Alberta Hansard — 28 April 1980, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 19, Session 2)

19800428

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

April 28, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 593 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Monday, April 28, 1980 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 44 The Department of Municipal Affairs Amendment Act, 1980 MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill No. 44, The Department of Municipal Affairs Amend ment Act, 1980.

The purpose of this Bill is to facilitate the ability of the Provincial Treasury to guarantee loans to certain organizations, namely the Alberta Urban Munici palities Association. [Leave granted; Bill 44 read a first time] Bill 45 The School Election Amendment Act, 1980 MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill No. 45, The School Election Amendment Act, 1980. The contents of this Bill are entirely in consequence of amendments to The Municipal Government Act.

The in tention, therefore, is to ensure that school elections are controlled in a manner consistent with school elections, for the greater certainty of the electorate.* [Leave granted; Bill 45 read a first time] Bill 43 The Universities Amendment Act, 1980 MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill No. 43, The Universities Amendment Act, 1980. Mr.

Speaker, this Bill will implement the policy an nounced last fall whereby private colleges in Alberta will have the opportunity of affiliating with universities in the province in order to permit the granting of degrees pursuant to the legislation in conjunction with the affi liated university. It will also permit a non-voting mem bership of such private colleges on the Universities Co ordinating Council. [Leave granted; Bill 43 read a first time] Bill 214

An Act to Amend The Alberta Energy Company Act MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill 214,

An Act to Amend The Alberta Energy Company Act. The Bill makes the government accountable to the Legislature for the handling of the shares in the Alberta Energy Company by setting out that either the government must bring to the Assembly a resolution giving direction to the people who will vote the government proxy, or in fact the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources will attend. [Leave granted; Bill 214 read a first time] head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. WEISS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to introduce to you, and through you to the members of the Assembly, 50 grade 10 students from J. A.

Williams school in my constituency of Lac La Biche. They are accompanied by their teacher Mrs. Beniuk, and are seated in the members gallery. I would ask them to rise and receive the cordial welcome of this Assembly. MRS. CHICHAK: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce to you, and to members of the Assembly, some 26 stu dents from St. Gerard school in my constituency of Edmonton Norwood. They are accompanied by their teacher Mr. Henault. They are in the public gallery. I would ask them to rise and receive the welcome of the Assembly. MR. SCHMID: Mr.

Speaker, I have the pleasure to introduce to you, and through you to members of this Assembly, 40 grade 9 students from Donnan. When they rise to receive the welcome of the Assembly, I would like you to notice the great number of obvious basketball players who are in their class. They are accompanied by their teachers Mr. Korchinsky, Mr. Bubenko, and Mrs. Bianchinni. I would ask them to rise now and be recog nized by the Assembly, please. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD RCMP Activities — McDonald Commission MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the first question to the Attorney General.

It flows from the McDonald commission hearings in Ottawa. My question refers especially to what's referred to as Operation Checkmate. Has the Attorney General received an un edited transcript of testimony given before the McDonald commission? I'm referring to the portion that dealt with events that took place in the province of Alberta. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. leader meant to say: have I received an edited version rather than an unedited version? MR. R. CLARK: Yes, I did. MR. CRAWFORD: It was indeed an edited version re ceived a number of days ago.

It was reviewed by officials in the department and by me, Mr. Speaker. Enough items have been deleted so that no specific charges can be identified as a result of what appears in the transcript. I might add that I think there was considerable discussion over a very long time indeed; the McDonald commission has been sitting on and off for a period of years. The question of what would be done with respect to certain proceedings that were held in camera was frequently an issue there.

I have no comment on what I think is the proper course for a federal commission to follow in such circum *See page 639, right column, paragraph 1

594 ALBERTA HANSARD April 28, 1980 stances. What the result of the disclosures — perhaps limited disclosures — will be is something we have yet to determine. But it's against a background that involves the voluntary providing of certain information by the federal Solicitor General's Department. That is how it was done. Again, I make no comment on how other governments should handle such things. That is what was done. I might conclude that, Mr.

Speaker, simply by saying that we presently have under consideration the question of whether or not some of the information which is not available should be sought in some way. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Attorney General. If I said "unedited", it was my intention that the Alberta government should be able to acquire from the federal Solicitor General, Mr. Kaplan, the total transcript that dealt with events which took place in the province of Alberta.

A supplementary question to the Attorney General Is it then the position of the government of Alberta that a request will in tact go to Ottawa to ask for the transcript in its entirety? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if the reference to "transcript" is still fair or accurate, and it's important to make that distinction. I would answer the most specific part of the hon. leader's supplementary question by saying that the actual transcript, as I under stand it, was of proceedings taken in camera before the McDonald commission.

The McDonald commission did not, as far as I know, make any particular deliberation on what should be provided to provincial attorneys general in that respect. I say again that that sort of decision is clearly within the purview of the commissioner. The important part, and I think the part that recent reports with respect to the matter all relate to, is the fact that we've received certain information from the Solicitor General's Department in Ottawa which is not complete. The hon. leader's question is whether or not we would ask for a full and unedited transcript.

The answer is: not necessarily, but we may well seek the missing information in some way. That is what is under consideration. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney General. Has the government of Alberta been assured by the federal Solicitor General that unedited portions of the transcript which deal with events here in Alberta — and I relate specifically to those portions that fit into the broad, general category of Operation Checkmate — are available if Alberta requests them? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, that particular discus sion has not yet taken place; it may well take place.

I should say that I received what I believe other attorneys general in Canada received; that is, a short letter of some two paragraphs from Mr. Kaplan or his office indicating that they were providing to us the information I've de scribed. This has not led to any request that some commitment be made to provide further information, al though I fully understand the potential importance of doing so. I suggest that what has to be done is that — the overall issue is the one under review, rather than the specifics of whether it's available in a particular way; that is, by way of a transcript.

I think the publication of the transcript by the federal Department of the Solicitor General is still a matter of some importance as between that office and the McDonald commission. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, either to the Attorney General or to the Solicitor General. What representation has Alberta made to the federal government with regard to the possibility of these kinds of events — and I refer again to Operation Checkmate — taking place in Alberta without the senior law officer of the province, namely the Attorney General, being informed before?

What as surance does Alberta have from Ottawa that that will not take place again? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, once again I think the timing of the hon. leader's question makes it difficult, in that he is asking about what assurance may have followed events which are really quite recent in the sense of the edited transcripts being made available. The answer is that I've had no discussion with the Solicitor General of Canada since they were received. Given the normal course of events, I don't think it's surprising that that has not yet taken place.

What has taken place over the period when I've had the responsibility, on behalf of the people of Alberta, for law enforcement in this province is that we have worked consistently with the federal office of the Solicitor Gener al and with the principal officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to be sure that the working relationship is the way it should be: a very, very co-operative attitude on both sides with regard to their duties and ours, and that is the situation.

We're always looking for ways in which, if there seem to be any shortcomings in that relationship, we can work them through and arrive at mutually satisfactory results. But to suggest that in recent days a particular as surance has been sought — that hasn't been done. I don't mind adding that it's certainly our intention that opera tions of any members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who are under contract to the province — which would be the vast majority of RCMP in the province — are indeed fully known to us at all times. I think that is the present situation.

We are speaking of incidents that occurred some years ago. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, one further supplementa ry question to the Attorney General.

Having regard for the last comment the Attorney General made that these incidents took place some years ago, and having regard for the fact that the McDonald inquiry has been going on now for close to two years, what representation has the Alberta government made to either the federal Solicitor General or the federal Attorney General with regard to prior consultation between the federal law enforcement officials — namely the Solicitor General — and the Attorney General's Department so that in a province like Alberta, the Attorney General is aware of this kind of activity? MR.

CRAWFORD: That is still a matter of discussion between governments, Mr. Speaker, and I think it will continue that way. Maybe I can simply outline the situa tion like this: for most purposes the RCMP constitutes a provincial police force for the province of Alberta. But as is well known, in other capacities the RCMP carries on other responsibilities for which it reports to federal au thorities. The question is whether any of the activities carried on in that second capacity may be carried on in circumstances which could constitute a crime in the prov ince of Alberta.

If so, it's the responsibility of provincial law enforcement agencies to take prosecution in those cases, if they're justified. I think that is the situation; I've

April 28, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 595 described it the way it is. We're very pleased with the present level of co-operation we have with the federal police force, whether in its capacity as a provincial or as a federal force. As to the sort of question the hon. leader is asking, the amount of information that's available, to and from, with respect to such activities: it's quite satisfactory on the whole. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney General. The Attorney General indicated the government is quite satisfied with the level of communication at this time.

Then can I pose this question: given the present level of communications, if the events as outlined in Operation Checkmate were to take place in Alberta today, would the Attorney General of Alberta be advised ahead of time? MR. SPEAKER: The question is certainly hypothetical in form, but it relates to a present understanding of an existing fact, in other words, in relation to a certain type of event which I understand is just given by way of example. MR. CRAWFORD: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I suppose it's possible to conceive of a type of activity in the interests of the security of the nation, or whatever matters relate to that, that might not come at once to the attention of a provincial authority if the federal authorities were carry ing on those particular activities. So I think I would have to indicate to the hon. leader that I don't know what the answer to his question is. We are pleased with the level of co-operation that exists at the present time and with the flow of informa tion, which is very, very good.

I just say again that the fact that there was a previous occasion upon which that didn't happen is not harming the relationship at the present time, because we've had these sorts of discussions and negotiations over the last year or so, and I know my predecessor had similar ones that resulted in what is probably a more satisfactory understanding than might have existed when these other incidents did take place.

As well, I'd point out to the hon. leader that I think there have been a number of instances across the country where this type of complaint has arisen, where it has been suggested that information that should have been in the hands of the provincial law enforcement authorities was in fact not. I can't speculate on whether that could ever happen again. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question, if I may, to the hon. Attorney General.

Is the Attorney General in a position to advise the Assembly whether the information released to Alberta and other provinces by the federal Solicitor General was a result of consultation between the McDonald commission and the federal Department of the Solicitor General? I assume the McDonald commis sion will in fact be assessing the specific information contained. MR.

CRAWFORD: Without specifically asking the question of anyone in connection with the McDonald commission, I've made the same assumption the hon. member has: that the discussions between the federal Department of the Solicitor General and the McDonald commission resulted in this information coming forward. Since the information was given in camera, the Mc Donald commission would examine it and no doubt make certain observations in its final report. The question of whether any information which was given in camera would be provided verbatim within the foreseeable future is another matter.

I think the information that has come recently was made available as a direct result of the discussions be tween the predecessor of the present Solicitor General — who I think took the initiative in the matter — and the McDonald commission. But I don't know who may have recommended the particular course that was followed as a result of those discussions. Hog Marketing MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my second question to the Minister of Agriculture.

