LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Tuesday, March 14, 1972 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 pm.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair.] head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill No. 19 The Department of Education Amendment Act, 1972 MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill, being The Department of Education Amendment Act, 1972. Among other changes, the bill will delete and reduce the powers and prerogatives of the Minister of Education in respect to authority he now has under legislation to appoint temporary and part-time staff.

In addition, it will delete the regulation-making power of the minister regarding the establishment, operation, and administration of vocational and technical schools or institutes, the responsibility for which is passed to the hon. Minister of Advanced Education. [Leave being granted, Bill No. 19 was introduced and read a first time. ] Bill No. 22: The Coroners Amendment Act, 1972 MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill, being The Coroner’s Amendment Act, 1972.

It contains several amendments of a technical or procedural nature. [Leave being granted, Bill No. 22 was introduced and read a first time.] Bill No. 5 The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Amendment Act, 1972 MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill, being The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Amendment Act, 1972. The most important amendments concern claims under $500, to allow the administrator to permit the claim to be made without a judgment.

Another amendment defines more specifically the duty of a judge hearing an application, and the other amendments are of a procedural nature, including one important amendment concerning the naming of the administrator in legal proceedings. This gentleman unfortunately now has a poor credit rating. [Leave being granted, Bill No. 5 was introduced and read a first time.] Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 391

9-2 ALBERTA HANSARD March 14th 1972 MR. COPITHORNE: Mr. Speaker, I move that The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Amendment Act, 1972 be placed on the Order Paper under Government Bills and Orders. MR. SPEAKER: Is there a seconder for the motion? MR. COPITHORNE: It is seconded by the hon. Len Werry. [The motion was passed without debate or dissent.] head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I have great pleasure in introducing to you and through you to the hon. members of the legislature, Warrant Officer David Gleed of 700 Wing. Through your courtesy, Mr. Speaker, he is seated in Mr. Speaker's Gallery.

Warrant Officer David Gleed has served six years in the Royal Canadian Air Force Cadets. He is a member of 700 Wing RCAFC of the City of Edmonton. He has earned his wings and did this in a Cessna 150. He has participated in the Senior Leaders' Course in 1969 in Quebec, and in 1971 he won the Gordon E. Taylor Trophy for the top flying cadet in 700 Wing. It's my pleasure to welcome Warrant Officer David Gleed, an outstanding young man, who is emblematic of what can be done by the Royal Canadian Air Cadets and it's my pleasure to welcome him now to the Legislature. MR. FARRAN: Mr.

Speaker, I have the honour to introduce a distinguished group sitting in the gallery behind me, who are the Greenland athletes who have recently been competing in the Arctic Winter Games at Whitehorse. I think I've been chosen for this honour because I represent Calgary North, and I have some erstwhile connections with the north of Ireland.

Anyway, I'd like to read the names of these distinguished athletes from Greenland, if they would please rise and be recognized: Miss Olga Andreassen; Karl Steffensen; Torben Larsen, Sr.; Uvdlo Jakobsen; Joergen Zethsen; Kurt Tittussen; Tobias Heeimann; Ludvig Ingemain; Vittus Hiemann; Otto Berhelesen; and their leaders, Mr. Lars Chemmitz, Mr. Hans Hoim; and their guide, Mr. Conway from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in introducing through you to the Assembly this afternoon 62 students along with their teachers, from two Grade IX classes in Mt.

Carmel school, located in the constituency of Edmonton Parkallen, in south central Edmonton. Mr. Holzman and Mr. Paquette are the two teachers who are with the students today. They are in the members' gallery. I would like to congratulate them, both teachers and students, on the interest they have taken in our legislative process, and hope that they enjoy the proceedings this afternoon. I would ask them to stand and be recognized. MR. PURDY: Mr.

Speaker, I beg leave to introduce to you and through you to the hon. members of this Assembly, 31 Grade V students from the Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 392

March 14th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 9-3 Spruce Grove School, accompanied again today by their teacher Mr. Ibsen and the bus driver, Mr. Gerry Breithaupt. This is the second class that Mr. Ibsen has brought into the Legislature in the past few days, and I would like to congratulate him for taking the time to bring these children out to see the Alberta Legislature in session.

I'd ask the teacher and the bus driver and the students to rise at this time so they can be recognized. head: FILING RETURNS AND TABLING REPORTS The following reports were tabled by the members as indicated: 1970-71 Annual Report, Department of Public Works — Dr. Backus 1970 Annual Report, Alberta Housing Corporation — Mr. Russell Regulations under The Alberta Gas Trunk Line Act — Mr. Lougheed. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Victoria Charter MR. STROM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Premier.

Before stating my question I would just like to make a point of clarification that I am aware of the reply that the hon. Premier gave to my hon. colleague in regard to the Prime Minister's letter to the Province of Quebec, of which I believe the hon. Premier has a copy. My question to the hon. Premier is that in view of the fact that this may well be one of the most important concessions made to any province since the beginning of constitutional discussions, is the hon. Premier prepared to give us a detailed outline of the province's position on this matter? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, first of all I think I should correct something. Perhaps the hon. Leader was not fully aware that the Prime Minister, in fact, wrote individual letters directly to the premiers of all the provinces with regard to the request that is certainly something that we recognize in importance and significance as I mentioned in my remarks yesterday. We're taking immediate steps to follow up as I described it yesterday, I believe, the crack in the door relative to a much larger provincial role in manpower centres and occupational training, in particular.

We also recognize the broader nature that's involved in the alteration of thinking by the federal government. As far as an overall position on this matter, it would certainly be ,my intention to deal with it after we have completed our assessment. Whether or not that's something I can specifically say would occur during the course of this session, I'm not in a position to respond to that directly, but we do recognize the importance of the matter. And as I say, there are going to be some specific initiatives followed up by our government on the matter. I'll repeat again the position I took yesterday.

The Progressive Conservative government did not, either at or about the time of the Victoria discussions of last June, take a definitive position with regard to the proposed Charter, and when the government of the Province of Quebec concluded that it was not satisfactory to them, we didn't at that time feel it was necessary to do so. It's now apparent as a result of the change that has occurred and the response that we've had -- and we've had some formal discussions as well with other provincial governments in the last 29 hours -- that the situation has altered.

We will therefore, commence an assessment of the provisions of the Victoria Charter as to whether or not the provisions as therein contained are adequate as far as the new government of Alberta is concerned. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 393

9-4 ALBERTA HANSARD March 14th 1972 MR. STROM: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Did I take from the reply that the hon. Premier gave just now that we could not expect a statement before the end of the session? MR. LOUGHEED: No, Mr. Speaker. I wasn’t saying we would not make a statement, I was merely saying that I was not prepared today to commit ourselves to one until such time as we have had further opportunity to consider the nature of the document and its implications. MR. STROM: I'm wondering if the hon.

Premier could give us some indication of how soon we might expect an indication of when a statement might be made. I can appreciate the requirement of time, but again I simply make the point that it is one of the last discussion points that was outstanding with the provinces, and I am a little concerned as to the federal government wishing to take positions. This leads me to the second part of the question then - is the Prime Minister suggesting to the provinces any date for future constitutional conferences? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the second part of the hon.

Leader’s question, the answer is ’no’, although the letter as tabled yesterday reflected that there could be a follow-up to that effect. With regard to the first matter, all I am prepared to say at this time is when I participate in one of the debates in this Legislature I will raise the matter as to when the members may hear some remarks or a statement from the government side. MR. STROM: Mr. Speaker, are there any position papers that have been prepared at this point in time by the government in regard to constitutional matters? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, we are quite prepared to place copies of the position papers that we submitted at the first Ministers’ conference last November before the members of the Assembly. To a considerable extent they deal with the matters raised in the Prime Minister’s letter which was tabled yesterday, but not completely so in relation to the specific question of family allowance. I may say, further, that my third reading of the letter from the hon.

Prime Minister indicates to me that one of the important questions that is left undefined is a clear definition of what is or is not included within the term and the phrase 'family allowance' as used within the letter. I think some clarification is required on that point before any sort of a definitive statement is made by the government. MR. SPEAKER: I believe the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview was on his feet. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 394

March 14th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 9-5 Film Censorship MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct this question to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Labour. Is an appeal in fact being made by Warner Brothers in regard to the film "A Clockwork Orange?" DR. HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, I spoke today on long distance with a gentleman from Warners on the matter, and it is under consideration by him and his company as to whether or not they would pursue this particular route or some other one. MR. NOTLEY: Supplementary on that, Mr. Speaker.

Is the government prepared to repeal censorship legislation and replace it with categorization at this session of the Legislature? DR. HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, this gives me an opportunity to give the House the kind of information I might have done in my address on the Budget or a ministerial announcement. The government position at the present time (as it has been for about four months) is that you would assign a legislative committee and this committee would look into the whole matter of censorship in Alberta. At this point a chairman has been appointed - the hon. Member for St.

Albert, and he will undertake, with the help of the government, to assign a committee of the Legislative Assembly to look into the whole matter. I should mention, too, that one of the things that I might have announced later and done before was to recommend to the hon. Premier and the Executive Council that the matter of censorship in the same way as any art form, theatre, film, books, or architecture, really is a matter of culture, and so by ministerial regulation this function of government will be assigned, or has been assigned this morning to the Minister of Youth, Culture and Recreation. MR.

NOTLEY: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, again with respect to the film, "A Clockwork Orange." Will there be an appeal in the event that Warner Brothers do not officially lodge a request for an appeal, and if so, will that appeal take the normal course of you, sir, appointing a committee to judge whether or not an appeal should take place? DR. HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, with respect to this particular film, "A Clockwork Orange," the exact procedure will be followed that would be in the case of any other film. You may or may not know that another film was banned by the Censor Board.

This particular company appealed within a few days, in the 30-day limitation, and we saw no reason, in this particular case of "A Clockwork Orange", to treat this film in any other way then we have the other picture that was banned. It's not our intention to appeal, it isn’t part of the procedure for government to appeal its own board's judgments. The only people who could appeal it is Warner Brothers.

I let them know this morning what they have known since March 1st, when they were informed that this particular film was banned, that they had 30 days from March 1st to appeal or thereafter give up their opportunity for appeal for a period of two years. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 395

9-6 ALBERTA HANSARD March 14th 1972 MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question then. Am I given to understand that unless Warner Brothers themselves officially ask for an appeal, that there is no way that any review can take place with respect to the banning of this film in Alberta? DR. HOHOL: No, that would be inaccurate, Mr. Speaker. The appeal, as an appeal, can be lodged only by the sponsor and the owner of the film.

