LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Monday, March 20, 1972 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 pm.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair.] head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill No. 9 The Research Council Amendment Act, 1972 MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill being The Research Council Amendment Act, 1972. The purpose of the amendment is to increase the number of members on the Research Council to provide for greater industrial representation. [The bill was read a first time.] MR. PEACOCK: Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. minister Horst Schmid, that the bill be placed on the order Paper under Government Bills and Orders. [The motion was carried without debate.] Bill No. 10 The Public Service Vehicle Amendment Act, 1972 MR. HANSEN: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill being The Public Service Vehicle Amendment Act, 1972, which controls riding on large trucks and so on. [Leave being granted, Bill No. 10 was read a first time.] MR. COPITHORNE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move, seconded by the hon. minister Mr.

Peacock, that this bill be placed on the Order Paper under Government Bills and Orders. [The motion was carried without debate.] Bill No. 12 The Judicature Amendment Act, 1972 MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill, being The Judicature Amendment Act, 1972. This amendment, Mr. Speaker, arises because of recent federal legislation which enables judges appointed by the federal government, on attaining the age of 70, to become Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 649

13-2 ALBERTA HANSARD March 20th 1972 supernumerary judges for the next five years, and this amendment creates these positions. [Leave being granted, Bill No. 12 was read a first time.] Bill No. 14 The City of Calgary and Calgary Power Ltd. Agreement Authorization Act, 1972 MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill to be known as The City of Calgary and Calgary Power Ltd. Agreement Authorization Act, 1972.

The purpose of the bill is to ratify an agreement entered into by the City of Calgary and Calgary Power Ltd. for the use of the Bearspaw Water Reservoir and Dam for a water supply for the City of Calgary, and this agreement contains a general liability clause to save Calgary Power harmless from the use of its facilities and land. [Leave being granted, Bill No. 14 was read a first time.] MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move, seconded by the hon. Miss Hunley, that the bill, The City of Calgary and Calgary Power Ltd.

Authorization Act, 1972 be placed on the Order Paper under Government Bills and Orders. [The motion was carried without debate.] Bill No. 11 The Public Highways Development Amendment Act, 1972 MR. COPITHORNE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce a bill called The Public Highways Development Amendment Act, 1972 which is a bill that gives tenure to certain highway properties when there are other assets placed on them, and gives the department the right to have them removed. [Leave being granted, Bill No. 11 was read a first time.] Bill No. 24 The Margarine Amendment Act, 1972 MRS. CHICHAK: Mr.

Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill, being The Margarine Amendment Act, 1972. The passing of this amendment will result in the removal of all restrictions relating to colour of margarine. [Leave being granted, Bill No. 24 was read a first time.] DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move, seconded by the hon. minister Mr. Crawford, that this Bill No. 24, The Margarine Amendment Act, 1972, be placed on the Order Paper under Government Bills and Orders. [The motion was carried without debate.] Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 650

March 20th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 13-3 POINTS OF PRIVILEGE MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege to inform you of the various charitable acts which hon. members of both sides of this House performed so ably on Sunday, firstly in assisting the crippled children and secondly, in permitting the members of the news media to defeat them 7-4 in a game of hockey. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I also rise on a point of privilege. But this matter I believe is very, very serious. And I would like the hon. Premier to take it under consideration in bringing in his new bill on human rights, the Bill of Rights.

I believe there was gross discrimination in that the hon. minister reponsible for the Medicare Commission was not permitted to dress with the rest of the MLA's in the dressing room. MISS HUNLEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. I appreciate the concern of the hon. member. I really believe I was permitted to dress with them. And I wouldn't like to feel that I am discriminating, but I just preferred to put my skates on outside. MR.

SPEAKER: Some unusual latitude has been allowed with regard to these points of privilege, and the reason is, that it's surprising that the hon. members are able to rise at all. head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS DR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce to you and through you, ten students from the Diagnostic and Treatment Centre, accompanied by their very capable teachers, Mrs. Haave and Mrs. Metcalfe. I would like to recognize them and also indicate to them that it's excellent that they should demonstrate their interest in the legislative process, and I hope they continue this way.

I'll ask them to rise at this time. MR. ZANDER: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce to you and to this Assembly, 31 Grade XII students of the Social Studies class from the Frank Maddock Memorial High School in Drayton Valley. It certainly is a privilege to introduce these bright students and to commend them on coming to this House to see the democratic process of law. I would certainly ask them to rise, and also their teachers, Mr. Mitchell and Mr. McCulla and Mr. Bootsma. Would you please rise and be recognized. MR. DICKIE: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to introduce to you and through you to the hon. members of this Assembly, 22 Grade IX students from the Calgary Hebrew School in Calgary, in my constituency. They tell me there's less snow in Calgary and they brought the Calgary sunshine with them to help the situation in Edmonton. I ask that they stand to be recognized. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 651

13-4 ALBERTA HANSARD March 20th 1972 MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce to you and through you to the hon. members of this Assembly, two students and their teacher from High Level, Miss Bonnie Reid, a Grade IX student, Mr. Brian Napier, a Grade X student, and their teacher, Mrs. Cheryl Marx. They are all of High Level, and just recently Bonnie and Brian won the Northern Alberta High School debating contest, and this past weekend, participated in the Provincial High School debating contest at Okotoks.

Although I understand, Bonnie and Brian, your team did not place in the finals, I did have a telephone call from a gentleman in High Level, stating that he and the people from High Level were very proud of you for your achievements. I ask you now to stand and be recognized -- Miss Bonnie Reid, Mr. Brian Napier, and their teacher, Mrs. Cheryl Marx, of High Level. head: FILING RETURNS AND TABLING REPORTS DR. HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to file returns regarding Orders of the Assembly No. 116, No. 117 passed by the Assembly on March 9, 1972. MR. YURKO: Mr.

Speaker, I beg leave to table Sessional Paper No. 123 ordered by this Assembly. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD MR. SPEAKER: With regard to oral questions, might I just suggest that hon. members might give some consideration to the numbers of supplementaries, and that if a question is of such a detailed nature that it requires more than say two supplementaries, perhaps it ought to be put in writing. I don't know of any rule to this effect but I believe the custom in some Houses is to limit the number of supplementaries. Easter Recess MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could address a question to the hon.

Government House Leader. Has the government decided if there is going to be an Easter recess, and if so, when will the the announcement be made? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, we have given some consideration to that matter and we wanted to give notice. Now is as good a time as any to inform all of the members of the Assembly that we are going to propose that the Easter break on this occasion be five days rather than the customary four. That would mean the House would rise on Thursday, March 30, and would reassemble at 2:30 o'clock on the Wednesday.

The reason for the proposal is that it is felt that it is in the interest of the members to have an opportunity to spend some time within their constituencies. We felt for that reason we were going to propose the additional one day, being the Tuesday, having regard to the fact it is very difficult for members, and to some extent, inappropriate on that particular holiday, to be involved in matters of a constituency nature. So we are going to suggest that for the wish and the concurrence of members. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 652

March 20th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 13-5 Edmonton Telephones - AGT MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, I would, like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Telephones. Has he had any success in locating a copy of the agreement that he approved between Edmonton Telephones and AGT with regard to the services provided by ET beyond the borders of the city, and if he has located one I would like him to table the agreement as he has undertaken it. MR. WERRY: If the hon. member would care to look into the documents that I did table last Tuesday, I am sure that he would find the agreement. MR. LUDWIG: Mr.

Speaker, it is customary to send a copy to the party requesting it, but I will check this out. Generally we get a copy. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Spirit River-Fairview. Great Canadian Oil Sands MR. NOTLEY: I would like to direct this question to the hon. minister of Mines and Minerals. I wonder if he would clarify his answer to a question asked him on Friday respecting an application for a further remission of royalties by Great Canadian Oil Sands. By further remission, does he mean a remission at the present rate or a lower rate? MR. DICKIE: Mr.

Speaker, perhaps I can answer that by saying this, that there were two previous Orders in Council by the previous administration. One in 1969 dealt with the variation of the royalty, one in 1970 which dealt with a 50 per cent remission of royalty for a three year period which would terminate March 31 of next year. The further request is that we have would again deal with a variation of the royalty to cover short fall production and also extend the remission of royalty for two years, from the first of July of this year. MR. NOTLEY: Supplementary Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister.

In view of the $6 million windfall that Great Canadian has received from the federal government, is the Cabinet giving any serious consideration to a further continuation of this 50 per cent reduction in royalties? MR. DICKIE: Mr. Speaker, in answer to that I believe that I have to advise the hon. member that I have personally received a request as the Minister of Mines and Minerals. That request entails an investigation of certain financial information set forth in the request.

That will be considered by certain members of the Cabinet, then a committee of Cabinet will consider and make their recommendations to the Executive Council. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 653

13-6 ALBERTA HANSARD March 20th 1972 MR. GHITTER: A supplementary question to the hon. minister. I wonder if you could possibly advise us as to the number of jobs that will be involved in that very same development that is being discussed at the present time? MR. DICKIE: Mr. Speaker, the job opportunities presented by that operation at the present time is in the neighborhood of 1,400 people. MR. FARRAN: Another supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Minister of Mines. Is it not true that this company invested some $230 million in Alberta and has a running loss of about $60 million? MR. DICKIE: Mr.

Speaker, I haven't the exact figures, I think the estimates now of their investment would be in the neighborhood of $350 million. They have, in submitting their request to us, admitted what their operating losses are at the present time and I am not sure if I would be in the proper position to make that information available to the members of the Legislature at this time. Syncrude Royalty MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question, will the Syncrude royalty be calculated on the same basis as the Great Canadian Oil Sands royalty structure? MR. DICKIE: Mr.

Speaker, in answer to the question of the royalties on the Syncrude application, that question has not been resolved at the present time. The government at the present time is doing some research into the question of the nature of the royalty and what it's based on. At a future date we will meet with Syncrude and have a discussion on royalty. Thereafter, we will be in a position to decide the question of royalty. Oil Flow Rates MR. DIXON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Minerals.

The State of Texas has recently done away with its quota system on oil where it has 100 per cent flow of any well, and I was wondering, in view of the shortage of oil on the North American continent, if Alberta is locking at its flow rates in regards to raising it? MR. DICKIE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in answer to that - the Energy Resources Conservation Board have presently before it an application for a discovery allowable. The question of the discovery allowable will bring the points out that the hon. member has raised. Expropriation Procedures MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Attorney General.

This is in connection with The Expropriation Procedures Act. In Edmonton Strathcona there are a number of people who are going to be, Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 654

March 20th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 13-7 and are losing their homes to freeways, and I was wondering if your department is proposing any legislation or planning any legislation that would improve the compensation which homeowners would receive on expropriations for purposes such as these? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, my department is not planning any such legislation this year.