Perhaps I might preface my question by saying to the minister that we welcomed very much the minister's announcement Friday, where Regulation 99/80 was removed as an encumbrance on the hog marketing board. My question to the minister is this: at what stage is the government's consideration with regard to a stop-loss or stabilization plan as far as hog producers in the province are concerned? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr.

Speaker, as the hon. member recognizes, we had the opportunity to discuss the industry in total and to discuss both the long term and the short term with the hon. minister who represents Agriculture Canada, and an indication from them that they would be interested in a long-term program. Of course, there were no indications of any short-term activity on behalf of the federal people. On behalf of the industry, and indeed the province, we have stated that we would certainly look at the short-term problem that exists in the industry. Mr. Speaker, that is ongoing at the present time. MR. R. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, to the minister. Mr. Minister, when might we expect some announcement from the government with regard to the short term, because the short term is becoming very long for those people who feel they're losing something like $20 to $30 on each hog they market. MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, it would be very, very difficult to establish a day and a time. Recognition of the problem that exists within the industry and the promise to the industry itself to continue to review the short term still stand, but to give an exact timing of any activity or movement would be difficult. MR. R. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, to the hon. minister. Did the decision to remove Regulation 99/80 — did a recommendation to rescind that regulation come from the Foster hog committee? MR. SCHMIDT: No, Mr. Speaker. We've had the op portunity to discuss with many producers throughout the province and indeed with the marketing board itself — indicating that they felt Alberta Regulation 99/80 in its present form was still a threat to their system of market ing.

I had the opportunity to discuss with the marketing council and agreed that at this time, with the price of hogs as it is, any threat — whether it be imaginary or real — should be lifted to take away any element of doubt of getting the best basic price for the producer through marketing.

596 ALBERTA HANSARD April 28, 1980 MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister. Mr. Minister, it's been drawn to my attention by a number of producers that the chairman of the committee is really bringing home the bacon, if I might put it that way, being remunerated at something like $125 an hour, which for eight hours a day would be equivalent to getting about twelve and a half hogs per day. Is that accurate? Is Mr. Foster receiving remuneration at $125 an hour plus expenses? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr.

Speaker, the independent review committee, by number and by name and indeed the remuneration that was to be received by each were done by ministerial order. It's a public document. I'm sure the hon. member is aware of the facts he mentions. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister. Mr. Minister, I can appreciate why the minister wouldn't want to concede that that's the case.

But from officials of the minister's own department, it's been made known to a number of people in the agricultural community that in fact the former Attorney General of the province is, if I might use the term, really lining his silk purse from a sow's ear. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order. MR. R. CLARK: Is he really getting $1,000 a day for chairing that committee? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, as I stated, the remunera tion is there. It's a public document. The remuneration to the members of the committee, including the chairman, is commensurate with the job and the professions to which they belong. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister. Is the minister in a position to outline to the Assembly why the government, or the minister in particular in signing the ministerial order, did not follow the general order in council on the committee remuneration orders and the remuneration contained therein, which is somewhat less than up to $1,000 a day? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, the signed order follows the usual remuneration. There are levels of remuneration available.

The remuneration followed for the chairman in the ministerial order falls within the range for the legal profession that works for the province. Indeed, it's my understanding that the range is somewhere between $90 and $150. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister. In discussing this matter with Mr. Foster, was the minister in a position first of all to recommend that the remuneration be on the basis of the committee remuneration order? Or at the outset of nego tiations with Mr.

Foster, did the minister take the posi tion that it would be necessary to pay that particular gentlemen $125 an hour to study hogs in Alberta? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, the remuneration estab lished under the ministerial order is the responsibility and indeed is set by me in the establishment of the depart ment.

With regard to the remuneration that would be available to a professional person, the remuneration that was available to the chairman of the board: not being a professional person or knowing the range, we contacted the Department of the Attorney General for the average negotiated rate which is standard throughout the department. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question to the hon. minister. What consideration did the minister give in se lecting a chairman for this review, bearing in mind the $90 to $150 an hour range the minister talked about, and working it out at $125 an hour in Mr. Foster's case?

What consideration did the government give to selecting a chairman of the review committee who perhaps had a little less legal/professional experience but a little more knowledge of the hog industry, and who wouldn't cost us $125 an hour? DR. BUCK: Let's see: there's a PC, and a PC, and a PC. MR. SCHMIDT: Mr.

Speaker, in setting the members for the independent review committee — and I think it has been stated in this House before — because it is an independent review, the chairman was chosen first of all to cover and be able to comment on those aspects that governed the legal aspect of both the submissions and the producer/packer operation; a person who would be inde pendent; the opportunity to work with, in this case, two knowledgeable members representing the industry as producers, and indeed one representing the packers.

So the chairman was chosen as an independent who would give the committee a balance between producer and packer, and the opportunity to separate, recognize, and put into plain words for the operation of the committee any legal aspects presented during the hearings. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister. In view of the remuneration, has the minister been given the assurance that the committee will in fact meet its deadline, or is it possible that the study may take longer than originally anticipated? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr.

Speaker, I have no indications that the committee will overextend, because we had placed no time limit on the reports and recommendations they would bring back to us. I would say to you, though, that the hearings that are being held throughout the province are proceeding on a day-to-day basis and, I believe, hopefully by mid-week we will have completed all the open sessions that are held throughout the province. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister. Is the government's position now that there's no deadline as far as that committee's con cerned?

If my recollection is accurate, and I'll check Hansard, earlier during this session there was a deadline: either late May or the middle of June. Has this deadline now been withdrawn? MR. SCHMIDT: No, Mr. Speaker. But if one would look back and check Hansard, there was no exact dead line for when the report should be made. But we antici pate that the hearings will be complete and the recom mendations in the hands of the Department of Agricul ture by that time. DR. BUCK: Just goes to show that you don't need an incentive in this province.

April 28, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 597 Road Bans DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Transportation. Has it been brought to the minister's attention that the road bans in effect now on most of the county roads are affecting the movement of seed grains and anhydrous ammonia? Can the minister indicate if the problem has been brought to the his atten tion, either by the agricultural sector or by the counties themselves? MR. KROEGER: No, Mr. Speaker. I've had no comment. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, to the minister.

Can the minis ter indicate if the system of allowing permits in the springtime, when the bans are on, has been removed, or is it still in place? MR. KROEGER: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in the first answer, I haven't been approached. Consequently, I haven't gone directly into the system. What I do know is that

whereas we normally have a 75 per cent ban, we've been working mostly on a 90 per cent ban this spring. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister indicate if his department has any information as to the effect on the agricultural commu nity of the road bans' not allowing farmers to move heavy anhydrous equipment and seed grains on county roads? MR. SCHMIDT: No, Mr. Speaker. The indications we have are that most of the seed was already moved throughout various counties and municipalities earlier in the spring season.

I've had no reports as yet of problems that exist in the movement of anhydrous ammonia. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion to the Minister of Transportation. Under extraor dinary situations where heavy traffic must use the roads during ban times, does the Department of Transportation have a funding program, a cost-sharing program with the municipalities to repair those roads or to assist the local municipalities? MR. KROEGER: Mr. Speaker, certainly we do take extreme conditions into consideration, and we do help with this.

I wouldn't be able to spell out the specifics of it, but I'll get that information for the member. MR. L. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister. Could the minister tell us whether bans on county roads are the responsibility of the rural municipal ities or of the government? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is asking for enlight enment on a point of law. I'm not sure to what extent it also may be a question of policy; perhaps to that extent the minister might wish to answer. MR. KROEGER: Mr.

Speaker, normally the counties and municipalities would set their own road bans, except on secondaries and primaries. Nurses' Strike Settlement MR. NOTLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to direct this question to the hon. Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care. I'm sure all members are pleased today at the settlement of the nurses' dispute.

Now that the nurses' dispute has been settled, is the government of Alberta, through the Department of Hospitals and Medical Care, prepared to fund that settlement in its entirety, and not force hospitals to take any part of that settlement out of other elements of hospital budgets? MR. RUSSELL: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That's been the tradi tional practice. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to either the hon. Minister of Labour or the hon. Minis ter of Hospitals and Medical Care.

Is either hon. gentle man in a position to advise the Assembly what factors forced the government to conclude that a settlement somewhat above the 7.5 to 9 per cent guidelines was required in this instance? MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be an error of assumption on the part of the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview. The collective agreement was arrived at between the parties to the dispute: the Alberta Hospital Association, to which the responsibility for collective bargaining had been delegated by some 82 hospital boards, and the United Nurses of Alberta. So it was their decision. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister. As a consequence of the minister's comment today — and correctly so — that last-dollar funding will be made available to the hospitals to finance a settlement which had to be substantially beyond the guidelines, has the government had an opportunity to review those reasons that determined a settlement beyond the guidelines? And is the government in a position to advise the Assembly, through the Minister of Labour, what those reasons were? MR. YOUNG: Mr.

Speaker, I would have to say that I have certainly been privy to some of the reasons; I don't know that I've been aware of all the reasons that each of the disputing parties advanced for their respective posi tions. I would suggest that the foremost objective was the notion that there should be comparability between the salaries of nurses in Alberta and those in other provinces, and that that comparability had to reflect not just a straight comparability as between provinces — that would be impossible to do, because there is quite a range, in fact.

But there have been some historical relationships in terms of the economies of the provinces which are reflected in terms of salaries for different occupational groups in provinces. So it did reflect, I think, that degree of comparability. MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to supplement that answer, because I think the hon. member has touched upon an important point. This was laid out rather well in the majority report of the conciliation board.

I refer the hon. member to page 18, where the board dealt at some length with the status of the profes sion, the availability of trained personnel on the market, the competition for them, and what was happening in the education field. I won't read the whole report, but I'd like to read the

summary sentence in that section, which says: "The conditions which affect them" — that is, the nurses — "do not appear to be prevalent in the public sector generally nor in the other areas of the hospital industry."

598 ALBERTA HANSARD April 28, 1980 Then the majority report goes on to recommend why they believe the guidelines ought to be exceeded in this partic ular instance. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to either hon. gentleman. Beyond the majority report that the hon. Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care alluded to, has there been any move by the government of Alberta to identify other possible special cases where comparability would in fact be a major question, so that after settling the nurses' strike we don't face other strikes in our health system a few months down the road? MR. YOUNG: Mr.

Speaker, again I would remind the hon. member that collective bargaining in most hospital situations in Alberta is primarily between the Alberta Hospital Association and a range of unions. To that degree, it is not the primary responsibility of government. Now, certainly my department has a research component which does try to examine some of the developments occurring in all areas of the economy from time to time, and to observe the stresses and strains and adjustments which do take place.

