Alberta Hansard — 8 May 1984, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 20, Session 2)

19840508

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

May 8, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 729 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Tuesday, May 8, 1984 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] MR. SPEAKER: It would seem appropriate to observe a moment of silence during which our thoughts and prayers might be about those who died or were injured, and their families, in the tragic occurrence at our sister Parliament of Quebec, which ended a short while ago. [Members of the Assembly observed a few moments of silence] MR. SPEAKER: Please be seated. head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 33 Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund Amendment Act, 1984 MR.

HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill No. 33, the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund Amend ment Act, 1984. This being a money Bill, His Honour the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, having been informed of the contents of the Bill, recommends the same to the Assembly. This Bill has essentially four amendments, Mr. Speaker.

Firstly, as was stated in the Budget Address, there is an amend ment which, after August 31, 1984, will transfer the income from the heritage fund to the General Revenue Fund in order to reduce borrowing and to pay for approximately two-twelfths of the operating costs of schools and hospitals and social serv ices and to help avoid the need for tax increases or significant cuts in services. A second amendment makes the definition of nonrenewable resource revenue consistent with the definition in the Mines and Minerals Act.

A third amendment ensures the continuation of funding for previously approved capital projects past March 31 of a fiscal year, and allows a special appropri ation Act to be introduced after the start of a fiscal year. A fourth amendment enables administrative expenses of the fund to be deducted from the income that is transferred. [Leave granted; Bill 33 read a first time] Bill 43 Alberta Income Tax Amendment Act, 1984 MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill No. 43, the Alberta Income Tax Amendment Act, 1984.

As in previous years, the main purpose of this Bill is to maintain uniformity between the Alberta and federal personal income tax laws. There are two specific areas dealt with in that regard: one, with respect to the new carryback of losses, which goes back three years; and secondly, provisions with regard to excess refunds. Royalty tax credits are treated here as a refine ment of the royalty system, which they are.

But I stress that the amendments relating to the royalty tax credit in this Bill are not intended to have any effect on the ongoing legal actions that involve claims for the royalty tax credit. [Leave granted; Bill 43 read a first time] Bill 248 Children's Rights Act MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill No. 248, the Children's Rights Act. It declares a child's right to the basic necessities of life, education, parental support, and representation at legal pro ceedings.

Under the proposed Act, anyone convicted of depriv ing a child of his or her rights without lawful authority is liable to a fine or imprisonment. [Leave granted; Bill 248 read a first time] Bill 26 Veterinary Profession Act MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill No. 26, the Veterinary Profession Act. This Bill is the result of extensive consultation with the veterinary profession and the agricultural industry. The Bill replaces a much outdated Act.

The legislation reflects government policy on professions and occupations and includes provision for public representation on the professions council and in the professions discipline process. [Leave granted; Bill 26 read a first time] MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 26 be placed on the Order Paper under Government Bills and Orders. [Motion carried] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. WEISS: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to file five copies each of two sets of documents: Northern Development Goals for Programs, and Ten Years Later.

Both sets of documents have been prepared by the Northern Alberta Development Council. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. BATIUK: Mr. Speaker, last Friday a class from Heisler was introduced with their principal, who is our son. This after noon it's a real pleasure for me to introduce 41 grades 7, 8, and 9 students from Chipman school in the Vegreville con stituency. They are accompanied by teachers Mrs. Leliuk and Mr. Guglich; their principal, Mrs. Zacharkiw, my daughter; and bus operator Mrs. Zips. They are seated in the members gallery, and I ask them to rise and receive the welcome of the Assembly.

MR. WEISS: Mr. Speaker, today it is a pleasure for me to introduce to you, and through you to members of the Assembly, a special group. It is a special group because they come from Garden River, a community located some 600 miles north of the city of Edmonton. Many of these students are here for the first time, and the first time to the city of Edmonton. Of course Garden River is located in the constituency of Lac La Biche

730 ALBERTA HANSARD May 8, 1984 McMurray. There are 20 students from grades 6 to 9, accom panied by teacher Dave Stainton, supervisors Frances and Nora Nanooch, Leonard and Lester Nanooch, and Sister Lorraine, as well as transportation supervisor Cal Wigmore. As I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, it's a first time for many of these students to come to the outside. In particular to the hon. Minister of Education in this Education Week, I think this is an education. They'll be taking

part in the education of visiting a farm at Athabasca, a school at Trout Lake, Blue Quills college at St. Paul, the University of Alberta, the museum, and West Edmonton Mall, as well as a visit to the Legislative Assembly. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce this group today, and I ask that they rise and receive the cordial welcome of the Assembly. I look forward to visiting them in September, when we'll open a new school in that community. Welcome. MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon.

Member for Camrose, I would like to introduce five Girl Guides who are here today to earn their citizenship badge. They are accom panied by their leaders Mrs. Darlene Wiglie and Mrs. Jean Trautman. The driver is Mrs. Gordon Stromberg. They are seated in the public gallery, and I ask that they stand and be recognized by the House. MR. McPHERSON: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure today to intro duce to you and to hon. members 31 energetic students from the Piper Creek school in the southern part of the Red Deer constituency. The students are in grade 6 and have just finished studying government.

They are accompanied today by their principal, the well-weathered Blair Nestransky, who is my for mer football coach, along with teacher Jean Tatlo and bus driver Al James. The students are seated in the public gallery, and I ask that they rise and receive the cordial welcome of the Legislative Assembly. MR. PAHL: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to introduce visitors from the constituency of Edmonton Mill Woods today. They are a group of grade 6 students from Malcolm Tweddle ele mentary school. Accompanied by their teacher Ms Gloria Kelly, they are observing the functioning of their provincial government.

They are seated in the public gallery, and I ask them to rise and receive the greetings of the Assembly. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Abacus Cities Investigation MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the first question to the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It deals with the Ghitter-Orr report. Inasmuch as the report indi cates that Abacus may have violated

section 14 of the Com panies Act, and given the two-year statute of limitations contained in

section 14(5), could the minister outline to the Assembly what steps, if any, were taken by the government to advise and inform Abacus investors of their rights and obli gations under the Companies Act? MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is aware that that report was commissioned by a group of outside directors. It was subsequently made available to the commission and, as a matter of course, was available to the people con ducting the Abacus investigation.

In terms of the Companies Act and what obligations, if any, the government might have to make available to shareholders and others related to the company the findings of a report private to those people who were the outside directors at the time, I think it would be wrong to assume that government would play an appropriate role in that matter at all. The Companies Act basically performs a registry function. When you relate to the two sections the hon. member has raised, it certainly provides the ability to seek a civil remedy for people who believe they have suffered or allege to have suffered an injury or loss.

MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Given the two-year statute of limitations, however — and despite the fact that the minister has indicated it was a document prepared for the outside directors, but nevertheless sent to the Securities Commission — could she tell the House when the government received the Ghitter-Orr report? MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should clarify what he means by "government". MR.

NOTLEY: In this particular case, could I ask the minister whether she is in a position to advise the Assembly today when the Securities Commission received the Ghitter-Orr report and when the minister received it? MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have not read the Ghitter- Orr report. It's something like five years old and, since it probably has been addressed in the overall investigation of the Abacus situation, I didn't believe it would be of use to me to look at that report. I understand it has been addressed. Shortly after the report became available, I believe it was available to the commission.

I understand there was a briefing of a number of people who would have been interested in the affairs of Abacus, in both Ontario and British Columbia, at about the same time the Bank of Montreal appointed a receiver for Abacus. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question, fol lowing the minister's answer.

Could the minister indicate what steps, if any, the government took to review the assertions contained in the Ghitter-Orr report that the regulatory agency in question, the Securities Commission, was not able to comply with its statutory obligations and may in fact have contributed to the collapse of Abacus Cities? MR. SPEAKER: I'm just wondering whether this question, if I understand it correctly, relates to a report of five years ago. If that be so, then I respectfully suggest that the question would be more appropriate for the Order Paper. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, then perhaps I can rephrase the question and simply ask the minister whether or not, to the minister's ability to recollect, the government has given any consideration to an investigation of the adequacy of the Secu rities Commission as a consequence of not only the Ghitter- Orr report but the ongoing review of the Abacus Cities collapse. MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, as I said to the hon. mem ber, the report was available to those doing the Abacus inves tigation and, as such, I hope would be addressed in the information that will subsequently be made available to the House, with respect to the findings of the commission. Mr. Speaker, I think there's one other area I should briefly address. The hon. member has been speaking to a two-year statute of limitations, and I think the hon. member may not want to say to the House that in fact that is precisely what it is: a two-year statute of limitations.

I think the hon. member is hopefully saying that it is his opinion that the Act says there

May 8, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 731 is a two-year statute of limitations. I think for either of us to comment about that particular

section would be giving a legal opinion to the House. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, just on a brief point of order. I really don't think it's a legal opinion; I think it's subsection (5). I won't get into that argument here, but rather ask the minister: before appointing a team to review the study of Aba cus, did the Securities Commission fulfill its obligations, as set out in

section 32 of the Securities Act, to provide the minister and the Attorney General with a copy of its investigation report, interim and otherwise? MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware that the Secu rities Commission, in terms of its own work, leaving aside the outside group that was appointed to do the full investigation, had such a report. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Is the hon. minister then saying that notwithstanding

section 32, which sets out very clearly the obligations of the commission to provide ongoing information, there have been no interim reports, no compilation of data obtained by the Securities Com mission in this $3.5 million review? MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr. Speaker, that information would have been made available to the commission. I could bring the details of precisely how many filing cabinets, files, and other docu ments were looked at in the course of that investigation. But that information would have been made available to the com mission when they received the report. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. I'm not talking about the information that I know the commission has obtained; I'm talking about

section 32 of the Securities Act and the obligation on the Securities Commission to make available reports on an ongoing basis to the responsible ministers. My question is: has there been any compilation of data, initial reports — the kind of thing the hon. Minister of Education reported on yesterday with respect to the Ghitter report on racial intolerance — any initial report at all from this $3.5 million study? MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr. Speaker, on Monday the commission provided me with the preliminary results of the team that was doing the overview on the seven volumes of the report that was prepared. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question. The minister told us "Monday", which I take it was yesterday. In view of the clear obligation set out in

section 32 of the Act, could the minister advise the Assembly whether any reports were requested by either the minister or the government during the five years of this $3.5 million Abacus study? MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware if the minister previously responsible for the commission requested any interim information, but I did not. I certainly asked from time to time how the investigation was proceeding and when it might be completed.