A review, which is the word that you used in your second question, in contrast to an appeal, your first question, can be instituted by the government and by a committee of Cabinet, or by the Cabinet, or a committee of the Legislature or the whole Legislature, as occurred in British Columbia in the case of this particular film. A committee of the Legislative Assembly viewed it and passed an opinion but no judgments. DR. BUCK: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier. This censoring of a film such as this, is this not contrary to the new bill that he is bringing in? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, it may be. The important point the government feels with regard to the question of censorship, as has been clearly set out in the Speech from the Throne, is that this is a matter which should involve, as the members have anxiously mentioned from time to time, Mr. Speaker, the views of the Legislative Assembly at large. We feel for that reason that a select committee of the Legislature, and we're in the process of moving it as quickly as we can, should be established so that the views of members on all sides and all corners of the House may be brought to bear on this important question. MR.

TAYLOR: Another supplementary question. Is the Premier not afraid that such a film might pollute the minds of the young members of the Legislature? MR. SPEAKER: Has either one of you a supplementary? DR. BUCK: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the hon. Premier. Do I understand then, that only legislative committees will be asked to serve on controversial issues, or is this the policy that you are making? MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, on this issue again to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Labour.

Do I take it then that we have a commitment from the government to review, either through a committee of cabinet or by the members of the Legislature as was the case in British Columbia, whether or not this film will be shown in the province? DR. HOHOL: No, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the question because the government on this matter of "A Clockwork Orange" does not wish to be misunderstood.

I tried to give information a few minutes ago, that the usual procedure with respect to appeal will be followed in the case of this film, which was banned, as has been the case of other Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 396

March 14th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 9-7 films which were banned in Alberta. That is to say that unless the owner of the film, "A Clockwork Orange”, lodges an appeal within 30 days, beginning on March 1st, that will end the matter. There will be no other kind of procedure set out, outside the usual and normal procedures of the censorship board in this matter. MR. DIXON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Premier regarding censorship.

This goes back to the former censor and I remember at the time that the Premier made public statements to the effect that if a civil servant is charged with an indictable offence, suspended, then acquitted, he should be reinstated. If we ignore this type of matter we are ignoring the judicial system. My question is - is the Premier going to recommend that Mr. Jack Day he reinstated as provincial censor? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, at this late date and having regard to the government's actions, it’s obvious that you are not dealing with an individual case, but I do think the point that was made and so very well quoted by the hon. Member for Calgary Millican is one that has a considerable degree of merit and certainly one that our government is considering and will be entering into discussions on with the Civil Service Association. Federal-Provincial Discussions on Industry MR. TAYLOR: May I direct a question to the hon. Minister of Industry? I wonder if the hon. minister can tell us how many dragons he slew in Ottawa yesterday?

MR. WILSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, in the light of the obvious success of the legion of government press release writers in stirring up interest in the Minister of Industry's trip to Ottawa, would he tell us what he accomplished? MR. PEACOCK: Mr. Speaker, I'd be delighted to answer that question. First, it was the first reading of its kind, followed by the hon. Mr. Pepin, and it was an exploratory meeting to identify some of the problems that we are facing in the provinces of Canada in the industrial development programs that each sector had undertaken.

It covered subjects of international trade which related to the entrance of Britain into the Common Market; what affect this would have on Canada, generally, in dollars and product: what are the recent legislative programs in the United States, such as DISC; what effect they might have on Canada, and the particular provinces, and also the situation with Mr. Pepin's recent trip to Japan, how that might effect future Canadian trade.

Then the subject turned to one of internal area, that is what we call domestic trade, and Alberta, forcefully I think, put in front of the Assembly the positions that led to some of the problems preventing Alberta from becoming more actively industrialized.

They are basically centred around one thing called transportation, and unless we eliminate the inequity that Alberta as a land locked province experiences -- and its a very complex subject and, I think, far too lengthy to discuss here at this time in the question period, but I can assure you our department is involved and Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 397

9-8 ALBERTA HANSARD March 14th 1972 has program priorities being established on it, to eliminate these inequities so that we can proceed. The other thing is, of course, in order to establish an industry, and a base industry, and a labour-intensive industry in the Province of Alberta, we must either look at steel or to the feed stocks for the petrochemical industries.

So we established that position, we hope, in Ottawa, that Alberta is vitally concerned with, that is the commercial policies that exist between Canada and the United States, which do not afford us the market place which we need so much, which is California in the northwest. Our concern for those commercial policies are of a regional nature, exactly the same as what Ontario and Quebec experienced in the Autopac, and that we would hope we would have their sympathetic and understanding approach to this problem.

And the third thing, of course, which you are all aware of, is that Canada’s statistics unfortunately group Alberta into a prairie economy, and this is not good enough to permit us to identify and define some of our problems, and we would like Alberta treated separately. And so having said that, it pretty well concludes the question. MR. WILSON: Perhaps, the minister misunderstood the question. I didn't ask for a speech I just wanted to know three or four things that you accomplished that would be of benefit to Alberta. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

I don’t think the hon. member is entitled to enter into debate concerning the answer, but if you wish to ask a supplementary question that might be in order. Alberta House (London) MR. LUDWIG: I would like to direct a question to the hon. minister. Is there any intention on the part of his department to increase the staff in Alberta House in London? MR. PEACOCK: Mr. Speaker, that particular area comes under the department of Intergovernmental Affairs, and I would allow my colleague to answer that. MR. LUDWIG: Then I will direct my question to the hon. minister. MR.

SPEAKER: I wonder, we have another question now, could we save the supplementary until the answer has been given to this one? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if on a point of order... MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary answer. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 398

March 14th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 9-9 MR. HENDERSON: Mr. Speaker, if the government has made up its mind what it's about to do, I’d like to ask a question of one of the ministers. AN HON. MEMBER: He was about to give us an answer! MR. HENDERSON: Oh pardon me, I’m glad to yield the floor if it's with the view to getting some information. MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, as a member in the House once mentioned to me, if the opposition would get their knees working in co-ordination with their heads, they'd be OK.

As a matter of fact, with regard to the Alberta House in London, we are quite concerned about the function, the role that can be played there; we will be making considerable assessment of the type of impact we want to have in Europe, and I hope we will be able to provide the House with that decision as quickly as possible. I'm not sure if it will be during the session. MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to whichever minister could answer it. Are there any investment inquiries being made, or have been made through Alberta House since this government took office, with regard to Alberta? MR.

GETTY: It's very difficult to tell whether they came because of Government House in London. As a matter of fact, our assessment to date is that the Government House in London has not been functioning very well at all. It appears that it was treated very badly in the past; they have had a lack of reaction to requests that they have sent back to Alberta, and they were completely unco-ordinated with the former government, and we are going to try and do everything possible to straighten that out.

I don't know if it would be possible to isolate any particular investment requests; maybe the Minister of Industry might have one, but if I could isolate them I would be happy to do so and give you that information. MR. LUDWIG: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of the answer of the hon. minister, do I take it then, notwithstanding what has happened, that he doesn't really know what he is going to do about it? DREE MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, question to the hon. Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs. Did he meet with Mr. Marchand when he was in Ottawa? Did the minister meet the hon. Mr.

Marchand when he was in Ottawa? MR. GETTY: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 399

9-10 ALBERTA HANSARD March 14th 1972 MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. minister itemize the subjects on the agenda of discussion? MR. GETTY: No, Mr. Speaker. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, would the minister outline the reasons why the people of Alberta cannot have that information? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the people of Alberta that information as quickly as possible when it would be wise to do so in light of the negotiations and discussions that we are carrying on with Ottawa, but it would not be wise to do that right now. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, could the hon. minister just outline the topics, not the details? MR. GETTY: Yes, I could do that, Mr. Speaker. It was to discuss the broad concepts of Mr. Marchand's department's operations in Alberta and how they might deliver their objectives in Alberta in the future. I would say, too, that I think Mr. Marchand expressed that some of the ideas which we presented to him were completely new, that he'd like to assess them, and we had a very good meeting with him. I think we made a good deal of progress, but it would not help that progress at all to get into specifics. MR. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, could the hon. minister advise the House as to how long the meeting was with Mr. Marchand? MR. GETTY: About an hour. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, could the hon. minister advise us when the broad objectives were discussed as to whether the ARDA program was involved in that discussion? MR. GETTY: Very briefly. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, when discussing the program of ARDA, was irrigation rehabilitation involved? MR. GETTY: No, Mr. Speaker, the subject was not involved in our broad discussions of the future of Mr. Marchand's department.

Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 400

March 14th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 9-11 MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister indicated that there was progress in discussion. Would the hon. minister report that progress so that we are aware as Albertans. MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has missed for some time now the advantages that the government of Alberta can establish if it does not lay its total position on the table of this House or discuss it while we are in the midst of negotiations. Surely he should be able to appreciate that. He has participated in, I understand, these negotiations before. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question. Does the hon. minister mean that in running an open government that information is hidden from the people? MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister. I can appreciate the point that there may be some necessity to refrain from immediately reporting to this House because of the negotiations. But in view of the importance of issues at hand, can the hon. minister give this House an undertaking as to when we will have a full and complete report? MR. GETTY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I should assure the members I would like to give them every possible bit of information that I can, and I will do that at the first instance it looks like it would be wise to do so. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Has the hon. minister established a follow-up meeting, a

schedule with Mr. Marchand? MR. GETTY: Well, it is a follow-up course of action. It doesn't necessarily involve an instant meeting. There are some things we have to work out and they have going to look at. We are negotiating, Mr. Speaker. Unemployment Statistics MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the hon. Minister of Manpower and Labour. I wonder if the hon. minister could tell us what the present unemployment figures are for the Province of Alberta? DR. HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, the number of unemployed at the end of February is the same as it was at the end of January — 33,000.

However, the important information to this Assembly is that the unemployment rate dropped to 5 per cent in February from 5.1 per cent in January, as a result, in particular, of the increase in the labour force of 9,000 people in February 1972 over the end of January. I think this is significant, Mr. Speaker, because February is usually a high unemployment months, so it is significant to note a decrease in the February unemployment rate. Compared then with 6 per cent in February of 1971, the February 1972 unemployment rate has decreased by 1 per cent from 6 to 5 per cent.

Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 401

9-12 ALBERTA HANSARD March 14th 1972 It is difficult to ascertain the importance and significance of the priority employment program which was described in detail by the hon. Member for Calgary McKnight. There is no question in my mind, as chairman of that committee, that it made an important difference to the unemployment figures. Speaking of that, I wish to take this chance to indicate my appreciation of the kind of work that the hon. Member for Three Hills did in assisting the matter of co-ordination, and the eight member executive committee that carried on this kind of work.

The work of the several departments had an important impact on decreasing unemployment through 1ob placements and also through training placements in the institutions of Alberta. Let me summarize then, Mr. Speaker, for this Assembly, the Alberta picture with respect to unemployment. The total labour force at the end of February was 657,000, up 1.4 per cent from January. The employed figure is 624,000, up 1.5 per cent, and in view of the 9,000 people added to the labour force, this is a particularly significant figure. The unemployed number, in absolute terms, is the same 33,000, no change.