The Institute of Law Research and Reform has been carrying out, for a year or so now, a very extensive study into the expropriation procedures, and I have received an undertaking from the institute that they will have a report to me on that study by the end of this year. I would think it advisable to wait until we receive the report from the institute before introducing any legislation dealing with that subject. Statute Repeal MR. WILSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the hon. Premier.

Keeping in mind your previous public statement, sir, would you summarize in what area you feel that we have unnecessary statutes? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I think that that is a matter for the legislative program for the government. I take notice of the question raised by the hon. member and would be pleased to deal with in the course of my general debate on the budget. It is the intention of the government to bring forth a bill being a Statute Repeal Bill that will list a number of statutes which we think should be repealed for the concurrence of members. Alberta Health Care MR. LEE: Mr.

Speaker, I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio, Miss Hunley. Through what procedure is the decision made to include for coverage in the Alberta Medicare Plan or the Alberta Blue Cross package areas which are not now involved? I am thinking specifically now of those people who have undergone osteomic surgery and require certain medical apparatus not now covered, and wish to request coverage for these, although this would have revelance in a number of other areas. MISS HUNLEY: Mr.

Speaker, in reply to the question concerning osteomies, this is only one of many areas in which we are being asked to extend the coverages. For your information, some coverages are cost shared by the federal government, and some coverages are not. And those that are cost shared, of course, receive priority and have done with the previous administration, and also, of course, would have priority with our own administration because we would received funding from the federal government.

Some aspects are not funded federally, and consequently they are direct cost to the people of Alberta, of course subsidized by the premiums. The more we extend the coverage, the more it is going to cost the people of Alberta, so it's a matter for us to decide where our priorities are. Other things we are being asked for are physiotherapy, for an example, as well as appliances for the osteomy patients. And there are many others.

Mind you, I would be most interested in hearing from both sides of the House, where members feel there is need that Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 655

13-8 ALBERTA HANSARD March 20th 1972 we should be considering; I would certainly appreciate receiving opinions on this subject from those of you who do have opinions concerning the service we are offering through the Alberta Health Care Insurance Commission. Senior Citizens MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Provincial Treasurer.

In light of the announcement included in the budget for the $50 to senior citizens who rent private accommodation, does the government plan any legislation which would, at the very least, discourage and at the very most make it impossible for the owners of private accommodations to take indiscriminatory advantage of this increase? MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member will appreciate that although in my budget I might announce the programs, that this would be a program for the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and I will refer the question to him. MR.

RUSSELL: The thrust or intent of the proposed legislation, Mr. Speaker, is to try and give relief on the property tax as it now exists, so it's meant to relate back to residential municipal property tax that is now levied by the municipal government or collected by the municipal government, in this case on behalf of the Government of Alberta for the education foundation levy. I see no way, without rent control, where it would be possible to freeze the rents as a result of introducing this property tax relief.

You understand that the Government of Ontario is adopting roughly the same attitude in their income tax rebate policy with respect to trying to judge, in as fair a manner as possible, what portion of rent indirectly does go towards the payment of property tax. In this case, it's taken one step further in trying to adjudge what portion of that, in turn, goes to the education foundation levy. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, so that I don't misunderstand the answer, the government plans no legislation in that area? MR. RUSSELL: That is correct, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary Bow followed by the hon.

Member for Pincher Creek. MR. WILSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a further question of the hon. Premier. What steps are you taking, sir, to effectively utilize the resources of senior citizens and their talents, many of whom wish to make further and continued contributions to the province? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, that's a matter I think we can more appropriately deal with in debate.

Generally speaking, we are trying to assess ways in which there can be a greater involvement of senior citizens, not just in particular aspects that involve the senior citizens as Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 656

March 20th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 13-9 such (and that is important), but equally to take a look at the makeup and the composition of the various boards and tribunals and commissions of this province, to ensure that we are getting a reflection of the views of the senior citizens. We are giving some further consideration, as well, to ways in which the senior citizens, as an overall council, might be given a greater opportunity than they have had in the past to put an input into the development of some of the policies that would come onto the floor of this House.

At the moment I am not able to say much more than to express the view that certainly there is a highly desirable intention in the matter raised by the hon. member, but as yet we haven't been able to come up with something that we think is completely workable, and we would welcome any suggestions. MR. WILSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry I didn't quite understand your explanation when you were talking about tribunals and boards and so on. Have any senior citizens been appointed to any boards, commissions or tribunals since September 10th last? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, I'm sorry I can't answer that question specifically, but I'll make a note to try to give the hon. member an answer to it. We haven't looked at it in a specific way of saying, there should be a senior citizen on such and such a board, and that's what we would like to do. Frankly, we haven't got far enough along in terms of the total review of the composition of the boards to really establish any answer to that question.

But we are considering all of the boards in terms — when I use the word 'boards', I'm talking of boards, commissions, tribunals and agencies — as to whether or not there is an appropriate function to be fulfilled by a senior citizen in many of them. That is part of our ongoing review, but frankly we haven't reached that point as yet. Lesser Slave Lake Development MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this question to the hon. Minister of Industry.

Is the minister in a position now to advise the Assembly what level of government has a responsibility for funding projects in the southern and western extremity of the Lesser Slave Lake Special Development area? MR. PEACOCK: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's question, the area that was defined as the southwestern area of the special area was a special agreement arranged and entered into between the federal government and the provincial government, signed September 1st, and published or given to us in printed form in February.

There is no change in the agreement as previously set out by the previous government, and that is that The Incentives Act did not apply to those areas where they were offered federal assistance. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Has the hon. minister had a response to the presentation that he made to Mr. Marchand? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, there was a response in the presentation, and there was a course of action left from that meeting that we had to provide Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 657

13-10 ALBERTA HANSARD March 20th 1972 some additional ideas and additional proposals. We are now preparing these, and they too will go to Mr. Marchand. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Is it the intention of the hon. minister to make a request to the federal government to make up the 70 per cent reduction in budget for the Lesser Slave Lake project? MR. GETTY: Well, Mr. Speaker, that's a broad statement on something that can be handled well in the estimates and I'd be pleased to go into that with the hon. member when we are in the estimates. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question, Mr.

Speaker, to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. This goes back to the Lesser Slave Lake Special Development area, where it is my understanding, at any rate, that the federal government is prepared to fund large projects throughout the length and breadth of that area. Did you make representation in Ottawa to Mr. Marchand to extend to the entire special area -- the southern and western extremities of it -- the full federal government program that will fund not only the large operations but also smaller operations? MR. GETTY: We discussed that, Mr. Speaker.

The federal government was not prepared to change the agreement that they had already entered into with the government through the previous administration. However, we have, of course, the problem that Alberta's own Industrial Incentives Act does not work in that area -- at least that's one

interpretation you can put on it. And so I think the problems involved by the federal government, continuing on in the way that they have, can be tackled in another manner, which the hon. Minister of Industry and Commerce will do. MR. NOTLEY: Supplementary question, either to the hon. Minister of Industry, or to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. In view of this confusion that reigns in the area, when can we expect a clear statement from the government delineating the provincial responsibilities?

More specifically, when would enterprises in the western and southern extremities of the area be able to make applications, either under the Industrial Incentives Program provincially, or the Alberta Opportunity Fund? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, the problem -- and there's no confusion on this side of the House, it may be in the hon. member's mind -- the problem is, you are dealing with legislation which is about to come in. We certainly have the courtesy to the House to allow them to see that legislation before we start to talk about it. DREE Program MR. WYSE: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to direct a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Industry. Is the minister in fact opposed to the DREE program? Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 658

March 20th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 13-11 MR. PEACOCK: Mr. Speaker, I'd rather reserve that for my talk about the department in the budget speech. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Bow Valley followed by the hon. Member for Hanna-Oyen. Senior Citizens (cont.) MR. MANDEVILLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think I need a spring-loaded chair here as my age is against me. I'd like to direct this question to the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. He will be removing the 30 mill education tax contribution to the school foundation fund levy on all home owners over 65.

How will you relieve citizens over 65 years of age of this tax, for example, where their home is included in the same assessment as the land, and I was thinking in particular of the case of a farmer? MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, that's a detail of the legislation that will be brought in, but I should just like to assure the member that those farm residents of Alberta who are now receiving the homeowners' tax discount will in fact be eligible to receive the extended benefits under this new legislation. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, if I could, I was asked a question a few minutes ago by the hon.

Member for Calgary Bow with regard to senior citizens. I received a note from the Minister of Culture, Youth, and Recreation that bears on it. I wonder if he might have an opportunity to develop that answer? MR. SCHMID: Mr. Speaker, we have developed a program to let all senior citizens of Alberta's 73 lodges participate directly in the recreational programs of their own community. DREE Program (cont.) MR. WYSE: Could I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Industry? Did he say that he was opposed to it, or didn't he answer my question? MR. PEACOCK: Mr.

Speaker, the hon. member is asking me for an opinion, and I don't give opinions. MR. WYSE: A supplementary question then. Does he feel it is unfair to establish industries then? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Hanna-Oyen. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 659

13-12 ALBERTA HANSARD March 20th 1972 MR. WYSE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, then. Are you aware that the proposed hog plant for southern Alberta asked for a grant under DREE and are you in favour of the plant getting the grant and the plant in fact being built? MR. PEACOCK: Mr. Speaker, I'm certainly in favour of industry coming to Alberta and for any private corporation to take advantage of any federal fund that's available to it. MR. WYSE: Could I ask one more supplementary question, Mr. Speaker? MR. SPEAKER: I think perhaps we should give the hon. Member for Hanna-Oyen a chance at the floor.

Senior Citizens (cont.) MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. Could the minister advise the effective date of The Senior Citizens' Shelter Act? MR. RUSSELL: The legislation that's going to be put before the House will provide for the relief to become effective this taxation year. MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, the reason I'm asking the question is that I presume the legislation will be effective on or before July 1st. I'm just presuming that. What's concerning me are these people who will attain the age of 65 between that date and the end of the year.

My question is this. Will these people that attain the age of 65 during the current year be eligible for this extra exemption when they normally pay their taxes which would be on July 1st? The reason for asking the question is simply this, many municipalities have a discount if taxes are paid on or before the first of July, and I was thinking it may be a very difficult situation for the municipalities if a lot of these taxes are deferred over to the end of the year just to take advantage of the new legislation. MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I think that goes into some detail of the proposed legislation.

Those questions will be answered. I can say this, in order to give some assurance to hon. members who will be receiving inquiries from their constituents, this is set up as an extension of the homeowners' tax discount. So if they're qualified under that, if they're 65, they'll qualify under the new legislation, and the objective of this government is to extend substantial property tax relief to our senior citizens at the earliest possible date. MR. DIXON: I'd like to ask a supplementary question of the hon. minister, if I could. Is there going to be any limit set on these over 65?