It is my understanding that those responsible for the investigation were quite constantly of the opinion that it was so incredibly complicated, with over a hundred companies involved, that as the investigation proceeded, that complex situation was more and more brought to the fore. That was the reason they could not report to the commission at an earlier time and were not able to provide an interim report. The com panies were all related in some fashion, and there wasn't a way of sort of putting together a small package that related to any one portion of the investigation. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question. MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the final supplementary on this topic. MR. NOTLEY: Could the minister tell the House whether or not the RCMP, in its investigation of the criminal aspects of the Abacus affair, was able to receive from the Securities Com mission all documents which the force was desirous of obtain ing? MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr. Speaker, I'm not able to answer that question. But I do know that when the Securities Commission, or alternately the RCMP, is undertaking an investigation, doc umentation sometimes flows back and forth as a matter of course. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, undoubtedly we'll come back to this question. Minimum Security Facility — Alsike MR. NOTLEY: I'd like to direct the second question, if I may, to the hon. Solicitor General. It's a follow-up to questions posed a few days ago by the hon. Member for Drayton Valley, with respect to the correctional centre at Alsike. With respect to the April 11 public meeting, could the minister advise the Assembly whether a consensus has been reached or whether people in the Alsike area are still concerned and opposed to that particular location? DR. REID: Mr.

Speaker, there are some indications that at least some of the population of the Alsike area are not yet content with the decision to change the category of the Alsike centre from an AADAC rehabilitation unit to a minimum security facility. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. By way of background, I understand there was prior consultation with the community of Alsike when the original AADAC rehabilitation centre was established.

Could the min ister advise the Assembly why the department chose not to consult prior to the change of this facility from an AADAC facility to a minimum prisoner centre? MR. SPEAKER: With respect, it would seem to me that a question which appears to relate to the tenure of a former minister should perhaps be put on the Order Paper. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. With great respect, it has nothing to do with that at all. It is a question of why there was no prior consultation on the question of changing the one facility, which was an AADAC facility, to a minimum correctional centre. MR.

SPEAKER: Sorry, I misunderstood the question. I thought it dealt with the original centre. DR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the centre is now a small minimum security centre, what is referred to as open custody. The func tion is in actual fact quite similar to that of the preceding AADAC facility. As I said in the House in answer to questions

732 ALBERTA HANSARD May 8, 1984 from the Member for Drayton Valley, the number will be some where in the vicinity of 20, with a maximum of 22, and there are several other of these facilities around the province. Appar ently in the past it has not been the habit of the department to hold public meetings prior to opening such facilities in other areas of the province. In view of the fact that there was already an AADAC centre there, a decision was made not to hold a public meeting prior to the change in categorization from AADAC to the Solicitor General's department. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. Who made that decision? Secondly, in light of the fact that there is a difference between an AADAC facility and a correctional centre, notwithstanding the minister's answer — and it is my understanding that in the case of the AADAC centre, there was community input sought before that centre was established — by what policy consideration did the government conclude that it was not necessary to have input from the people of the area prior to the change being made? DR. REID: Mr.

Speaker, there were discussions held with the staff of the centre, who were previously under the Alberta Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Commission. The staff have stayed on under the Solicitor General's department and are currently being trained as correctional officers, under the department. In the meantime we have moved in other trained correctional officers and, in fact, some senior administrative officers from the Fort Saskatchewan institution.

Having dealt with the staff and the transfer of their category from the drug abuse commission to the Solicitor General's department, it was felt that in view of the minimum security category of the offenders transferred to Alsike and the intention of transferring others, there was not sufficient indication to hold a public meeting to discuss the situation with the residents. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

Given the rather experimental nature of this particular correctional program, was the decision to open Alsike based on the fact that here was a facility that was available, or was it a co ordinated, deliberative decision on the part of the government? By way of explanation to the minister, I raise that from the perspective of access to both policing in an urban area and the kind of professional assistance and job opportunities which would be available to people in such a correctional program. DR. REID: As I said, Mr.

Speaker, there are a good number of similar facilities — these small work camps — around the province. Some of them are quite close to small communities; others are in more isolated areas, such as at Nordegg. The general use of the offenders for the Department of Recreation and Parks and other departments of government and for munic ipal work that's available in the area is a good rehabilitation process. It does enable these inmates to function in a minimum security environment prior to returning to open society, whether they are under probation or not.

On that basis the Alsike facility is a very suitable one for that type of function. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question on the matter of security. Is the minister able to advise how many guards are planned for the institution at Alsike when it's fully housed with a maximum of 22 inmates? DR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I'll have to take that under notice. Off the top of my head, I could not give the hon. member the exact number that will be there when the permanent crew is there. MR. NOTLEY: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Given the concern expressed by the citizens in the petition, what ongoing consultation is planned for the Alsike community at this particular project, as far as the department is concerned, in not only dealing with local concerns but perhaps working through an ongoing citizens' policy advisory group? DR. REID: Mr. Speaker, certainly the department staff at Alsike would be happy to meet with any individual or family who has a particular concern in relation to their location close to the Alsike facility.

Whether there is indeed any need for an ongoing advisory group will be determined by the record of the facility and the integration of the facility into the local population and the community. We have large numbers of volunteers who work in other facilities of this type across the province, minimum security facilities and indeed medium secu rity facilities, and we find that interaction with the department and with the offenders quite a rewarding one for both parts of the interaction. Vehicle Registration Program MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Sol icitor General as well.

It's with regard to the new licence plate renewals, specifically farmers who want to renew their licences for three, six, or nine months during the spring or fall sessions of their operations. I am wondering if the minister has reviewed the problem that is being created, and whether some changes are contemplated. DR. REID: Mr. Speaker, as the member is probably aware, the intention for heavier trucks is that they will renew their licences as of June 30 this year. It is the intention of the department that in future, truck licences will be renewable on a three-month quarterly basis.

The owners of the trucks, whether they are farm trucks or other commercial vehicles, will be able to renew for those quarters for which they need the vehicle. For the farmer, that may well mean that he does not register for the quarter from, say, Decem ber to March unless he's going to use the vehicle for hauling grain. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister, for clarification. I understand that at present the person making application for a licence can delay the com mencement date but not the cancellation date, which is that respective person's birth date.

Is the minister saying that policy is being changed and does not hold from this date forward? DR. REID: Perhaps the member could clarify whether he's talking about light trucks — the half- or one-ton types of truck — or whether he's talking about the heavier trucks that are used for what could be described as commercial hauling. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. minister to clarify or differentiate between the light truck and the heavy grain truck. I guess the policy enunciated by the minister — is that for heavy trucks only, not light half-ton trucks? DR. REID: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.

Hazardous Waste Disposal DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, my question to the hon. Minister of the Environment has to do with the government's so-called privatization. Is the minister in a position to indicate if he has had any discussions with the Kinetic Ecological Resource Group and the town of Ryley as to their proposed disposal site in the area of the town of Ryley? MR. BRADLEY: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not had any dis cussions with either of those groups.

May 8, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 733 DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate if at this time there's any provision in government regulation or policy to allow a private company to go into the business of disposing wastes? MR. BRADLEY: Mr.

Speaker, in January 1982 there was an announcement of the government's policy with regard to special waste management: there would be a Crown corporation in the province which would oversee the implementation of a com prehensive special waste management system for the province; we would advertise a request for proposals to the private sector, for a private-sector proponent to finance and build such a special waste management treatment facility; and the facility would be located on Crown land. Those policies were put forward in January 1982.

At that time a moratorium was put in place on approvals for any specific special waste treatment facility. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, just so I very clearly understand the government's policy, is the minister saying that in light of this so-called privatization we hear about from this government, the government of Alberta, the Department of the Environment, will not allow a private developer to proceed with construction of a plant to dispose of hazardous chemicals? MR. BRADLEY: No, that's not the case, Mr. Speaker. We will have a private-sector proponent.

We'll finance it through a contract with the Alberta Special Waste Management Cor poration. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister. Why does the government want to invest public funds in such a waste project when there are people in the private sector who will invest the very same money, pos sibly borrowed from private agencies? MR. BRADLEY: Perhaps the hon. member is confused. The request for a proposal was for a private-sector proponent to come forward to construct a facility.

To own and operate that facility, they would have a contract with the Alberta Special Waste Management Corporation. There would not be provincial funding with regard to the financing and construction of that plant. It would be done by the private sector. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, is the minister in a position to indi cate if he's had a look at the policy? It seems the clause that is the sticker is: on Crown land. Is the minister in a position to indicate that if that policy were changed, a plant to look after hazardous wastes could be built on private land by private capital? MR. BRADLEY: Mr.

Speaker, the policy which was announced back in January 1982 was after a thorough review by the Environment Council of Alberta, which had public hear ings throughout the province. The policy announced at that time by the government was that we proceed in the manner I have outlined. There has been no change in that policy to date. Unemployment Counselling MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my question to the Minister of Manpower. As the minister is probably aware, federal funding for Alberta's 11 unemployed action centres runs out on June 30.

My question is: will the government be con templating some funding assistance to keep the centres in busi ness, now that the federal government is considering ending its commitment? MR. ISLEY: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge there has been no approach made to the provincial government. If there was, I would respond. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question. After that answer, I'm sure there will be some representation.

Has the minister had any correspondence with federal officials about provincial assistance to keep the centres open for a further unspecified period, a proposal which I believe is backed by the mayors and city councils of Calgary, Edmonton, and Lethbridge? MR. ISLEY: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not. I can add that we looked at the unemployment action centres approximately a year ago. The initial proposal that came for ward was an overlap of many of the services currently offered at the provincial and/or federal levels. Hence we were very reluctant to become involved in the funding of them.

From my assessment of what has occurred with those centres over the year of their operation, I would say that our original conclusion that they were providing an overlap of service was verified. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question to the minister. Rather than the minister's personal opinion, has the government carried out any studies to test the effectiveness of the centres on carrying out their mandate, or are they just opposed on principle? MR. ISLEY: Mr. Speaker, the mandate of the centres has done some shifting since their first proposal. Until you get a set mandate, it's very hard to evaluate. MR.

MARTIN: So the answer is, we don't know, rather than the minister's opinion. A supplementary question. According to the creative devel opment association, which was funded by the federal government, about one-third of the high school, college, and university graduates interviewed in the Edmonton area are job less, and many are angry about their economic situation. My question to the minister is simply this: are there any new pro vincial programs planned for counselling the unemployed, especially the young, who are feeling despair at their situation? MR. ISLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I would point out that the hire-a- student offices opened in our major cities a week ago Monday. They are now open in many of our smaller centres. The job orders from the private sector have been very gratifying. The differential between the number of student registrations and the number of jobs available is not as dramatic as I would have expected.

Add to that the private sector year-round wage sub sidy program and the on-the-job training program, which gives the students an extra tool to use in finding jobs, add to that the very extensive increase in the STEP funding and the STEP positions this summer— an increase of 66 percent, from $12 million to $20 million — and add to that the aggressive, pos itive-thinking attitude of our young people, and I think many of the young people will find some type of employment this summer. MR.