The unemployment rate is 5 per cent, down 0.1 per cent, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Vegreville. MR. BATIUK: I do have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the hon. Minister of Labour be able to tell us how unemployment compares with unemployment in Saskatchewan and Manitoba? DR. HOHOL: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It’s interesting to note that Manitoba figures rose from 4.1 per cent in December to 6.3 per cent in February, a period of two months. The Saskatchewan figures are 6.1 per cent unemployed. British Columbia has 7.6 per cent unemployed and the national unemployment rate is 7.3 per cent MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Sedgewick-Coronation. DR. BUCK: I have a supplementary to the minister, Mr. Speaker. In arriving at your statistics, what are you using for base figures in arriving at your figures, the unemployment insurance records that they have? DR. HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada made the usual random sampling across the nation. Rural Industrial Development MR. SORENSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Industry. Late in 1971 the Battle River Regional Planning Commission presented their brief to you.

Essentially it calls for a decentralization of economic growth of the two large cities of Edmonton and Calgary into smaller centres. May I have your stand on this point, Sir? Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 402

March 1 4 th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 9-13 MR. PEACOCK: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think our platform is our stand. We're doing everything we can to decentralize industry and stimulate rural activity and rural industry. MR. WILSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the hon. Minister of Industry care to indicate just briefly three or four things that his department is doing to stimulate industry in Alberta other than grants or loans? MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. minister would like to answer the question. MR. PEACOCK: Mr.

Speaker, I think that answer will be in the budget portion of the proceedings when we will be establishing an outline of our department's program, and we will answer the hon. member at that time. MR. WILSON: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could word it a little differently. What alternate sources of revenue does the hon. Minister of Industry see that he can introduce into Alberta? MR. PEACOCK: Mr. Speaker, I think I mentioned that this will he forthcoming in the budget speech. ARDA Programs MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture.

The question I would like to ask regarding the ARDA program that was signed on August 11 by this provincial government and the federal government -- or I should say the previous provincial government and the federal government -- for rehabilitating marginal farms, are you going to implement this program, sir? DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, while the hon. member is correct that the master agreement was signed in August of this year, there was prevision for each of the programs under the master agreement to be negotiated and we are negotiating those programs at this time. MR. MANDEVILLE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

In the agreement it states that there is a committee to be set up to accept these applications. Has this committee been established? DR. HORNER: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. I can check for the hon. member, but I would suggest that the various programs underneath the master agreement have to be negotiated on an individual basis. These agreements are being looked at now and included in that negotiation is the additional program that Mr. Olson has put forward with regard to the small farms. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 403

9-14 ALBERTA HANSARD March 14th 1972 Big Horn Reservoir - Recreational Facilities MR. HENDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to address the question to the hon. Minister of Lands and Forests or the hon. Minister of Tourism, whichever minister may be responsible for this matter. I’d like to know, Mr. Speaker, as to whether the government has under way, or is planning the development of recreational facilities on the Big Horn Reservoir? DR. WARRACK: Some of the other ministers may also wish to respond, Mr.

Speaker, but with respect to the establishment of provincial parks, which would be under the jurisdiction of the Department of Lands and Forests, this has not been done. MR. HENDEPSCN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Are there any plans under way for development of recreational facilities other than publicly owned and publicly operated facilities? DR. WARRACK: Not in the immediate dimension of the Big Horn Dam, Mr. Speaker. However, I would anticipate that this would be the kind of thing that private people and the public would be interested in doing.

And as the time grows towards when this should be planned, I'm sure we will be looking at these matters. MR. HENDERSON: Supplemental. Mr. Speaker, is it the intention of the government, when they do get around to consideration of these particular facilities where private enterprise is involved, to publicly tender the opportunities? DR. WARRACK: Well, I think that is a hypothetical question, Mr.

Speaker, but at the same time I think it's a valid point to say that we're interested in the private sector doing as much as we can in this economy of Alberta, and only in instances where the private sector cannot do the job much better, should we engage the public sector. MR. HENDERSON: If I may restate the question, Mr. Speaker, I was asking that if private enterprise is to be involved, whether the government will be tendering the opportunities for development of facilities? It wasn't a question of choice of public versus private, Mr. Speaker, it was a question of tendering. DR.

WARRACK: The specific question as asked, Mr. Speaker, is clearly a hypothetical one, and as I understand the rules of this House, then it is out of order. Crown Solicitors MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. the Attorney General. I understand that in Calgary Supreme Court criminal work and appeals are handled through solicitors in the department. And in the City of Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 404

March 14th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 9-15 Calgary, generally, this work is either contracted out or hired out to a private firm or firms. Is any consideration being given by the hon. Attorney General to alter the situation with regard to Edmonton? I understand that the Edmonton operation is very much more expensive than the Calgary operation in handling these matters. MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if in the earlier part of the hon. member’s question he didn’t mean Edmonton in place of Calgary? The position is in Calgary that the criminal prosecution and appeal work is done almost exclusively by members of the department,

whereas in Edmonton there has been in effect for a long time the practice of having only part of that work done by members of the department, and a large part of it done by outside law firms. That is a matter I am looking into. MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. the Attorney General care to table the difference in costs as closely as possible under the circumstances with regard to the operation in Calgary and the operation in Edmonton? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, that is going to involve, I'm sure, a great deal of detail. I wonder if the hon. member would put it on the Order Paper. MR. SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Spirit River-Fairview. Special Area Agreements MR. NOTLEY: I'd like to direct a question, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Minister of Industry. This concerns the Canada-Alberta Second Special Area Agreement signed September 1st, 1971, under which terms the federal government was to fund large projects, the provincial government to make their incentives program available in the southern and western end of the special area.

My question to the hon. minister is simply this: Why did the provincial government not communicate to the Grande Prairie Industrial Co-ordinator their position under this program, and the programs which the province had available? MR. PEACOCK: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member from Spirit R i v e r - F a i r v i e w ' s question, first of all the Canada-Alberta Second Special Area Agreement dated September 1st, signed by Mr. Speaker, and co- signed by Dr. Foss did not come to my attention until January. I quite agree that there is a breakdown of communication because in the

Schedule it states clearly just what the hon. member from Spirit River-Fairview stated that the responsibility of large fundings in the DREE Program would be undertaken by the federal government and the provincial government would be responsible for others. This was not communicated to Grande Prairie, because of the breakdown of communication, but has now been corrected. MR. NOTLEY: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

What specific steps can the hon. minister advise the legislature will be taken to prevent this bureaucratic breakdown from happening again, and more specifically, what specific steps are now being taken to acquaint not Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 405

9-16 ALBERTA HANSARD March 14th 1972 only Grande Prairie but the other communities with the special area with the program the government has available? MR. PEACOCK: Mr. Speaker, in answer to that, a change of government, of course, will affect it greatly. Secondly, in The Incentives Act, in which we are still functioning until the new program comes in, it is not clearly defined whether Grande Prairie will qualify, and this is

interpretation. The other secondary question that the member asked was would we be projecting this information to other areas? Well, the only special area is Grande Prairie. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. minister misunderstood me. I’m not talking about other areas in the province. I’m talking about other communities in the special area, not just the City of Grande Prairie which has an industrial development commission and a coordinator, but the other communities in the area who are extremely interested in incentive programs that would be beneficial to them. MR. PEACOCK: Mr.

Speaker, I think we have already answered it. We are communicating under the terms of the present act whether they qualify or not. It’s a matter of

interpretation, and in this particular instance with Grande Paririe it's questionable. And it will be so informed. MR. HO LEM: What is your position on the government's proposed $50 million Industrial Incentive Program, inasmuch as you have criticized the previous government's incentive program? MR. PEACOCK: It will be in our Budget Speech, also. MR. TAYLOR: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the hon. minister care to tell us why the communications broke down. Has he made a search and found why this has happened? MR. PEACOCK: Well, Mr. Speaker, I was questioned in this House on Thursday, I believe.

We started the investigation then, and I suppose the reason for the communication breakdown was that the previous government hadn’t passed it on to the people when they signed the contract. Big Horn Reservoir - Recreational Facilities (cont) MR. HENDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to direct a question to the hon. Premier. Could the hon. Premier advise this House as to whether the government has received proposals or propositions for the development of privately owned recreational facilities on the Big Horn Reservoir? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, I can’t give a specific answer to that, but I will give the hon. member an undertaking to look into it. And while I'm on my feet, to avoid any confusion regarding questions of government Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 406

March 14th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 9-17 policy, it clearly is the government's policy that with regard to any matter that the government is utilizing public funds with the private sector, the intention, of course, would be to utilize a tendering procedure. There are, of course, as the hon. member knows, cases and circumstances of exceptions which have to be taken from time to time.

The policy of this administration is that you start with the concept that you will, in fact, have competitive tendering, and perhaps look even in the areas where it is not specific regarding services and supplies, and involves such other areas as the supply of professional services. Wherever we think it is feasible to do so, we try to look at an approach of obtaining competitive tenders. However, in saying that, as the basic policy, Mr.

Speaker, I want to make it clear to all hon. members that, as members on the other side are well acquainted, there have to be a number of cases where exceptional circumstances arise and this practice can't be followed. I will look into the specific matter raised by the hon. member and try to report back to him. MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, if I might add something to the question.

The minister asked if there were any developments on the shore line, I presume, of the Big Horn Reservoir, and I would like to advise that a certain distance from the high water marks has been reserved by the Department of the Environment, and there are no leases or ownership in this area of the Big Horn Reservoir. This is reserved entirely for water management purposes. MR. HENDERSON: Mr.

Speaker, just as a point of clarification - it's not that aspect that I am concerned about - it's the question of development of privately owned recreational facilities in the vicinity of the Big Horn Dam involving publicly owned land and private enterprise. MR. SPEAKER: I believe our time is up - perhaps the hon. member could ask his question the next question period. head: MINISTERIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS MR. LEITCH: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to advise the Assembly that under the terms of The Daylight Time Saving Act and the plebiscite that was held last August, this morning the Executive Council issued a proclamation putting daylight saving time into effect as of 2:00 a.m. on the last Sunday in April, 1972. MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to announce that in response to the concern expressed by the public and hon. members of this Assembly regarding the circumstances of our citizens who are experiencing a lengthy delay in receiving unemployment insurance cheques, I spoke with Mr.

George Davey, superintendent of Treasury Branches, this morning and he has assured me that the Treasury Branches will immediately pursue the possibility of advancing loans to our citizens who are in these difficult circumstances. Mr. Davey advised me that the Treasury Branches will immediately be in touch with the federal government to ensure proper procedures are set up regarding the assignment of unemployment insurance cheques when they are ready for payment.

I am pleased to advise the House that any loans which may be made will be at an interest rate of 7 3/4 per cent and will therefore reduce the abuse of Alberta citizens which may exist with respect to the delay in receiving their unemployment cheques. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 407

9-18 ALBERTA HANSARD March 14th 1972 MR. DRAIN: Has the hon. minister also given consideration — MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. member has a question with regard to this could he perhaps ask it during the next question period? There is no provision in the rules for a question at this stage here. head: QUESTIONS 121. Mr. Wilson asked the government the following questions with respect to development of Lowery Gardens, in Calgary, of which he had given notice, and was answered as follows by Mr.