I'm taking, for example, people who are living in very substantial homes, who, in my opinion, will get the real advantage of this. I was wondering if there was going to be a ceiling set on how much of the educational grant would be allowed? Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 660

March 20th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 13-13 DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. It would seem to me -- and I would draw it to your honour's attention -- that this kind of questioning should rather be left for the debate on the bill when it comes in. I submit to you, sir, that the question period should be used to secure answers from the ministry in a general way, and that details in regard to legislation and budget are not properly subject matters for the question period. MR. TAYLOR: Mr.

Speaker, on the point of order, there's no requirement for the minister to answer, and if the hon. members need information at the present time, I see nothing wrong with asking the question. Ministers have the privilege of not answering, if they choose. DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. Member for Drumheller's point on the point of order, surely he agrees that there are some rules related to the oral question period. Those rules are very well set out in Beauchesne and in our own rules, and they relate to the kind of information that should, in fact, be garnered in the question period.

I understand that the opposition is gradually finding so very few things to ask questions about that they're down to trying to engage in debate during the question period. MR. LUDWIG: A point of order. If the hon. member would give us a citation as to which specific rule he is referring to. DR. HORNER: No. 171 Beauchesne, Mr. Speaker. MR. DIXON: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order. I have had numerous inquiries over the weekend from my constituents, and as I understand it, during the question period when there is quite a bit of action from your constituents in a broad way, this is the time to bring it up.

Otherwise, you'd have to wait for a considerable length of time, and this is the reason I asked the question. I just asked a simple question -- is there going to be a limit to the amount payable under this rebate to people over 65 for 30 mills for educational purposes? MR. SPEAKER: With respect to the point of order. Perhaps the question, on a topic which is known will be dealt with in legislation, could be postponed until the legislation has been introduced. Then if the legislation doesn't answer the questions, perhaps they could be placed afterwards.

Otherwise, we're going to be dealing with these topics, to some extent, twice, it would seem. Hansard MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Premier or the hon. minister who would be reporting on Hansard. Is it the intention of the government to advertise the subscription rates which have been established for Hansard in the weekly papers in the province? Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 661

13-14 ALBERTA HANSARD March 20th 1972 MR. HYNDMAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I believe there were advertisements in the local newspapers just before the session started prior to March 2nd. But as for any future decisions, I would suggest the hon. member contact the Speaker, insofar as this is a responsibility under the Speaker. MR. FRENCH: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Do I understand the hon. minister to say that advertisements were in the weekly papers? They were in the daily papers, but not the weekly. My question was simply with the weekly paper, not the daily. MR.

HYNDMAN: I don't know the answer to that, Mr. Speaker, but I think the hon. member has brought up a very good point. There may well be numbers of people who would wish, all over the province, to take a subscription. I would certainly, if the hon. member wishes, talk to the Speaker of the Assembly about that, with a view to perhaps getting together with all members of the Assembly interested and working out with the Hansard editor expenditure of further public monies on advertisements in all news media. Hog Marketing MR. WYSE: I'd like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Industry. When the hon.

Minister was in Ottawa a week or so ago, did he, in fact, try to discourage the federal government in giving a grant to the proposed hog marketing plan? MR. PEACOCK: Mr. Speaker, No. The Alberta Liquor Act DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask a question of the hon. the Attorney General. Have there been any recent amendments or will there be any amendments to The Alberta Liquor Act in relation to illegal possessions -- or in layman's language -- open booze in cars? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I do not contemplate introducing any such legislation this year. MR. SPEAKER: I believe the hon.

Premier intends to deal with the question further. Bighorn Reservoir MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I was asked a day or so ago with regard to a question by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin-Leduc what we would do regarding the Big Horn reservoir development, and did we want to provide hon. members with the information on that matter. There are two crown land leases in the Big Horn reservoir area, one by a private commercial developer, and one by the University of Alberta. There is one major lease application before the government Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 662

March 20th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 13-15 at this time. The entire shoreline of the Big Horn reservoir has been reserved under the Department of the Environment. Before committing itself to major land dispositions, the government of Alberta plans public hearings by the Environment Conservation Authority on future land use and development in the Big Horn reservoir area. Any leases given in this area would be widely advertised. If there are any further questions that the hon. member has, perhaps he could direct them to the hon. Minister of the Environment. Alberta Liquor Act (cont.) DR. BUCK: Mr.

Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the hon. Attorney General. Mr. Minister, in view of the fact that the .08 legislation is now in effect, do you not feel this

section of the act is unnecessary now? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure I perceive the connection between the two. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, if I may explain what I am trying to get across. If you are convicted now on being over .08 it doesn't matter if the booze is in the trunk, under the car, or where it is -- you've got it. Many people are picked up. Maybe your wife will leave a half- filled bottle under the front seat, and you'll get charged. The hon. minister should be able to answer that question, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, may I have an answer to my question?

Does the hon. minister not consider this is unnecessary now that the federal .08 is in effect? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a good point about the question and the need for that legislation, but I don't think it's related to the federal legislation dealing with .08 alcohol in the blood. But the point he raises about the legal possession of liquor in the manner to which he referred, is a valid one that we will take under consideration. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask another supplementary on the same thing.

Perhaps it is unnecessary now, but I was going to suggest that it may be better to have the liquor in the bottle rather than in the body of anyone driving a car. However, the matter is being investigated. Expropriation Procedures (cont.) With regards to The Expropriation Act, I'd like to direct a question to the hon. the Attorney General. Is the Institute of Law studying this matter in regard to changing the principles of expropriation, or changing the procedures of expropriation? MR. LEITCH: Mr.

Speaker, the Institute has under study all aspects of expropriation, in fact they divide the study into two areas, one dealing with the principle which would include the amount of compensation, and the other dealing with the procedure, that is, Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 663

13-16 ALBERTA HANSARD March 20th 1972 relating to notices and bearings, and things of that nature. So the Institute is and has been studying both of those areas. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, supplementary. Could the hon. the Attorney General tell us the names of the lawyers who are carrying out this study, or is this available? MR. LEITCH: I'm sure it's available at the institute, Mr. Speaker. But I don't have personally that information at hand. MR. TAYLOR: One other question, Mr. Speaker. Will the report be made available to all members of the Legislature when it has been completed? MR.

LEITCH: My understanding of the reports of the Institute is that they are available to the public generally. Environmental Responsibilities MR. D. HILLER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of the Environment. In percentage terms, what responsibility do you place on mining and manufacturing as related to environment? MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, if I had a computer brain I would be able to answer that question, but I have a human brain rather than a mechanical one so I can't answer the question at this time. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Olds-Didsbury. Teachers' Right to Strike MR.

CLARK: I would like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Education and ask if he has had an opportunity to check back and find out if in fact there was legislation presented by his department to that joint meeting with the trustees and teachers' associations in December concerning teachers losing their right to strike. Has in fact tentative legislation presented by people of the department? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I don't recall in the previous question by the hon. gentleman that he wished further information on it, but I would be happy to check into it and bring the information back to him. MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. member for Spirit River - Fairview followed by the hon. member for Calgary Millican. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 664

March 20th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 13-17 Film Censorship MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct this question to the hon. Minister of Labour and Manpower. Has the hon. minister received any information as yet or any notice of appeal from Warner Brothers with respect to the film, A Clockwork Orange? DR. HOHOL: No, Mr. Speaker, there has not been an appeal turned into our office yet. Labour Act Amendments MR. DIXON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.

Is the minister anticipating recommending to this House a change in the Labour Act that would force union employees to work with non-union employees? DR. HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I would prefer to deal with rather comprehensive statements on the matter of The Manpower and Labour Act which will be a major set of revisions to the existing act. This falls into two parts, one being The Manpower and Labour Act which will be a new act, and the other being amendments to The Labour Act in which area the hon. gentleman's question would be considered and discussed. MR.

DIXON: I would like to ask a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would he also be considering putting it under The Human Rights Act because it does come under that category as well? DR. HOHOL: I suppose my first answer would apply, when we consider legislation in both areas, these considerations will be important ones, and I prefer to leave it for when we bring in the legislation and have a full debate on the second reading. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Medicine Hat-Redcliffe followed by the hon. member for Vermilion-Viking. Canada Packers MR. WYSE: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture. A rumour is circulating that the hon. minister held a meeting with some people from Canada Packers in the last few days. Is there any truth to this rumour? DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would like a itinerary of mine, I meet with a lot of people in the course of a day, and hopefully we will continue to meet with all groups interested in agriculture to obtain the end of improving the general good of agriculture. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 665

13-18 ALBERTA HANSARD March 20th 1972 MR. WYSE: Supplementary, does this mean that the hon. minister did not meet with the people from Canada Packers? MR. GETTY: On a point of order Mr. Speaker, if the member wants to confirm a rumour he should confirm it in his own way. The question period of the House is not the time to do that. Assembly Plant for Romanian Tractors MR. COOPER: Mr. Speaker, I have an easy question for the hon. Minister of Industry? Last fall, Representatives of two Romanian tractor companies were in western Canada seeking a location for a tractor assembling plant. My question to you, Mr.

Minister, is, was any approach made to the Alberta Department of Industry for the location of the plant in Alberta? MR. PEACOCK: Mr. Speaker, we came into office after the initial approaches had been made by these two respective companies from Romania to other provinces; we tried to revive the situation for Alberta by inviting them here and did meet with them. MR. COOPER: Supplementary Mr. Speaker. Where is the plant finally located? MR. PEACOCK: Mr. Speaker, I don't think there has been a decision on that yet. Auctioneering MR. WILSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the hon. Minister of Industry.

What steps if any have you been taking, sir, to prevent the pirating of pure-bred Alberta sales by other than domiciled Alberta auctioneers? MR. PEACOCK: Mr. Speaker, we are revising the regulations under The Auctioneering Licencing Act and it will be available April 1st. Senior Citizens (cont.) MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might rise and reply to the hon. Member for Calgary Millican's question earlier on, because I recognize the tremendous number of inquiries some members are getting with respect to the Senior Citizens Shelter Assistance Act. There is no means test with respect to the act.

The important thing is whether or not the property owner and rate payer has achieved the age of 65 in order to meet the requirements of the home-owner tax discount plan, so this is meant to apply as far as possible to all senior citizens. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 666

March 20th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 13-19 Trade With China MR. DIXON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. minister and I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. Ontario has just recently conducted a successful industrial fact finding tour of China and as Canada has very good relationships with China, I was wondering if Alberta is going to follow up to help manufacturers here in our own province. MR. PEACOCK: Mr. Speaker, extensive plans have already been made in that regard and the House will be informed at a later date. MR. DIXON: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the plans have already been made, if he could announce if they are going to go forward with negotiations. MR. PEACOCK: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Senior Citizens (cont.) MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Would the minister now be in a position to answer my question asked earlier this afternoon, with respect to senior citizens who will attain the age of 65 before the end of the year as to the effective date they will be able to apply for coverage under this new legislation? MR. RUSSELL: Mr.

