and rural Alberta in weather modification, I urge this Assembly to pass this excellent motion.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [Motion carried] 215. Moved by Dr. Carter:

Be it resolved that the government examine ways and means to attract the headquarters for the long-baseline array radio telescope network to Alberta. DR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting issue and one which is worthy of a lot of debate. A considerable amount of debate has already taken place, especially within university and development circles in the major cities in the province, with particular emphasis in the Lethbridge and Calgary areas. I bring the motion to the Assembly because of an interest which I'm sure many members of the Assembly share with me.

There is a very natural curiosity, a sense of awe and mystery, a sense of lack of knowledge with respect to the whole universe. Of course the best example of that is to stand out on the prairie on a cloudless night and be just overwhelmed by the sense of infinity which the universe presses upon one. Many of us have our interest with respect to astronomy because of matters related to the sun or the moon. On the 30th of this month there's going to be a partial eclipse visible in southern Alberta.

It should be 30 to 40 percent of a partial eclipse and should take place between 9:30 and 11 o'clock mountain daylight time. The full eclipse will take place over a route which passes over Mexico and the southeast United States. If anyone cares to look up at the partial eclipse, make sure it's a very quick glance because of damage to the eye.

I confess to being an amateur astronomer — very, very amateur in spite of the fact that I've a Celestron optical tele scope, which I take with me to the Cypress Hills regularly where the conditions are tremendous for viewing, and have also worked up a considerable home library with regard to astronomy and picked up the first item of computer software. But I must admit that most of the time dealing with that is spent about 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning when one doesn't have to deal with preparation of motions such as this.

I must express thanks not only to my research assistant Rod Scarlett but also to persons involved in the Calgary and Leth bridge development authorities and for the significant amount of time which officials of the University of Calgary were pre pared to give to help give me some education in this project. I must also thank them and in particular Dr. Allan Clark for the tour of the Rothney Astrophysical Observatory southeast of Calgary in the Highwood constituency. With respect to the motion before the Assembly, it's inev itable that certain explanations and

definitions must be given for an understanding of what the Canadian long-baseline array project is all about. There are a number of documents which are readily available with respect to the Canadian long-baseline array. Studies prepared by the Canadian Astronomical Society form the official proposal as of this date, and it was developed in conjunction with the Canadian Association of Physicists and presented to the National Research Council. Our understanding is that it's presently in the office of the Hon.

Don Johnston in Ottawa and is being reviewed, and hopefully there will be some source of funding identified. On the other hand, certain mod ifications have taken place with respect to the original proposal, and I'll be dealing with those in the course of my comments. With astronomy as a science, we are basically involved with the observation and

interpretation of radiation in the vicinity of earth as received from throughout the universe. Throughout most of man's history, our view of the universe has obviously been limited by the capability of the human eye to observe. What we are really observing is the visual portion of the elec tromagnetic spectrum. Of course the development of the optical telescope greatly enhanced the power of visual observation, increasing the light-gathering power. That development took place in the 17th century.

In terms of astrophysics — that is, the physical study of the components of the universe — a great leap forward took place with the invention of the photographic plate. Coupled with the development of optical telescopes, that allowed astronomers to record what they were indeed seeing. In addition to that, it

882 ALBERTA HANSARD May 15, 1984 increased the spectrum they were able to observe, so they were then able to pick up the infrared and the ultraviolet portions of the electromagnetic spectrum. Astronomy then took another leap forward, a dramatic advance, when it moved to another development known as radio astronomy. That of course takes us to the main focus of Motion 215 today. Radio telescopes are really large directional radio antennae. They're used in company with very sensitive ampli fiers and recording devices. They pick up revealed thermal radiation as well as nonthermal radiation.

They're picking up this radiation from such nonthermal sources as radio galaxies, quasars, supernova remnants, which are really known as accel erated, relativistic electrons. Use of radio telescopes has revealed the presence in outer space of over 30 complex molecules which they have not been able to discern here on earth. Again, these observations are taken not only from the earth's surface but from above the earth's atmosphere. The observations have taken place via high- altitude balloons. At the University of Calgary. Dr. Allan Clark has been working in this area for a considerable length of time.