Russell: Question (1) : The present status of negotiations between the Government of Alberta and the City of Calgary regarding development of Lowery Gardens as a park? Answer: There are no negotiations presently underway between the Government of Alberta and the City of Calgary regarding development of Lowery Gardens as a park pending results of a study jointly by the Water Resources Division of the Department of the Environment and the City of Calgary to delineate flood way and flood plane areas of the Bow River within the City of Calgary. Question (2): will the park be developed this year?

Answer: Not by the provincial government. Question (3) : Will a footbridge be built connecting Lowery Gardens with the north bank of the river? Answer: Not by the provincial government. 124. Mr. Taylor asked the government the following questions regarding cost of renovations of the Legislative Chamber of which he had given notice, and was answered as follows by Dr. Backus: Question (a): What is the total cost of renovations carried out in the Legislative Chamber? Answer: The total cost of renovations carried out in the Legislative Chamber is $37,300.35.

Please note this cost includes the cost of new furniture asked in the (

b) part of the question. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 408

March 14th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 9-19 Question (b) : What is the cost of the new furniture in the Chamber? Answer: The cost of new furniture in the Chamber is: 89 chairs at $179.50 ...............................$14,658.00 10 desks at $320.00 ..............................$ 3,200.00 Spe aker’s and Clerk’s Desks .......................$ 1,370.00 Tot al ....$19,228.00 Question (c): What has been done with the furniture that was previously in the Chamber? Answer: The old furniture is presently stored in vault No. 21 in the Legislative Building. 126. Mr.

Zander asked the government the following questions regarding clean-up of the area flooded by water impounded by the Brazeau Dam, of which he had given notice, and was answered as follows by Mr. Yurko: Question (1) : How much money has the Government of Alberta expended on the costs of clean-up since the area covered by water impounded by the Brazeau Dam was first flooded? Answer: 1970-71 — $104,733.00 by Department of Lands & Forests 1971- 72 — $ 64,396.00 by Department of Lands & Forests 1971-72 — $ 51,643.00 under Priority Employment Program.

Question (2) : Was this work done on an hourly basis, or was it contracted? Answer: All work, equipment hire and labour has been done on an hourly basis at government approved rates. Question (3) : If contracted, who were the contractors, and how were the contracts awarded? Answer: Although all work was done on a hourly basis the following equipment was hired: Summer 1971 Joesting Const., Lodgepole Carson Const., Rocky Mtn. House 1 D-7 1 3/4 yar d crane 1 tug boat Carson Const., Rocky Mtn. House Winter 1971 2 D-7 Joesting Const., Lodgepole 1 HD-11 L. Adams, Rocky Mtn. House 1 HD-16 A. Rodka, Rocky Mtn.

House Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 409

9-20 ALBERTA HANSARD March 14th 1972 2 HD-16 E. Campbell, Rocky Mtn. House Winter 1972 1 HD-11 L. Adams, Rocky Mtn. House 1 D-6 Frank Williams, Rocky Mtn. House MOTIONS FOR A RETURN 107. Mr. Henderson proposed the following motion to the Assembly, seconded by Mr. Hinman. That an Order of the Assembly do issue for a Return showing: Copies of all correspondence, telegrams, communiques, etc. between the Alberta and federal government since September 1, 1971 to date regarding international sales of Alberta sulphur. [The motion was carried without debate or dissent.] 109. Mr.

Henderson proposed the following motion to the Assembly, seconded by Mr. Hinman. That an Order of the Assembly do issue for a Return showing: Copies of all correspondence between the Alberta government and the oil and gas industry or individual companies, firms or official organizations representing the oil and gas industry in Alberta regarding the international sales of Alberta sulphur. MR. DICKIE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would stipulate some time in respect to that motion so that either he could amend it or we could give consideration to amending it. MR. HENDERSON: Mr.

Speaker, we would be quite happy to have the correspondence since September 10th of last year. [The amendment was agreed to, and the motion was carried without further debate or dissent.] 122. Mr. Henderson proposed the following motion to the Assembly, seconded by Mr. Wilson.

That an Order of the Assembly do issue for a Return showing: Copies of all orders and correspondence, since September 10, 1971, from the Department of the Environment, the Department of Mines and Minerals, and the Departments of Lands and Forest to coal mining operators in the Canmore Corridor relative to changes in coal strip mining sites and procedures within the Corridor. [The motion was carried without debate or dissent.] 123. Mr. Dixon proposed the following motion to the Assembly, seconded by Mr. Cooper.

That an Order of the Assembly do issue for a Return showing: Copies of all reports showing the names, locations and field test data covering the last twelve months, on each natural gas processing plant where hydrogen suphide and sulphur dioxide at ground level have exceeded the Department of the Environment standards and criteria. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 410

March 14th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 9-21 [The motion was carried without debate or dissent.] 125. Mr. Ruste proposed the following motion to the Assembly, seconded by Mr. Buckwell. That an Order of the Assembly do issue for a Return showing: Copies of all representations made to the Minister of Agriculture relative to the Tradition and Transition Report tabled at the 1971 Session of the Alberta Legislature. [The motion was carried without debate.] [Sessional Paper No. 125 was tabled by Dr. Horner.] 127. Mr. Notley proposed the following motion to the Assembly, seconded by Mr. Drain.

That an Order of the Assembly do issue for a Return showing: ( 1 ) How many people have been prosecuted for non-payment of Medicare premiums?

(2) By what criteria were they selected? [The motion was carried without debate.] [Sessional Paper No. 127 was tabled by Miss Hunley.] 128. Mr. Taylor proposed the following motion to the Assembly, seconded by Mr. R. Speaker. That an Order of the Assembly do issue for a Return showing: (

a) What amount of money has been given to a Mr. Ben Edwards and Aubrey Gibson by the Department of Health and Social Development? (

b) Is this a grant or a loan? (

c) What use is to be made of the money? (

d) Who are Ben Edwards and Aubrey Gibson, including their qualifications for this work? (

e) Why did the Government consider this contribution or grant or loan necessary? [The motion was carried without debate.] Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 411

9-22 ALBERTA HANSARD March 14th 1972 head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS Invitation to the Royal Family MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek the leave by motion of hon. members to consider Motion No. 15 standing in the Order Paper in my name in advance of the other motions. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Premier has asked for consideration of Motion No. 15 at the present time. Does the House agree? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I move that Motion No. 15 standing in my name on the Order Paper, seconded by the hon. Mr. Diachuk:

Be it resolved that this Assembly direct the Government, on behalf of the people of the Province of Alberta, to extend an invitation to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, His Royal Highness Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, and members of the Royal family, to visit the Province of Alberta in 1974 to join with us in the celebration of the One Hundredth Anniversary of the arrival of the North West Mounted Police in Alberta; or, alternatively, to visit the Province of Alberta during 1973 for the celebration of the One Hundredth Anniversary of the proclamation of the North West Mounted Police. Mr.

Speaker, in speaking to the motion, the only comment that I would make, is of course that I think it would be highly desirable if this could be a motion of the Legislative Assembly and not just a unilateral action taken by government. Secondly, I think all members are well aware of the difficulties involved in an acceptance of such an invitation, having regard to the many invitations that naturally Her Majesty receives over the course of the year from various parts of the Commonwealth. Therefore, we should not, of course, in any way get our hopes too high.

This is not to say that we don't feel that it wouldn't be a tremendous thing for the people of Alberta if this invitation were accepted. We have worded it in the alternative, hoping that that might improve the possibilities of the acceptance of the invitation. MR. DIACHUK: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take pleasure in seconding this Motion introduced by the hon. Premier, Mr.

Lougheed, and briefly, I wish to say the occasion where we might be able to realize a visit from Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, His Royal Highness, Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, and the members of the Royal family, to our part of Canada, and particularly to Alberta would be very significant in the marking of the anniversary of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. This force has participated in the historical events of Alberta and the territory that was previously part of the North West Territories, but is now Alberta.

So often in our nation we get excited about the historical events that we receive over the television and other networks originating in other parts of this North American continent, particularly the United States. This occurs because of the amount of coverage it has received, and we miss the historical events in our part of the country and Alberta because Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 412

March 14th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 9-23 of the lack of emphasis on these historical events. I speak very strongly on this as a member of an ethnic background. My own grandparents always spoke highly of Royalty because it was through a person, such as Queen Victoria, that many of our people from Central Europe originated in Canada. It seems that after 100 years, a great. importance and significance is placed on any historical events.

This really could add a lot to annual celebrations in our larger centres, such as the annual Calgary Stampede or the Klondike Days in Edmonton, and even the rodeos and other local community fairs in the province. The paper prepared for the hon. Horst Schmid by his department, that some of us managed to read, creates a lot of interest in this visit. I therefore endorse it, and second this motion. MR. SPEAKER: I believe the hon. Leader of the Opposition had the floor first. MR. STROM: In rising in my place to take

part in the debate, I want to say, as I said the other day, that we on this side of the House certainly fully concur in the sentiments expressed in the motion. As a matter of fact, we would have been very happy, Mr. Speaker, to seconded the motion, just to have demonstrate there was complete unanimous approval for the invitation that is herein being suggested. I know we could spend a lot of time talking about the great days of the police work, and so on, but this is not the time to do so. We on this side simply want to reiterate again our strong support for the invitation that is hereby going to be extended. MR.

DOWLING: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a distinct honour for me to support the motion by the hon. Premier, and I would just like to say two or three things. First of all, we all know I am sure, that 1873 was when the act establishing the Northwest Mounted Police became law in Canada, and then in July of 1874 the trek across the Canadian plains was begun at Fort Dufferin in Manitoba. In September of that same year, 1874, the Force arrived in Alberta. I think Mr. Speaker, in this centennial year, it is extremely important, in 1973-1974 to re- examine the events and activities that have shaped our destiny.

Part of these activities have been the activities of the RCMP. But, in addition, we must never forget the great part that the monarchy has played in our heritage. It is important to note in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that Queen Elizabeth II, on June 2nd, 1953, was appointed Honourary Commissioner of the RCMP. I would urge that all members support the motion of our hon. Premier. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, so that there is no mistake about the unanimity of the legislature on this subject, I want to say very briefly that I support the motion introduced by the hon. Premier.

First of all, I am very pleased that we are inviting Her Majesty to come to Alberta. I'm also delighted to see us take some time and pay tribute to the role played by the RCMP in the development, especially of Western Canada. They constitute a very, very important part of our Canadian identity, something that, in my view, Mr. Speaker, we are all very proud of, regardless of our party identification. So I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to join in with the other members who have entered this debate and urge the House to pass this resolution unanimously. MR.