But again, we do that only in order that our mediating staff and conciliation staff can be well apprized of what's happening. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister, so that we don't have to cross the bridge we've all had to cross over the last 10 days. Is there any specific mechanism now in place, in either the De partment of Labour or the Department of Hospitals and Medical Care, in fact to assess and identify other areas where comparability may be a relevant factor, so that we can hopefully avoid other strikes down the road?

We know that the decision has to be made between the Alberta Hospital Association and whatever the group may be. But my question is whether this department or this government is acquiring that information and mak ing it available to the Alberta Hospital Association. MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, it's a policy of this govern ment that decision-making be decentralized to the parties responsible for it. We are not on the centralist plank of the hon. member opposite, and never have been.

There fore we do our utmost to try to make sure that we have information which, as I've indicated, is available to our staff to show areas where there could be difficulties. Generally speaking, however, the parties do their own responsible work in terms of informing themselves as to what the situation is when they go into bargaining. There are two parties there, each with its own specific interests, and surely it is primarily their responsibility to know what particular, relevant reference points should be af fecting their dispute.

It's only as a secondary back-up resource that our mediators and conciliators are assisted by the research department. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me the hon. member's question takes us toward government's centralizing all decisions within itself. MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the last supplementary on this topic. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, in view of that encouraging response from the minister, is the government now advis ing the Alberta Hospital Association that free collective bargaining should continue unhindered by any applica tion of the provincial 7.5 to 9 per cent guidelines?

Or are we still saying to the Alberta Hospital Association: you negotiate within those guidelines; we advise you to do so. MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has asked that question on numerous occasions before. The Provincial Treasurer has responded to him. As far as the government's position is concerned, as the hon. Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care has already indicated, there was a very clear and unique situation with respect to nurses in this province — as a matter of fact, across Canada. That position was recognized by the conciliation board.

It was again recognized by the Alberta Hospital Association. Mr. Speaker, the collective agreement that was con cluded reflects the esteem in which the profession ought to be held. The nature of their round-the-clock work, the shift work, the nature of the training they have to under take: having regard to all of that and settlements in other provinces, I think we can all be satisfied that it is a unique situation which does not apply to other sectors of the economy. Meat Packing Plant — Edmonton MR. HIEBERT: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minster of Environment.

Has any representation been made by concerned citizens or groups to the minister or the Department of Environment regarding the proposed relocation of Gainers meat packing plant in southeast Edmonton? MR. COOKSON: Mr. Speaker, that's correct. I have had some representation from, I think, a Mr. Muzyka who represents a southeast Edmonton citizens' concern group. MR. HIEBERT: A supplementary question, Mr. Speak er.

Since the area is primarily reserved for heavy and light service industries and is relatively adjacent to a prime residential community, Ottewell, what environmental regulations or clean air policy exist concerning the reloca tion of a packing plant in proximity to an established residential community or heavy industrial area? MR. SPEAKER: As far as the regulations are concerned, I would respectfully suggest that those should be sought elsewhere. As far as policy is concerned, the minister may wish to answer. MR. COOKSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad you made that distinction.

In terms of policy, perhaps I could respond to the Member for Edmonton Gold Bar this way: it is our policy to provide reasonable buffer zones before we per mit relocation. In this particular case we have generally followed through on the policy we've laid down for relo cation of industry. Bow River Pollution MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the Minister of Environment. Earlier in the session the minister indicated that consideration would be made of posting the Bow River by Calgary for swimming and drinking.

At this point, in this beautiful sun in Alberta, a lot of people are using the Bow River, and I was wondering if the minister could bring us up to date on that action.

April 28, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 599 MR. COOKSON: Mr. Speaker, I guess the session's pass ing so quickly that I thought it was just a few days ago. I haven't had a chance even to discuss this with my col league to the left, who I guess also has a responsibility in terms of public health. Would you just give me a little time to dialogue, and perhaps we can come up with something? MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, will the minister take the matter under urgent consideration and have some action within the next week, so that something can be done by next weekend?

It's been a year I've been asking the same question, and no signs. MR. COOKSON: Again, Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether the Minister of Social Services and Community Health wishes to add to what I have to say. We like to leave these responsible matters to municipal authorities and the health units in the particular area. As far as Environment is concerned, we'd be happy to take on the responsibility if it is ours.

Perhaps while I'm talking about it, again I would like to reaffirm to the member that it's extremely important that people don't recognize the river systems and surface water areas in some parts of the province as great places to swim, especially if they are in locations downstream from sewage effluent. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion to the Minister of Social Services and Community Health with regard to the quality of water downstream in the Bow River.

Is the minister's department monitoring the quality of water that is being used by some of the citizens in the hamlets downstream, such as Rainier, Scandia, Rolling Hills, where recent reports show that water taken out of taps is not suitable for human consumption? MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, I'll take the broader question as notice, but I will add to what my colleague the Minister of Environment has said by indicating that both the public board of health in the city of Calgary and the health unit downstream from the city of Calgary have environmental health officers.

Part of their ongoing re sponsibility is to check water quality, both that which is used for human consumption and the river in general. By tomorrow or the next day I will attempt to get an update for my satisfaction and for the hon. member's satisfaction as to the most recent reports through the local health authorities. MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have the consent of the Assembly to respond to a question asked of me on Friday. HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. Forest Fires MR. LEITCH: Mr.

Speaker, in connection with forest fires the Member for Edmonton Kingsway asked the number of acres that were burning this year compared with the comparable time last year. I can advise the Assembly that we now have roughly 200,000 acres in the province that have been burned or are burning. At this time last year there was only a nominal number of acres. ORDERS OF THE DAY head: GOVERNMENT MOTIONS (Committee of Supply) [Mr. Purdy in the Chair] MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Committee of Supply will please come to order. Department of Environment MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The minister was making some opening comments.

Has he any additional comments? MR. COOKSON: Mr. Chairman, I did think I'd say a few more words as part of my state of the union address, commenced on Friday, and I'm glad to see we have a few more spectators. Friday's a bad day to start on estimates. Anyway, I want to speak further to the Assembly and to the public in general about the increasing concerns we have with regard to Environment, and to expand a little bit on the sort of situation that's occurring across the province.

Particularly because of my comments on Friday about the growth of the population in Alberta, because of its buoyant economy, and because of the favorable climate here for economic investment from other parts of Canada and from other parts of the world, for that matter, we do face extreme developments which are certainly going to add to our problems down the road. In my year in charge of the Department of Environment, I've recognized this urgency, and I hope we'll be able to initiate — and we have — some programs which will in fact stay ahead of some of our most urgent problems.

We have catch-up to do in some areas as well. Just as an example — and it is in mind so much with the question from the Member for Little Bow — before me is a brief

summary of the situation in terms of water quality in the various rivers across the province. As members of the Assembly know, we have five or six major rivers that originate on our Eastern Slopes. Of course they are of excellent quality where they originate. As they slowly progress through the province of Alberta, then on into Saskatchewan and some to the north, they tend to deteriorate in quality. This is becoming extremely severe in some parts of the province.

To give you a contrast of the different parts of the province, the Peace River water quality is basically unal tered from its origin, except for some problem we're having with color, taste, and odor in the area of Peace River. Other than that, it generally has maintained its quality. But take that in contrast with the area of the South Saskatchewan River: you have a number of small er rivers leading into the South Saskatchewan; one of them is the Bow River, which has been front and centre for some time, and which we're attempting to improve.

The water quality of the Bow River upstream from Calgary is excellent, which one would expect. As you progress downstream, it is affected by treated municipal wastes. The result is high nutrient content which, of course, promotes algae and weed growth. We're hoping that upgrading of the sewage facility at Calgary and our new program with regard to removal of phosphates will help reduce that problem. That's just an example of the sort of contrast based on population,

600 ALBERTA HANSARD April 28, 1980 industrial development, and the mass of flow of the dif ferent streams. For example, the Peace River would be much more able to cope with industrial and population growth than a river such as the Bow River. The only other area I thought I should just touch on briefly before we get into the estimates, Mr. Chairman, is with regard to our problem in the area of industrial wastes. As I said on Friday, industrial growth is at an exceptionally high level in the province, and Environment has a big responsibility in attempting to cope with this industrial growth.

In all these industries there are various kinds of chemical wastes. Some are more hazardous than others. In fact one really has some difficulty interpreting what is meant by "hazardous waste". One could suggest that if you drank too much water, it could become hazardous. So when you use the expression "hazardous wastes", you have to clarify it, because it depends on the volume you consume, the time you consume it, the volume you consume within a given time, and so on. Generally, I think we would be far better to use the term "industrial wastes". These are primarily wastes that are either acid- or alkali-based.

A lot of them are used in scouring equipment, and a lot of them are by-products of building materials. They have to be disposed of in some way or another. In our recent studies, on a trip I made to Ontario, I found that Ontario was having a very difficult time coping with the large number of industrial wastes. They have a number of plants in operation. We visited one in particular, which goes through the process of intensive, high temperature to neutralize. They have a very efficient system of taking in industrial wastes. It's done by means of a special transportation manifest.

It's taken into the plant, the materials are identified and, through that pro cess, they determine whether the different industrial wastes may be mixed with others to neutralize or whether they should be burned, and so on. The plant I visited has a pretty efficient operation. As members know, we are now in the process of public hearings with regard to trying to cope with the problem here before it gets really severe. In terms of the other two prairie provinces, it's estimated that the province of Alber ta has about 60 per cent of the total industrial waste.

This is accumulating at a rapid rate as our development con tinues, and we have to find a way to dispose of these materials in a safe manner so that we aren't eventually going to have in Alberta another Love Canal. So this is an extremely important time. I would take this opportunity of sort of lobbying the public across Alberta that the public hearings, through the Environ ment Council of Alberta, are now commencing. There will be about 16 meetings across the province. I hope the public will get out and participate in these hearings. We expect a report on the hearings at a later date.

Then I hope our government will be able to take some kind of constructive action toward handling that problem, which could become a major problem. I guess that's really all I wanted to say, Mr. Chairman. No doubt a lot of questions will arise as we proceed through the estimates. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Before we continue with the estimates, may the Minister of Federal and Intergov ernmental Affairs have permission to revert to Introduc tion of Visitors? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS (reversion) MR. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, I am very pleased indeed to advise you that we have in the Speaker's gallery four distinguished visitors from the People's Republic of China. They are in our province and our city for the next week to visit with the private sector, people of our community, and with government and members of caucus. The Chinese Ambassador to Canada, His Excellency Mr. Wang Tung, is in the Speaker's gallery, Mr. Chair man. With His Excellency is his wife, Mme. Lui Feng. Accompanying the Ambassador from the Ottawa office of the Chinese Republic is Mr. Lui Tse-Pu, as well as Mr.

An Wenbin. Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, I'm sure you'll extend a very warm welcome to our distin guished visitors, and I'm sure I can express on behalf of all of you a very warm welcome to Alberta. head: GOVERNMENT MOTIONS (Committee of Supply) Department of Environment (continued) MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Chairman, I have two or three questions and several comments. Then I'd like to take just a minute of the committee's time to deal with the proposi tion put forward by some residents of the Peace River country concerning public hearings by the Environment Council of Alberta on the proposed Dunvegan dam. Mr.