MARTIN: It's nice that the minister has that opinion, but the facts just aren't there. [interjections] I can assure you that a lot of people want to ask this question of this government: will the minister consider any funding support — and I point out that hire-a-student is hardly a new initiative — for reducing what the Canadian Mental Health Association calls . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. [interjection] Order please. Would the hon. member just resume his seat for a moment.

734 ALBERTA HANSARD May 8, 1984 I realize that we've had debate on both sides and, given the nature of the question, that's not surprising. But what the mem ber is doing now for the second or third time is saying to the minister: somebody or other is saying this; why don't you do it? It would seem to me that it would be quite in order to simply come right out and ask the question without at the same time saying: here's some argument in favour of what I'm proposing in my question. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question.

Is the minister con sidering any funding support for drop-in centres that would help show young people what services are available and how the young should choose the right kind of training — coun selling centres as such? MR. ISLEY: Mr. Speaker, I hope I'm not debating. If you have a program that is working well, you don't replace it; you simply expand on it. Granted the hire-a-student program in this province has been around for some time, but it is expanding as time goes on.

It provides the type of counselling service the hon. member is inquiring about, and I think is providing it with the three partners who are critically concerned and involved in this issue; i.e., the federal government, the provincial government, and the private sector. In addition to that, as I've already pointed out, we've put out additional tools in the mar ketplace for the centres and the individual student to use. So in my mind the response to date has been quite significant. MR.

SPEAKER: With great respect to the minister, I was waiting to see whether he was going to come around to answer ing the question — not that he's obliged to — but I must say that I waited in vain. MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So did I. My question to the minister is: because we hear a lot about volunteerism, would the government consider sponsoring and actively promoting citizens' self-help groups such as the south Calgary employment group? Would they consider funding them so that volunteers can do a better job with the unemployed? MR. ISLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I am not familiar with the particular group the hon. member is referring to. And I thought I did answer his previous question, Mr. Speaker, in that we had increased the responses through the existing vehicles. MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the final supplementary on this topic. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question on a point of clar ification, so we're crystal clear. Other than those measures already announced by the minister, nothing else will be done by the Department of Manpower to aid the unemployed of this province. Is that the official government position now? MR. ISLEY: No, Mr.

Speaker, that is not the official government position. We made some significant new announce ments this spring. Many of those programs still have slack that can be taken up. We are very closely assessing how the mar ketplace responds to them. As has been the case in the past, if there is a need for more responsive actions, this government has always taken them. MR. MARTIN: That's certainly debate. Telephone Service — Rural Areas MR. ALGER: Mr. Speaker, my question today is to the Min ister of Utilities and Telecommunications.

I would like to ask if the department has examined the matter of providing private phone lines for all farms across the province in order to accom modate the trends toward farm computerization. MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, the question of individual line service is one that has been addressed by Alberta Government Telephones, as indeed by all the telephone companies in Canada that provide service to rural subscribers. In Alberta there are approximately 120,000 rural subscribers. About 100,000 of those are on what is commonly referred to as multiparty serv ices.

That is where there would be up to, but not more than, four subscribers per line. The other 20,000 or 21,000 are indi vidual line services. Mr. Speaker, the challenge is one of cost: the very high capital cost of providing individual line services as well as the ongoing operating costs. It is fair to say to the hon. member — and it's timely that the question has been raised — that Alberta Government Telephones as well as other telephone companies are exploring ways of using the multiparty services in a way that the various new technological devices can be applicable.

But that should not be construed as a long-term solution, which is finding a way to bring affordable individual line services to all rural subscribers. MR. ALGER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Are alternatives being examined that may serve to keep down the expenses that are involved in providing individual phone lines? Obviously they're going to be pretty high under your present system. MR. BOGLE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

A number of innovative ideas are currently being examined by a variety of telephone com panies to do just what the member has suggested; that is, bring the cost of the service down so that it is affordable to the individual subscriber. MR. ALGER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the department consider providing an individual or separate line to farms that are presently on party lines and would like to use computers? Can that be done at the present time? MR. BOGLE: To be clear, Mr. Speaker, any Albertan who requires an individual line service . . . DR. BUCK: Has to pay for it. MR.

BOGLE: . . . has the right to apply for that service. The service will be provided. As the hon. member has suggested, there is a cost associated with it, an installation cost as well as a monthly operating cost. So it's not a matter of whether or not the service is available: it's the challenge of bringing the cost of providing the service, both in terms of the capital as well as the ongoing operating, to a point that is acceptable to the customer and to the company providing the service. MR. ALGER: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Agriculture.

Could the minister tell me what his department is doing to help ease the difficulties that farmers who want to computerize are encountering? MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr. Speaker, I take that question in the context that he wishes me to lobby for single-line service for all farms, and I couldn't agree with that more.

May 8, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 735 However, I have to say that we have been closely watching the development of computers for farm use and realize that it's going to expand greatly in the future. The only real service the Department of Agriculture provides is information needs for farmers and farm families. We are presently working with an electronic data-processing system. We have done some work in the Westlock area with pesticides, and also are looking to examine and expand that.

We had a survey done lately that shows that about 60 percent of those interviewed said they would like to see some com puterization in the district offices and that roughly 5 percent of farm families now have computers. So that will expand greatly. Of course we would like to see anything done that could be, to make sure the information needs of farmers and farm families are encouraged and improved. MR. HYLAND: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

When the minister is considering the other suggestions, I won der if he would consider and have his department and Alberta Government Telephones review the possibility of having AGT private lines similar to rural electrification units. Once you pay for a service, it becomes a service to that farmstead. Once you sell the farmstead, the line goes with it. As it is now with AGT, once you disconnect your phone, the next guy has to pay that amount again. MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, I'd be pleased to take the sug gestion by the hon. Member for Cypress under advisement and report back to the Assembly in due course. DR.

BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister of telephones. It's in conjunction with the four-party lines as opposed to the single-party lines. Is the minister in a position at this time to indicate if Alberta Government Tele phones is looking at a user-fee principle? The more calls you make, you pay per call, as they do in some jurisdictions. MR. BOGLE: Not at this time, Mr. Speaker. Teaching Profession Legislation MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Education.

What is the status of negotiations involv ing the Teaching Profession Act, and might we expect the introduction of a new Act this spring? MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, it was my hope that we would intro duce a new Teaching Profession Act to the Legislature this spring; however, that has proven to be impossible. We will continue to work with some of the significant related questions during the course of the summer, and we will reconsider the possibility of legislation during the fall and winter. MR. JONSON: A supplementary question to the minister, Mr. Speaker.

Was the difficulty, or the reason for this delay, related to any problem with adherence to the government's policy on professions and occupations? Or was that going quite well, and there were some other difficulties? MR. KING: That is partly a description of the problem, Mr. Speaker. It is true that among the different parties interested in the legislation, the greatest concern was expressed about the application to a new Teaching Profession Act of what is called paragraph four of the policy on professions and occupations.

Members will recall that paragraph four is that provision in the policy which provides that professional groups may choose to be organized in one or in two groups to look after their welfare interests and their professional interests respectively. The simple fact of the matter is that in our recent experience, all professions have chosen to be organized in two groups, one looking after their professional interests and one looking after their welfare interests.

The teachers are the only group that has chosen a single organization, and we need to do some work on developing the model by which that choice could be imple mented. MR. JONSON: One final supplementary to the minister, Mr. Speaker. Would it be correct to conclude that the difficulty is not over adherence to government policy as stated but perhaps with respect to the lack of elaboration on existing policy? MR. KING: Precisely, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. leader of the Independents, and then the hon. Minister of Economic Development wishes to deal further with a previous question period topic.

Temporary Staff Confidentiality MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister responsible for Personnel Administration is with regard to hir ing temporary staff by private agencies. I wonder if the minister could indicate what steps are taken to protect the confidentiality of the workings of those persons. MR. STEVENS: Mr.

Speaker, just as in the past, when depart ments have always been free to use the services of placement agencies — and as of June 1 will be provided with a list of certified agencies — the Personnel Administration office has reviewed the practices of each company to ensure how they carry out their hiring practices, how they'll fulfill the client's requirements. Of course part of that involves keeping track of the employees' placements and ensuring with the client that that person is aware of the client's requirements for confiden tiality. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the min ister.

Some persons in government take an oath of confiden tiality. Will that be required of some of the temporary staff? MR. STEVENS: Mr. Speaker, the employees of the temporary staff certified companies are not employees of government. It is government officials who take the oath of confidentiality. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. In terms of that definition, could the minister indicate what recourse the government has in terms of confidentiality being broken in government service when temporary staff are employed? MR. STEVENS: First of all, Mr.

Speaker, each manager would ensure that the confidentiality of material in his or her purview would be maintained. The employee of a company who would be carrying out perhaps specific duties of filing or typing would be advised of the material of that nature, if any. Finally, if there was a breach of confidentiality, I'm sure the department would be in immediate consultation with that company. Depending on the circumstances, I doubt very much that com pany would be used again. MR. PLANCHE: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to clarify a remark I made in the Legislature yesterday.

The ref erence is line 17, page 32, of the Blues for May 7. I said, "we

736 ALBERTA HANSARD May 8, 1984 have a great deal of coal in Alberta". I should have said, "we also have a great deal of low BTU quality coal in Alberta".* ORDERS OF THE DAY head: WRITTEN QUESTIONS MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, in respect of the written questions on today's Order Paper, I move that questions 165, 171, and 172 stand and retain their places on the Order Paper. [Motion carried] 170. Mr. Notley asked the government the following question: On what day was the hon.

Attorney General notified that a recommendation had been made by the commercial crime divi sion of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police that charges be laid in the matter of the collapse of Abacus Cities Ltd. , and by whom was he notified? MR. CRAWFORD: Agreed. 173. Mr. Martin asked the government the following question: What is the government's best estimate of when it will be able to table a response to Written Question 129, made an order for a return on March 20, 1984? AN HON. MEMBER: Agreed. head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 212. Moved by Dr. Elliott:

Be it resolved that the Assembly urge the government to con tinue to expand its emphasis on agricultural research and on ensuring rapid transfer of new technologies to Alberta's farmers and agribusiness, in light of the critical role agriculture has in our economy. DR. ELLIOTT: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon it's my privilege to speak to Motion 212, in support of agricultural research in the province of Alberta.

I propose to provide a little history on agricultural research in Canada and how it applies to our prov ince, how our province became involved in agricultural research, some of the good things that have happened, and some of my concerns about where we might be going in the future should the support not continue in a strong and positive manner. The history of agricultural research is as old as the story of the human race. One can argue that agricultural research was practised when edible plants were first accepted or rejected by man as he walked for food.