BUCKWELL: I would like to commend the mover and seconder of this motion, and say how much we appreciate the thought. And apart from Her Majesty, whether she accepts this invitation or not, I would extend Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 413

9-24 ALBERTA HANSARD March 14th 1972 an invitation to all the hon. members, particularly the hon. Premier, to attend these celebrations in my constituency in 1974, and as you realize we havn't any members other than opposition members south of Calgary. It might be a great opportunity for the people of Southern Alberta to see the 'now' government. MR. BENOIT: Mr. Speaker, I have only a brief comment to make. It stems out of a letter that I received in this morning's mail.

It has to do with this resolution and I am strongly in favour of the resolution as it has been brought to us today, partly because of this situation. The letter has to do with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The resolution deals with the Northwest Mounted Police. The letter is a resolution from one of the towns in the south strongly objecting to the change in the signs of the R.C.M.P. buildings and cars.

"That the federal department, having jurisdiction over the same, be advised that the council of the town agrees that the sign on the buildings and cars should be changed from Police to R.C.M.P. again." I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the loyal opposition will, when Her Royal Presence is here, be able to — and I say this facetiously encourage Her Royal Majesty, because of her presence here, to reinstate this idea of the 'Royal' Canadian Mounted Police. MR. SCHMID: Mr. Speaker, it is a profound privilege for me to be able to speak in support of our hon.

Premier's motion to be able to express my own feelings regarding our Queen. If I hesitate now it is because I don't know what being a Canadian, what living in Canada, means to you who were born here. I can tell you one of the things it means to me. In a world where crowned heads are disappearing it means for one thing, the monarchy. Perhaps I come by this respect and appreciation for the Queen honestly, because Bavaria, where I was born, was traditionally a peaceful monarchy.

Did you know that the name of the first person mentioned in the charter granted by Charles of England, incorporating The Governor And Company Of Adventurers Of England Trading Into Hudson's Bay was a Bavarian Palatine Prince? It is, of course, today’s Hudson's Bay Company. Beinq quite objective about the monarchy, which would you rather have, a dictator who hasn't even tradition to restrain him, or a queen?

A president, as in the United States, who must scramble every four years to win enough votes to keep him in office, or a royal head above the pattern of changing politics whose real wealth is the affection of her people? The monarchy is a visible reminder of our past, of the long struggle towards human betterment, a symbol of reassurance in an age that is frightening not only to us, but also to our youth. When everything is being swept away in a floodgate of change, people must anchor their faith in something unchanging.

Not without reason is our youth picking up the beard styles, the ruffles, and the bows of what is still referred to as of the Victorian era, an era identified with a queen. Our present Queen, to whom the word gracious can most surely be applied, a model wife and mother, every inch a lady, gives our youth and ourselves a tradition with which they and we can identify, a formality and pageantry that adds richness to our lives. So, when I think of the things that Canada has given me — it may sound strange to your ears to hear it — but this country gave me back a monarch.

Perhaps, not until you have lived under dictators and tyrants do you really understand what this fully means. And Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 414

March 14th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 9-25 perhaps this is why, with deep appreciation, I speak in support of our hon. Premier’s motion. MR. SPEAKER: May the hon. Premier close the debate? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. LOUGHEED: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I first would like to respond to the spirit in which the motion has been received by all the hon. members for agreeing to moving a motion forward to the top of the Order Paper of Motions other than Government Motions. I would also like to say to the hon.

Leader of the Opposition that I appreciate very much his gesture with regard to the response to the motion, and, I'm sure, his understanding about the fact that the Deputy Speaker, in fact, introduced the matter into the House. I would like to assure the hon. Member for MacLeod that I can't speak for the others, but as far as I'm concerned, I look forward to being there in 1979 at those celebrations. I gather that the hon. member should be well prepared, Mr. Speaker. It looks like he's going to have a fair number of visitors.

I also appreciate very much the remarks from the Member for Spirit River-Fairview with regard to the Resolution before the House. I think it's important that the Queen of Canada as such be recognized in this way in this Legislature, because I do suggest that if this motion does obtain the unanimous support of the members, it will do more than merely be an invitation. It will reflect to the people of Alberta, perhaps at a very important time, the high respect that the legislators of this province feel towards the institution of the monarchy and the important role that it plays in this House. MR.

SPEAKER: Taking the motion as read, would all those in favour of the motion please say aye. Those opposed? It is not usual, I know, for the Chair to say whether a motion is passed unanimously or otherwise, but in view of this special occasion, I think Hansard should record that the motion was passed unanimously. Marketing Agricultural Products MR. HENDERSON: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure indeed to have the opportunity of rising to present this particular Resolution to the members of this Assembly.

Be it resolved that a statutory obligation be placed on all provincial marketing boards to guarantee a fair share of the Alberta Market for the small agricultural producer. Before going into the details, Mr. Speaker, let me first inform the members that I do not view, and hope, this particular subject will not be the basis of a partisan political debate. It is certainly not offered in that spirit. My own particular research started into the matter some time before the election and for some obvious reasons, the depth of my research has been somewhat curtailed since that date.

I did, however, make a committment to my constituents during the election campaign, that should I be returned Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 415

9-26 ALBERTA HANSARD March 14th 1972 to this Assembly, regardless of my position in this Assembly, that it was my intention to urge the government to take some action to put a legal requirement on provincial marketing boards of agricultural products, to look after the interests of the small producer. I think, Mr.

Speaker, it's probably fair and reasonable to say that those of us who were here in years gone by, when some of the original legislation was introduced and subsequent amendments thereto that provided for the establishment of provincial marketing boards, agreed in principal with the legislation because of the recognized need for greater bargaining leverage on the part of agriculture producers in the market place. It was also assumed Mr. Speaker, that in keeping with that philosophy that if the boards were producer controlled that the best interests of the agriculture community in total would be served.

And, I think probably, Mr. Speaker, in a general way, that hypothesis was a valid one. However, Mr. Speaker, in the ensuing years, and the past year or two particularly, there have been some actions taken, I don’t say with any particular malice at all on the part of provincial marketing boards, but actions taken which have been in some instances, detrimental to the small producer. And certainly, Mr. Speaker, I think it can be safely stated that it was certainly not the intent of this Legislature that when the appropriate legislation was approved, such action should be forthcoming. I think, to a large extent, Mr.

Speaker, the situation that we witnessed in one or two cases is somewhat natural. In the first instance, it is almost axiomatic that producer representatives on the marketing boards almost automatically represent the larger producers. Because it’s mainly the larger producer who has his livelihood tied up in the production of hogs, or eggs, or broilers as the case may be, and who has the direct financial and personal interest in the market, which prompts him to become interested in serving on a marketing board.

So without any design or intention or predetermined plans, it almost happens logically — and indeed if it is not axiomatic — that the producer marketing boards themselves are dominated by the larger producers. And, in some instances, Mr. Speaker, the actions which one or two of the boards have taken would lead me to believe that the small producer is considered to be a nuisance.

Now I think we witnessed some debate in this House last year, in particular, and I know, being a member of the previous government, we were forced to take some action on the question of trying to find market outlets for eggs from smaller producers, because they found themselves almost literally frozen out of the regular market for their products. Another piece of evidence of the concern I express, Mr.

Speaker, was an action taken by the Hog Marketing Board last year, which was subsequently changed as a result of the actions or representations at the insistence of the Minister of Agriculture in the previous government. And I'm sure it's action that the present Minister of Agriculture condones, because the board had put in a ground rule, which in effect, stated there had to be a minimum-size shipment of hogs to the packing plants. I don’t remember if the figure was 10 or 20, it was somewhere in that neighbourhood.

What it meant was that if the producer wanted to market five hogs, he had to ship them into some trucker’s depot in the city, in some cases it was right across the street from the packing plant, and then he had to pay a double transportation charge. He paid to haul it to the trucker's yard, and then he had to pay another transportation fee to haul it across the road into the packing plant. It was a very clear discrimination against the small producer. We are also aware, Mr.

Speaker, that the present Minister of Agriculture dwelt on the matter at great length, and I think quite properly so, in previous sessions in this Legislature concerning Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 416

March 14th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 9-27 Broilers Alberta Poultry Marketers. In that case small producers under cooperative legislation were compelled to accept markoffs on their products that were paid to the Co-op. T he Co-op subsequently set up a huge production plant and literally froze the small producer out of the market. Mr.

Speaker, I think it behooves this Legislature to seriously consider the matter, particularly in view of the concern that everyone has, particularly rural members, for the small farmer, the difficulties he faces, to see that something is done to guarantee that the small producer is assured an outlet for his product, that he is assured a reasonable share of the Alberta market. Looking at the size of the producers, the dominance of the producers in the market, I'd like to quote some very brief statistics, Mr. Speaker.

These I'm not sure are exact for present conditions, but they were the situation as of a year ago, and I would suspect the situation hasn't changed greatly. Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, this is a question of the board being dominated by large producers. Eggs for example, in the province: 15 per cent of the producers in Alberta account for 80 per cent of the production of eggs. In the situation with broilers, 20 per cent of the producers account for 60 per cent of production. And with hogs it's about 20 per cent of the producers accounting once again for 60 per cent.

I don't know what the situation is for beef because we don't have a marketing board and it wasn't a subject of concern to me at that time. It is quite obvious, Mr. Speaker, when one examines the statistics that the marketing of products, at least in those where there are provincial boards established and functioning, is clearly dominated by a few large producers - a comparatively small number and as I stated previously, almost automatically, it's the larger producer that has the interest of serving on a provincial producer marketing board. I would like to draw a comparison, Mr.

Speaker, with a situation that exists in the oil business if I may, as compared to the marketing of agricultural products where there is a marketing board. I don't suggest there is a direct relationship between the Oil and Gas Conservation Board and the marketing boards of agricultural products, but in the oil business, Mr. Speaker, because of the market situation, for years it has been the policy of this government - and it has been carried out by the Oil and Gas Conservation Board - that every oil well in the province is assured a basic minimum quota - assured a basic minimum share of the market.

And he is entitled to that whether he needs it or not. If his well will only produce 10 barrels and the market is 20 barrels, that's his tough luck, but he's assured of a basic minimum outlet for his product, and any share that is left of the market over and above the basic minimum quota is pro- rated to the larger producers on the basis of market demand. But we have a situation in the oil patch, Mr. Speaker,

whereas it's not the small producer that becomes the shock absorber on the market place. It's not the small producer who is squeezed out of the market if the demand for the products is less than the supply. I agree there is some difference between an oil well and trying to get an egg back into a chicken - don't mistake me on that particular subject - but obviously, Mr. Speaker, in agriculture, and taking eggs for example, very clearly when the supply exceeds production somebody has to get squeezed out of the market and gets hurt. I have a concern Mr. Speaker, right now the shock absorber in agricultural production, where we have these boards, is all too often the small producer,

whereas in my mind, Mr. Speaker, thinking in terms of people, it should be the larger producer who has to become the shock absorber on the market and has the responsibility for trying to adjust supply to demand. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 417

9-28 ALBERTA HANSARD March 14th 1972 So very briefly, Mr. Speaker, this is the basis on which I present this particular resolution. I had looked into the possibility of introducing private bills to deal with the subject and as I am sure the Minister of Agriculture and a number of people on this side realize, it's a rather complex legal question to deal with. And so instead of trying to introduce bills as private public bills which may or may not be entirely practical, because of the lack of research that had to go into making the bills readily applicable, it seemed far more desirable, Mr.