Chairman, I'm glad the minister emphasized the importance of the Environment Council of Alberta hear ings on hazardous wastes. I was going to ask him about that. Suffice to say that I share with the government the hope that Albertans will take an opportunity during the public hearings to make representation to the Environ ment Council. I've had some people contact me about possible sites for a hazardous waste disposal plant.

But it seems to be that before any decision can be made on something like that, we'd be much better to have an opportunity to benefit from the hearings of the Environ ment Council on this important matter. When the minister summarizes response to the various questions I'm sure we'll have in committee, can he bring us up to date on where things stand on the ECA recommendations on flow regulation along the Oldman River? A number of rumors have been circulating that an announcement is going to be made during this session of the Legislature. I'd be interested to know when we may expect that announcement.

If there isn't going to be an announcement, perhaps we might have some indication from the government at this stage on how it generally views the recommendations of the Environment Council of Alberta on the Oldman. Moving from there, Mr. Chairman, there has been at least some public discussion on moving water in the province of Alberta. I see that the hon. Minister of Transportation is not in his place at the moment, but last fall he managed to capture considerable attention with his proposal on water diversion.

Frankly, I hope we are not getting into any kind of resurrection, if I can use that expression, of the PRIME project of some years ago, a project this government abandoned or clearly stated it wasn't in support of when the minister's predecessor Mr. Yurko was Minister of Environment. It seems to me that any massive water diversion of the

April 28, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 601 size and scope envisaged in the PRIME project would be so costly that I really question whether any cost benefits would be involved, particularly when one looks at the PRIME project in its entirety, which would see water diverted in almost every major river system in the prov ince.

The minimum estimate I've been able to gather on that, and I assume it is definitely a minimum amount, is that if we brought the Saskatchewan/Nelson River basin study up to current cost levels, we'd be looking at some thing in the neighborhood of $10 billion to proceed with any massive river diversion. And I assume it would be substantially more than that. I can understand the merits of minor diversion here and there in the province, but the global concept envisaged in the PRIME project is some thing that I for one would frankly not support. [Mr.

Appleby in the Chair] I'd like to move from there to deal for a few moments, Mr. Minister, Mr. Chairman, and members of the com mittee, with the question of the proposed — I shouldn't say the proposed dam; that isn't entirely accurate. What we have at the moment is a request for proposals from the private sector for the construction of a low-head dam at Dunvegan. I think it's fair to say that the majority of residents in the Peace River country would be positive, but with a number of questions they wish to express and that they want answered. I think it's also fair to say, Mr.

Chairman, that fairly comprehensive studies have been conducted on Dunvegan. I've had an opportunity to look through the 14 volumes dealing with everything from the socio-economic impact to the environmental implications. But I would say to people who argue that we've done all the studying we need to do and let's get on with the bulldozers, that a lot of questions are still unanswered in the Dunvegan dam study. And I'm sure the minister would realize this from his assessment of those studies. I just cite a couple, dealing with the environmental implica tions of a low-head dam.

It's certainly not going to be catastrophic, but it is going to lead to a good deal more slumping along the river banks. The economic study concludes that, providing certain steps were taken, the impact of the boom-and-bust effect on the area could be minimized. But it goes on to say, in a very important way, that we need to look at it in further depth. Several weeks ago, a group of people from the college at Fairview approached me, and a meeting was or ganized. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that we had excel lent attendance, almost 250 people from throughout the settled area of the Peace River valley.

A number of people who attended the meeting were from the obvious area that will be affected. There were people from as far up the river as Manning, and people from the Fort St. John-Dawson Creek area as well. During the course of the evening, about 20 people made submissions to this meeting. I'm sorry the Minister of Utilities and Tele phones isn't in his place; he wasn't able to be there that night, but he did send Mr. Les Collins from the depart ment, who I think provided a good deal of useful back ground material for people attending this particular meeting. But I'd just like to take a moment, Mr.

Chairman, in view of the fact that whether the government decides to hold Environment Council of Alberta hearings on Dun vegan is essentially a decision of the Minister of Envi ronment, to share with members of the committee some of the views that were expressed, both pro and con — or where it wasn't con, at least where questions were raised about the dam itself. I think the arguments on the pro side are very straightforward and clear. The construction of a dam that would work out to $1.15 billion 1975 dollars would increase the revenue to the tax base of the munici palities affected. That's a positive aspect.

You can't spend well over $1 billion in 1975 terms — and it would be hard to say what it would be in 1985 dollars, or whenever the construction proceeds — without having a good deal of positive fall-out for many people in the community. Those points were well made by several of the business men who attended the meeting. One of the people who made that point most strongly was the secretary of the town of Fairview. But in addition to those points, that I think are self- explanatory, a number of other issues were raised that I think are important from a local point of view.

First of all, there is still a number of unanswered questions about how a relatively small population base can digest the boom that would be created by — you name it — $1.25 billion, $2 billion, whatever the costs would be of a project of that magnitude. I know the economic study suggested the problem could be minimized if you had a separate area, a separate camp if you like, for the work ers. But one of the points brought out in the meeting was that a separate camp for the workers has its own prob lems in terms of those people being able to relate to the community as a whole. Another question that came up, Mr.

Chairman and Mr. Minister, was employment and contract opportuni ties for people in the area. That goes the gamut from people who work on the damsite itself to the question of who would own the gravel rights. Right now there's a fair amount of speculation in gravel rights. Members are probably aware of the fact that this project is going to take an awful lot of gravel. We've had a number of people approaching farmers, and I've advised the farmers to do their own arithmetic before they sell their land. Somebody comes along and offers $200,000 for a quarter

section of land; it sounds like an awful lot of money. But do your own checking. Check out how much gravel is there. It seems to me that perhaps there is some advantage to the farmers in the area who have gravel to get together and set up their own company and deal with the prime contractor if and when the project goes ahead, rather than having a middleman coming in and buying the land for a relatively small amount, or at least a small amount compared to the value of the gravel in a project of that size. Mr.

Chairman, we also had several people from British Columbia, who took some time to talk about some of the implications in British Columbia. Of course, Hudson Hope is the classic example of the boom-and-bust town. The town that boomed had 31 school teachers. I believe it's now down to seven school teachers. The town that 10 years ago had an active, thriving business section, now has only two or three operating businesses in place. Concern was expressed there. One of the things I think the minister would be in terested in, being in agriculture himself, is the interest of the market gardeners. In Fort St.

John they discovered that the soil [temperature] went down two or three de grees after the Bennett dam was constructed. I certainly am no soils expert, but this was apparently the experience in British Columbia. This has caused some concern among the market gardeners at Dunvegan. There are two very successful market garden operations in Dunvegan, as well as a number of others downstream, who wouldn't necessarily be affected by the construction of the dam,

602 ALBERTA HANSARD April 28, 1980 except if it did reduce the soil temperature. That could indeed affect their operations. So I think it's fair to say, Mr. Chairman, that these people expressed a question about that at the meeting. Then we have the impact on health services, schools, and roads, all of which are mentioned in a way in the studies that were completed in 1976, although not in any comprehensive manner. Mr. Chairman, we had representation as well from people in Peace River, who expressed some concern about the water quality in the town of Peace River.

I know we have an unusual situation in Peace River be cause of low flow in the Smoky. My guess is that the dam at Dunvegan wouldn't have a great impact on water quality in Peace River, because it's my understanding that the intake for the town of Peace River gets its water largely from the Smoky River. Nevertheless, that was one of the concerns expressed by residents from Peace River.

In addition, we had several other people argue that if we're going to backstop a project of this nature in the form of the present method of asking for bids from the private utilities, then we should in fact own the project ourselves. This is not something that is relevant here when we discuss Environment; I'm sorry I didn't have an opportunity to be here when we had the discussion of Utilities and Telephones. But it's an ongoing issue that will proceed over the weeks and months ahead. The suggestion was also made, Mr. Chairman and Mr.

Minis ter, that in its planning process, should it proceed, the government should look at the feasibility of a rail link across the top of the dam. I raised this the other day and was pleased to see the Minister of Economic Develop ment applaud that idea. It seems to make a good deal of sense to me. It would link the north and south sides of the Peace River. Mr. Chairman, after various people had an opportuni ty to express their points of view, a number of questions were asked and then a motion was put to the meeting. That motion was essentially that we should hold a hear ing by the Environment.

Council of Alberta on the feasi bility of a dam at Dunvegan. I suggest, Mr. Minister, that perhaps we should look a little beyond that, at the question of flow regulation on the Peace River and the impacts in the community of a project of this size in the Fairview-Spirit River region. I also want to make clear that it certainly wasn't a unanimous decision at the meeting. I would say a very substantial majority of those voting, voted in favor of it; a number of people from outside the constituency quite properly didn't vote. But that is the suggestion that was made at this meeting. Mr.

Minister, I would ask both you and the Minister of Utili ties and Telephones to seriously consider it. No one argued more than I did several years ago, when we changed the make-up of the Environment Conserva tion Authority and turned it into the Environment Coun cil of Alberta. I have to say that at the time I had real doubts about replacing a permanent, three-person au thority with panels that could change from time to time. But the panel approach does allow a certain amount of flexibility.

In my judgment, were we to proceed with ECA hearings on flow regulation on the Peace River, that very flexibility would allow the government to choose some people who are particularly qualified. I would suggest that if we were to hold ECA hearings — and this may be rather surprising for a socialist member of the Legislature to make this suggestion — the government couldn't find a better person to head up the hearings than our former MP, Ged Baldwin. He's lived in the area all his life; he knows the Peace River valley from one end to the other; he's knowledgeable about the total impact along the river valley.

In my view, a person of his ability to head up a panel to look into it could give the government not only additional community input, but a tremendous amount of the sort of sober, rational, and reasonable advice Mr. Baldwin has come to epitomize in northern Alberta. Mr. Chairman, I would just make two other points on the question of whether we should hold ECA hearings. First of all, I would say that we've held hearings on every major dam project in this province. We've held hearings on flow regulation on the Oldman; we've held hearings on the Red Deer and the Paddle.

We didn't hold formal ECA hearings on the Bighorn, but the Social Credit members of committee will quickly remember that we held hearings on the Bighorn in this Legislature. I had an opportunity to go back over Hansard and listen to some of the things Mr. Horner had to say about why we should have hearings in the Legislature. Frankly I don't think we need hearings in the Legislature on flow regulation on the Peace. But I do think the new, flexible approach to panels in the present ECA would be well worth a serious look by the government. What are the arguments against it?