Indeed the growth, movement, and decline of entire civilizations have been attributed to the avail ability of food. So it has been down through the ages that society's primary need, namely food, has been the responsi bility of the agriculturists in society, agriculturists in general, and agricultural researchers in particular. DR. BUCK: We all like to eat. DR. ELLIOTT: I'm sure the hon. Member for Clover Bar, with his interest in agricultural research, will support that.

In Canada the need for public funding of agricultural research was recognized immediately following Confederation, which designated research as a function of the federal government.

An Act was passed to establish experimental farms across Canada immediately afterward. The story of Canadian wheat, which began in those early years, will forever remain a tribute to those early scientists. Today the research branch of Agriculture Canada has 35 of these research stations across Canada from coast to coast and employs over 800 scientists. Agricultural research in Alberta is primarily conducted by four main areas: the federal government through its Agriculture Canada research branch, the universities, the Alberta Depart ment of Agriculture, and the private sector.

Agriculture Canada has by far the largest agricultural research presence in this province, accounting for about one-half of the research effort in Alberta. Most of the federal work is undertaken at the three research stations, namely Lethbridge, Lacombe, and Beaver- lodge. In addition, they have research substations at Vegreville, Fort Vermilion, and Manyberries. While Agriculture Canada continues to be the most heavily funded institution, its relative position in Alberta has declined in recent years with respect to the rate of input of funding.

Universities essentially have a three-pronged mandate: teaching, research, and extension. Traditionally the Canadian university complex has given first priority to teaching. There, they are training students in the agricultural sciences, and it remains their most important mandate; supplying trained agri cultural scientists and agrologists takes precedence over involvement in research. Nevertheless, the basic research and agricultural extension services undertaken by these institutions is a significant benefit to the agricultural industry in this prov ince.

Over 90 percent of Alberta's university-based agricultural research is conducted at the University of Alberta. In addition to the laboratory and greenhouse facilities on campus in Edmonton, the Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry operates a number of off-campus research facilities in the Edmonton area. University research funds for agricultural research are obtained mainly from Alberta Agriculture and Agriculture Canada and, to a much lesser extent, provincial and agricultural organiza tions.

Despite significant increases in research funds to the Univer sity of Alberta in recent years, the enrollment of Alberta res idents in graduate programs in agriculture has generally declined during the past decade. At present, private industry contributes only a small percentage of the total agricultural research carried out in the province. But this must not be over looked or belittled, because it does maintain, in a very important way, a high scientific awareness in our community. The Alberta government had little involvement in agricul tural research in the early years.

It wasn't until about 1935 that Alberta Agriculture became directly involved when it assumed responsibility for what is now the horticultural research station at Brooks. While many of Alberta Agriculture's current research activities essentially supplement and augment the efforts of other research institutions, the department's overall research program has become much more visible. Alberta Agri culture presently has five major sources of research support.

These include: Farming for the Future, divisional and general departmental research funds, the Alberta Agricultural Research Trust, the horned cattle trust, and the Alberta hail project. The most important is the Farming for the Future program, and I would like to review this area in some detail. The creation of Farming for the Future was announced by the Minister of Agriculture in October 1977, and at that time it defined two specific objectives. The first was to improve the long-term *See Hansard May 7, 1984, page 721, right column, paragraph 2

May 8, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 737 viability of agriculture in Alberta, and the second was to help improve the net income of Alberta producers. Farming for the Future's mandate is to support the advancement of agricultural technology by augmenting and complementing research endea vours carried out by the universities, private industry, and agen cies of the provincial and federal governments. Mr. Speaker, I feel we must repeat part of that statement, because it has often been misunderstood that the Farming for the Future pro gram should be going further afield into initiating and leading in the research field,

whereas it was initially designed to aug ment and complement present research. It was never the inten tion that the Farming for the Future program be in a competitive research arena. Its major emphasis has been and continues to be aimed at research scientists, and this effort is now called the research program. The emphasis on the research scientists in agricultural research in Alberta is there because it is through these people that the projects are initiated in their respective institutions and applications are made through the process, through Farming for the Future, for support for those programs.

In 1982-83 the newly formed irrigation program committee approved the first irrigation projects to be supported under the research program. These projects were funded jointly by Farming for the Future and the Alberta Irrigation Council. In 1982-83 two new funding programs were instituted under Farming for the Future. In order to assist the dissemination of agricultural technology to producers, the very important and very successful on-farm demonstration program was created.

As well, the very important and very successful graduate stu dent research support program at our universities was initiated to provide financial support for graduate student research proj ects that relate directly to Alberta's agricultural industry. Farming for the Future is administered by the Agricultural Research Council of Alberta. This research council was created in April 1978. The council is designed to reflect the broad interests of Alberta's agriculture industry. It is presently com posed of 15 members.

The Minister of Agriculture is our chair man, and the Deputy Minister of Agriculture is the vice- chairman. There are seven producers, an extremely important

part in the way this council is formed — the seven producers represent not only different areas of production but different segments of the province — and one representative from each of Alberta Agriculture, the University of Alberta, the Alberta Research Council, Agriculture Canada, the Legislative Assem bly of Alberta, and the Alberta Irrigation Council. Here I inject a personal note, because it was my privilege, at the time of the formation of the Agricultural Research Coun cil of Alberta, to be the representative for Agriculture Canada. I'll never forget how it came about.

I was in my home in Beaverlodge at 10 o'clock on a Friday evening when I received a phone call from the hon. Member for Smoky River, who was the Minister of Agriculture at that time, inviting me to be the representative for Agriculture Canada. When I said I would be very interested in taking on this assignment but would have to clear it with my officials, the Member for Smoky River, in his usual manner, said: you don't have to bother, I've already done it for you; we have Eugene Whelan's permission and that of your director.

Over the years, the Agricultural Research Council of Alberta has established nine program committees. These program com mittees review and evaluate research proposals. As explained above, these proposals are submitted for support under the Farming for the Future research program, and each program committee is responsible for a specific component of Alberta's agriculture industry.

Although the nature of many of these proposals is such that a number of committees may be required to review them, that does not cause a problem to the council, because the proposals are transferred throughout and the rec ommendations are accepted from each of the committees. For the record, I'd like to identify these committees. It also reveals the nature of the scope of Farming for the Future research support and the nature of agriculture in this province.

The committees are: [apiculture] and entomology, cereals and oil seeds, forages, irrigation, land use and engineering, nonru- minants, food processing, transportation, marketing and soci oeconomics, ruminants, and the last one, special crops — a portion of this province which is growing in significance, both in local production and for the export market. Each of these committees is chaired by a member of the council and is com posed of producers, scientists, and public-sector managers.

This is a whole new group of people that are brought into the process of Farming for the Future by working on these com mittees, as opposed to working on the council which I referred to earlier. Under the research program, project proposals are submitted each fall and are directed to the appropriate program commit tees. There they are evaluated, comments compiled, and returned to the research council for evaluation. Each proposal is appraised in terms of Farming for the Future's objectives.

It is also appraised for the merit of the proposed research and the current information needs of Alberta's agriculture sector. Com mittee evaluations and recommendations are then forwarded to the council for final decision. This particular process adds one more dimension of very great importance to the whole mandate of Farming for the Future, namely that of being able to be selective in the research which it wishes to support.

As pointed out, if the research is not of a nature that would add to the basic information pool on those problems which are directly related to agriculture in this province, it would probably be given a low priority. Farming for the Future is financially supported by the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund. In 1979, which was the start of its first five-year mandate, it was funded with $10 million. In November 1980, an additional $15 million was allocated to the program from the heritage fund.

This additional funding at that early stage was a response to the wide scope of interest through out Alberta, throughout the research community, that was dis played for this program. Thus, during its first five-year mandate, which ended with the 1982-83 fiscal year, a total of $25 million had been provided in support of agricultural research in Alberta. And I point out, "in support of". During 1982-83 there were 150 projects, covering all agricultural com modities, conducted in provincial, university, federal, and industry research facilities.

During the fall 1983 sittings, approval was given in this Legislature for a new mandate for Farming for the Future. The mandate is effective for three years. However, funding was approved for only one year at $5 million, and this represented a 28 percent reduction from what had been experienced in previous years. In addition, Farming for the Future will have to assume more of its own administrative costs, and this will further affect its budget. Fourteen research agencies received funding from the Farm ing for the Future program during 1982-83.

The two most heavily funded agencies were the University of Alberta, with $2.06 million in that year; Agriculture Canada was the second most heavily funded agency in Alberta in 1982-83, at which time $1.75 million was directed to support research programs being conducted in Agriculture Canada research stations. Other agencies were Alberta Agriculture, the Alberta Research Coun cil, Fairview College, private industry, Veterinary Infectious Disease Organization, Western College of Veterinary Medi

738 ALBERTA HANSARD May 8, 1984 cine, and the universities of Calgary, Guelph, Manitoba, Sas katchewan, and Toronto. The interesting thing about that statement is that it shows that the Farming for the Future pro gram was designed in such a way that funds could be assigned to research projects outside the province, provided those proj ects were directed at finding solutions which would assist with the mandate and objectives of the Farming for the Future pro posal. I have some personal observations at this time, Mr. Speaker.

The research branch of Agriculture Canada is one of the finest agricultural research organizations in the world. Administra tively, it is the leader of all the departments in Ottawa and is frequently the innovator and test area for new administrative plans. Scientists who work in Agriculture Canada's research branch are dedicated and held in high regard wherever one travels in the world. It is no accident that Agriculture Canada scientists are frequently invited to participate in technological missions by other countries.

It was my privilege to be a member of such a mission, requested by the People's Republic of China to visit their coun try and explain to them some of our major recent developments in plant breeding, plant seed physiology, legislation relative to pedigreed seed production, and the administration of the Seeds Act in Canada. This type of participation in international agri culture is not new to scientists working on the federal scene.

During that tour to China — of particular interest to us at this time — much of the 30 days was spent in our sister province of Heilongjiang, where cropping conditions are so very similar to much of the northern portions of our province. Consequently we were able to compare notes on items relative to grass and legume seed production, barley, rapeseed, and wheat. Mr. Speaker, research is expensive.

Individual scientists are always frustrated by inadequate funding; I say "inadequate" relative to the capacity of the research scientists to provide new ideas, new plans, and the necessary supervision for additional support staff to conduct that research. The frustration of inad equate funding is particularly in the areas of supplies, travel, and additional hands, frequently referred to as seasonal labour. The scientists with Agriculture Canada are no exception.