Speaker, simply to bring a resolution before this Assembly, asking the Assembly to give a general endorsation to this principle, and leave the government with a free hand in determining the manner in which the principle can be best applied. So with that, Mr. Speaker, I would conclude simply by stating that I believe action such as this is in the best interest of the small agricultural producer in the Province of Alberta.

I would also state that I present this not in any partisan political sense but rather one of honouring a commitment to my constituents and one of carrying on with a campaign in a particular subject, on which I had arrived at certain conclusions some months prior to the election. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, in rising to second the motion by Mr. Henderson, in which the crux of the matter was a guarantee of a fair share of Alberta markets for small agricultural producers, let me say at the outset that for perhaps two reason my remarks will be very short.

One is that I am not sure I can talk more than five minutes, which may be a matter of pleasure to members of the Assembly, and secondly, it seems to me that the matter has been well covered by the mover of the motion. As I indicated, the crux of the matter is an attempt, by whatever means the government feels is the most practical and reasonable approach, to gain some sort of a guarantee of a fair share of the market for small agricultural producers. I would say at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that this member was not an enthusiastic supporter of marketing boards.

I recall when the plebiscite was held across the province and a number of people in my constituency were, to say the very least, questionable supporters of the Hog Marketing Board and I would be less than the fair to the Hog Marketing Board at this time if I didn’t say that a number of those people who were rather questionable in their support of the Hog Marketing Board are much more enthusiastic with the board’s operation.

I don't plan to get involved and say why or why not this may be the case other than to say this, the Hog Marketing Board to date has been involved, as I understand it, in promotion and also in the actual marketing of hogs. I compare that, and I do this with no disrespect to the board, to the situation that we presently have in the area of eggs. Once again the Egg Marketing Board and the plan basically was voted in by the producers across the province, some time ago.

But here we have a different situation in egg marketing boards, it seems to me, because the board in fact is involved in the controlling of production and there are, at this time, several hundred producers, small producers on the waiting list attempting to get on the board quota. We are in a situation, as Mr. Henderson indicated, where something like 85 per cent of the eggs in the province are produced by something like 15 per cent of the producers.

Then, when you add to the problem that at the annual meetings of some of the marketing boards, namely the Egg Marketing Board over a year ago, less than 50 people turned out to the annual meeting, you see the situation where naturally those people who have the biggest involvement financially, and certainly the biggest interest also, in the egg marketing business, are those Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 418

March 14th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 9-29 people obviously who are the most interested. But at the same time, when we have a situation of several hundred people on the waiting list attempting to get into a situation of marketirg their eggs through the Egg Marketing Board, this, if nothing else, does point out the problem and I say the problem in its most stripped down form, as a basic right to a portion of the market as far as the small producer is concerned. So without further ado, Mr.

Speaker, mainly because I don't think I can last much longer, suffice for me to say to the hon. members of this Assembly, that this motion certainly is presented in a non-political point of view, stemming from the interest of the very small producer, an interest which many members of the House on both sides have already mentioned to date -- I might also say, an interest that the Minister of Agriculture has expressed a number of times in this Assembly, prior to becoming the Minister of Agriculture. Thank you Mr. Speaker. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I find myself dealing with this resolution very much in the same position I found myself in last week when the hon. Member for Smoky River introduced a resolution respecting public ownership of power distribution. I said at the time that I would support it, but I felt it should go much farther. In respect to the resolution introduced by the hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Leduc, I can say the same thing, that I am prepared to support it but I think it should go a great deal farther.

Certainly setting out at least a basic share of the market for the smaller producer would be a step in the right direction, but only a small step in dealing with the threat posed today by vertical and horizontal integration, a threat, Mr. Speaker, which jeopardizes the future of many small farmers in the province. I'll be introducing a private member's bill later on in the session that will deal, in my judgement, more comprehesivly with the problem. It will be modeled on the anti-corporate farming legislation now on the books of a number of American states.

But, concerning the resolution before us today, why should statutory limits be imposed? It seems to me, Mr. Speaker that the small operators should be protected if our rural way of life is going to be on the statutes books of a number of American states. But concerning the resolution before us today, why should statutory limits be imposed? Well, it seems to be, Mr. Speaker, that the small operators must be protected if our way of life is going to preserved at all. It is well and fine to say that we should have wide open competition. It is well and fine to say through bigness we'll have efficiency.

But the net result of such wide open competition is that thousands and thousands of people presently operating farms will be squeezed off the land and will be forced to migrate to the cities. The argument for bigness, of course, in itself is not a totally accurate picture when you look at agriculture.

Certainly, it can be argued that a larger operator can make better use of capital, whether that be farm machinery in sowing grain in the spring, or taking it off in the fall, or producing hogs on a massive scale, or what have, I'm sure many members will agree with me, the available evidence shows that when you talk about the utilization of the land, when you make that your yardstick, the family farm, the smaller operation, clearly shows its efficiency, its superiority over the larger operation. And Mr.

Speaker, I think that when members consider that we live today in a world where two-thirds of our population go to bed hungry every night, rather than talking about the efficient utilization of Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 419

9-30 ALBERTA HANSARD March 14th 1972 capital, we should be more concerned with the efficient utilization of the land. And again, this is where the small operation comes in. Again, this seems to me to be the strongest single argument today for preserving the family farm operation, but that operation will not be preserved unless we make reasonable moves on the legislative level to protect the smaller operator from the bigger operator. I've heard it said that we should encourage bigness because bigness will mean a continuation of the cheap food practice that we've had over the past number of years.

Frankly, I don't agree with this. Uncontrolled horizontal integration and eventual emergence of corporate farming will mean that instead of a cheap food policy we'll have a very expensive food policy. We'd be far better off, as I see it, too — and this is digressing for just a moment from the resolution before us — but we'd be far better off to subsidize the smaller operators to the point that they can continue their operations.

You'd have a reasonable food policy, that is far preferable in my judgment to the inevitable result of the smaller farmers being forced off the land and corporate farming emerging which would be very, very expensive food indeed. Controls are necessary if we are to maintain a balanced economy. When I spoke in the Speech from the Throne debate, I argued that we need a balanced economy in this province and in Canada. We need a viable private sector, and one of the most important areas where the private sector has clearly shown its superiority is in the production of food products.

But that private sector as we know it today, dominated by thousands of individual farm operations, each making their judgments independently of one another. That private sector will be jeopardized unless we set out reasonable legislative controls to protect the smaller from the bigger. I want to say, too. Mr. Speaker, that in looking over the many resolutions passed by the farm organizations in this province, it's fair to say that organized agriculture is deeply concerned about this problem and is interested in some form of legislative protection.

I've talked for example, with members of the Alberta Hog Marketing Board who argue that we should go a great deal farther than the proposal made by the hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Leduc and impose a strict limit of 5,000 hogs per producer -- not a case of sharing the market, but a strict limit, and I subscribe to that point of view too.

Don't think that we should just share the market; I think we have to control the size of operations, consistent with the view that it is only by preserving the smaller family farm operations that we can have the kind of rural life that I think we want in this province, and that we can have the kind of agriculture operation that is necessary in this province. May I say, too, that I am not pleased that this resolution isn't a little more comprehensive in another sense.

I am worried that the effect of contract farming, in my view contract farming or contracts that in any way bypass provincial marketing boards, are extremely dangerous for agriculture in Alberta. It is my view that we should eliminate contract farming. Contract farming is piece work, and piece work would jeopardize the independence of the family farm operation. We have, as we look around us Mr. Speaker, a number of rather threatening developments on the horizon. Just across the border from my constituency between Dawson Creek and Tort St.

John a huge corporate farm is being developed, a farm which can produce 10,000 head of cattle in each year, and this I understand is to be doubled to 20,000 head. The farm is massive in area and I understand something in the nature of 10 townships are being considered. Now this is the sort of thing that frightens me. It frightens me because it challenges the whole presumption of the kind of agricultural economy which I believe we must defend and preserve in our country, Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 420

March 14th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 9-31 and that is an agricultural economy based on thousands of smaller and individual producers. I'm pleased to see in this Legislature, in my view, a greater concern about finding ways and means of preserving the smaller operator, and I think it's fair to say that the government -- whatever its shortcomings — is also seeking ways to defend the family farm operation. And to the extent, Mr.

Speaker, that the resolution introduced today is a small step — and to caution that it is a small step -- what we really require is legislation which will prohibit corporate farming; legislation which is modelled after the legislation in North and South Dakota; legislation, Mr. Speaker, that this Legislature will have an opportunity to debate at a later time, because I intend to introduce it in the form of a private member's bill. But nonetheless, because this resolution is at least a faltering step in the right direction, I'm prepared to support it. MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, the hon.

Member for Wetaskiwin-Leduc may be surprised to get some qualified sympathy from a representative of an urban riding. But I rise, because I do want to demonstrate that we do feel concern for rural problems, that we do recognize in Calgary, that one third of our economy is based on agriculture, and that in Alberta the lives of town and country are irrevocably interlocked. We are still a town with packing plants, poultry processors, a famous stockyard, famous bull sales, giant dairies, and we are a distribution centre for all of southern Alberta.

Now most Calgarians are connected directly or indirectly in some way with the farm. If the farmer is prosperous, so are we. So the early attitudes of this government have the wholehearted support of all members, rural and urban. We know that any dispassionate economist will agree that there is a dangerous imbalance in Alberta between town and country. It can't be good if more than half our population lives in two large metropolitan centres, while the vast area around is almost empty. Ten years ago there were 75,000 farm families in Alberta, now there are less than 50,000.

Only one third of our huge province is settled and two thirds of it is still bush. And yet the first settlers arrived less than 100 years ago. They were still coming right up to the First World War, from Europe, from Eastern Canada, the United States and they were homesteading on the land. Now within such a short time, the pastoral way of life has gone for 85 per cent of the population. There are abandoned farm dwellings, dying towns all over the province. There may be other reasons, but the first and the most basic, most likely is economic.

While we on this side can't be wrong in thinking of job-providing secondary industry in small centres, there must be an even more vital economic life force. I think we've got to recognize that it's axiomatic that few small towns will be prosperous if they don't have a healthy agricultural hinterland. You can think of specific examples like the town of Canmore, for instance, which had industry — had industry since the beginning. It has good roads, good railroads, a beautiful place to live, surrounded by beautiful mountains, but its population hasn't gone above 2,000 for many years.