I guess there are really two: one is that we're going to have to go through that process with the ERCB anyway. Well, Mr. Chair man, with great respect, however much I value the work of the ERCB, essentially you're looking at a much more technically oriented agency. I think ECA hearings could be complementary. I don't think any of us see this as just something to hold it up. As I understand the time formula, it's going to take in the neighborhood of at least three years. I could be wrong, but the figure I've been given is at least three years before we could get construc tion under way.

That being the case, I think the govern ment has the opportunity to move with ECA hearings. I suppose the other argument against hearings by the ECA is that essentially all this has been done because of the Dunvegan dam study. I think there's a lot of excellent material in the Dunvegan study; no question about it. But having had an opportunity to peruse the study and see the questions posed — perhaps it's just the way consul tants are; they try to hedge their bets by saying, we think so and so, but on the other hand . . . There are an awful lot of "on the other hands" in the volumes of the Dunvegan dam study.

That being the case, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Minister, I would argue that at this juncture it would be well for the government to seriously consider the proposal for ECA hearings. And I want to make very clear that I say that against a backdrop of what in my view, as MLA for the area, is a generally positive approach to the dam — not everybody, but a generally positive approach to the dam. Some legitimate questions have been asked.

And in deal ing with probably the biggest construction project in the history of the Alberta Peace, it is not unreasonable that we be very careful in making sure the public has a right to be heard. Mr. Chairman, the only other point I would make is that I understand there were minutes. The superintendent of schools acted as secretary. He took down fairly com prehensive minutes and took copies of the various sub missions.

As soon as I get that, it will be my intention to have it duplicated and sent to both ministers directly affected, as well as the Premier and any members of the House who would like copies of the minutes of that meeting. I think it would be interesting. It was not set up in any other way than to get some initial feedback from

April 28, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 603 people. In no way is it meant to be a gauge of public opinion in total. Rather it was a meeting of interested people. As I said, I'd be glad to supply the minutes of that meeting to anyone who wants them. With those general observations, Mr. Chairman, I want to underscore the importance of the government carefully evaluating whether ECA hearings would be a reasonable step. I don't believe they need delay the project.

But I think I can say, on behalf of people in my constituency, that there's very widespread feeling that if the project goes ahead, we want to make sure there is maximum local participation; that the planning is in place so we don't end up with some of the horror stories of other massive projects that, quite frankly, worry people in the Fairview-Spirit River area; and that we can in fact devel op a general strategy in proceeding with this project which would be acceptable not only to members of this House, but I think would meet with the approval of people in the area too. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Five members have indicated they wish to speak. I'll read off the list, so you know where you stand and how long you'll probably be: the members representing the constituencies of Macleod, Little Bow, Vegreville, Calgary Forest Lawn, and the Leader of the Opposition. I don't see the hon. Member for Macleod with us, so we'll go to the hon. Member for Little Bow. MR. R. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to make just a few opening remarks on two or three subjects.

First, the Oldman River and the ECA report: I'm certainly interested in hearing from the minister the status of the announcement that will be made in this spring Legislature. From my own point of view and in discussions with the irrigation districts, particularly the farmers who rely very heavily on water for their irrigation this summer, I'd like to say there's a lot of support for a dam on the Oldman River at this point in time.

I would say there's a bit of neurosis in the system right now, with the dry weather in southern Alberta, with the possibility — it's in the early thinking stage at this time — of having to ration water for irrigating. I know each of the irriga tion districts has set up a policy, which they never had before, on how rationing will take place; on what days during the summer we as irrigation farmers may be ra tioned in our use of water.

So, number one, I think I'd like to hear a progress report on that matter; number two, I stress to the minister that it is urgent; and, number three, if there is some information from that area of the province that I can provide to the minister, I'd be pleased to do so. The second area I'd like to remark on is the provincial water proposal. I would have to say I'm certainly in terested in the proposal of having an interconnection between various water flow systems in the province. I don't think we should look at it in a negative way at this point in time. I think we should be open-minded.

Water was God's gift on the earth, and there's no reason that one river system can't supply water to another, if it is done in a reasonable, rational, and well thought out way. I certainly urge the minister and the management advi sory committee to continue to follow that objective and look at the possibilities of total utilization of our water, whether it's in north, south, or central Alberta, and have it accessible to all parts of Alberta in whatever way it takes to do that.

I'd be interested in some specifics from the minister at this time, though, such as what meetings the water management advisory committee has had up to this point and what recommendations they have made. Have any policy recommendations been made with regard to trans fer of water from the north to the southern part of the province? Specifically, I think there were some recom mendations in the Hanna area. What position is the government taking at the present time on interbasin transfer, or is there no specific policy from the minister in that regard at the present time?

What time line is the minister or the department looking at with regard to the set of recommendations on interbasin transfer? The third item I want to comment on is the Bow River itself, not specifically on the pollution question I raised earlier today, but with regard to diversion of water from the Bow River into the Bow River irrigation system.

Approximately a year and a half to two years ago, I think, a very well thought out brief and study, done for the Bow River Irrigation District, was presented to the present Minister of Municipal Affairs, who at that time was the Minister of Agriculture, and also, I believe, to the present Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care. In that brief there was a recommendation that the diversion between the Bow River and the Bow River Irrigation District distribution system should be widened so that more water could be put into the system and more acreage could come under irrigation.

I wonder if the minister has been able to review that study, and does it look as if a commitment can be made this year or within the next year or two? At present, irrigation acreage is limited. No new water rights are being supplied to the various farmers. But at the same time, there's a high demand from farmers in the area for new water rights for irrigation. I'm asked quite often: when will something be done, and do I think something can be done? So I'd appreciate the minister commenting on that particular item as well. MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm sorry I wasn't here to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Little Bow, but I have a concern on the Oldman River basin study and what stage it's at in coming to a final decision. The assurance of water in the Oldman River basin is a most vital concern. We have the water there if we manage it properly, as I'm sure you're aware. I'd like to know what stage that's at. The communities in the Oldman River basin rely on that water for their domestic supply. I'd ask the minister to respond to that. Thank you. MR. BATIUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just a couple of comments, only I don't know whether the good news or the bad should come first. Nevertheless, I would like to express my appreciation for the stand the minister took recently in announcing approval for the regional water line from Edmonton to Vegreville. MR. R. CLARK: That's the good news. MR. BATIUK: That's right. When I look over the last few years — the demands for more water, the shortage of it; I always look to the smaller communities first. In 1972, Chipman, in my con stituency, had gone down to a population of only 150. The way it looked, in no time there would be no community at all.

However, by 1978 the population doubled, but the council of the village of Chipman stopped all building permits because of the water short

604 ALBERTA HANSARD April 28, 1980 age. For the last couple of years they have hauled water by trucks, and still are. One can understand how expen sive and inconvenient it is, and no doubt the quality of water is not the best. It is the same with other areas. Vegreville, which is growing at a rapid pace, has been depending on the Vermilion River, which is hardly more than a creek. The water runs through it in the spring, and inside of two weeks you can walk across it without getting your feet too dirty. They are dependent on whatever water they get.

They have to have large storage facilities to save water from the previous year. So this announcement has been very well accepted. The next area I would like to stress, which I have expressed my appreciation for not only once, is the support our government has given for irrigation. I have served on a caucus committee on irrigation, I have trav elled in southern Alberta, and I really admire the wonders irrigation can do for the farming population. When you compare dryland farming and irrigated farming, there is a world of difference. It's the same whether it's for hay or pasture.

As we know, land is a renewable resource. I am glad to see the support irrigation is getting. However, I am a little concerned when we see that our government gives support up to 86 per cent for irrigation. At the same time, I would say that the northern half of the province has a problem with too much water in many areas. I know that throughout my constituency and many others there are sloughs and creeks, and many of them are not functioning properly, maybe because of nature or because of farming methods over the past years. Some years ago farmers used to thresh with threshing machines.

The best place to let the straw pile go was where there is water, that they couldn't use anyway. I think that stopped the natural flow of water in many areas. The same with ploughing lower places and creeks in dry years: now there is a real problem with them. Very many areas are suffering because of a surplus of water, but because of the high cost of drainage — maybe only a few years ago it amounted to thousands of dollars; now it may cost a quarter or a half million dollars.

True enough, a few years ago the federal government assisted up to 50 per cent for water drainage, the provincial government provided 25 per cent, and the municipality and farmers had to raise the other 25 per cent. But since the federal government withdrew from this program, the provincial government has increased its support from 25 to 50 per cent. Now the farmers have to contribute 25 per cent, and 25 per cent is from the county. However, some of these projects are getting far too expensive. I hope the minister would look at areas where maybe drainage does not have to go as far as the study shows.

Maybe if it were brought to its natural state of 50 years ago, that would be [satisfactory]. Then I wonder whether the minister would want to advise in his summation whether he too would consider that probably there could be support for drain ing surplus water, as there is for irrigation. Thank you. MR. ZAOZIRNY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too would like to make a few preliminary remarks in response to the minister's opening statement. Firstly, I would like to compliment the department, and the minister in particular, in respect of his recogni tion that all is not well with the Bow River.

In fact, I'd like to direct all my preliminary remarks to that concern, because I feel it is a very large example of the environ mental dangers this province is faced with, and will be faced with in the years to come as the province continues to grow. I think we've made considerable headway inso far as there is clear recognition and a public statement by the Department of Environment and the minister, that we do have a problem. I recall speaking in this Assembly on this matter approximately a year ago, and at that point it didn't seem we had the specific recognition we now have.

I'd also like to compliment him with respect to the announcement that the government intends to move in requiring the city of Calgary to clean up the Bow in terms of the phosphorus presently being dumped into the Bow River by sewage treatment facilities. However, having handed out those bouquets, I'd like to raise a number of concerns with the minister. In the same way as other members, I'd appreciate his response later in the consideration of the estimates. The first matter I would like to bring to his attention is the status of The Clean Water Act itself.

In that regard I would draw the minister's attention to a study completed by his own department back in December 1978, by Mr. Klaus Exner of the water quality control branch, in which he talked about the fact that in the present Clean Water Act we're talking in terms of objectives rather than standards. Through the Chair to the minister, it is this member's understanding that presently we do not have any stand ards as such promulgated through regulation; we merely have objectives. I suggest there has to be more than a semantic difference in the use of those two terms.

I would appreciate the minister's comments as to whether we should have some standards as such promul gated, which I understand is possible through regulation. I certainly think we're at the time in this province when we need good, tough standards to protect the environ ment, in terms of both The Clean Water Act and other aspects of environmental concern. Addressing the matter of standards a little further, it is again this member's understanding that phosphorus has not in fact been regulated as an element of discharge.

The city of Calgary licence which grants them the right to discharge effluent into the Bow River, does not impose any limitation in terms of phosphorus output. If that is not the case, I would appreciate the minister's comment; if it is, again I think we have to be concerned with the tightness of the standards we have imposed. I'd like to make a comment with respect to posting, which has been raised by both this member and the hon. Member for Little Bow. I would simply draw the minis ter's attention to the fact that the medical officer of health for the city of Calgary, Dr. David J.