Thus, with the creation of Farming for the Future in 1979 and con tinued support during the past five years, funding was made available for selected and qualified projects to augment and supplement existing research. To those of us involved in the research branch of Agriculture Canada, this was truly a breath of fresh air, because this would positively impact our research in many ways.

The two most common ways were that we were immediately able to collect more data in a shorter time frame, a vital objec tive to any research program if one is going to cut down the time required to get the finished product from the program. This meant that new varieties and new technology could be made available to producers in the area much sooner. In some cases it was cut in half. For example, it is suggested that the plant breeding time for a new barley variety could run from 10 to 20 years. This time was cut in half.

New barley varieties were released in this province in less than five, because we were able to collect additional data from more places and get a faster reading on the progress of the research program as it developed. The second major area was that new technology could be transferred more rapidly to producers through demonstrations on the research stations and through more field trials throughout the region. This was a very valuable portion of this Farming for the Future project, because in so many instances we have research on the shelf that has not yet gone out to where it can be used by those who need it.

Being able to speed up the dissemination of this technology and get it into the hands of the people who needed it meant that the economic impact of that research was felt much, much sooner. To demonstrate some of the points I've been making, I have a short example. Of course I would like to relate this example to the area where I was working in agricultural research, namely the research station at Beaverlodge in northern Alberta. I sug gest that if one reviews the agricultural history of the northern part of this province, one would soon note that there were two industries that developed simultaneously.

One was a forage seed production industry, made up of both grasses and legumes, and the other was a honey production industry. The former, made up of grass and legume seed production, was a natural for an area with a short growing season and a sensitive soil very prone to wind and soil erosion and seedbed crusting, and deficient in organic content and associated fertility. Grasses and legumes generally are cross-pollinated.

This means that if you're going to get seed production, you have to have more than one plant, because the pollen from one plant must be spread to the flowers of the other plant in order to complete pollination. Grasses have it made, because they have a very light pollen. It is wind borne and disseminated through out the fields on the wind. Cross-pollination is very seldom a problem with grasses. However, legumes have a heavy, sticky pollen. This pollen must be carried from one plant to another and can't be carried on the wind.

Therefore this job is done by insects such as the honeybee, as it goes about its job from plant to plant collecting nectar. The important thing here is that the honeybee needs the legume plant and the legume plant needs the honeybee. Thus we had developing in northern Alberta a seed production program, much of which was legume crops, and a honey industry which dates back just prior to 1910. Continuing with the honey aspect of this, we have in Alberta today a honey industry which is worth $18.5 million annually, a major portion of that coming out of northern Alberta.

Beekeepers traditionally imported bees from California each spring and killed them each fall, and a whole new trucking enterprise grew around transporting bees into Canada each spring. In recent years this transportation and transfer of bees brought with it certain problems such as bee diseases and par asitic mites. And along with the increased cost of transportation there was the increased cost of production of honey. These problems threatened the industry, and research scientists at Beaverlodge were challenged to find solutions.

New research plans were developed, but the constraints of funding precluded a rapid solution. The interesting thing is that it was about this time that Farming for the Future came into effect. The honey producers in this province approached the pro vincial Department of Agriculture and the Farming for the Future program. With the co-operation of the federal depart ment and their scientific expertise and facilities, the provincial department with its funding through Farming for the Future, and the beekeepers in this province, a very important new program called the Alberta bee breeding program was estab lished.

The objective of this program — and here's how com plicated scientific objectives might be — was to breed for Alberta climatic conditions a bee that displayed superior docil ity, overwintering ability, honey production, and disease resist ance. During the period 1979 to 1984, this was one of the most heavily funded projects under Farming for the Future and one of the most successful. A brief look at the results will show us. The breeding parts of a honeybee — this is an extremely complicated research assignment. Number one, we have a hap- loid biological unit in the adult bee.

This does not appear very often in the biological world. This is a complication which one

May 8, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 739 must face to even start breeding a new breed of honeybee. One of the other difficult things about it is that the queen bee mates only in flight, and control of the male segment of mating is not easily done in flight. The other difficult thing is that the queen bee mates more than once in flight. All these factors had to be taken into consideration by the scientist when he pro ceeded to develop his new queen bee. Nonetheless, our scientists at Beaverlodge, along with the support of other scientists throughout the province, were suc cessful in establishing a new honeybee.

For the first time ever in Canada, Alberta developed an Alberta bee — not only one strain but two. A second one, called the prairie bee, came through in the same program for the southern part of the prov ince. AN HON. MEMBER: You've got lots of busy bees. DR. ELLIOTT: Lots of busy bees. Mr. Speaker, there was much spin-off from that project, and we could spend many, many happy hours relating some of the additional research findings that came.

I would point out that overall, Farming for the Future is proving to be one of the most complete agricultural research support programs in the world, sponsoring activities that range from laboratory research to testing and demonstration of that research on the farm. The ultimate goal is to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of our food system so that consumer prices can be kept at reasonable levels while still providing the agricultural industry with an equitable profit. I'll close there for now, Mr.

Speaker, and encourage other members of the Assembly to speak to this motion and support government participation. MR. BATIUK: Mr. Speaker, it's a real pleasure to participate and support Motion 212. It's a very important and interesting motion. However, I do want to speak on it with some mixed feelings. Sometimes one wonders just how much research is needed, will be needed, or can be expected. Our government has been providing good initiatives and incentives for expansion of farm operations. Research always exemplifies ways to expand agricultural production.

When one looks at the com mitment of our government to preserve the family farm, any time anything is done to expand the size of the farm, it thereby seems to defeat the purpose. I can see research needed to develop new varieties of grain that can withstand various weather or other conditions. One knows how many different weather and growing conditions we have in this province. Research for new pesticides and herbi cides and information on the types that are most effective are very essential.

At present, farmers have to rely many times on the claims of the various chemical companies or on a trial-and- error basis. Chemicals are costly, and research would help farmers have effective control. I believe farmers should make use of the Alberta Environ mental Centre in Vegreville. Last year a test project had plots set out in rape fields to test for flea beetles. Findings could predict an infestation for the next year and would help farmers prepare and take precautions. The research station in Beaver lodge provides much of this. Two years ago I had the oppor tunity to visit.

I was really glad to see that experts from the Alberta Environmental Centre were there, providing seminars which I'm sure everybody found very valuable; I did anyway. I think research in irrigation is a needed step. For 75 or more years, southern Alberta has had an irrigation system. I served on an irrigation committee and had a good view of the system in southern Alberta. Even though the system worked — it impressed me — I don't think it has changed too much in those 75 years.

I was impressed with it when I saw that on one plot of land, probably about 20 acres, there were some 35 head of cattle pasturing and the grass alongside was almost tall enough to mow. Just across the road was another parcel of land which was not irrigated, and the carrying capacity of that was about one head on 40 acres. If one only thinks that the poor cow has to tramp around 40 acres to feed itself, one can see how she wears out much more than she can gain from that. I noticed that in southern Alberta there is only sprinkler and flood irrigation.

This looked all right to me, but I had the chance to view irrigation in Israel and Italy almost four years ago and was surprised how much research and technology is doing in that part of the world. You see very few sprinkler systems there, very much underground irrigation, and some flood irri gation done. In northern Italy, in the Milan area particularly, I was really surprised to see a field of grapes covered with plastic. I thought maybe that was to prevent the direct sun, but I was told they do it for the purpose that in northern Italy there is occasionally a bit of moisture.

They get a little bit of rain, so they have those grapes covered so the moisture does not come on the plants. I was really surprised; here they're irrigating and still covering their fruit so no moisture comes. It was research that taught them. I was even surprised to learn that if any bit of moisture comes on certain plants, particularly fruits and veg etables, the plants lose their resistance to plant diseases. That was the reason they had those grapes covered. One can see that research has played a very important role there. Maybe we did not have to go as far here because we have more water.

But water is all rationed there, and they just cannot waste an ounce of water more than is needed. So I think one area we could really look at is research into the irrigation system in this province. Maybe research is needed to keep farmers abreast of new machinery. Machinery is a very costly item for farmers, and maybe farmers could be informed as to new techniques and so forth — something like PAMI, the Prairie Agricultural Machin ery Institute, whose reports are published in Saskatchewan and evaluate machinery as to strengths and weaknesses.

Then in buying, a farmer has an idea of what line is best suited for him. I also believe there is a need to acquaint farmers with computer use, a wave of the future. I mentioned fertilizers and irrigation. Fertilizers play a very important role in agriculture. Fertilizer companies are doing research on their products on a continuous basis and have said they are ready to provide fertilizer that will help to reach the estimated goal of 30 million tonnes in the next few years. I well remember when I started farming.

Without using fertilizers and with an abundance of rain and so forth, if I was ever able to get 20 to 25 bushels of wheat per acre on summer fallow, it was considered a bumper crop. It was like that and much less. I very well recall the first time I applied fertilizer and the yield almost doubled. I know it is because of such farming practices that, for the last 12 years or so, we farm continuously with no summer fallow whatsoever. We've had some drier years, but it seems that with the fertilizer applica tions you can almost raise a crop with just a couple of inches of rain a year.

When one realizes how much it costs to summer fallow now — every time you work that acre of land it costs a lot — it seems that people are looking more and more to seeding most of their land. Even though unfavourable weather does sometimes persist, it seems that with the fertilizers today, raising a crop is not quite as difficult. The expectations of life today have increased to the extent that regardless of where you are, the farmer must produce much more on what he has, to be able to provide himself with a type of life which is demanded.

740 ALBERTA HANSARD May 8, 1984 We need more research on ways of marketing our products. I think that is very important too, and we have some research being done. I can refer to the Minister of International Trade. He is doing research work on a continuous basis and finding markets at the same time. Mr. Speaker, with those few remarks, I must say I whole heartedly support this motion. It's a motion that is needed. I'm looking forward to listening to what other members have to say and would encourage support of this motion. Thank you. MR. STILES: Mr.

Speaker, I'm pleased to have the opportunity to rise and participate in this debate. If I may, I would like to direct my comments not so much to the matter of research, which I believe the hon. Member for Grande Prairie has cer tainly covered adequately, but to the need for us to look at and develop the means of transferring the technology we are so capable of developing to not only the people who will use it in the future but the people who should be using it today. We have a tremendous base of research available to us, both pure and applied research.

I think it's vital to our industry and to the economy of our province that we find and develop the means for transferring that technology to the people who can put it to work. As a preface to my remarks, I think I should once again — and I feel this is important — emphasize the importance of agriculture. In fact I'd like to call it agribusiness, because it isn't just agriculture. I'd like to focus on the importance of agriculture in our provincial economy. We've heard this before, and I don't want to overdo the topic. But I think it's important.