Other means of observation above the earth's atmosphere have of course involved rockets and also spacecraft and other sat ellites which have been put in orbit above the earth's atmos phere. In addition, we have the matter of space probes to the moon and to the nearer planets, such as Venus and Mars; nearer is of course a very relative term. Astronomical equipment has cither been put in place on planets such as the moon or circling other planets such as Mars. Radar astronomy is also involved in terms of observation from the astronomical point of view.

This in effect is short bursts of energy from radio telescopes directed at a planet. This is how the planet Venus was indeed mapped. Other means of trying to collect information in terms of astronomy is focussed with respect to X rays and gamma rays. With respect to radio telescopes which would be put in place with regard to the Canadian long-baseline array, the radio tel escope is indeed basically an instrument used to detect and then to measure the radio frequency power from beyond Earth.

There are three components: the large reflecting surface which collects and focusses the radiation; secondly, the electronic receiver that amplifies and detects cosmic radio signals; and thirdly, the data display device which then does all the crunching, if you will, the assembly and analysis of the data which has been received. Of course this in turn calls for the real need for supercomputer capability to be able to deal with the fantastic amount of information which flows through. Most of the radio antenna dishes are paraboloidal in shape and fully steerable.

At the moment, the largest in the world is 100 metres in diameter; that is a very large one indeed. It is situated in Effelsberg in West Germany. The next largest at the moment is 76 metres in diameter, and that is the more familiar Jodrell Bank telescope in England. Canada presently does not have a large radio telescope which rates within the top 10 in the world. The matter of an array: the array really is a number of radio telescope dishes working in tandem.

In fact 1965 saw Canada being in the forefront, because they invented the idea of a long- base array, and in effect used the telescopes working in Pen- ticton. British Columbia, and Algonquin Park. Ontario. The work that was done there, together with the sophisticated timing required of the recording of the information and getting that in synchronization and then working back with the information received, led to the project being recognized in the Count Rum- ford premium medal in the United States.

That meant that Canada for the first time received this world-class award, and it was actually the first time the medal had been given outside the United States of America. On the cover of the 1984 spring issue. I believe it is, of the magazine known as Dialogue, there is a very striking photo graph of 27 antennae which have been arranged at Socorro, New Mexico. A number of astronomers from the province of Alberta have been privileged to visit that site and also to work with the equipment, and the interchange of information has taken place.

That location in New Mexico is called a very long array, and it does indeed provide sophisticated resolution with respect to image processing. The ultimate in angular resolution comes from a very long baseline array. The longer mileage over the earth's surface allows better information flow to take place. In order to do this, astronomers then have to deal with time clocks and the sophistication which has developed. This is part of high tech nology development which could flow and has flowed from this type of science.

At the moment, they deal with hydrogen maser clocks, which are so accurate that they can neither gain nor lose more than one second in a million years. Out of all this, we're dealing with a total avalanche, if you will, of information which comes through and which has to be fed to computers. It's mind-boggling to think of trying to deal with some of this information flow if we did not have the assistance of computers. It really boils down to the number crunching information flow being absolutely essential.

So any headquarters of a long-baseline array must indeed have some of the best computing facilities in the country, if not in the world, if the project is really going to be able to fly. The original proposal from the Canadian Astronomical Society was to build and locate eight or nine large, fully steer- able radio antennae across the length of Canada and to use them as a giant interferometer for the reception of the waves. The signals received were to be combined electronically at a central site to generate pictures with resolutions that would match the capability of the largest optical telescopes in the world.

The proposal was well-received by the National Research Council and given top priority for new facilities but, as mentioned earlier, it has not as yet received funding. That original price tag was in the neighbourhood of $80 million to $90 million. There is now a modified proposal under discussion whereby there will be four 32-metre diameter antennae to be located perhaps at Penticton, British Columbia, or in southern Alberta, the second one at Yellowknife, a third at Algonquin Park, and the fourth in Newfoundland.

The modified proposal would see these antennae linked with 10 smaller diameter antennae which the United States government is probably going to go ahead and build. It is interesting to note that the American government has already committed $3 million to the feasibility study, with the intention that there will be $32 million in 1985 to construct their network of 10 antennae across the United States and into Puerto Rico. I believe. So the United States network and the Canadian network of four would be linked together, which would be very valuable.