Speaker, I don't want to go into the details of the regulations with respect to the act, but generally in order to keep this thing as simple as possible, it's open to all senior citizens of Alberta; it's meant to tie in as an extension to the home-owners' tax discount plan, so that if the resident is able to qualify as a senior citizen, with 120 days of residency at his place of residence prior to the end of the calendar year, he would be eligible. Trade With China (cont.) MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon.

Minister of Industry with respect to this move towards China in terms of trying to get additional trade. Does the minister anticipate opening an office in China? MR. PEACOCK: Mr. Speaker, not at this time. Senior Citizens (cont.) MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I don't like to labour this point, but I did have inquiry over the weekend and I would like to get an answer from the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. You state that it will be available to people 65 and over, but you're missing my point.

My point is simply this: people pay their taxes on July 1st and take Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 667

13-20 ALBERTA HANSARD March 20th 1972 advantage of the discount, but are we now going to be in the position of saying, you'll have to wait until you attain that particular age, say December 1st, before you qualify for this particular discount is this what we are doing? MR. SPEAKER: I think we are getting back into a detailed discussion of the act and perhaps answers to those inquiries could be left until after it has been introduced. We have two minutes remaining of the question period. ORDERS OF THE DAY head: BUDGET DEBATE MR. DICKIE: Mr.

Speaker, I was extremely pleased to have the opportunity to second the motion permitting the first budget of the Provincial Treasurer. It was indeed an impressive debut. The budget, as presented last Friday together with additional documents, is not only a tribute to the hon. Premier, who established the framework and participated in its drafting, a tribute to the Provincial Treasurer for the manner in which he presented it, but it is also a tribute to the profession of which he is a member. I understand, Mr.

Speaker, our Provincial Treasurer has the distinction of being the first chartered accountant elected to the Alberta Legislature. Truly the documents reflect the depth of training and the understanding of a member of his profession. I have many personal friends in that profession. I know the hardships and hazards they face in their five years of articles. First, with a stiff primary exam, second with a difficult intermediate exam, and third a devastating final exam. It is a difficult course before they finally obtain their Chartered Accountant degree.

I also know the benefits they can receive as a result of the courses they take; in auditing, accounting, business methods, financial statement analysis. And on that, Mr. Speaker, many of the chartered accountant friends that I am associated with consider it a Saturday evening entertainment to sit down and discuss financial statement analyses. So with that kind of background they get a thorough knowledge of the problems. They also, Mr. Speaker, have an extensive course in municipal accounting, which is a real asset to the position that the Provincial Treasurer now occupies.

In addition to that they have a course in law and economics. They study borrowing, the methods of borrowing, the type of securities that are involved. Mr. Speaker, when we are talking about a new direction, it is a new direction, truly a business approach to government -- a modern business approach. I think this is highly desirable. Now, Mr. Speaker, in expressing my endorsement of the Provincial Treasurer and his budget, I would also like to suggest that it exemplifies one of the great characteristics and strengths of the hon. Premier. I know many accolades will be paid to him during the course of this sitting.

One of them I would particularly like to mention is his ability to attract, work with, and participate with people of great ability and capability in diverse fields. They are attracted to him like a magnet. The team of 48 is an example. To me they are the cream of their crop in their constituencies. I am proud to be one of them. The Lougheed team in the campaign was another example. It did an excellent job and had an excellent group of people working. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 668

March 20th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 13-21 I would also like to mention, Mr. Speaker, that during the past four years in this Legislature, the word that was perhaps used more often than any other, was the question of leadership. There is no question that the hon. Premier has shown in many ways in his first seven months in office, to the people of Alberta, this quality of leadership. He has also shown this to the people of Canada.

At the First Ministers' Conference, which I was privileged to attend, and where there were gathered the Prime Minister and the Premiers of the ten provinces of Canada, as I sat and listened to him I could not help but think that the 1,500,000 people in this province were fortunate to have the voice of the Premier putting forth their position. Mr. Speaker, I make these remarks today to the hon. Premier as today marks the seventh anniversary of the hon. Premier becoming the leader of the Progressive Conservative party of Alberta. Mr.

Speaker, in dealing specifically with the budget, I know hon. members on this side and hon. members on that side will find many things that appeal to them, many things that they would like to comment on. One of the things that certainly hit me was the call for restraint, a brake on spending, and I am proud to be a member of the team of 48 that did just that. Mr. Speaker, I can also say that it wasn't easy. The Executive Council room has the signs of the ministers' blood, sweat, and tears, shed to achieve their goals. I'd say to you, Mr.

Speaker, that the Provincial Treasurer is a hard task master, but fair and understanding. I had a little difficulty finding that last word, Mr. Speaker, but I did put it in. And Mr. Speaker, to the members of Her Majesty's loyal oppostion, we appreciate the problem that confronts them. We appreciate it is a challenge to have to spell out in their debates, where they would cut further expenditures. What programs would they cut? Would they get into agriculture and make cuts there? How about the Alberta Opportunity Fund?

We're going to welcome and listen with interest and see what course they follow in their remarks. Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like draw to the hon. members' attention to the comments in the budget dealing with petroleum and natural gas revenues. It will be observed that they are projected to reach $311 million, accounting for 27.2 per cent of the income. Mr. Speaker, I did have our department do some checks for the percentage of income that the petroleum and natural gas revenue provided over the last 10 years.

It's interesting to note that in that 10 year period, two years, they were over 40 per cent, the highest being 43 per cent in the years 1965 and 1966. There were six of those years in the 30 per cent area, and two in the 20 per cent area. Mr.

Speaker, I have additional information on the percentages of petroleum and natural gas revenue, some of the figures dealing with lease and royalty, crown sales, and so forth, and I welcome questions from all hon. members on both sides of the House, if they would like to have some additional information that our department could provide so that we can perhaps deal with them in greater detail during the consideration of the estimates. It's not my intention, Mr. Speaker, at this time, to deal further with those figures.

I would, however, like to deal with some of the areas that our department has been vitally concerned with. And I might say that I find it one of the most exciting departments of all in the government, I can say that to my colleagues. And I'd like to deal first Mr. Speaker, with the question of natural gas. Two of the key questions that are being asked and discussed, and will face all hon. members in this legislature are the removal from the province, and the price. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 669

13-22 ALBERTA HANSARD March 20th 1972 Dealing first with the question of removal, Mr. Speaker, I think my preliminary remarks on natural gas would have to be, to say, that at one time, it was an unwanted orphan or a byproduct, and now it is a premium fuel. Since Leduc, the share of national energy markets supplied by natural gas has risen from less than 3 per cent to over 23 per cent. It is estimated that there are over 60,000 miles of natural gas pipelines and utility mains in Canada. This, Mr. Speaker, gives you some idea of the question of natural gas.

And some of the investigation, it was interesting to note, that it was reported that primitive man discovered natural gas quite by accident. The everlasting flame of the oracle of Delphi in ancient Greece and the temple fires of Baku on the Caspian Sea were fired by natural gas seeping from rock fissures. The mysterious burning springs in North America and other parts of the world were also evidence of escaping natural gas, probably ignited by lightning. It is further reported that the first persons to use natural gas for industrial purpose were the Chinese.

They transported it by bamboo pipes and burned it to evaporate brine and produce salt. The first use of gas manufactured from coal dates back to the early 17th century. It was called 'Geist', meaning ghost, because of its elusive nature. From this the name 'gas' was derived. Now, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to deal briefly with the Alberta Government policy and, highlighted over the last few years, deal with the question of export.

The oil industry boom followed the Leduc discovery in 1947 led to the development in the province of substantial gas reserves, at a time when natural gas markets in Canada and the United States were rapidly expanding. This led to the fear in Alberta that gas transmission projects would force up the domestic gas prices and leave consumers in the province with insufficient supplies. There were the slogans, "Conserve or Sell", "Export, or Hold for Canada".

The Dinning Commission was appointed by the provincial government in November, 1948, to investigate the proven and potential reserves of Alberta, the present and future requirements in the province, and such further matters regarding the use of gas in Alberta, as should be necessary in the public interest. The Commission reported in March, 1949. It recommended that Alberta users had priority in the matter of supply.

The commission also contemplated the assurance of a supply of gas, and the method given most consideration was the maintainance of a ratio of reserves to annual consumption of fifty to one which would require that increases in consumption be balanced by the discovery or development of new reserves. In 1949, when The Pipelines Act of Canada was passed, the dominion government refused to incorporate provisions for the protection of local requirements, on the basis that this could be done by the province itself.

Accordingly, this province enacted The Gas Resources Preservation Act providing that gas could not be removed from the province without a permit issued by the Petroleum and Natural Gas Conservation Board. This board was later renamed the Energy Resources Conservation Board. The Act provided that a permit should not be issued unless the gas is surplus to the present and future needs of the people of the province.

In 1951, following the first hearing under The Gas Resources Preservation Act, the Board established the broad principles which have been followed since then, though some modifications of detail have been made from time to time. In an interim report in 1951 the Board recommended that in light of the favourable prospects for discovery of additional reserves, the province would be adequately protected if sufficient established reserves of pipeline gas were provided to maintain the supply and deliverability at expanding market requirements for 30 years in the future.

Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 670

March 20th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 13-23 In 1959 the act was amended to require the board to give consideration, not only to the present reserves of gas, but also the trends in the growth of reserves in the province. Thereafter, for the next approximately 14 years, the Board in calculating the gas surplus that might be available to an applicant, included the increase in reserves that might be expected in the next two years as a result of new discoveries or appreciation of old reserves.

The Board since 1966, in assessing the gas surplus position of the province, has categorized requirements in reserves into 'contractual' and 'remaining'. 'Contractual requirements' are the total of Alberta's requirements which would normally be under contract to a utility company or large industry and the existing permit commitments. 'Remaining requirements' are those for delivery, to meet local needs in the latter portion of the 30 year period and to sustain peak deliveries in the 30th year. 'Contractible reserves' are those available for delivery now or in the near future, which are under contract or which could be contracted for. 'Remaining and future reserves' include those currently beyond economic reach, those where production has been deferred, but is expected within 30 years, and certain reserves not yet discovered or developed which are expected to be developed within an early period.

In 1969, the Board heard an application by the Alberta division of the Canadian Petroleum Association for changes in the formula appraising future reserves. This resulted in some further modifications. In the decision that year, they summarized the Board's policy respecting applicants for the removal of gas from the province. There are 25 entries, comprising 11 pages, and I would be pleased to furnish the hon. members with details of those 25 entries if they so require.