In terms of agribusiness consumption, the producers of our province consume somewhere between $1.5 billion and $2 billion worth of products. They pay out that kind of money each year. They own and operate somewhere in the order of over $4 billion worth of machinery and equipment. That machinery and equipment is purchased. Certainly the elements of that vast amount of sales are not all produced here in Alberta. A lot is produced in other parts of Canada, and that's the contribution Alberta farmers make to the other parts of Canada's economy. Two and a half billion dollars worth of products are sold.

Those are the dollar figures; they're not the critical figures as far as I'm concerned. The critical figures in Alberta are the jobs that are created in this province by the activity of agri cultural producers and the other people in the agribusiness infrastructure. A hundred jobs are created for each $1 million worth of purchases by the farm community. If you calculate those pur chases for 1983 at $2.8 billion, that means over 280,000 jobs were created in this province. In terms of the handling and processing of agricultural production, nine jobs are created for each farmer.

For each individual producing on the farm, nine jobs are created in handling and processing that production. Agribusiness is a renewable resource. Agribusiness will be here when the oil and gas wells have run dry. When the mines have been worked out, we will still have agribusiness thriving in this province. I believe agribusiness has as much potential to diversify our economy in Alberta as has the petrochemical industry. The potential is there. Agribusiness is now, and will always be, Alberta's key industry.

The transfer of knowledge, skills, and technology to the primary resource, the people, is the critical factor in maintaining healthy growth in the agribusiness economy and, in fact, in maintaining the economy of the province. But when we say it's a renewable resource, it's not an endless resource. Renew able resources must receive reinvestment. Every farmer knows that we only get out what we put in. Farmers today are well aware of the need for soil conservation. They're well aware of the need for fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. Those are the inputs.

A great deal will depend on the kind of care and management to determine what the output will be. Agribusiness technology is extremely complex and as fast changing as the technology in any other industry. It is so com plex that I believe few people grasp how complex our agri business is. It involves farming and horticulture, supplies and services to the industry, processing the production, the mechan ics involved in building, repairing, and maintaining the equip ment, information processing, commodity markets, marketing the products, transportation, finance, communications. It is not a simple business.

It's an extremely complex business, and accordingly the technologies attached are also complex. We are involved in a period in which there's a worldwide demand for reduction of food costs and improving our pro ductivity. We're involved in a period when soil fertility has been declining; we must address that. We're involved in a period when small holdings are increasing. Increasingly, people who do not have any experience in agriculture and agribusiness are moving out to small holdings, and there's a need for training that kind of people.

The challenge for us today is to ensure that that primary resource, the people factor, utilizes the second most important resource, the land, in a way that the best man agers produce the maximum results. If we don't keep up technically, if we don't keep our primary institutions for transferring that technology current, we will not accomplish that task; that challenge will not be met. If we do not support the practising agriculturists, we won't survive the demand to feed the world or to export our technology.

I think we need to ask the question: where have we been in terms of technology transfer in agribusiness, and where are we going? The history of Alberta, in terms of agricultural education — in the early 1900s we had five agricultural schools at Ver milion, Fairview, Youngstown, Raymond, and Claresholm. Two of those five schools remain, Fairview and Vermilion. In each of those two colleges, there is a blend of the agricultural mandate with a regional trades and technology training man date.

Their agricultural enrollment has been limited, partly because of their location near provincial boundaries or on the edge of agricultural areas. At Lethbridge we have the com munity college, in which there are some agricultural programs. MR. JOHNSTON: First-rate. MR. STILES: First-rate agricultural programs, even though they may be few. In the province of Alberta, we have one school — and I don't know why it has to be me who says this all the time — whose primary focus is agricultural education. I'll just mention it briefly; it's Olds College.

Centrally located between major trade and technology centres, Olds College has been chosen as the remaining agricultural college in a province of 2.5 million people, the only college whose primary mission is to provide education, training, and service for agriculture and other non- urban, land-based renewable resource activities. [interjection] And it's getting close to receivership. In 1972 the administration of the agricultural colleges, which had been under the Department of Agriculture, was transferred to the Department of Advanced Education.

I'm happy to see the Minister of Advanced Education in the House today. I'm sure he's paying careful attention to these remarks, since it's a subject that affects his department in so challenging a way. Some key officials from Agriculture moved over to Advanced Education, individuals with expertise in agriculture and agri cultural education. Unfortunately time goes on; people age and retire. At the present time, most if not all those key officials

May 8, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 741 have retired, leaving the Department of Advanced Education with a dearth of individuals with that kind of expertise. Also historically, during the 1970s Alberta recognized the need for upgrading our trades and technology training. That was accomplished with a concentrated attack on upgrading the facilities of the institutions, investing capital. That training void was filled. Today in Alberta we have a fine base of secondary education, in terms of world-class universities. Our technical institutes have international reputations.

We have a compre hensive system of two-year community colleges. All these post- secondary systems are well supported and modern, and that is a credit to the previous and present ministers of Advanced Education. Unfortunately I cannot say that the state of Alberta's agri cultural colleges has been so well maintained. I don't want to belabour the point of the lack of capital funding for agricultural education. I think that topic has been covered before, and I believe that members probably remember the details all too well. But I would point out that from 1968 to 1984, knowledge has increased four times.

We have had a quadrupling of knowl edge in that time period, and I believe we have met the challenge in most areas of postsecondary education. But unfortunately, in terms of agricultural education, we have simply not come up to the mark. I recently had the opportunity to look at a paper prepared by an Albertan who recently completed a six-year term as the chairman of the board of governors of Olds College, Don Rob ertson. Don, as a Nuffield scholarship recipient, is currently carrying out a research project. He's done part of the work in Australia and New Zealand, and he will be going to Europe to complete it.

The project is to review and do a survey of agri cultural education in other parts of the world as it relates to Canada. It's just a preliminary paper and not the finished prod uct of his research, but certainly very interesting. He points out that in Canada, and certainly this is true in Alberta, at the secondary education level in our junior high schools and high schools, there are very few, if any, elementary agricultural courses taught — virtually none.

At the postsec ondary level, we have certificate and diploma courses at col leges, and in some other parts of Canada, not Alberta, schools attached to universities. We have science degrees at universi ties, extension short courses, short courses at colleges, trainees working in agriculture, green certificate programs, and that type of training program. Teaching of agricultural subjects is gen erally indoors, in winter, and in theory. Mr. Robertson was in Australia and New Zealand last year.

He had the opportunity to go through both countries and take a very critical look at what those countries are doing in terms of agricultural education — transferring technology. Agricul ture is taught throughout the high school system in every state in Australia in both public and private schools, including some of the urban high schools. It is especially extensive in western Australia, where three high schools have agricultural wings where they teach agriculture as a vocational course, and where they have three residential agricultural high schools teaching toward postsecondary education.

That's at the high school level. They have a kind of training institute that to my knowledge is not available in Canada at all; that's the pastoral college. These have a strong practical agricultural leaning, and they are for students who do not have much interest in book learning. Their basic aim is to train and develop a good station hand, a farm worker. They are not there to teach management in par ticular. Students are accepted as soon as they are 16 years of age or over.

We're talking about students who are ready to leave school, who do not particularly want to continue on to postsecondary education, and who are not really interested in staying in high school past the age of 16. Students are accepted, they spend about 25 percent of their time in class — that's all — and the rest is spent in demonstration or in actual practice. They build the college's new buildings, repair and modify the machinery, and repair the fences. In some cases there are no nonteaching staff, and staff and students run rather extensive operations as part of the education process.

The state of Queens land has developed four of these schools and each of them is specialized, one in beef and irrigation, another in sheep, another in broad acre cropping, and another in tropical crops. The next element of agricultural education in Australia and New Zealand is the technical and further education colleges. These institutions are engaged in trades training, and one of the trades they teach is farming. The students come in on either a day-release or a block-release basis from full-time jobs in the industry; so these are apprenticeship-type schools.

It is a sit uation where the students are employed in the industry and come back to these schools for further training, either on a day basis or on a block basis. The employer is very much involved, and his approval of the competence of the trainee is essential for progress by the trainee. The training is partially at the school and largely based on the farm, the institution providing the theoretical and technological background. These courses in these institutions lead to a certificate in farming. One of the interesting points Mr.

Robertson makes in this paper is how there is a substantial difference between Australia and New Zealand in the way these technical and further edu cation colleges operate. The influence of trade unions is very clear, very high in the Australian colleges.

He says: bureaucratic rules abound and a very clear distinction between the worker in the trade and the management who supervise him is made, so that management training is very much frowned on and a good deal of deviousness must be practised by the instructors to insert [management] inasmuch as they clearly recognize that apprenticeship is a step to farm ownership wherein management spells suc cess or failure. In New Zealand apparently the development of these colleges came out of the Federated Farmers Organization, the umbrella farm group of New Zealand.

As a result, the unions have not had nearly the influence they have in the trade schools in Aus tralia. A further element of agricultural education in Australia is the colleges of advanced education. These are largely funded by the federal government in Australia, and they prepare stu dents with two- and three-year courses. Another level of the advanced education colleges has a three and a half year applied degree course, which is a diploma-type course.

The teaching emphasizes hands-on training, and communication and ana lytical management skills, much the same way that our courses are taught at Olds College in Alberta. There is a college of this type in every state except one, and these are exclusively agri cultural colleges. I don't want to go on at any much greater length on this subject of the way the system functions in Australia, Mr. Speaker, except to say that there is a degree of co-ordination and attention to planning being paid in Australia and New Zealand that is not apparent here.

As it is here in Canada, it is the primary responsibility of the states to provide education. The responsibility for agriculture in Australia is a matter of state responsibility. New Zealand, not being a federal system, has more of a unitary government; accordingly, it's a different system there. But in Australia, where they have a system very similar to our federal system, the primary responsibility for agriculture and education is in the state governments, as the

742 ALBERTA HANSARD May 8, 1984 primary responsibility for education is with the provinces here in Canada. Through their state governments, the Australians have moved to control the system so it's not allowed to just grow without any control. They are carrying out studies with respect to the transfer of technology in agriculture. These studies have the effect of stabilizing the systems, since once accepted they become the pattern everyone can depend on for a few years to come.

In western Australia, as an example, they carry out these kinds of studies and develop these plans for rationalizing their system about once every 10 years. I think there's a lesson to be learned there, and it wouldn't hurt us a bit to have a look at what they're doing elsewhere in the world in that regard. Mr. Speaker, it's essential that we rationalize and co-ordinate the delivery of our educational sys tems for agricultural education, for transferring the technology that's there. We have a need to update and improve the capital facilities at our agricultural educational institutions in Alberta.

We need to develop co-operative programs with the Department of Agriculture, with other colleges, with the universities, with the municipalities, and with community groups. We live in exciting times, Mr. Speaker, times of new devel opments in electronic data processing and computers, in elec tronic media — television and broadcasting media — for the transfer of ideas, for communicating new ideas and new thoughts. We have the people who have the ideas; those people are available. The applied research projects in production and in soil conservation and reclamation are out there.