In addition, they would then be part of an intercontinental long- baseline array which would join in with the European network, where they have seven antennae as well. With regard to the motion, we're going after a project which becomes part of a very valuable intercontinental network, which also has ramifications with respect to the sharing of research information as well as the matter of travel of personnel between the various sites. In all of this, you need to have a very, very sophisticated computer.

I know there are certain discussions going forward in the Calgary area which hopefully will result in even more greatly enhanced computer capability. That in

May 15, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 883 turn would not only be almost world class but would indeed be world class. There would be some kind of an arrangement that if this facility is so well designed and of such magnitude, indeed it will be able to have spin-off effects. One of the major spin-off effects may well be that that could become the central computing centre for the intercontinental long-baseline array. There is the provision that further down the years, this whole intercontinental array would then be linked around the world with an orbiting antenna, which would be part of a European and United States proposal.

So we're talking about a very, very significant endeavour. Just to list a number of topic areas, some of the areas of scientific study which the long-baseline array would be involved in are: in terms of astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology, there would be the study of quasars and galactic nuclei, radio jets, interstellar masers, radio stars, parallax and proper motion, and relativity.

In the areas of geophysics, geodynamics, and geodesy, they would greatly enhance the ability to study the rotation of the earth, also keeping an eye with regard to improved data processing for the separating effects of the polar ice cap melting, the study of earthquakes, continental drift, and mass motion within the atmosphere, the oceans, and the interior of the earth. Also the study of polar motion and precise geodesy — this is the matter of extragalactic radio sources and would provide the ultimate reference frame for geodetic surveying, independent of distortions on earth's gravitational field.

This then allows one not to be reliant on a satellite revolving around in space to help in precise measurement, but in fact it would be on the satellite to do your measurements from distant quas ars, and that would give greater precision here on earth. I mentioned the matter of being able to measure continental drift and the matter of earthquake observation. In all of this, we're dealing with not only the movement of the continents but the matter of tectonic activity, the crust's movement one plate above the other.

This is very interesting, because it's only in the last year that southern Alberta has been declared to be within the earthquake zone. Finally, Mr. Speaker, in this area of spin-offs of scientific study which in themselves also generate other high-tech devel opments in instrumentation and analysis, in actual fact the project would result in increased capability with respect to data communications, image processing and, as mentioned, the whole matter of computing as well.

With respect to the Canadian long-baseline array, I believe there are six building block essentials which should be exam ined, and they are these. There should indeed be massive com puter capability within an area. I believe Alberta today does indeed have great computing capability. I know that we are known as having — we're only second in North America to Houston, and one could hope that we might even do better and pass them.

At any rate, massive computer capability is one of the building blocks, together with the service of the computer, and obviously that is something that should not necessarily be taken for granted. If you're going to have the computer, you'd better have not only the instrument in place but the ability to service it. There is also the matter of having radio antenna dishes for reception. While these could take place in other locations, one would hope that there would be one dish of the modified pro posal located somewhere in southern Alberta.

So the first two building block essentials are computer capability and the antenna. Third, one really needs to have the personnel, world-class individuals who have that kind of worldwide reputation, the capability, the knowledge in their particular fields. Within Canada we need to have people of national repute, and of course within the province we have to put together at a university — we should probably have the graduate school, the library facil ities, and we should certainly have enhanced faculty member ship in place, who would then relate in terms of the operation of the whole project.

A fourth building block would be proximity to high tech nology industries, so they could also take advantage of the computer time and the other types of spin-offs or would have to develop certain other measurement devices which would help in terms of the project. A fifth building block is the matter of transportation accessibility, the ability to get to the project and to move around the world.

We're dealing with a project where people have to move around the earth's surface to be able to keep abreast of the developments, as well as being on site to pick up whatever the information flow is from around the world. [Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair] Mr. Speaker, the sixth building block is really this: the willingness to become part of an international long-base array, the interest to be involved in terms of this type of exciting project, which has so many industrial spin-off benefits.

I'm sure other members will mention a number of them, but I know from some of the information supplied that some of the analysis and image processing has been mentioned as spin-offs. Also, some of the techniques which have been developed for extract ing weak radio signals from noisy data have resulted in major advancements in a variety of other disciplines such as tom ography in medical diagnosis, cryptology in criminology, bio synthesis in agricultural research, remote sensing in agribusiness, seismic processing in resource exploration, and data transfer in communication.