I would like, very briefly, to summarize the Board's policy for the past number of years, that has been appraised to Alberta's requirements for gas for a 30-year period and has considered them in terms of (

a) contractible requirements to be met with contractible reserves, and (

b) future requirements to be met with deferred reserves and reserves expected on the basis of trends to be discovered within a short period. Mr. Speaker, that briefly, is the position of the Province of Alberta. Now I'd like to deal with the position at the federal level, and deal with the decision of the National Energy Board.

In its decision of November, 1971, the National Energy Board concluded that Canada's current gas requirements exceeded the availability of Canadian reserves by 1.1 trillion cubic feet, and in the light of this supply deficit, three applications to export additional volumes of gas to the United States were denied.

Before commenting on the impact on Alberta of the National Energy Board's decision, it is important to emphasize to all hon. members that the Alberta Government's policy, as expressed in The Gas Resources Preservation Act is to ensure that the gas requirements of Alberta consumers will have priority over requirements of consumers outside the province. Furthermore, the policy of the Government of Canada that Canadian current requirements have priority over exports has not been questioned or challenged.

Having made these statements, I now suggest that the National Energy Board's method of determining Canadian requirements is unrealistic and results in significantly overstating what are reasonable, foreseeable requirements, as required in The National Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 671

13-24 ALBERTA HANSARD March 20th 1972 Energy Board Act. The supply deficit of 1.1 trillion cubic feet, as calculated by the National Energy Board is fictional and a realistic assessment would establish a surplus of at least 8 trillion cubic feet. I submit to hon. members today that such a determination would be completely compatible with the policy of giving first priority to Canadian requirements. Not only are the National Energy Board's estimates of current requirements unrealistically high, but it results in a serious regional problem.

A breakdown of the National Energy Borad estimates of Canadian requirements and supply by regions reveals that eastern Canada, that is, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, had a large supply deficit, 9.7 trillion cubic feet,

whereas Alberta had a large surplus, 8.8 trillion cubic feet. This regional breakdown focuses attention on the basic inconsistency of the current system. On the one hand, the National Energy Board estimates result in a deficit supply east of Alberta, but on the other hand, there is a surplus supply in Alberta. Moreover, this situation has prevailed throughout the '60's. It is apparent that eastern Canadian consumers have chosen not to take advantage of the availability of reserves in Alberta.

Alberta thus suffers the double penalty of not being able to sell its gas in export markets because the estimated current Canadian requirements are unrealistically large, because gas distributors in eastern Canada have arranged to purchase only some two-thirds of the gas that the National Energy Board has estimated that they currently require. It is this gap between purchases and estimated requirements that causes the surplus situation in Alberta.

The National Energy Board's decision to deny export applications results in the large surplus gas supply in Alberta continuing to exist for some time and has the following serious implications to the province. I propose dealing with five points:

(1) Loss of revenue to the industry and the citizens of Alberta. One of the direct consequences of the National Energy Board's denial of application to export some 2.7 trillion cubic feet of gas from Canada is the virtual immediate loss of revenue to the industry and to the public. A realistic estimate of this annual loss in revenue would be $25 million, of which $4 million would be the royalty share. The potential loss in revenue is much greater, however, since a continuation of the present policy will result in most of the current 8.8 trillion cubic feet of surplus gas remaining shut-in for several years.

The total annual loss in production revenue is in the order of $65 million, of which $11 million would be royalty share. These are very substantial losses, and at best, they can be justified only if they were achieving some clearly worthwhile objectives. This is not the case, and in fact, they actually work against the very objective they are attempting to achieve, namely protection of supply for Canadian consumers.

(2) Impact on exploration and development. The prospects that Alberta will have a large surplus gas inventory for several years is certain to have a major impact on gas exploration in this province. The cost to the industry of carrying shut-in gas reserves is high. In 1969 the Canadian Petroleum Association estimated that the average before-tax cost of carrying one trillion cubic feet of gas for one year would be approximately $3.3 million. Under these circumstances, companies would be forced to modify their gas exploration programs.

There would also be an impact on semi-exploratory and development drilling that takes place to prove up gas discoveries. In the absence of available markets such expenditures could not be justified. A gradual phasing out of exploration programs would reduce the finding rate of gas in Alberta, Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 672

March 20th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 13-25 so that within a few years, the surplus gas inventory would be eliminated. Under these circumstances, continuation of the current NEB method of determining requirements would result in very large Canadian supply deficits. The burden of carrying these deficits would fall on any other Canadian region contemplating the export of gas. Obviously, this has serious implications for exploration in the frontier areas. The financial impact on the province of reduced exploration on programs is difficult to quantify, but it is very significant.

(3) The impact on the price of Alberta gas. The denial of recent export applications, and the clear indications that further exports are most unlikely for the foreseeable future, effectively eliminates the competitive forces of the United States markets on the price of Alberta gas. Alberta gas would be restricted to Canadian markets with the Ontario and Quebec markets playing a dominant role. These markets tend to be lower price markets than those in the United States, and it is only reasonable to conclude that the price Alberta receives for its gas would be depressed.

Of further serious concern to the Alberta government is the fact that under these circumstances there would only be one purchaser, Trans Canada, of Alberta gas for the whole region east of Alberta. This feature seriously weakens the bargaining position of many Alberta producers, and also must have the effect of depressing the price received. The presence of a surplus gas inventory constitutes a further difficulty in obtaining a fair price for Alberta gas.

Combining all of these factors leads to the conclusion that the current NEB methods and the recent decisions have serious implications for Alberta with respect to the price to be paid for its gas resources.

(4) The overall impact on the Alberta economy. Reference has been made previously to the reduction in industry and government revenues through loss of production and revenues, caused by the NEB denial of applications to export gas. The inevitable reduction of exploration activity and its resultant unfavourable impact on the Alberta economy also has been discussed. The retardation in the development of gas fields and the construction of gas plants and gas pipelines also will have significant unfavourable consequences on the Alberta economy.

Furthermore, there will be a depressing effect on manufacturing industries in eastern Canada with its ancillary multiplier effects. The Alberta government revenues will suffer both directly and indirectly from the reduced exploration and development programs. The combined effect of all these elements leads to a very serious impact on the Alberta economy.

(5) The inequitable nature of the policy and the decision. As previously stated, the current NEB method of determining Canadian requirements results in unrealistically high estimates which, in turn, results in fictional supply deficits. Currently there is an alleged supply deficit of 9.7 trillion cubic feet in eastern Canada which is largely offset by an actual supply surplus in Alberta of 8.8 trillion cubic feet.

If consumers of gas in eastern Canada do not choose to purchase the gas that the NEB claims they 'require,' there is no justification whatsoever for requiring the Alberta industry and by way of its royalty share, the Alberta public, to hold the gas inviolate until such times as the eastern consumers find it advantageous to make the purchase. Such a policy is not only unreasonable, but it is grossly inequitable. Furthermore, once the Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 673

13-26 ALBERTA HANSARD March 20th 1972 true implications of such a policy are generally understood, it must increase the divisive elements in our nation. Mr. Speaker, after reviewing those five points I would now like to deal briefly with an assessment of the NEB decision in a number of points. The hon. members should first appreciate that

section 83 of The National Energy Board Act provides that, in entertaining applications for export, that the National Energy Board "shall satisfy itself that (

a) the quantity of gas . . . to be exported does not exceed the surplus remaining after due allowance has been made for the reasonably forseeable requirements for use in Canada. . ." In determining the meaning of those three words, "reasonably foreseeable requirements", The National Energy Board has followed the practice of estimating the requirements of gas for use in Canada for the fourth year, after the year in which the application for export is heard, multiplying that number by 25, and designating the result as the allowance to be set aside. This has become known as the 25 times A(4) formula.

Now I have mentioned a supply deficit in Eastern Canada of 9.7 trillion cubic feet and it is important to determine the cause for this deficit. It is clear that eastern Canadian purchasers could have obtained additional surpluses and supplies from Alberta had they wished to do so, since that region has had a large surplus supply for the past decade. However, this approach was not followed.

Trans Canada applied to the Energy Resources Conservation Board in May, 1971, for permission to remove an additional 2.1 trillion cubic feet from Alberta, but subsequently the Energy Resources Conservation Board determined that Trans-Canada had sufficent reserves in Alberta to justify only .4 trillion cubic feet of the requested 2.1 trillion cubic feet. Even if the full 2.1 trillion cubic feet had been granted, the eastern supply deficit would still have been 7.6 trillion cubic feet.

Thus the reason for the deficit cannot relate to the availability of reserves, particularly if recognition is given to the surplus situation prevailing over the last decade. An examination of the three previous NEB estimates of eastern Canadian requirements and available supply reveals a similar gap or deficiency. In each of these cases Alberta had a supply surplus which actually exceeded the eastern Canadian deficit. This suggests that the purchasers and distributors in eastern Canada do not believe it is necessary or prudent to contract for or arrange for the full requirements as estimated by the NEB.

In fact, historically, they have tended to arrange for supplies equal to only 65 to 70 per cent of the NEB estimated requirements. This can be expressed in another way by stating that the NEB estimates of 25 times the fourth year are equivalent to 33 times the level of requirements of the first year,

whereas the purchasers and distributors have arranged for supplies equivalent to some 21 to 25 times the first year level. Which estimates of requirements are correct? Should requirements be interpreted as being those for which a distributor is prepared to make firm supply arrangements, or simply what he hopes he can sell in the future? Statements by the National Energy Board in recent reports indicates clearly that their intention is that requirements should be under supply contracts. For example, on pages Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 674

March 20th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 13-27 6-12 of the November, 1971 report, the board says that in 1970 it concluded that: "It did not, at that time, appear that the distributing utilities had done all that was reasonably possible to assure protection of their foreseeable requirements by contracting for coverage of future requirements." The situation in June, 1971 was worse than it was in December, 1969 when the NEB made its previous analysis and exhorted the distributors to modify their practice.

Since experience during the last five or six years demonstrates that the distributors and purchasers arrange for gas supplies for only some 21 to 25 years at the first year level, it is clear that the requirements estimated by the NEB at 33 times the first year level are unrealistic. It follows, therefore, that the supply deficit in eastern Canada and for Canada as a whole is really fiction.

If requirements were calculated as being equal to 25 times the first year, the supply deficit in eastern Canada would be reduced to 3.7 trillion cubic feet, and as previously stated Trans Canada is attempting to obtain an Alberta permit for an additional 2.1 trillion cubic feet, which would reduce the deficit to 1.6 trillion cubic feet. While this is still a significant volume it is a much more reasonable and acceptable estimate. The Alberta situation is the converse of that of eastern Canada. The NEB estimates indicate that there are 8.8 trillion cubic feet of surplus gas in the province.