New energy sources: we're coming up with ways of replacing conventional hydrocarbons as an energy source. The Harvestore installation at Olds College last summer is an example, the waste management system they've put in which will be producing methane gas, clean water, and bedding mate rials, all from the manure and wastes from their corrals. It's an exciting project, and it's the kind of technology that's there. We've developed it, it's in the process of being developed, and we have to be capable of transferring that technology to the people who are using it or will use it. We need to concentrate our resources.

We need to make an investment in the transfer systems. I believe the critical chal lenge for us in this whole field of agricultural research, agri cultural technology, is transferring that technology not only to the students, the farmers of the future and the people who will be involved in agribusiness in the future, but also to the people who are out there farming today, working in the industry. Those people have a constant need for upgrading, and it's we who have the challenge of finding a way to provide them with that technological improvement.

We have the opportunity; we have the people; we have the resources. The rest of it is up to us. MR. MUSGREAVE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say a few words today. Unfortunately I can't address the part of this motion regarding the implementation of technology, but I would like to emphasize the role of the Research Council. I would point out that it will be difficult for us to involve new technology without a particular facility in place, financing, some kind of structure whereby we can take these discoveries out of the laboratory and into the marketplace.

In an attempt in this direction, there has been a recent paper on science and technology put out by the Hon. Hugh Planche and myself, which made that as a suggestion. There'll be more heard on that later. I would like to say, though, that I appreciate what the hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury said, that our most important resource is people. I think none of us should lose sight of that fact. On the other hand, we should also look at some basic statistics. The annual gross production of agriculture in our province now exceeds $4 billion a year.

We have some 30 million acres of land under cultivation and another 20 million designated as potential agricultural land, which makes up approximately one-third of the provincial area. I don't need to tell our rural friends that economics makes farming a highly capital-intensive operation, and the demand on farmers to be more efficient and more productive is the greatest challenge facing the industry. But there are basic prob lems appearing, and these must be solved.

Soil degradation is one; salinity build-up is another; nutrient loss is another prob lem; soil erosion, particularly by water; acidification — all have to be investigated. Climatic conditions and changes are among other concerns. New techniques offer the possibility of mod ifying weather patterns and the manipulation of plants them selves to be cold-, heat-, or drought-resistant. Increasing food production has become a scientific and tech nological problem. The key to this agricultural progress is in research. I would like to point out to the hon. Member for Vegreville that we can't have enough of it.

We have to look to scientists and researchers to provide the answers, and these answers are quite often slow in coming. To give you an exam ple, it took Charles Saunders, the developer of Marquis wheat, more than 20 years to come out with an early-ripening, drought- and disease-resistant strain of wheat. After 25 years of research at the Alberta Research Council, scientists are just now finding conclusive results in hail suppression experiments. As I men tioned earlier last week, biotechnology research is only on the threshold in the promising area of genetic manipulation.

Through research programs in such diverse areas as bio technology, weather modification, and soil investigations, we at the Alberta Research Council are playing a vital role in the area of agricultural research and the support of a basic pro vincial resource. In 1983 Alberta farmers harvested a near record crop, yet according to payouts by the Alberta Hail and Crop Insurance Corporation, weather-related losses reached an all-time high.

While the payouts reflect more coverage carried by more farmers in an increasingly expensive business, the $86.5 million insurance payout included $37 million for hail damage alone. This is a huge loss to the agriculture industry. Right now the largest single project at the Alberta Research Council in the broad spectrum of weather modification research is being carried out by the atmospheric science department in our hail project. During the 1983 summer season, the successful utilization of our new research aircraft marked a milestone in the 25 years of weather research in our province.

The aircraft, developed jointly with Intera environmental consultants of Calgary, has the latest airborne measuring and data recording equipment. This allows cloud physicists to gather more precise information on ice particle formation and the effects of cloud seeding to reduce hailfall and increase rainfall. It carries the equipment for seeding operations and, based on their seeding experiments on cumulous clouds, scientists are now confident that precipitation growth can be modified. Scientists are also turning their attention to the manipulation of rain and snow formation.

Their goal is to induce precipitation where it is most needed, in the traditionally dry areas of the province. This would be a tremendous achievement if we could do it this way instead of having to transfer water from the north to the south, as has been suggested by some hon. members. Just monitoring the weather can be potentially useful. Sci entists are demonstrating that radar can be utilized to forecast and track the path of severe storms, and radar can also measure rainfall, giving agriculturists more reliable information.

I would now like to deal with a technological innovation which has been around for thousands of years; I am speaking

May 8, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 743 now of the windmill. It is making a comeback on farms. Governments and other agencies are now exploring avenues of achieving more efficient ways of using this equipment. While modern technology is transferring the appearance and capabil ities of today's wind machines, the motivation remains the same: to exploit the wind as a renewable source of energy. A small wind energy-conversion system, water pumping project was initiated in 1982 by Alberta Agriculture in co-operation with a solar and wind energy research program of the Research Council.

Last summer six wind turbines installed at a test site north of Lethbridge began operating and, through a comput erized data acquisition system, are being monitored for wind- conversion performance. The data collected by the Alberta Research Council will be the basis of economic analysis by Alberta Agriculture. At the same time, we are also logging maintenance requirements of this equipment. According to the SWERP manager, Dr. Luft, time is money for the farmer. I might add that time is money for everyone.

If it can be shown that a wind turbine works effectively with minimal attention and at less cost than an electric, gas, or diesel pump, then there is a benefit to the farmer, since a wind turbine runs as long as the wind is blowing and the wind-pumping system remains operational.

Another program that we are involved in and which involves Farming for the Future, the Alberta/Canada energy resources research fund, the drainage and irrigation council of Alberta, and TransAlta Utility Corporation, is a program where we have installed computer data acquisition equipment and monitoring and design of computer graphics display, all involved with the wind energy program. I would now like to move to alfalfa. This is the day when urban members are becoming instant farmers, and I notice the smiles on some of the rural members. According to Dr.

Don Gerson, the head of our new biological department at the Research Council, a field of alfalfa looks like pretty straight forward stuff. But according to a scientist, it's a complicated plant, and its genetics are a mess. Alfalfa is a legume whose root system normally supplies enough nitrogen through the formation of nitrogen-fixing nodules but often lacks adequate amounts of this essential nutrient. To combat this problem of decreasing natural supplies of nitrogen, farmers have turned to a combination of chemical fertilizers and imported inoculants to stimulate the nitrogen-fixing process.

It is estimated that Canadian farmers now spend between $7 million and $12 mil lion annually to import inoculants from the United States, and many farmers are complaining that they don't work. Dr. Gerson says that the bacteria are dead or they won't adapt to our particular soil and climate conditions. In the Alberta Research Council's biotechnology research laboratory, the search is on for a bacteria strain which will be adaptable to the particular soil and climate of Alberta.

The object is to develop a commercially viable rhizobium inoculant which will allow alfalfa to absorb nitrogen from the atmosphere, thus promoting healthy growth. Alfalfa is an important forage crop in Alberta. If the Research Council is to be successful in its objective, it could mean reducing farmers' dependence on the expensive chemical nitrogen fertilizers produced from natural gas, and the effects of unwanted leaching of such chemicals into provincial water ways. Then you could quit accusing the city of Calgary of fouling up the South Saskatchewan River system. In a related project, research scientists Dr.

Walter Leps and Dr. Cole are looking for a better method of making the rhi zobium inoculants. In co-operation with Dr. Clark of the University of Manitoba, who has considerable experience in this area, Dr. Leps and Dr. Cole are hoping to find a bacterial strain which is more resistant to drying effects. Success in these projects would mean not only considerable cost benefits to farmers but the possibility of opening a new industry in ino culant production in Canada. Unfortunately the Alberta Research Council's are fairly long term, possibly five years, by the time field trials are completed.

But according to Dr. Leps, the end results will have far-reaching application. The United States is interested in better strains, and if we can come up with a good inoculant, not only will Alberta farmers benefit, but there is no reason why Canadian manufacturers shouldn't sell it to the United States market. The words "soil erosion" conjure up visions of the Dirty Thirties, when thousands of acres of topsoil literally blew away. Fifty years later, loss of productivity through erosion is still a major concern. Soil scientists know what it is — the interaction between landscape factors.

What is missing, though, is the real knowledge of the nature of these interactions: the geological characteristics, the climate, and the land use practices. Dr. Moran, the acting head of the Research Council's land sub program, says that soil erosion is one of the six major areas requiring research. The other five areas are soil land inventory and related research, land reclamation, soil salinity, soil chem istry, and land drainage. In land soil inventory, the Alberta Research Council has an established expertise which goes back some 50 years.

The information obtained by research in soil characteristics, which continues to be updated, provides a starting point for land use decisions and management recommendations. The develop ment of soil capability maps is just one example of this work. Interest in land reclamation, especially as it relates to surface mining, has increased in recent years. The objective of the Research Council scientists has been to build a predictive framework for reclamation and the impact of mining on water resources on a long-term basis.

Soil salinity is considered by many to be the number one soil problem in the Great Plains region. It has been stated that more than a half a million acres are affected by the accumulation of salts at the soil surface. The problem is growing at a rate of about 10 percent annually, and the estimated cost to our province is about $250 million a year. Soil acidity is another area of concern in some parts of the province.

Alberta Agriculture has long expressed concern over the effects of fertilizer practices on soil acidity, as well as the extent of naturally occurring acid in soils, particularly in east- central Alberta. Additional concern has been expressed about the impact of gaseous industrial emissions on soil acidity. The drainage of marginal lands for productive use, either as agri- cultural or forestry land, is another area of concern, and it raises numerous questions about the effects on soil properties and productivity.

Little is known about which lands will respond favourably or what deleterious side effects might result on either groundwater or surface water regimes. We at the Research Council are trying to address all of these concerns and to assist in the ongoing program. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention that, as all hon. members know, we have a new president of the Alberta Research Council.

To those of you who are its clients or who know people that are, I'd like to point out that he said recently that the Research Council must be seen as a competent, purposeful organization that knows what it's doing and must give people a sense of responsiveness and responsibility. Staff should remember that we are almost entirely funded by the province and the future of the Research Council depends on the population's and the politician's feeling we are making good use of those funds. The nature of an impression of any person having contact with the council is important to us. The way in

744 ALBERTA HANSARD May 8, 1984 which staff behave is going to affect people's opinion of the competence and responsibility of the council. MR. DROBOT: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on Motion 212, I am in agreement with the motion that we must continue to expand our agricultural research and rapidly transfer some of our new technology to our farmers and agribusiness.