Hosking, has taken the position that posting or advising the public of any danger from bodily contact or consumption of the water of the Bow is not the responsibility of the board of health. The medical officer of health has taken the posi tion that it is the responsibility of the Department of Environment. I make that point in response to his answer to an earlier question today by the hon. Member for Little Bow.

I would also mention that I have some difficulty ac cepting the proposition, put forward not only by the Minister of Environment but also the Calgary medical officer of health, that it should be public knowledge, if you will, that the Bow River is not safe for recreational purposes. While I think that comment may be fair in terms of the strong current of the Bow River, particularly in certain areas, I think the public in Alberta has historic ally been able to view our rivers and streams as prime recreational area subject, again, to problems of current. It's a great deviation from the norm, if you will, when

April 28, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 605 we're in a situation where the water is not only undrink- able, but there is a real risk of danger to public health by mere contact. I think those arguments lend further weight to the need to advise the public of the potential danger, and certainly posting is one means of drawing public attention to this very serious health hazard. The minister has advised the Assembly, and certainly the Speech from the Throne spoke of treatment of phosphorus discharge into our rivers and streams.

I would like to suggest to the minister that there is a need to examine not only the phosphorus discharge, but when we're looking at the construction of expensive equipment, I think we have to take a longer range view of the need for full tertiary treatment. I acknowledge that that term is subject to different

interpretations, but I think it's fair to say that the popular

interpretation would be: treatment of our water which would restore it, as much as humanly possible, to the clear, natural water flowing upstream of the city of Calgary, so that folks who live downstream of the sewage treatment facilities are able to enjoy it in the same manner as those who live upstream of the city of Calgary.

While I recognize the serious technological questions as to how one rids a river not only of phosphorus but of other contaminants, I think this government and the Department of Environment in particular should view the situation in the Bow River as one of most extreme urgency, and that it is incumbent on this government to take whatever steps are necessary to become completely familiar with the most advanced technology available in the world.

Again we have an opportunity here in the province of Alberta to be leaders and to ensure that we provide as heritage to our children not only a healthy bank account but a very clean environment. A final comment with respect to tertiary treatment — and I refer again to the December 1978 study by Mr. Exner — I think we have evidence that the level of bacteria or coliforms in the Bow River just downstream of the sewage treatment facilities in Calgary, is completely unacceptable and, in the words of Mr. Exner, "unsuitable for primary contact recreation".

So we already have very strong evidence from the Department of Environment that there is a very real problem there. I acknowledge the problems in trying to deal with it, but I think it deserves, and the people of this province deserve it to have, the utmost priority with this government. A final comment has to do with the financial burden imposed by trying to clean up not only the Bow but other river systems in this province that are, and have become, contaminated. I look forward to the minister's comments later on in the estimates as to the level of financial assistance this government intends to provide.

I humbly suggest to the minister that while there is certainly some obligation on a municipality or any other body responsi ble for contaminating or polluting our environment, cer tainly we in this province have an overriding responsibili ty. Where it is clear that the costs of such facilities would impose an unreasonable and unbearable burden, particu larly on a municipality, then I think it becomes incum bent on this government to provide financial assistance to assure the citizens of this province a clean environment. Thank you. MR. R. CLARK: Mr.

Minister, there are really three things I want to raise briefly in the course of my remarks this afternoon. I recognize there is always the danger, when the minister has been listening to five or six speak ers — if the points aren't dealt with, I can perhaps come back to them later on. Mr.

Minister, the first and perhaps the most important point I'd like to make is that I think it's incumbent on the department to become more actively involved in what I would refer to as the preventative side of things, from the standpoint of our environment, as opposed to taking the role that I think the department is all too often placed; that is, looking after the casualties. Mr. Minister, that places a very heavy obligation on you and the senior officials of the department.

My comments on this occasion aren't meant to be criti cal, but simply say that with this province growing as it appears it will — whether it's a dam at Dunvegan, petrochemical plants, irrigation in the south, the terrific growth we see not only in our urban centres of Edmonton and Calgary but also in a lot of rural centres, or whatever — it's incumbent, Mr. Minister, that your department be far more actively involved in giving environmental leader ship, if I might put it that way.

I'm not one who often advocates that we become involved in central planning, if I could use the term the Minister of Labour used today. I'm not suggesting that, Mr. Minister. But I think it's imperative that the department be seen more as a protec tor than a 'cleaner-upper' of the environment, if I could use that awful English. I commend the Member for Calgary Forest Lawn and my colleague for Little Bow on the question of the Bow River. But, Mr.

Minister, if officials of the department go back, the kind of things they're now saying about the Bow River are basically the same things they were saying in 1968 and 1969. Precious little has been done during a 10- or 12-year period. I use the Bow as an example of cleaning up a situation as opposed to trying to be in volved in the preventative aspect of the thing. That's the first point I want to make. Mr.

Minister, the second point I want to make deals with the question raised in the House today by the member from Edmonton, with regard to the Area 14 co-ordinating council and the proposed Gainers plant in the city of Edmonton. I really have four or five specific questions, Mr. Minister, to which I'd appreciate answers. Has the minister, or ministers, responded to the brief presented to him by the chairman of the Area 14 co ordinating council? I choose to raise the questions here rather than in question period, because hopefully we can become involved in a discussion back and forth if that's necessary.

Second question: is the minister considering the sugges tion of a joint committee of the province and the city of Edmonton, which was put forward by that same group. Third, is the minister in a position to advise other large urban centres with regard to odor-producing industrial plants? What kind of standards are we looking at? Has the minister's department investigated the possibility, or should I say the incident of incompatible industries locat ing within an urban industrial/residential community?

Fifth, is the minister prepared to release the acceptable criteria for the location of odor-producing industries? If I read the Area 14 co-ordinating group accurately, Mr. Minister, one of the concerns they've made to me is that they want to know what the department sees as accepta ble criteria for such a plant. It seems to me that they would then be in a far stronger position to make a judgment as to whether their fears are well founded or whether the concerns may not be as great as some feel they are. The third and last matter I want to refer to deals with this question of hazardous materials.

I appreciate, Mr.

606 ALBERTA HANSARD April 28, 1980 Minister, that some comments were made by you when I unfortunately had to be outside the Chamber. The point I want to make on this question of hazardous materials, and especially on transportation of hazardous materials, is that we often hear in this Assembly that we are going to wait until the federal government takes some initiative on a cross-the-country basis. That's reasonable. The for mer government in Ottawa had introduced some legisla tion.

The last information I have is that it will be some time, perhaps late this fall or next year, before we'll have some federal legislation. Given that fact, Mr. Minister, it seems to me that we should be canvassing our situation here in Alberta and saying very seriously: despite the fact that the federal government hasn't got legislation in place with regard to transportation of hazardous materials in Alberta, we in the province of Alberta are going to take the initiative and say what can be done, at least in Alberta, until such time as federal legislation is in place.

Naturally, at that time, it would be incumbent on us to try to make our legislation compatible with the federal government's legis lation, if the federal legislation is desirable. Mr. Minister, the feeling I get from a large number of people, both people involved in industry in the province and people concerned from a standpoint of the overall environment, is that we've waited long enough for Ottawa; let's take some steps within Alberta itself; and we'll worry about compatibility when the federal government gets their act together, if and when that happens. MR. SHABEN: Mr.

Chairman, a few remarks on matters related to water management within the province, partic ularly as they relate to the constituency of Lesser Slave Lake. I want to commend the minister for moving fairly quickly on proceeding with the lake stabilization project, which has been under consideration for the last five years. Although the funds come from the capital projects divi sion of Heritage Savings Trust Fund, I wanted today to urge the minister to proceed as quickly as possible with the calling of tenders for the project, which I believe has now been approved.

Members will recall that there were a number of possi bilities of providing considerable assistance to agricultur al and service centres in the Lesser Slave Lake constitu ency. In fact, the proposal would provide for 30,000 acres being reclaimed for agriculture, plus considerable im provement to an additional 30,000 acres, 8,000 acres being located on Indian reserves. So it's very, very impor tant to constituents in the Lesser Slave Lake constituency that this proceed quickly.

I understand the environmental impact assessment is now complete and that through the management committee — in co-operation with the Les ser Slave Lake basin advisory committee, which is made up of citizens who for the past three years have worked very hard making recommendations to the government — the department is now at a stage where a decision has been made to proceed with a series of eight cut-offs on the Lesser Slave River, as opposed to the initial proposal of constructing a relief channel.

I'm pleased with the decision the management commit tee, the department, and the citizens' advisory committee has made. I only request that the minister move as quickly as possible in calling for tenders, so that the work can be done this fall and winter. Of course, this sort of work can best be done during the winter season. At this stage it appears as though this year will be a dry year.

That would lend itself to the kind of construction work that is anticipated, bearing in mind that the project is in excess of $3 million and the feeling of the constituents of Lesser Slave Lake that the sooner the work is completed the better it will be for that land that has been under water and constantly flooded, particularly since the late '60s. It takes a couple of years for the land to recover so it could be put to good agricultural purposes.

It's simply a request on behalf of my constituency that the invitations to tender go forward as quickly as possible, so that we may provide additional agricultural land in that region, and also assist those farmers who have been concerned for a number of years with the increasing problem of high water levels, to alleviate the problem and allow consider able improvement to the agricultural, as well as recrea tional and tourist potential in the region.

It should also assist considerably in maximizing the use of Lesser Slave Lake Provincial Park, Hilliard's Bay Provincial Park, now under construction, as well as various community campsites along the shore of Alberta's most beautiful lake. I would be most appreciative if these tenders were called as early as possible this year. MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Chairman, I had a couple of concerns I wanted to raise with the minister today. He may be able to respond in his remarks. The first is an ongoing concern with regard to progress being made towards reclamation of the coal slack piles in the Crowsnest Pass area.

I wonder if the minister may be able to advise on what progress and action is being considered with regard to the Blairmore coal slack piles. Also, there is a concern locally with regard to plans by Coleman Collieries to reprocess their slack piles, and I wonder if the minister may be able to consider whether there may be an avenue for public concern with regard to that plan to process the Coleman slack piles — whether there will be an opportunity for the public to come forward and express the concerns which they have.

Also, I was wondering if the minister may be able to update the House as to the monitoring by his department of air quality in the Pincher Creek area, particularly with regard to concerns raised by parents in the area about the possible effect of emissions from gas plants there on the health of their children. Finally, I want to make a couple of remarks with regard to the Oldman River hearings, and the progress of the government to date in making a decision on that.