A substantial portion of these surplus reserves are subject to purchase contracts and the Energy Resources Conservation Board permit to supply export markets in the United States, but cannot proceed because complementary export licences have not been granted by the National Energy Board. The remaining 5.1 trillion cubic feet are available for Canadian requirements. Trans Canada applied in May 1971 to the Energy Resources Conservation Board for approval to remove 2.1 trillion cubic feet, but it was determined that Trans Canada only had available sufficient reserves for a further .4 trillion cubic feet.

Assuming that Trans Canada obtains the full 2.1 trillion cubic feet, the surplus supply in Alberta would be reduced to 6.7 trillion cubic feet. An examination of previous National Energy Board estimates of requirements and reserves indicates that Alberta has, generally, over the years had a surplus position, but the magnitude of the surplus increased in December 1969 and in June 1971. These increases occurred because the National Energy Board denied export of some 2.5 trillion cubic feet in 1970, and 2.7 trillion cubic feet in 1971.

If the National Energy Board continues its current method of calculating gas requirements and recognizing that it is a sound policy for purchasing companies to continue their practice of purchasing gas on the basis of 21 to 25 times the first year's requirements, the supply deficit in eastern Canada would continue to increase. On the other hand a continuation of the National Energy Board policies would force the Alberta industry to reduce the surplus reserve inventory because of economic considerations.

Exploration and development programs would be reduced and there would be a comparable decline in gas finding rates. Within a few years time the industry would have adjusted to the restricted market opportunities and the surplus reserve in Alberta would either be very low or nonexistent. Combining these predictions of increasing supply deficits in eastern Canada and the decreasing supply surplus in Alberta indicates that by around 1975 the eastern deficit would be in the order of 11 trillion cubic feet, and that Alberta would have a surplus of 1 to 2 trillion cubic feet.

Assuming that the British Columbia and Northwest Territory region remains roughly in balance, the overall Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 675

13-28 ALBERTA HANSARD March 20th 1972 Canadian balance would be a deficit of some 10 trillion cubic feet. This burden would then be forced on other Canadian regions contemplating the export of gas. Obviously this has serious implications for exploration in the frontier areas. In concluding my remarks on the National Energy Board, I would like to say that we are examining the role of the National Energy Board. It is an important decision for the future. Many questions will have to be answered. Now, Mr.

Speaker, in dealing with the question of prices, over the past six months there have been a number of articles, speeches, and various comments made about gas being underpriced it's too low, it's relatively low, they are bargain basement prices, they're distress prices. And I might draw the attention of the hon. members to the average wellhead natural gas price for the last number of years, starting with 1971. Average Wellhead Price Year cents / mcf 1971 16.2 1970 16.0 1969 15.4 1968 14.8 1965 13.7 1960 8.1 Now, Mr.

Speaker, when I mention those figures going from 8 cents to 16 cents, I would ask hon. members to consider that according to our estimates that every time the price of gas goes up one cent that means $2.8 million to the treasury of the Province of Alberta. So I think all hon. members realize the importance of this whole question of the price of gas in the Province of Alberta. Now, Mr. Speaker, there hasn't been a more concerned person than the hon. Premier, and in considering this he made a bold move, a timely move, one that was the first in Alberta, the first in Canada.

He made it through the Executive Council, a request to the Energy Resources conservation Board to have a hearing into the field price of natural gas. This hearing commenced in Calgary on February 24th. It has now been under consideration for ten days. This represents the first phase. The first phase of the hearing dealt mainly with (

a) the factors influencing gas prices, (

b) the pricing provisions of present contracts, and (

c) the present anticipated field prices. The second phase of the hearing will commence June 13th, and will consider possible modifications or alterations to current practices affecting the field prices which could enhance the benefit of Alberta. Submissions respecting this phase of the hearing are to be filed with the board by June 6th. At the present time there are some 31 companies that have submitted applications. In addition to that, some 10 parties have asked for the opportunity to cross- examine.

We have applications received from the four major exporting companies, Alberta Gas Trunk Line, the three major cities, the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties, the major Alberta gas utilities, the major eastern Canadian gas utilities, and major other industries. Mr. Speaker, the results from that hearing will be reported to the Executive Council and then the Executive Council will consider from then the next step that will be required to be taken.

When one examines the question of the price of natural gas, one also must examine the gas contracts that are entered into, and I would just like to make a brief observation on those gas contracts, because the usual contracts -- and when I mention usual, they are Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 676

March 20th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 13-29 subject to variation, and as a general rule they contain the following provisions: They are for 25 years. There is a price redetermination clause; that price redetermination clause goes into effect on January 1st, following the ninth year, and then it applies on the fifth year every year thereafter. Now, under that price redetermination clause, Mr. Speaker, assuming it's at ten years and every five years thereafter, there is provision that if the parties don't agree they can go to arbitration.

In December, 1971, on Christmas Eve, the first arbitration decision award was announced, and it did involve a decision of a company that was the seller called Petrogas, and the buyer, West Coast Transmission, and there was an announcement of a significant upward revision of the prices. At that time the price of gas, in that contract in 1971, was 17 cents. The majority award of that decision, set the prices as follows; January 1st, 1972 and 1973, 20.5 cents; 1973, 21.5; 1974, 22.5; 1975, 23.5.

In addition to that there was added a 75 cents, and the effective result of that arbitration was a 4.4 percentage increase, or approximately 25 per cent. And again I ask hon. members when they consider that decision last December of a 4.4 per cent increase, to consider that with the figures that result to the Alberta Treasury. It has to be very significant. Now, Mr. Speaker, that's all at this time that I'd like to say on the price of natural gas. We've dealt with the export policy; we've dealt briefly with the price of natural gas.

I would like to comment briefly that in the question of oil, we are following with interest the meetings that are taking place in Geneva with the 11 major producing countries that make up the organization of petroleum exporting companies known as OPAK. We noted that western oil companies signed an agreement to pay at least $700 million a year to the six Persian Gulf producing countries to compensate them for the devaluation of the dollar since last December. It is noted that the immediate effect that has been reported is that this amounted to an 8.49 increase in the posted price. We are continuing to watch, Mr.

Speaker, the market price on oil, and its effects on Alberta. Now, Mr. Speaker, one other area that I would like to touch on briefly is that my colleague, the hon. Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs, mentioned Alberta as the energy province, and I think that everywhere I travel, it is known as that, and we would like to say that we'd like to make now, Alberta the energy corridor of North America. To do that, involves the question of pipelines, and to that end, we have and are working on a pipeline conference. The aim of that conference is to make Alberta the energy corridor of North America.

The objectives are to assert a role of leadership for the Alberta government in promoting the energy corridor through Alberta. The conference, it is proposed, is to provide a form for the exposition of all significant research in the areas of resource development, ecology, economic impact, sociological change, and transportation as they relate to a corridor. In addition, we hope to identify as the logical participants of government and industry.

Considering this conference, there will be invited parties, of course, that are interested in pipelines, but also governments, at both the federal, provincial and United States level, to bring to a head the whole question of the pipelines, where they're going to go, what are the cost factors, and every other aspect, and we hope this will give an opportunity for a third discussion in the Province of Alberta. I might say at the present time, in the matter of pipeline routes out of the Arctic, it now does appear there is only one relating to oil and that is the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Research Group.

There are two series relating to natural gas, Gas Arctic Systems and the Northwest Project Study Group. Both these latter groups have spent considerable amounts on research on pipelines coming out of the Arctic. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 677

13-30 ALBERTA HANSARD March 20th 1972 Now, Mr. Speaker, I have one other area that I would like to touch on. As I mentioned I was very pleased to be able to attend the First Ministers' Conference, and watch the Premier and Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs put forth the position of Alberta at that conference. In addition to that, we are also able to have discussions with federal representatives dealing with the question of consultation on energy matters and observer status. I think as I recall somewhere during the debates, somebody was questioning this question of observer status.

In the details of that, and behind that Mr. Speaker, we would like to suggest that there be an observer status at the ministerial level for this, the precedent is The Columbia River Treaty negotiations. In view of the interest the hon. members have shown on the other side, in respect to this, I would like to read them the precedents and some of the comments of the precedents for that. In 1964, the hon.

Paul Martin of the Standing Committee on External Affairs said, "While negotiations with the United States for joint river development are the responsibility of Canada, British Columbia" these are the important words -- "as owner of the water resources had to be closely and continuously involved." Mr. Speaker, it's my submission that that is the same with Alberta's position in respect to its natural resources. Again in the House of Commons, Mr.

Pearson who was the Prime Minister at that time stated, "the time has long gone when a federal government should sign an agreement with the United States or other country which requires provincial action and cooperation for its implementation without a clear and formal undertaking from the province concerned, that the terms of the agreement are such that this cooperation will be forthcoming." Mr.

Speaker, those are two very strong statements, two very strong statements supporting the position put forth by the hon. the Premier and the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs to suggest that Alberta should be at the bargaining table on energy matters. Mr. Speaker, in view of the time, it's not my intention to get into the question of coal. We are going to be submitting to all hon. members a new Coal Conservation Act and during that discussion we can have a good discussion on the question of coal. On the question of sulphur, Mr.

Speaker, I think during the estimates I'd like to make a few observations on those areas. Those are the highlights of the areas of the department that I've been involved in. It's been an exciting time in these areas, Mr. Speaker, and I welcome the challenge and hope that the decisions that we make over the next month, or two months, six months, a year, in these areas, will be vital to the future of Alberta. We hope that we can make them wisely and well with the help of all members of this House. Thank you. MR. STROM: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in my place today to take

part in the budget debate. I would like at this time to extend to the hon. the Provincial Treasurer my congratulations on his first presentation of a budget in this Legislature. I can appreciate to quite an extent, some of the anxiety that he had in making his maiden presentation, but I noticed, sir, that he was well armed with water. Our quip to the former Provincial Treasurer was to ask him how many glasses of water it would take to deliver the budget address, and I noted of course that the hon. Provincial Treasurer carried out his responsibility very well, being so armed. I want to say to the hon.

Provincial Treasurer, Mr. Speaker, that the speech was well read, smooth sounding, and certainly it placed much emphasis on style. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 678

March 20th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 13-31 Over the years I would have to say that I never lost the feeling of expectancy as we approach budget night. I want to say too, before going on, Mr. Speaker, that I have appreciated very much the report that the hon. Minister of Mines and Minerals has just given to us. I will be looking forward, with a great deal of anticipation, to review the report again, because it contained a tremendous amount of detail, and it is rather hard to comprehend the points that were made today as he gave his very excellent report.

Certainly all of us are concerned in regard to the future of the work of his department. I can certainly share with him some of the excitement that he referred to in speaking today. Although I was not directly involved in the department, it was my pleasure to have considerable association with those who were, and I must say that there are many ramifications that face us in the future as we consider our oil and gas policy. I think it goes without saying that it has changed very radically over the last two or three years. I can recall, for example, when we had to go practically with cap in hand to try and sell.