As I conclude my remarks in this debate, Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest that hopefully the motion will pass today. I hope the government will take into consideration that if the original proposal still has any life, strongly worded support go forward to the federal ministry involved that we in Alberta might strongly consider paying the cost of locating two of the radio telescope dishes within this province, as well as being involved in development of the computer technology and hav ing that put in place.

If we are to deal with only the modified version, I hope the provincial government will put forward a proposal where indeed we as a government would pay for the construction of a radio antenna dish and, again, that we would be very much involved with respect to the development of the world-class computer capability which is absolutely necessary if the long-baseline array is indeed going to become a reality. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. HYLAND: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to take

part in debate on Motion 215, put on the Order Paper by the Member for Calgary Egmont. We've heard a description of the proposal, and I don't dare try to describe it in any better detail because there were so many big words there that I'm not even sure I could pronounce them as well as the hon. member did. Mr. Speaker, there's been quite a bit of interest in this program in Alberta.

I'll deal mostly with the interest expressed by the University of Lethbridge and the city of Lethbridge, because I'm more familiar with the time limits they've been involved in, even though I know that other groups have expressed interest in developing this Canadian long-base array program for areas in Calgary and Edmonton at the universities. Mr. Speaker, the University of Lethbridge board of governors and the city council met with some of the southern MLAs at least two years ago, asking us for support in any way we could assist them in obtaining such a program. Needless to

884 ALBERTA HANSARD May 15, 1984 say, they were suggesting that it be based in Lethbridge at the university site. In September 1981 the university board of governors approved in principle the location of the headquarters on campus and invited the Canadian Astronomical Society to visit and inspect this site. Several things happened from then until April 1983, when the mayor of Lethbridge announced the city's commitment to the offer that they would construct a headquarters building on land donated by the university and rent it to the facility at a rate from which they could recover their costs.

Shortly after this announcement. Mr. Speaker, the three universities in Alberta got together and wrote a letter to the Minister of Advanced Education. I quote the letter in part. The Universities of Alberta. Calgary and Lethbridge are strongly in support of the creation of a CLBA and of an Albertan component, including the headquarters, control centre and antennae. The letter goes on to outline the commitment the three uni versities would partake to develop a group to operate such a facility, and it outlines their desire to have that facility some where in Alberta.

It is not site-specific, but it outlines their desire to have that facility in Alberta and the significance of having that facility here and how it might benefit the province. The letter also urges the government to endorse the concept and enter into negotiations with the federal government, with a view to establishing that facility in Alberta. Mr.

Speaker, this is about where we are on the motion at the present time, urging the government to endorse the facility and to explore whatever negotiations we can to see if we can interest the federal government and the National Research Council in establishing that facility in the province of Alberta. From approximately September 1981 to May 1984, groups of people have covered a lot of ground. They've spent a lot of time developing their positions. We have received information from many groups, including some of the ones I mentioned, outlining why they feel the facility would be useful to have in Alberta. Mr.

Speaker, the project description has been well outlined by the mover of the motion, in that initially they were looking at eight antennae. Now we could possibly be looking at four antennae, which would reduce the price from the estimated $70 million, over whatever time limit would be needed or thought appropriate to construct these facilities. A suggested time in some proposals has been six years. So we don't know now exactly the amount of dollars we're dealing with, but obviously it would be somewhat less than the initially estimated $70 million. The benefits of the project are something we can only guess at.

The direct benefits that we could see are obviously the jobs created during the construction of the project and the jobs created In the operation of that facility. But, Mr. Speaker, I think the real benefit of this project is that it would make Alberta the centre of a very new, very interesting industry. We will be in a position to develop expertise in that industry. We'll be in a position to educate and train people in the operation of that facility and the knowledge and information that it acquires.

I don't know how many motions we have had on the Order Paper during this spring session relating to the need to develop areas of Alberta in a technical nature, where we can move that technical knowledge to other areas of the world and have a renewable resource that we can develop and export to various areas. We might well develop a whole new industry around this facility, an industry that would possibly develop equipment for it and continue to supply equipment for it.

As I said pre viously, we would obviously develop programs in the various universities that would train people to operate that facility. people who would be around to go to other areas and explain the facility. Mr

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19840515
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L20 S2 19840515 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	2d74dd982b26e9dec90046173308e4177d470ebe

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