The reason is it has no agricultural hinterland. Another axiom I think, that we must accept, despite the zero population fanatics and the ecology faddists, few of whom every leave a main road, is that we are desperately short of people. Alberta has 255,000 square miles, twice as big as the United Kingdom, and yet the United Kingdom has 40 times our population. Our domestic market is so small, it is not only poorly spread between the city and the country, it is very, very small.

Any economist who hasn't let propaganda turn his head will tell you it is very difficult to develop viable secondary industry, or even a viable agriculture market beyond mass production of grain if you lack a home Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 421

9-32 ALBERTA HANSARD March 14th 1972 market. Ontario and Quebec had most of the population of Canada from early times. That is why they now look on us and continue to look on us as underpopulated colonies to mine and exploit. Next to the old fashioned and now unfashionable method of raising your own, the best way to improve a market is by immigration. I know that there are movements abroad that defy all logic, that reject this sort of concept.

These are the very people who cry bitterly over unemployment, over the lack of job opportunities up to the high expectations of people under 25, over the reluctance of corporations, in the extractive industries to reinvest their profit dollars in more labour intensive industry. These are the very people who are in the vanguard of opposition to any project that makes any common sense. I know that the population explosion theory has validity in the fertile river valleys of Asia, pollution is a serious problem in Pittsburgh, but I can't take it seriously — with all due respect to the hon.

Minister of the Environment, Mr. Yurko — I can't take it as seriously as he does, in an empty Alberta. I think we have got to express concern but I know in my heart that we can't live on scenery alone. Not one of these faddists who scream would go back to the pastoral way of life if you gave him the land for free. They want to live off the state but they fail to realize that the state itself can't fulfill their high expectations without an expanding economy. That is where I come to the marketing board in the light of an expanding economy. There are two ways to look at a marketing board.

You can look inwards or you can look outwards. You might think, well, what does he know about marketing boards, he comes from the city. I might tell you that when I first moved in to the city district I represent, Mrs. Sadie Bushfield, whose family originally owned the farm that is now housing estates on the north hill was still there living in the original homestead. She was the sort of individual who built western Canada. In her lifetime, apart from running a farm and later a beauty salon, she raised eleven children of whom eight were adopted. I myself, at various times in my life, have been a farmer.

I raised hogs, I raised sheep, I raised purebred Herefords, and I raised dairy cattle in two countries. One time I had the largest herd of Jersey cattle in Alberta and I certainly have always respected the record of the Pickard and Clark family from Carstairs. I still have an interest in some land. So for a "city slicker" I have some acquaintance with the problems of a farm. I say that marketing boards can be looked at in two ways, inwards or outwards.

Looking outwards, a marketing board stresses above everything else the paramount importance of expanding a market, seeking new markets, and increasing the returns available to the farmer. But if you look inwards, and you think of it only in the context of sharing out a dwindling market, you miss the boat. Unfortunately, this is the way most of them intended to operate. They concentrate on dividing up the existing wealth rather than expanding new wealth. So in this process of fair division, the market often dwindles.

When Harry Hayes, Senator Harry Hayes, was federal Minister of Agriculture, we had a huge butter surplus in Canada. Well he brought it under control to the point where there are not very many dairy farmers left producing butter. We import it from other countries. The butter surplus disappeared with the tight control. I'm sure that the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview is aware of the criticisms of the weaknesses of the Socialist system, of dividing up existing wealth, and all the pitfalls that are contained therein and all the pitfalls that are contained in the worst type of marketing board.

They become arthritic, muscle bound, they get under the bureaucratic control of civil servants who lose touch with the producers. The expense of sales increases because there's an extra Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 422

March 14th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 9-33 middle man or a jobber, whatever you’d like to call the marketing board. They are never paid by results. They are never paid like salesmen are paid, on a commission. If they were, maybe the situation would be different. The third disadvantage, of course, is that the tight controls and the quotas imposed by marketing boards to insure fair shares to the producer actually result in decreasing shares or smaller shares and an inflexibility which makes them incapable of adjusting to changing market conditions. Now why do we have marketing boards?

They are forced on farmers by the concentration of property in the too few hands of the processors. Now this concentration of wealth in too few hands is a reason for a lot of people taking the misguided path of the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview. The concentration of buying power by the wholesalers results in price fixing rings or unfair pressures to maintain artificially low prices imposed on the disorganized farmer. Even sales by auction which do introduce some element of competition in buying have only a minimal effect if only a handful of buyers are present.

So you can understand why there has been some pressure for marketing boards. You’ll understand why there's also some resistance to them. You'll understand particularly why cattlemen in western Canada don't favour compulsory marketing boards. This is simply the one area where free enterprise and competition has prevailed in an expanding continental market. I am aware that when the trend goes to forward shipments, forward contracts, vertical integration that the hon.

Member for Spirit River-Fairview was talking about, when shipments go direct into the packing plants, the grading methods that take place after the beasts are slaughtered — like rail grading of hogs where they are completely at the mercy of the packers -- then of course is begun the pressure for boards. The take-over of small independent packing plants by larger competitors, all this forces the farmer towards organizing a marketing board. But there's never much need for organized marketing boards if the market itself is healthy and expanding and there is an opportunity for all to sell for a fair dollar return.

Most modern countries, incidentally, now measure the back fat of hogs live. They don't believe in the rail grading process where you estimate the worth of a hog after slaughter in the butcher's. I've never even favoured the primitive grading method that they have now for distinguishing between lamb and other sorts of sheep. They break the leg, and if it's a greenstick fracture, they say it's a lamb, and the chances are it's a lamb from the day it's born to the day it dies. That's no way to sell mutton. I don't want anyone to think, Pr.

Speaker, that I am 100 per cent in opposition to the concepts of marketing boards. I believe in them if they are democratically controlled by the producers and if they are sales oriented. I only oppose them if they are like the ones we have known in the past which is a wet blanket sitting on the top of the whole industry, and they are only concentrating on poachers and sharing up the dwindling wealth.

People who are interested in marketing agricultural products especially on my side of the House, I think should be required to make a trip to Denmark, a country which has proved to be the most aggressive salesman of agricultural products of any small country in the world. A few years ago I was travelling on a Western Airlines champagne flight from Seattle to Los Angeles, and I noticed that the menu laid great stress on Canadian bacon. And if our packers and marketing boards were as aggressive as the Danes we would doubtless be selling our Canadian bacon as a quality product all over the world.

In fact, Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 423

9-34 ALBERTA HANSARD March 14th 1972 you're probably all aware that the Danes have been selling Tulip Brand canned bacon in huge quantities in our Alberta market, and it's very superior quality bacon and until very recently, it was at a lower price than the local product. It's recently been raised. I don't know if this is because of protective tariffs or what.

But I tell you, that although I realize the bind everybody is in, and the necessity for having marketing boards at the present state of the industry, I have to be opposed to any statutory obligation or any additional red tape being placed on provincial marketing boards, which should be sales organizations rather than mere structures for allocating a share of a dwindling market. MR. MOORE: Mr.

Speaker, with regard to the resolution before us I should like to speak briefly on the resolution itself, that a statutory obligation be placed on all provincial marketing boards allowing for a fairer share of the market by small producers. I'm not sure, Mr. Speaker, that the resolution as it's worded is the kind of thing that could be put into effect because of perhaps legal technicalities. However, I believe that the intent of the motion, as presented by the hon.

Member for Wetaskiwin-Leduc is certain to ensure that our small agriculture producers in Alberta do have a fairer, perhaps a larger, share of the existing market. Certainly in that respect I would commend the hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Leduc, and the seconder of the motion, for their thoughts in that regard. The hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Leduc also mentioned that he thought this shouldn't be a political debate.

I'll try if I can to keep it from becoming one, but I know that the hon. member certainly had the opportunity over the years to watch his colleagues, who were responsible for the Department of Agriculture, allow small producers to be whittled down to a smaller and smaller share of the market. The subject in my mind, Mr. Speaker, opens up the whole area of agricultural marketing boards both provincially and federally.

Certainly within the last year, I think, probably all members of this House even those from the urban areas, are aware of the complications and the problems there were, and the federal government's effort to develop and implement Bill C176. Getting back to the original motion and the marketing boards which are operating provincially here in Alberta, I think that we should examine them, perhaps one by one, as this motion is discussed today and on subsequent occasions.

First of all, in relation to the Hog Marketing Board, I think that regulations have been changed in that marketing board to the extent that small hog producers have an equal opportunity in a marketing place with large ones. That is the kind of a board that is only facilitating the marketing of hogs and, in actual fact, allowing the small as well as the large producer to get a fair share of the food dollar. There are no quotas or restrictions levied by that board that might allow certain persons to get a large part of the market, or vice versa. With respect to poultry, Mr.

Speaker, we certainly have a great number of problems in the Egg Marketing Board, and I would suggest the Broiler Marketing Board. I was talking, not too many days ago, with one gentleman who has a little over 5 per cent of the total production in the Province of Alberta. And certainly we'd only need 19 others like that and then we'd have only 20 farm families making a living out of the production of eggs. The same holds true I think in the broiler industry, and I had occasion, Mr.

Speaker, to read some of the speeches made in this House during the past years about the monopolistic position of Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 424

March 14th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 9-35 certain companies within the broiler industry. I trust, Mr. Speaker, that our new Minister of Agriculture, and I know he will, will entertain any thoughts that those of you on the other side of the House or on this side might have for getting some of that share of the market back to our small producers. When you talk about the dairy industry, there we have a situation where we have a National Marketing Board which has been allotting quotas for industrial milk across Canada. I think most of the members, Mr.

Speaker, are aware that there is a plebiscite coming up very shortly with respect to a dairy marketing plan that will return the responsibility for allotting of quotas of industrial milk to the Province of Alberta and allow us a fair share in the market place.

I think it would be a good time to suggest that all of the hon. members should be trying to encourage people in the dairy industry to vote for that kind of a program that will in fact allow the Province of Alberta to allot industrial milk quotas, and it will allow us to have some new people who are now cream shippers brought into the field of industrial milk production. I think, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to go back to the whole field of marketing boards and talk very briefly about some of the things that have occurred in the past two or three years.

People in government, and perhaps farmers on marketing boards, have insisted that they in fact know what the demand for certain agricultural products will be in 1972 or 1973. One of the things we have to recognize in the field of agriculture is that we don't always know what the international, or for that matter what the domestic, market is going to be. I refer to the situation in regard to rapeseed. Some two and three years ago the hon. Minister, Mr.

Lang, advised farmers that they should not increase their rapeseed acreage, and I think that he did it in good faith, knowing what the market was the year in which he advised them. However, farmers that year doubled their acreage of rapeseed and doubled their output, and in a subsequent year they doubled it again. Had we followed the advice that was given to us by the experts in the field of production and supply at that time we would have been short a considerable number of millions of dollars in Western Canada. I think, Mr.