Very quickly we have moved from that position to one where the buyer now comes with cap in hand to negotiate with us. Certainly this has changed the whole concept of the method in which we dispose of this very valuable resource. We have always expressed considerable concern about the federal government involvement, particularly as we think in terms of a possible control on the part of the federal government on wellhead prices. This still remains a real concern, and I'm sure that the government will ensure that we do not lose the independence that we have at the present time in that particular area. Mr.

Speaker, I am sure that some of the members on our side of the House would like to comment in greater detail on some of those items later on. Turning back to the presentation of the budget, I want to say that one of the interesting factors in regard to the budget is that it provides key information regarding the government's activities for the coming year. During the past several months bits of information have leaked out, and as a result, I would have to say, as I mentioned a little earlier, that never has my expectancy been higher than it was last Friday, in view of statements and reports that we were getting.

Well, I have to say that expectancy dropped to a new low when I realized the impact of the Lougheed government's budget. The public debt of this province will be more than doubled by the Lougheed government budget just presented, as against the debt incurred by the Social Credit governmnet during its 36 years in office. The proposal by this government to borrow $200 million, or I say, to be more precise, $199 million, this year is a clear indication that they intend to plunge this province into a debt program that will mortgage future Albertans for generations to come. I know, Mr.

Speaker, that the government is anxious to claim firsts. I'm extending to them a first on this one. It's the first time in the history of this province that we have a deficit budget of this size. We are well on the road to destroying the excellent credit rating that we have enjoyed for many years. Let's examine for a moment what this decision means to our people. Computing interest at 8 per cent, it will cost the taxpayers of this province $15,920,000 just to service the debt of their first borrowing.

Over-borrowing in order to provide funds for a subsidization program is a little bit of the old practice in India, where, if they didn't like a person, they presented a white elephant calf as a gift, and the elephant, of course, being a sacred animal, would have to be continually fed thereafter. Before and during our election, the hon. Premier was travelling around the province, trying to sell our province short. We are now started down the road on a program that will make us shortchanged. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 679

13-32 ALBERTA HANSARD March 20th 1972 The statement on the opening page of the Budget Speech, that this budget reflects the Lougheed government's "commitment to open government and to greater disclosure in the Estimates" is merely giving lip service to a practice followed for many years previous to this government taking office. For many years a very detailed estimate book was used, as members who have been here for some time will recall. It was followed later by a less detailed record of the estimates.

In the past years, this was supported by a supplement that provided explanatory notes for the various departments. A comparison of the estimates against previous estimates, I suggest, is easily understood. We shall be awaiting, of course, with interest any further further changes in budget procedure as was announced in the Budget Speech. I am a little amused, however, at the suggestion of a more open government operation, particularly when we consider the position the government has taken since assuming office.

But first let me bring to the attention of the hon. members a couple of examples of how we practised open government.

In 1963 the Social Credit government appointed a special committee to examine the revenues and expenditures of various departments in this province, and I think it would be of interest to all the hon. members if I were to read the terms of reference as expressed in the order in council passed in 1963: "Whereas, having regard to the public concern engendered by steadily rising public expenditures resulting in an ever increasing burden of taxation and debt, the government announced its intention to invite representatives of municipal, government, school administration, business, agriculture, and labour to join in a factual study of public expenditures and the manner in which they can best be controlled and financed, having regard to legitimate needs and best interests of the people of the province as a whole." Back in 1963, we recognized that there was a projection on increasing cost that was a little frightening, and we recognized that there was a need for public involvement in order that there be a better understanding of what was happening.

I don't intend to read the names of the committee, I simply want to say this: there were three members of our Cabinet who served with representatives of the Chamber of Commerce labour, hospital associations, urban municipalities, rural municipalities, school trustees associations, Farmers Union of Alberta, the Alberta Federation of Agriculture. This committee was given every opportunity and assistance to get all the information they requested. No information was withheld.

After the committee finished its work, one of the members remarked that he still found it well nigh unbelievable that a government would be so open with its information. I say too, that it might be of interest to the hon. members on the other side of the House, to know that every political party, I say every political party in the province at that time, was represented on the committee. I'm sure the hon. Minister of Agriculture would be interested in that information. Secondly, I am sure that many members will recall the hon.

Premier, just last year, when standing on this side of the House, taking extreme delight in quoting from a book known as "Social Futures, Alberta, 1970 to 2005." And I say it was a report that he must have found very interesting. It was a document published by The Human Resources Research Council. If that report didn't provide ample and positive proof to any reasonable person of our support for open government, I don't know what did. But what happened? Let's compare our response with the response of the present government to open government.

Shortly after taking office they announced the termination of The Human Resources Research Council, and said that it would be more directly under the control of Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 680

March 20th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 11-33 the government. Also dismissed is The Committee on Urbanization to be replaced by a caucus committee of Conservatives, paid by public funds but providing no report for the Legislature and reporting in secret to the government. Open government? Maybe the true meaning is open to Conservatives only. On page one of the budget address, it also states, "It is a budget which reflects the determination of our government to establish a responsible fiscal climate in Alberta." Well again, Mr.

Speaker, I think that it is well known across Canada and in many parts of the world, that a responsible fiscal climate was established many years ago. My concern today is to have this government maintain policies ensuring our continued growth and prosperity and our rating across Canada. I note that a great deal of emphasis is placed on program budgeting and again, I agree with this objective. I would suggest however, that to some extent that this is a new name for an old practice.

We happen to have sitting in this House in this point in time, the hon. member from Cardston who served as the Provincial Treasurer for a number of years, 10 years I believe, to be exact. During that period of time, he presented to us, reviews and projections on costs into the future so that we would better be able to determine the policy that we had to follow. I am sure that he can tell this House that budget planning started the day after our current budget was proposed. And it was a continuous program. I am not objecting, Mr. Speaker, to program budgeting.

I think it is the kind of thing that we have to be looking at, and looking at very carefully. I suggest that in a measure this was being practiced. I feel confident that when you review the existing budget procedures, you will find a degree of effectiveness and efficiency that your government might do well to equal. I say it was our commitment to this policy that brought this province to the position of financial strength that it enjoys today. On page five, the hon. provincial treasurer reports the cash position of the province as of March 31, 1971 was $143.3 million.

He did not mention at that particular point that as of the same date, March 31, 1971 we also had investments of $151.2 million. On page 74 of our public accounts for the year ending March 31, 1971, we have a breakdown of the investments, which includes the ventures of various municipal hospitals, and school districts. These were the debentures picked up at a time when we were enjoying surpluses as a result of the development of our mineral resources. It has been stated outside of this House, that we can expect losses on these investments because of the difficult finanical position of our towns and so on. Mr.

Speaker, when I last checked a couple of months ago, there had not been a single default in payment. In other words, these investments are sound investments. And any is a suggestion that we cannot expect a payment, I suggest as an open invitation for them to begin defaulting on repayment. In Table 87 of Appendix A we note that the combined income and capital surplus stands at $446.4 million as of March 31, 1971. I have to say here that never at any time, Mr. Speaker, have I suggested that there was a fund of a certain amount related only to cash.

And I would say any government that handled the provinces financial matters in that manner should be severely criticized. I say, and I say it as emphatically as I can, that as far as our province goes, it was in a good finanical position. I know that the presentation of figures is often dull and uninteresting and I realize that the hon. Minister of Mines and Minerals gave us a lot of them while he was speaking and it's very difficult to follow. I simply want to make this point.

On our general assets, as listed in the public accounts, we find that they Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 681

13-34 ALBERTA HANSARD March 20th 1972 are listed there as having a nominal value of one dollar. We must remember that this represents well in access of a billion dollars, I don't have the exact figure in before me but I know that it is well in excess of a billion dollars, which includes public buildings, roads, bridges, and assets of one kind or another throughout various parts of the province. The bulk of these assets, of course, was built and maintained out of current revenues and placed no burden on the tax payers of the future. These assets were obtained by the good management of our resources.

We have been told repeatedly, Mr. Speaker, that our province has the highest number of civil servants on a per capita basis of any province in Canada. I believe the hon. Premier stated on several occasions that the bureaucratic growth of government had to be stopped. When the budget was brought down I examined the record of the government as of taking office. Well, what has happened? First of all, five additional members were added to the cabinet with their attendant pyramid bureaucracies. In the Department of Agriculture, 215 new positions; Attorney General, 29; Education, under the hon. Minister, Mr.

Hyndman, there was a reduction of 17; Executive Council, 12; Highways, 68; Industry and Commerce, 26.5; Manpower and Labour, 17; Lands and Forests, 27; Legislation, 6; Mines and Minerals, a reduction of 3.5; Health and Social Development, 220; Public Works, minus 2; Culture, Youth, and Recreation, 1; Environment, 62; Advanced Education, 129.5; Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs, 18; Telephones and Utilities, 6; making a total of new positions of 835. Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether this is what they meant they were going to cut, but if it was, we have not seen any cuts. While I'm discussing staff, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to quote from the hon. Premier's Budget Speech of 1971, when he sat on this side of the House, and I quote: "Mr. Speaker, a further step tied to that that a Progressive Conservative would have, is to take an Ottawa office, take an office of the Alberta government at Ottawa, and truly make it a nerve centre. Make it hum." Not let's see what has happened. In reply to a question the other day, the hon. Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs said that at the present time, two stenographers are staffing the Ottawa office. Mr.

Speaker, to get some idea of the government's intention we look at the budget and we discover a 5.7 per cent decrease for the Ottawa office. Some humming! This is the situation that we find, and Mr. Speaker, I want to say this in fairness to the hon. the Premier, I don't think that I basically disagreed with him last year when he made his suggestion of making it a nerve centre.

They may disagree in the approach that we used, but I say here, after making that kind of a statement, reducing it to two stenographers, reducing the appropriation by a further 5.7% is not following through on what they said they were going to do. This is the situation when we find that there are two paramount items to be negotiated. I refer, of course, to constitutional adjustments and revision of the cost shared program. I note that the government is quick to point out on page seven of the Budget Speech, that tax revision was basically accomplished when they took office.

I say it was while the Conservatives were in power in Ottawa that we had to accept many of these cost shared arrangements. The federal government's attitude is well known, and they will continue to claim their right to enter any tax field. However, I am very glad to see that the Conservatives have adopted good Social Credit policy, and are asking for the right to self-determination, and I want to congratulate them for being the first Conservative Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 682

March 20th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 13-35 government to follow good Social Credit policy. It seems to have become a point of interest to quote, but paraphrasing Disraeli, he said, "Truth travels slowly", but it finally reaches even the Conservatives. The courage to make decisions to opt out of cost-shared programs if they want to lose dollars, still rests with the government.