The people in my area who would be affected by a decision to proceed with on-stream storage clearly would like to have a decision made as quickly as possible, in order that they can go on with making plans about their life styles down the road and any plans they may have to make if that sort of decision is made. In discussing the Oldman River, my firm belief has always been that we should proceed with rehabilitation of the existing irrigation systems first, to increase the efficiency of use of water.

In terms of the storage alternatives, we should look at off-stream storage first, because it fits in very well with the plans of the irrigation districts in terms of balancing ponds, et cetera. A decision on on-stream storage should only be made if it is deemed and proven necessary to the long-term water supply needs in southern Alberta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. L. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, just a quick comment. I'm just wondering when we go through the estimates for this department if the minister could . . . You know, there's more pollution than just on the Bow River.

I think our Red Deer River is in almost as bad shape. In fact, when I was on the health unit down there, we did a kind

April 28, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 607 of survey of the river and they said it was polluted above Drumheller and contaminated below. Since then they've put in a new sewer system in Drumheller which, I think, has helped the situation considerably. But I think the water quality in all our rivers in southern Alberta is deteriorating.

I was wondering if the minister would give us a kind of run-down: when they build a new sewage plant, say, in Calgary — which is the major cause of pollution in the rivers in Red Deer or Drumheller or Calgary — how much of the cost of this plant is put back to the municipality responsible for the pollution, and what portion of it is paid by the government? MR. COOKSON: Mr. Chairman, there are quite a number of questions here. If I look up in the air once in a while, you'll know that I'm signalling someone to give me the answers. I'll try to deal with all as best I can, and try not to take too long.

But some of them are rather complex and, to do justice to them, I have to go into a little bit of detail. The first questions were asked by the Member for Spirit River-Fairview, and his early comments were with regard to the Environment Council of Alberta report on the Oldman River study. Perhaps I could say again to members of the Assembly that I committed to a state ment this spring, and I still plan to follow through on it, although the spring is a little earlier than I had projected.

But I will be bringing a recommendation through cabinet that will become a public statement of policy and will deal pretty well with the whole irrigation situation in southern Alberta, the eastern and southeastern parts, and so on. It will be comprehensive in that it will state, in terms of the government, a commitment for funding in the future, and will give direction in terms of expansion of irrigation, if and when. It may even suggest that there may have to be a limit because of the capacity of the river systems. I don't think I can say much more about that.

I know there's great interest and anticipation in terms of on-stream storage, by the Member for Pincher Creek- Crowsnest in particular, and I hope I can clarify that as part of the total policy. I just want to say that one of our greatest problems at the present time is attempting to deal with the problem of acquiring water which originates on the Piegan Indian Reserve next to Pincher Creek. I've had an initial meeting with Chief Small Legs, and I hope to have regular meetings in the months to come, because it's extremely important that we establish clearly the assurance of a water supply at some later date.

Even though these court proceedings and determination of the ownership of land, and so on, may be occurring concurrently, my hope is that the chief and I will be able to come forth with some recommendation that would be acceptable to government and to the people of Alberta. And we have a time frame that we're working on. That is part of a dilemma we face in totally tying up the report, and in the type of progress we're going to make in terms of expenditure, because we have to have this clarification.

With regard to the concept of transfer of water between basins, I think I've said before in the Assembly — if I haven't, I'm going to; and certainly I've said publicly — that at the present time, the province is not looking at the feasibility of interbasin transfer of water. I've also said that until our basins across Alberta are used to their capacity, there wouldn't even be a thought given to that. Dr. Harry Gunning is chairing an advisory committee of respectable people across the province, who are looking at the general capacity of the irrigation areas.

One of their terms of reference is basically the need for further study in terms of basin transfer. I'm going to wait to see what comes in with regard to that. That's basically the response to the question. With regard to the Dunvegan proposal, I thought the Member for Spirit River-Fairview presented a good case, then proceeded to give the pros and cons, and almost solved the problem for me. I just want to add several areas that I don't think he covered. One is the fact that any major hydro development in the province requires

an Act of the Legislature. My understanding is that this would be the case if it's a major hydro development. Then there would be an opportunity for public debate within the Legislature. In that respect, it would be important for members personally involved to see that they made repre sentations here. The other point I would like to make is that I don't think there's any disagreement about the importance of public input. I think we agree it's extremely important that the public participate as much as possible in the hearing process.

In this respect, in the case of ERCB hearings, we have provision for environmental impact assessments. At the present time, we're looking at the general relationship between. EIAs and the procedures of the ERCB, in hopes we can work these two responsibili ties more closely together. In the environmental impact assessment, of course, the public has full opportunity to make presentations on an informal basis. Public hearings have to be held, so it doesn't necessarily fall in the category of quasi-judicial, or some argument that might be made because the ERCB is more formally designed.

So there is, has been, and always will be lots of opportunity for public input. I think it's important, though, that we don't confuse the public by having too many concurrent hearings or procedures that thoroughly confuse the issue. Generally speaking, the Environment Council of Alber ta deals with general policy issues; the classic would be the hearings on the forestry report. The Environment Council works best — and I've had discussions with the chief of the Environment Council — not necessarily on site specifics but on general hearings.

For example, we're presently working on general hearings on hazardous chemical or industrial wastes in the province, and they are of a very general nature. The input is much easier and in a more informal manner, but not necessarily with regard to site specifics. Site specifics deal on a much more technical level. I just wanted to touch on the Peace River problem and its source of water. It now gets its water from the Smoky, and we're looking at the possibility of transferring so it gets its water from the Peace River. So if there's any impact by construction at Dunvegan, then maybe we have a problem there.

The Member for Little Bow again asked a question about procedure with regard to the Oldman report. I still hope I'll have that here and be able to make it part of a public announcement during the session, although there are a couple of problems in that respect. I'm not sure I can do that. I note the Member for Little Bow is interested in transfer of water, and I seem to detect that kind of pressure from some parts of the province.

As I've said to the Member for Spirit River-Fairview: at the present time, the province is not contemplating any type of inter basin study, although this particular committee is looking at a general overview, to see if there is a need for further study in this area.

608 ALBERTA HANSARD April 28. 1980 [Mr. Purdy in the Chair] A comment on the diversion project: that is really part of the total irrigation thing, that I hope to get before the public before very long. Hopefully there will be an ex pression of funding in that particular area, too. There are some funds in the estimates with regard to the Little Bow, widening of canal work. So there are some commitments. But I guess this deals with the area of the Carseland weir and on down, which again would be part of the total Heritage Savings Trust Fund allocation in this area.

The Member for Vegreville raises an excellent point. I think that members of the Assembly should address themselves to this, because there is a difference across the province in terms of shared costs. In the north we have drainage projects which are 50-50 — that is, 50 govern ment, 50 local or municipal. In central Alberta, we talk about drainage projects that sometimes are 75-25. I'm sorry, it's the other way around: in the north it's 75-25, with the province picking up 75; in the central part, it tends to be 50-50 on drainage.

Then of course you have irrigation, where we pick up huge capital costs in provid ing a supply of water. When we get into the areas and responsibilities of Agriculture, in terms of the individual operation you're talking 86-14. I appreciate the presenta tion by the Member for Vegreville. I don't know whether you can compare them totally, but I think it's worth looking at, because the argument can be made that one area needs water and the other area has to get rid of it, so why is the shared cost on a different formula? It certainly is worthy of consideration.

In his usual capable manner, the Member for Calgary Forest Lawn raises a number of points. One was that The Clean Water Act operates under objectives rather than standards. The only thing I can add is that it's very difficult, as he knows, to try to enforce an objective. So we do have standards. Whether we're successful in enforc ing the standards is another question. But our standards are generally on the basis of the biological oxygen demand, or BOD content, of the sewage which finds its way into the system.

In setting up our standards, we use that as a measure, and generally the flow or capacity of the stream to handle that amount. We are setting up a standard for phosphorus emission. That will be about one part per million. I recognize your comment with regard to helping — even though we followed a general policy of polluter-pay — in cases where it's virtually impossible for individuals to carry the total cost. In our proposal to handle the phosphate problem, we are looking at a shared cost. And once it gets its way through the system, that will be public information.

As I say, we do have the phosphorus point: it must be down to one part per million. I've got to clarify the responsibility of the board of health versus Environment. The Minister of Social Serv ices and Community Health and I are working this out now. I don't know whose responsibility is what. My understanding was that when it came to bacterial coli- form problems, and so on, it would be the board of health, and that Environment would deal with other things, such as nutrients. But I'll try to get that clarified. I think it's in respect to a question that was asked today in the House, too.

Again, I have trouble with the term "tertiary treat ment". I appreciate the comments of the member from Calgary with regard to looking at some of the other trace elements. We're looking at them. So far, we aren't satis fied we have a problem; for example, with materials such as zinc, cadmium, and so on. But as our industry devel ops, there's going to be a problem. In this respect we have to look very carefully at the use of sewage effluent for irrigation purposes, because there is a possibility of these trace elements being picked up and causing some prob lems.

I think it's been noted that in Ontario they're having problems with tobacco. I'm happy about that, and I hope they have a lot more problems with tobacco. Maybe it'll solve a lot of problems. The Member for Olds-Didsbury raised a number of questions with regard to the group that corresponded with me in terms of their concern regarding, in this case, the transfer of Gainers into an area which is not in the Edmonton industrial area but is in an area that's zoned by the city for industry.

By controlling the content of the emissions at the stack level, generally speaking we can control the odor, because the odor is caused by a specific combination of elements. I guess I can't respond very fully to the member's questions, unless I happen to get a note down here, because I couldn't get them down quickly enough. With regard to the question on criteria used in the case of odor-producing industries, though, maybe I'll look up in the sky again to see if I can get some more information on that. I guess that is in relation to the question of incompatible industries in a defined area.

In general you would like to know more about the standards for odor- producing industries. I'll try to get that. MR. R. CLARK: I'll send a copy over. MR. COOKSON: We've had comments in the House with regard to transportation of hazardous materials in the province. My most up-to-date information is that this legislation will be in the House of Commons within three weeks. I'm in the process of advising my federal counter parts that it's extremely important that they follow through on this. In that legislation, the federal govern ment will be standardizing packaging and labelling and concentrations, for example.

We would then like to take that legislation and expand from that point, if we have to. It may be sufficient, and we won't have to do this. But if we have to, we would like to go from there and, if necessary, make it a little tougher. It may involve routes and this sort of thing. The Member for Lesser Slave Lake spoke about the Slave Lake project, and I appreciated the comments that were made. A large part of that funding comes from the Heritage Savings Trust, although I think we have a fair amount allocated in the estimates for Slave Lake drainage area work. We're progressing as quickly as we can.

It's correct that we changed our original concept. We are sure we can accomplish the same thing by straighten ing out the channelling. I might suggest to the member that I've had some expression — not of concern, but of interest — by Ducks Unlimited in participating in what we're doing, because of interest in wildlife, and we're prepared to meet with them. They don't see it as any major problem in the deltas at the northwestern end, but they would like to have more chance to dialogue with us, and we can do that. Pincher Creek expressed a number of concerns: first of all, the gas plants in the Pincher Creek area.