Speaker, if we are going to talk about marketing boards and supply management then we just can't look in the Province of Alberta or in the Dominion of Canada. We have certainly got to look at the whole international picture. There was a very good article, Mr. Speaker, in the Free Press Weekly not too long ago where it said, "it's important to recognize that Canada is a part of the entire North American market when it comes to hogs and beef and a number of other commodities," and it would matter not whether we had dropped our production completely in the field of hogs in the Province of Alberta.

The market and the price structure would have been much the same as it was during 1971. Mr. Speaker, I want to make some very brief comments on some of the remarks that have been made here this afternoon. The hon. member Mr. Henderson's statement that producers are generally representatives of large producers, I think, is very valid.

It is one for which, in some method or other during the course of our discussions, we should try to figure out a way to have small producers who perhaps haven't got the dollars to spend to travel long distances and so on, represent themselves on the various marketing boards in the province. I would also like to refer to some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview. He suggests that this resolution does not go far enough. He would like it to go much farther. As a matter of fact I presume that he would like to have all farmers taken over by that bureaucratic government in Ottawa.

With all farmers under the direct control of a central government in Ottawa, perhaps provincial controls are not necessary. He also said Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 425

9-36 ALBERTA HANSARD March 14th 1972 that farmers need controls — require controls. Well I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is not right for us to stand in this legislature and suggest that the farmers of this province haven't got an ability to manage their own affairs, to suggest that this government should stand up and impose marketing controls, quotas and that kind of thing on farmers. The last thing, Mr. Speaker, that the farmers in this province need is a socialist on their back just looking for a free ride to an election year. Mr.

Speaker he has talked about 'no contracts', and I ask you — what about the contract between the Canadian Wheat Board and the farmers? A contract was sold by this provincial government quite a number of years ago, and certainly that's an area where there is no possibility whatever for a farmer to sit down and discuss, not only the terms of the quota situation, but the price that he receives per bushel. I know, Mr.

Speaker, that there have to be certain rules and certain regulations regarding contract farming or contract production in this province, but I have had the opportunity, as a farmer, of growing grass seed in that market and to sit down and talk with the person with whom I had written the contract when the contract had not expired, and get a change in the price and the procedure in which I would deliver the seed. And I would suggest that that's a lot more than you can get out of a national marketing board.

The hon. member incidentally is well aware of the commitment made by this government very shortly after September 10th. The corporation farming in the Province of Alberta is out, and it is not necessary to have any bills or legislation on the Order Paper that say no corporation farming is allowed in this province. There are certainly a number of ways at the present time in which the government of this province can rule out any corporation farming. A fine example of that, Mr.

Speaker, is the firm of North American Integrated Food Products who came to Alberta back in September or October and said: We would like to set up a plant to grow 640,000 hogs a year; we would like to grow them and slaughter them and ship them, and the hon. Minister of Agriculture said to these people that the field of agriculture production of primary products is reserved for the farmers of this province. Mr. Speaker, with those few words I leave the Legislature with the thought that I believe there are some 13 provincial marketing boards.

I think perhaps they should be examined one by one to see which ones do, in fact, have production controls and are not allowing small producers into the marketplace. Thank you. MR. ZANDER: Mr. Speaker, may I rise at this time also to voice my concern about the marketing boards in this province? It is certainly not the controls that we wish to have at this time. The controls that we regulate within our boundaries certainly have no effect as they will affect the future of agriculture in the world today. Certainly, I have to agree that all is not well with the marketing boards.

Being a farmer myself I see within my constituency the Poultry Marketing Board as it affects the small producer, and I may say at this time there are very few that are now in the field because of the effects of the latest development in the poultry field. We find that 51 per cent of the total production of poultry products in the province is controlled by two or three producers. This leaves very little room for the other 50,000 people that wish to produce poultry products, because the quota system is there. I have to agree with the hon.

Member for Smoky River that it is time that we examined these marketing boards, that we examine the quota systems as they have been placed within these boards. I have to agree with the hon. Member for Wetaskwin-Leduc that perhaps we should have a look at all of the marketing boards as they Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 426

March 14th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 9-37 affect the small producers of our province. I am nto in agreement. with the operation of the Hog Marketing Board. Rumors have it that during the depressed prices of the early spring and summer, that some members of that board received privileges other than those given to other producers within the province. I don't know whether they are true or not, but I think it's time that we should stand up and be counted if we really want to get the welfare of the small producer in there. I think our minister has taken a very, very great step and it has taken courage and guts to do this.

First of all, he said there are no corporate farms any longer in Alberta. I think it's time that we have to realize this, and I think that never before has a minister of the Crown, and especially in agriculture, taken this stand. May I congratulate him at this time. I think myself that when we look at bill C176 and what effects it would have had on the livestock industry of our province, and knowing well the functioning of the other boards, it would have been disastrous, as the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview said just a minute ago, that this large corporation is at his backdoor.

This is exactly what we'll have if we don't wake up to the fact that we have to protect the small producer. In the similar manner as the former government of this province got rid of the smaller producers in the lumber industry, you have the effect now where the larger industry is dictating the price to the consumer, and I think it's time that we maintained a relationship so that we can keep the lower cost of our food prices in this province if we keep the smaller producer in the picture. Once he's eliminated, then the large corporations will dictate the price of butter and eggs in our grocery stores.

I have producers in my area in the poultry production industry, where they have 1000 and 2000 hens. They can't compete because they have no quota. They can't get a larger quota and yet we have three producers who market 51 per cent of the total poultry products in this province. It is time that we have a look at this situation. I think that the minister has had a long look at it and if we are all patient and just wait awhile I think that he will clean up the mess, because I know that he is the man to do it. Thank you Mr. Speaker. MR. COOPER: Just a brief thought on this motion, Mr.

Speaker, the intent with which I fully agree. I would have liked to have seen a little stronger word used, a more definite word used instead of fair share, such as a percentage, but I realize that at this time that wouldn't have been possible. Possibly, according to my mind, the entire market for agriculture products now being so gradually taken over by the Agra business or Agra industry, whatever you should want to call it, should be reserved for farmers. I realize that for the time being they wouldn't be able to fill the need but they could possibly soon build up to it.

But there is little advantage to the farmer, on the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Industry, and so on, finding new markets, new export markets, for agricultural products if that demand is going to be filled by other than farmers. I believe that all marketing boards of agricultural products should set a limit, should set a maximum level for any one producer. This would make room and prove an incentive for many more farmers to derive some financial income from the egg, the cream, milk, poultry and hog markets.

At this very moment the Manitoba Hog Marketing Commission is considering limiting the maximum number of hogs to 6,000 for any one producer for any one year. The Alberta Egg Marketing Board has no upper limit, and one Alberta producer markets 500,000 dozen eggs. Just imagine how much good, limiting the maximum would do. How many more producers would be given a chance to add to their farm income, if this were divided up. Indeed, one of the hon. members said, the egg producer is discouraged by the set-up we have. The trend seems to be to eliminate the bottom producer and make the big one larger.

That's Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 427

9-38 ALBERTA HANSARD March 14th 1972 the way it works at present, and of course, we all know what has happened to the chicken and broiler business over the years. It seems to have passed out of the hands of the farmer entirely into business. No doubt you probably were all interested in the news item which appeared in the Edmonton Journal a week or two ago, wherein a big packing firm in Edmonton was fined for marketing 17,000 broiler chickens without reporting them to the Alberta Poultry Marketing Board, and that was probably just a very small percentage of what they actually raise.

This number of broiler chickens, even 17,000 marketed by a dozen farmers would certainly have meant a nice source of additional income to legitimate farmers. So, Mr. Speaker, we have to admit the trend to eliminate or discourage the small producer, is a definite one. We certainly can't close our eyes to it. The Canadian Dairy Commission, not too long ago, eliminated the subsidy paid to the small cream shippers, who marketed less than 450 pounds of cream per year, and this of course, meant all the difference between profit and loss to the cream shipper.

However, that move was short lived and subsidy was soon reinstated. So, Mr. Speaker, the trend to large producers must be reversed. To accomplish this, the market for agriculture products must be reserved for the farmer if we are to preserve the family and the small farm. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. DR. WARRACK: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the resolution we have before us regarding a statutory obligation be placed on all the provincial marketing boards, to guarantee and so forth. Mr.

Speaker, the most important thing about agriculture marketing, and in fact, in the years to come, the most important thing about agriculture itself, is that agriculture become market oriented.

For a very long time in the history of agriculture, it has been the case that agriculture and, if you like, farming specifically, as now a part of agriculture, was able to function very successfully with a production orientation, that is to say to look only at the soil, to look only at the climatic conditions, and other factors which affect production, decide on what to produce and after you get in the habit, continue to produce it and assume that there is some sacred right to a market for the product.

This has had its stimulations from time to time, particularly after the Second World War expanded markets available, Mr. Speaker, due to the Marshall Plan, refurbishing of Europe, and on the heels of this the problems of the North American effort to help restore Japan from its war devastation and the wrecking of the economy that occurred again in World War II. Then for a brief period in the early to mid 1960's there was a breakthrough made by the federal government led by the Minister of Agriculture, Alvin Hamilton, in the grain sales to Communist China.

Each of these things prevented us from fully recognizing that we must, in agriculture, become increasingly market oriented, rather than production oriented. And to draw this distinction as clearly as possible, I'd like to suggest that the day is gone and the day will stay gone in agriculture, where we can basically choose according to only the production characteristics of our soil, of our climate, and indeed of our preferences, Mr. Speaker, and assume that the market is out there.

That day is gone; that day has been gone for some considerable length of time, but it has taken a very long time, particularly in this province to realize that that day has indeed gone. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 428

March 14th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 9-39 What we have now is a situation in agriculture, Mr. Speaker, and in agriculture as a part of rural development in total where there is a great need for a market orientation of the agricultural product. We must not only consider the characteristics that influence what we can produce as we conduct our renewable resource management within the agriculture sector, we must also, but firstly and above all, consider what the markets are, and where they are.

The idea then becomes just the opposite to the old time way of doing things in agriculture, mainly an appraisal and research of the market, then planning to meet that market to maximize the production that can give income to the farmers in Alberta, and so have the market to production orientation rather than just the opposite. I would suggest Mr. Speaker, that in the statement, so far, and in the Throne Speech, and in my personal observations of the activities of the new Minister of Agriculture, Deputy Premier and Minister of Agriculture, Dr.

Hugh Horner, that this reorientation for the Government of Alberta has just occurred. The spirit of the resolution itself is certainly well intended and in the best interests of the individual producers in agriculture in Alberta, but some of the problems that come about are whether it's the best way to accomplish it, as it’s a question of the means, rather than the end. We all want to maximize the incomes available for the agriculture producer in Alberta, and we want to maximize these on a fair and equitable basis, and the question is, how best to accomplish this?

It is rather interesting to me to reflect back a very short period of time, particularly in my own experience in the fall of 1969. The fall of 1969 was when the research was done on the broiler industry, the faults of which have been so properly put forward by the hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Leduc. In the fall of 1969, th