However, at this point in time I would urge the government to give very serious consideration to the possibility of grants with increases tied to the gross national product, and, being permitted to have flexibility in our programs, if they are serious about accepting federal proposals, because I understand that this is one that has been made. I want to point out, however, to the hon. members, that because of our greater involvement with Ottawa, it is urgent to make our Alberta office at Ottawa a meaningful nerve centre, and not to reduce its capabilities.

On pages 10 and 11 of the Budget Speech reference is made to the recovery of the economy in Canada and Alberta. It states that slightly slower growth rate was experienced in Alberta than in Canada as a whole. It should be noted that this is mainly due to the fact that Alberta did not drop back as far as other provinces, due to the federal government's monetary and fiscal policies to control inflation.

This also, in spite of the fact that our two major cities were singled out, along with a couple of other cities in Canada, for special control measures, because they were termed as 'hot spots' contributing to inflation. Our government at that time, during the implementation of these policies by the federal government, stated emphatically that we would not accept measures creating unemployment. And we as a government continued with a large program of government sponsored expenditures. At that time, the hon. the Premier stood in his place here and criticized us for our action.

Now he is trying to take credit for the upswing in our economy. I think it's of interest to the hon. members, just to review what happened during that period of time, and I happen to have a copy here of the 1970 annual review of business conditions in our province. The first paragraph in this publication says this: "The growth rate of the Alberta economy was slowed in 1970, but only in comparison with recent years. The construction industry bore the weight of the federal government's restrictive monetary policy.

Higher than usual rates of unemployment inevitably resulted." I read also there, that: "Mineral production and value rose substantially. Manufacturing industries showed surprising growth, rising by nearly $90 million in value." I think it is also of interest to note that power requirements within the Province of Alberta have consistently increased over the years for the last number of years. Alberta Power reported for the past couple of years, a growth of something in the neighbourhood of 14 per cent. Calgary Power slightly less.

If we were to look at the document -- and certainly I don't intend to cover too many points, just to make a couple -- we recognize that in agriculture, there was a drop, the peak year being in 1968. In the matter of coal production, there was a continuous and a tremendous increase from the year 1967 to 1970. In the value of manufacturing shipments, there again, we see a tremendous growth Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 683

13-36 ALBERTA HANSARD March 20th 1972 from the period of 1967 to 1970, going from $1 billion, 554 million to $1 billion, 942 million. When we look at the construction trade which suffered most, we still find that there was a consistent increase, which, in my view, indicates the strength of the economy within our province, in spite of the measures that were placed to control inflation. Mr. Speaker, I think it's very clear to any fair-thinking person what has happened. The federal government, in an attempt to control inflation, very drastically reduced the amount of credit available in our country.

About a year ago last June, they recognized that the cure was worse than the problem. So starting about a year ago last June, they began to increase available credit. This I suggest is mainly responsible for the recovery that we are presently witnessing. Our Provincial Treasurer, Mr.

Aalborg, predicted in his last budget address in this Legislature, where he stated on page 5 of his speech, and I quote: "1971 will bring a gradual recovery of the provincial economy to a period of sustaining growth and near full employment." I'm glad that our present Provincial Treasurer can in fact report that this forecast was true. It has been said that the $200 million borrowing is to improve our economic position. Does the government really believe that they can maintain economic expansion by subsidies and bonuses?

It is not their responsibility to provide jobs and I made that statement in the House last year. It is the responsibility of them to provide the economic climate for the private sector to create new jobs. It is a well known fact, sir, that from 60 to 75% of the jobs created are in the private sector. I would now like to turn to some general observations. I would like to draw your attention to a new feature which no doubt is a new direction in the Lougheed government's first budget. As the hon.

Provincial Treasurer mentioned in his speech on Friday night, slightly over $23 million designated for roads and highways has been transferred from a current operating expenditure to a capital expenditure. Through this column juggling, the minister has succeeded in convincing his side of the House he has an operating surplus. Mr. Speaker, it is important to indicate that by the previous year's budgeting procedure, the Lougheed government would show a deficit of about $23 million. But I suggest that they should have gone a step farther in transferring items from one ledger to another.

By the same rationale, that the minister transferred the $23 million from an operation debit to a capital debit, we should also regard the revenue figure of approximately $90 million obtained from non-renewable resources as a capital credit and not an operating credit. Thus by using the government's own logic, Alberta would then have an operating deficit of about $100 million and a capital deficit of about $100 million. I suggest that when we're starting to look at the papers, that these are some of the points that should have been given very careful consideration.

The Lougheed government has promised the electorate that they would provide more programs, they would improve existing programs, and not raise taxes. It was on this basis that they received a mandate. I want to make it very clear that we are prepared to help them fulfill this mandate. The cornerstone of the Social Credit party's position on the management of Alberta's finances is quite clear. We realize the necessity of controling the growth of costs to an acceptable level. The result was a decrease in the growth of the large spenders, the departments of Education and Health.

Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 684

March 20th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 13-37 Expenditures we certainly admit and support, must not be allowed to outstrip revenues. I believe that we have maintained a responsible financial approach. Now that we are on this side of the House, we will continue to support fiscal policies which keep the taxpayers ability to pay for the government's goods and services as the priority consideration. While reallocation of existing revenues is acceptable, new taxes or substantial borrowings are unacceptable. Alberta has shown that it can live within its means. Mr.

Speaker, in closing, I want to say it is very clear to me that the government has become manipulators instead of administrators. They remind me of the fly on the chariot wheel who said, 'see what a great dust I make'. The Conservatives have become the champions of the technique of selecting one sector after another in our society and offering a special benefit to them, and not necessarily related to need, to invite political support. I suspect that not only have they practiced the art of gross deception on the people, but they have reached the ultimate achievement of deceiving themselves.

With all the talk about changing priorities, all they have done is to create new priorities today. MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member for Macleod was on his feet first. MR. BUCKWELL: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take

part in this budget debate, it's the first opportunity to express, on behalf of the people I represent, congratulations to you, sir, on your honoured preferment. I've enjoyed your style and your impartiality. I'd like also to congratulate the hon. Premier and the elected members of this House. Four years ago when the hon. Premier was on this side of the House, I realized then that he was a force to be reckonned with, but I didn't think it was going to be that quick, and I don't think he thought so either.

But we do congratulate him, and we offer him and his Cabinet and to this House all the responsibility that we can muster into helping solve our problems. I would also like to congratulate my hon. leader. There's nothing like measuring a man against defeat, and while I admired Mr. Strom as Premier of this province, his stature has grown tremendously as Leader of the Opposition. If we had had more men of the type of Mr. Strom in this province we would have had, I'm sure, a greater province. Now I'd like to congratulate the hon. Treasurer.

I met him at the hockey game last night which was not, maybe, the time nor the place to tell him that although I liked the way he gave his budget, I didn't like what was in it. He wasn't too happy, and I wasn't too happy, so I guess it's a saw-off. The only problem is that he holds the purse strings. Now as I look down the front bench, Mr. Speaker, I'm reminded of what Alexander the Great said, that he had so many worlds to conquer and he had so little time. I've got 30 minutes, and I'm afraid it's going to centre around the hon. Minister of Agriculture, which he probably knew was going to come anyway.

But I'd like to congratulate the new members of the government. You've come in starry-eyed and idealistic and eager to right all wrongs and I'm sure that you're going to do the best you can with the ability that you have and the shortage of money, that you're going to make-up for all the mistakes that the government had made over the years. But you're starting in on the wrong foot, because in previous speeches in this House, you are asking for things that are going to Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 685

13-38 ALBERTA HANSARD March 20th 1972 cost money. You're asking for provincial parks and senior citizens homes and roads, and they're not in the budget, fellows. We can't afford them any more. We've got a new priority. And there's one of the things that I want to -- if you don't mind me, the second and third bench -- to just remind you, because we were forcibly told that when we were in government and yet one of you fellows did it the other day to the hon. Minister of Public Works, you actually thanked him for a senior citizen's home and you thumped your desks. Now this is passe.

You don't do those things, because the hon. member who is in charge of federal and provincial affairs said you don't thank the government for anything. It's your right and due. So I hope that in the future when a road or anything is announced, just say nothing, because you had it coming to you and maybe you should have had it before then. Now both sides of the House, and this is only natural, are quite parochial in their thoughts. We think of our own particular constituency, or our own particular region as if that was the sum total of the whole province.

And I think this is wrong in some respects, because we have a very narrow view of the total concept of government. Mr. Speaker, this is one reason that I sort of have to congratulate the hon. Treasurer, because he has to look at not what he would like to do, and not what the members of the Executive Council or the members of the government would like to do, but look fellows we've only got a certain amount of money and this is how we're going to have to divide it. And so, in order to have planning we have to have goals.

I'm in all favour of planning and goals, but just to show you how planning and goals can get out of line, I'll give you two illustrations. Two years ago we were told by the then Leader of the Opposition who is now the Premier, that this was the plan for the universities, and we were wrong. We should be building universities in Grand Prairie, Red Deer and even Medicine Hat. We should be springing them up all over the place because we had thousands of boys and girls who were going to go to universities and we hadn't made provision for them, except in the two large universities, and these were well overcrowded.

Now, I don't blame him, because this was the latest information that we could obtain. And even the Department of Education was going along this line. This is why the University of Athabasca got started. Yet, what happened? Two years after, we're not only curtailing maybe, and probably wiping out the University of Athabasca altogether, but we're in the position where you can't plan that far ahead, because things have changed. Instead of being university, we are now going to go into the college system, and develop it to a greater extent.

So you can see that in planning that far ahead, and even with the best brains that we have within government, mistakes can be made. Or you could turn around and take another example of what I mean. And this is the Kaiser Corporation or the Great Canadian Oil Sands or McIntyre Porcupine, who sunk billions of dollars into their respective projects and even with the best engineers and the best advice available, found out that these things don't work out according to plan.

And they have not made profits yet that they intended, and they will not make profits in the near future that they intended, even with all the advice that they had. I suggest to you hon. members on the other side, just don't have the idea that because we're in the 'now' government and we're all 48, that we're never going to make mistakes; government do make mistakes, and government do misjudge problems as they come along. Otherwise, if they didn't, Diefenbaker would still be the Prime Minister of Canada. You'd have to agree. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 686

March 20th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 13-39 We talk also of priorities. We must have priorities. I quite agree with the hon. Premier that we have to have priorities because there's not enough money to go around to do the things that we all want. And I congratulate him on starting the new mental health program. I think this is a wonderful concept. The study was started by the government. And while the government didn't get around to implementing it all in one or two years, the hon.

Premier himself has admitted, it is going to take at least five years before we get the full implementation of the Blair Report, and maybe it will even be longer. But we've got to have some type of priority. We think about mental health and we think about the Blair study. The other day was laid on the Table in this House, the report of the Alberta Health Care Commission -- I look