Cer tainly our Alberta government has responded to that need in the past, but our modern technology is such that we must keep advancing our research, improving our method of operating farms, reducing costs and, at the same time, improving pro ductivity. The answer to most of those needs in agriculture is research on a continuing basis and getting the information out to the producers on the farm with farm demonstrations, farm testing, and utilization of that knowledge. In our society there is a strong emphasis on nutrition in our country and in the world.

Farmers today are trying to get their hands on anything that can increase their ability. Currently many farmers include microcomputers as part of their farm operation. A few quick examples of technology on the farm: spraying monitors, which regulate the volume of water flow according to soil requirement; temperature gauges for grain storage bins; building alarm systems, regulating such factors as heating, power, and other livestock feeding systems, dairy systems, and so on. In regard to cropping, great advances have been made in agriculture.

Researchers have exceeded over 250 bushels of corn and over 65 bushels of soybean in Ontario. In the prairies, spring wheat yields have exceeded 60 bushels per acre, with the new 3M varieties exceeding 100 bushels per acre. We require more research into fertilization, crop hybrids, variety selections, timing of field operations, and plant populations. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, a maximum yield strategy should be the researchers' goal. New and continuing technology will be the strength of the agricultural industry in the future.

Only a few years ago, many scientists were seriously worried about moral and biological consequences of tinkering with genetic makeup of living cells. Today that is forgotten. Mankind is beginning to enjoy the benefits of the new science that will bring great progress in the field of agriculture. Certainly in the future, plant breeding proj ects that took years with conventional procedures may be accomplished in months or even weeks, and that's just the beginning.

A likely possibility is crops that can grow in extremes of hot or cold, that may convert nitrogen directly from the air to the plant in a form that's usable to the plant, plants that can produce their own insecticides and fungicides, plants that can grow in saline soil or under irrigation using brackish water, and so on. We've hardly scratched the surface in regard to what plant scientists can discover, given the funding to carry out research.

In the livestock sector, possibilities for disease control, feed efficiency, growth promotion, plain old-fashioned beef breed improvement, embryo transfer, and biogenetic engi neering will have a much bigger role to play. Alberta could be a leader in exploiting the new field of agricultural technology by supporting more research. Wouldn't it be something if, for example, we were to have access to nitrogen-fixing strains of wheat ahead of our competitors? New technology in agriculture, food processing techniques, and new products will have a great impact on food processing in Alberta in the future.

We are taking a commanding lead in many of these areas and must continue to do so. Agriculture, insects, microbe agents have both positive and negative effects on agri culture. Beekeeping is an important industry in Alberta and a continuing research program that is carried out must be further utilized to bring research data to producers in a rapid transfer. Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not mention the Farming for the Future program and the great work the Alberta Research Council is doing. Research is an ongoing thing. The results are completed at an ever-increasing rate.

The research ers' list is long and impressive, but we cannot rest on our laurels. We must continue to expand our expectations of what research technology can achieve and dispense that information as soon as it is available. The future of agriculture depends on the quality and direction of research that is applied to it. MR. LYSONS: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to say a few words about agricultural research and how it affects the con stituency of Vermilion-Viking. As many of you are aware, our area is diverse.

We have some very light land, we have some reasonably light land with a good clay soil base, and we have some very, very heavy land that's quite alkaline. Driving in this spring in particular, I can't help but notice that a number of the fields are turning white. It's not that they're getting that old; they're just going gray from the salt and the alkali. It would appear that this is the worst year we've seen. I suppose it has something to do with the drought we've been experiencing and the unusual kinds of weather we've had. So I believe that our government has to assist in alkali research in some measured way.

As the Member for Olds-Didsbury pointed out, research money is required for his college at Olds. I would suggest that Lakeland College at Vermilion should be considered as a vital link in this program, if in the next short time the minister could see fit to devote some money to land purchase, particularly of some of the heavy land and, as has been mentioned, light land and so on. But we do have some real problems facing us with our very, very heavy land. It's not just the heavy land that's being affected by the alkali; some of the lighter land is too. It's very prominent.

I suppose it's a little too late now, but I'm sure it would have been meaningful for the Minister of Agri culture to have flown over our area at low altitude just to see the magnitude of the problem this spring when the snow left. It was very, very serious. I really don't want to take up a great deal of time, but I would like to suggest that we are doing so many, many good things with research in agriculture, and it's paying off, although I believe we're coming to a point when it's hardly economical to be a farmer under today's prices. Farmers have increased their production so very much.

As a young man on the farm, I remember that we would expect a certain yield at best; now that "at best" would be considered a light crop. Research in various stages — first by the farmers themselves, by industry, by the provincial government and, of course, the federal government, and by other farmers, industries, and governments around the world — has helped us a great deal. Although there's still a lot of land that can be brought into cultivation, we're now getting to a point where most of the land in our area is cultivated. But if we start to lose that land to alkali, we really haven't gained a great deal.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. MR. ALGER: Mr. Speaker, before speaking on the obvious merits of Motion 212, I would like to congratulate the Member for Grande Prairie for introducing it to this Assembly. I'm sure all members, both rural and urban, can appreciate the impor tance of agricultural research in Alberta. Agricultural land is one of Alberta's great resources. Fifty million acres in Alberta are used for agricultural production, and the agricultural

section generates about 40 percent of all economic activity in Canada. Further, one out of three jobs in Alberta is related to agriculture. With only about 8 percent of

May 8, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 745 Canada's population, Alberta produces about 20 percent of Canada's agricultural products. Mr. Speaker, you won't believe this, but on one acre an Alberta farmer can raise enough potatoes in one year for a family to have french fries every day for 27 years. That's a little trivia statistic I want you to keep in your head and quietly forget. The dickens of that statistic is that potatoes don't last very well, so we've got to have a better arrangement than that.

Another kind of trivia thing is that on one acre an Alberta farmer can grow enough wheat in a year to supply a family with bread for nearly 10 years. It's a magnificent thing. The future of our agricultural production is closely related to the quality, direction, and amount of research applied to it. In order to ensure that Alberta farmers remain successful, we must continue to take the necessary steps to ensure research and technology transfer to the agricultural sector. Agriculture is easy to forget, especially here in Alberta where our natural resources are the centre of attention.

But agriculture is a vital link in Alberta's economic chain, and the evidence shows that agricultural research is a profitable long- term investment, not only for the farmers but for all of society in general. In looking back at the technological changes that have taken place over the last century, one can see the positive effects they have had on agriculture. The substitution of machine power for animal power greatly expanded capacity. Hydraulic and electrical engineering advances further allowed for the reduc tion in farm labour and draft power.

Advances in building construction and other farm-related structures have contributed significantly to increasing agricultural production. Develop ments in biological technology have allowed for the introduc tion of new strains of wheat and canola, while the refining of artificial insemination techniques has been particularly impor tant. Better and more effective fertilizers have increased crop yields. Improved understanding of soil, climate, and topog raphy has allowed for a more appropriate mix of land use. All of us in this Assembly are aware of the success of the Farming for the Future research program.

As a heritage fund project, the program is representative of this government's sup port for agricultural research. Besides the new knowledge and new technology the Farming for the Future program has given to Alberta farmers, I am especially pleased to see it is becoming more and more cost effective. If research programs such as this ultimately become cost effective, I see no reason why they should not continue indefinitely. There are two more points that I'd like to bring up today, Mr. Speaker. The first concerns agricultural exchange pro grams.

Each year hundreds of Albertans visit foreign countries on agricultural exchanges. These programs provide an exchange of people involved in agriculture and thereby improve the sharing of technical information while broadening the views of the farming sector. They also result in increased trade and a stronger economy. The possibility of scientific research exchanges may also prove beneficial in the immediate future. The last point I'd like to make, Mr. Speaker, is a little closer to home. In fact we dwelt on it a bit in question period today.

Computers are becoming more and more important in the everyday functioning of the average farm in Alberta. Com puterized heating, watering, and feeding have freed up a sig nificant portion of the farmer's time, thus allowing him to concentrate on other important matters. I know that in the constituency of Highwood, many farmers, both big and small, have adopted computerization and thus have become more effi cient. However, this has not occurred without problems.

While the expense involved in giving each farm in Alberta its own private phone line is prohibitive, I think ways must be examined to gradually make this possible. Technological change is great, especially when all areas of the farm can advance at a similar pace. By supporting this motion, Mr. Speaker, we are banking on our future. Research efforts have the potential to improve net farm income, increase value-added processing, and enhance the long-term viability of agriculture in Alberta.

Once again I thank the Member for Grande Prairie for bringing this motion forward and urge everyone in this Assembly to support it. MR. MUSGROVE: Mr. Speaker, I also would like to con gratulate the Member for Grande Prairie for bringing such an important motion to our attention and would like to speak in support of the motion. Anytime we get some research, we generally get an eco nomic benefit to agriculture. I would have to say, though, that there is generally an economic benefit to the consumer also. During my lifetime, Mr.

Speaker, the benefits from agricultural technology have gone as much to the consumer as to the pro ducer. For instance, in the 1940s more than one-third of the people in Alberta worked for basic agriculture. Today one person working in basic agriculture feeds 97 other people. In 1950 approximately 50 percent of the dollar of the average wage earner went to purchase food. In 1982 only 16 to 18 cents of the wage earner's dollar was used to purchase food. So you can see how research and improvement in our food production has benefitted the consumer.

Technology has also helped us lower our cost of production and keep our product on the world market. However, there are places where marketing research could improve this situation. As was suggested by one of the former speakers, we haven't reached our potential in our ability to produce food in Alberta, providing that it is economically viable. What we have to do is get some research done on our marketing so we can market these products at something that the farmer can afford. Some things have happened in the machine industry, for instance, in the last few decades.

When I first started farming, hydraulics were generally used for front-end loaders and to raise and lower machinery. Today hydraulics is a very important part of our machinery. Orbit motors are now replacing a lot of belts and chains on machinery that needed a lot of maintenance. The orbit motor runs on oil and requires very little maintenance. We have monitors in combines that allow the operator to sit in the combine cab, look at the monitor, and tell how much grain is going over at any given time. It also tells him what to do to correct that.

He can close or open his cylinder, turn on a little more wind, close up his sieves, or whatever. During my time, in the few years that I did operate a combine myself, you generally had to get somebody out in the field with a scoop shovel to catch some chaff out of the sieves to see how much grain was going over. Nowadays they have closed circuit TVs in tractors where you can watch the TV and see what the machine you're pulling behind is doing and do a better job of operating your equipment, particularly where it's quite dusty and you're not able

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19840508
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L20 S2 19840508 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	322fb05dd731fe9a33d6fdbb134d35aa4fb95c1b

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