At the present time, we have our own portable monitoring de vice in the area, and we'll probably have it there for the next two months. It monitors, I think, about eight out of 10 different combinations of chemicals. As yet we have not been able to identify any relationship between the

April 28. 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 609 emissions of the two plants in the area, Shell and Gulf. But we're going to continue to monitor, and see if we can't zero in on what might be a problem there. Those old slag piles keep coming up. If you got the wind we've had for the last two days in my area, they're probably a lot smaller today than they were. But that's not a hope. I could perhaps check further on Coleman. I believe we have been involved with the Blairmore one before.

Under the Department of Transportation we've agreed that at the time of construction, if we don't get private industry shifting those piles, we'll be involved personally with money from the Heritage Savings Trust Fund, and we'll make this area a lot more pleasant in terms of environment. On the Coleman one, let me get an update for the Member for Pincher Creek-Crowsnest. I think problems of on-stream storage have been al luded to. We recognize the problems.

I agree with the Member for Pincher Creek-Crowsnest that the quicker we put our position before the public, the easier it's going to be for everyone concerned. The Member for Drumheller raised a question with regard to pollution. It's not in this water quality report, other than the oxygen level which, by the way, dropped this year for some strange reason in a lot of our bodies of water.

To comment on the Red Deer River: the most recent report indicates that the Red Deer River is general ly in good condition throughout most of the year, except for the midwinter period, when dissolved oxygen levels drop below five milligrams per litre. Regulated flows in the river will help overcome this problem, and I can't stress the importance of that. If we can stabilize those rivers close to their sources and regulate them, we're going to solve a lot of our problems.

The other question raised by the Member for Drum heller was the cost of new sewage or water supply plants: the portion that is picked up and the responsibility of the local authority. Since the spring of '79, when we went into the new shared-cost program for water and/or sew age, we started with a base of zero debt load per capita, and suggested to municipalities that the province would cover the cost over $200 per capita debt load, up to 90 per cent of the additional cost, going up to a maximum of $2,000, if it were one project; or up to $1,000, with $200 per capita debt, if it were two separate projects.

In general the municipalities have certainly been very happy with the funding by the province. It's really generous funding. There is a limit to what governments can do. Local authorities have to carry some of the burden. If we go too far, I don't think it would be too long before all the farm people asked for capital costs to construct their own systems. We use that $200 debt load as a sort of cutoff. And because of efficiency of numbers, and so on, some of the major municipalities, such as Calgary and Edmonton, do not qualify at all.

So it really is a great boon for smaller municipalities throughout the province, that couldn't possibly have handled the strict environmental requirements without this kind of funding. It escalates. It will go up according to an inflation factor. In addition, we're looking at another special program for phosphate removal. Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether that answers all the questions, but it answers some anyway. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Minister, I never got a response on the question of the role of the department.

I made some comments with regard to the department's dealing with problems once they've arrived, as opposed to having a much higher profile from the department, from the standpoint of being involved in the preventive aspects of things happening to our environment. I used the Bow River as an example. I take from the nod, Mr. Minister, that you plan to comment on that. Mr. Minister, I sent over to you those questions with regard to the situation in Edmonton. If some detail is required, perhaps you could simply forward the informa tion to my office by memo as soon as possible. That would be very helpful. MR.

COOKSON: I'm sorry I missed that comment, and I appreciate that, coming from the Leader of the Opposi tion. I hope the leader will support our government on what I consider some bold steps, because phosphate is a classical — we're trailing in the Bow River, but not in some other areas of the province. In the future, I would like to see a further look at our total water systems in terms of protection of the wa tershed area within the confines of those systems, particu larly the larger ones.

As you probably know, we have restricted development areas in both Calgary and Edmon ton, that tend to protect the watershed areas within the two cities. However, we've never looked beyond that to any large degree. I think we have to start looking a little more closely at the watershed areas, certainly within a specified area. We also have to look at concentrations of livestock, and that involves all of us in the business of agriculture and the political problems associated with it. If we don't do this, I think our streams are really going to end up cesspools.

That's the sort of thing I presume the member has in mind: that we have to project ahead, rather than react to a problem after it's happened. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Minister, as an example of the kind of thing I'm talking about, let's take the Eastern Slopes for a moment. The government now has a fairly reasonable policy position as far as the Eastern Slopes are concerned. The real challenge is going to be to see that we live up to that, and not let that policy be watered down, if I could use that term. Because, as the minister knows very well, much of our water in this province starts in the Eastern Slopes.

Secondly, Mr. Minister, it seems to me that before very long the Department of Environment is going to have to give some leadership on this question of land use, and the Department of Environment along with the Department of Agriculture is going to have to be concerned about the amount of prime agricultural land in this province that's going down the tube from the standpoint of urban growth, in Edmonton and Calgary to a very great degree, but not only in Edmonton and Calgary.

I suppose one place that's going to become critical is in the decision the government makes with regard to the annexation propos als from the city of Edmonton itself. I think we'll have a good opportunity there to see what kind of response the government, and the Department of Environment in par ticular, has on this question of land use, especially as it relates to prime agricultural land.

Agreed to. 1.0.1 — Minister's Office $131,229 1.0.2 — Deputy Minister's Office $369,107 1.0.3 — Finance and Administration $190,286 1.0.4 — Accounting $395,733 1.0.5 — Personnel $247,088 1.0.6 — Office Support $501,662 1.0.7 — Systems and [Computing] $1,179,431 1.0.8 — Communications $203,927

610 ALBERTA HANSARD April 28, 1980 1.0.9 — Management Training and Development $71,099 1.0.10 — Library $228,453 1.0.11 — Solicitor's Office $26,631 Total Vote 1 — Departmental Support Services $3,544,646 Vote 2 — Pollution Prevention and Control 2.1 — Program Support $543,197 2.2 — Air Quality Management [Mr. Appleby in the Chair] MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Minister, I see here a reduction of some 54 per cent from what was actually spent last year, virtually the same amount as was included in the esti mates last year. What is the reason for that? MR. COOKSON: Mr.

Chairman, last year on the fore cast we picked up two projects by special warrant. One had to do with the Crossfield area, where we relocated a pipeline on a joint agreement with AMOCO. The other had to do with finally settling the problem . . . We look very carefully at cases where we impose some undue hardship because of environmental require ments, and an industry has to relocate. If they're not financially able to do this, and if they can make a reasonable case, we operate under a policy under which we will provide some funding.

That happens to be the Edmonton Rendering plant, which was relocated at Clo ver Bar. Those two projects were picked up late in '79-80, there fore our budget in '80-81 is that amount less. Agreed to: 2.2 — Air Quality Management $1,611,235 2.3 — Water Quality Management $1,353,552 2.4 — Municipal Water and Sewerage Management MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, to the minister. During the presentation of the persons representing the 10,000 petitioners on the Bow River, one of the pieces of information they left with us as members of the Legisla ture were reports on the water quality at the hamlet of Rainier.

This was water taken from the general store in Rainier in the summer of 1979. The senior public health inspector's report at that time was that the water from the tap was not suitable for human consumption and re quired chlorination. At the hamlet of Scandia they indi cated — this is water taken from the Scandia store — the same report: not suitable for human consumption; re quires chlorination. But it was going through the tap, out of the river. From Green's store in the hamlet of Rolling Hills, the report was unsatisfactory, should not be used for human consumption.

There's also a certificate of analysis of water for the town of Bassano, indicating that the water was of poor quality. I could go on and give other statistics. I was wondering whether the minister's had an oppor tunity to look at it at this point in time, and whether he has an up-to-date report on these matters. Is there some kind of emergency program that can be put into effect with regard to their water and sewage treatment, if necessary? MR. COOKSON: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate receiving the input from the group who came in with regard to the pollution in the Bow.

I think it was clear at the time I spoke to them, though, that it would be almost foolhardy to use for drinking purposes water from such a source, when it's pretty well known publicly that it has a high coliform bacterial content. I haven't been able as yet to pursue the petition interests with regard to what we can possibly do to improve the water quality. I have no program within my budget to make provision for treatment. Again, we presume that people who use this water will obtain their own treatment facility. I guess there are small units that can be acquired and used.

As yet we have no program for this particular use. It may be that Social Services and Community Health has some thing through the health units, but as far as I know, Environment has no funding for it. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, has the minister any plan of contacting or directing personnel, or directing the Minister of Social Services and Community Health to put this problem in perspective? Or do we just let it delay and drag along? As far as I know, these people are still using exactly the same water. I don't know of any chlorination treatment or systems that have been put on the water.

The hamlets are the responsibility of the county of Ne well. I don't know of any expenditure they have put forward to treat the water systems in these areas. Isn't the problem urgent enough — it's the drinking water, the water they use with their food — to have someone in the Department of Environment or one of the other departments get on top of this so the minister at least has an answer back in this Legislature? It's been a year now, and I've said this two or three times. I remember saying it last year. Let's clarify the issue, find out who's supposed to do the job, and put the finger on him.

The minister's got control of grants; the minister's got control of senior civil servants sitting up here in the gallery; the minister's got control of 1,000 or 2,000 of them out in the field. The public health units could get on this thing, if they were given a directive. One, there's a problem out there; two, there's this communication. Last week we talked about access to information and understanding in the Legislature. It just doesn't seem to be coming back in here for some kind of decision, nor does it seem to be going down to the department to get at the job and get it over with. Do the people just go on?

Certainly, we can't solve the problem in Calgary right away. As the minister has explained very clearly — and I can understand it — putting that mechanical process into effect in Calgary is going to take at least into three years from now. I accept that. But there must be some interim measures we can take, so that all safeguards are taken and the people are looked after. I just don't get from the minister the feeling of the urgency of the matter, and the concern that I've got for it.

Ten thousand petitioners have been here just within the last two or three weeks saying: look, the issue is urgent; let's do something. Water quality samplings show that there should be grave concern. What should we be doing about the thing, members of the Legislature? My colleague from Brooks has raised the matter; I've raised the matter; 10,000 petitioners have raised the matter. I don't know what else we can say to the minister. But it seems like Calgary is saying it's the responsibility of Environment; the minister is saying it's Calgary; the people downstream are saying, help us.

Nobody's really going out there and saying: what are five

April 28, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 611 things or three things we can do immediately. There must be some things we can do immediately. If the people in these towns, these little hamlets that I've mentioned, need chlorinators, maybe the store is running on a such a small margin that they need some help. Well then, let's finance them in some way and do something. But we just aren't doing that, and I get a little impatient about the whole thing. I know it may take

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19800428
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L19 S2 19800428 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	4accf8f77b48d83eeaeaa208fbba5eeac512cd26

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