Alberta Hansard — 7 July 1986, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 21, Session 1)

19860707

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

July 7, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 359 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Monday, July 7, 1986 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS MR. SCHUMACHER: Mr. Speaker, I move that the peti tions for private Bills presented Friday last be now read and received. [Motion carried] head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 13 Department of Transportation Amendment Act, 1986 MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill 13, the Department of Transportation Amendment Act, 1986.

This being a money Bill, Her Honour the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, having been informed of the contents of this Bill, recommends the same to the Assembly. Mr. Speaker, the principle of the. Bill is to create the new Department of Transportation and Utilities. [Leave granted; Bill 13 read a first time] Bill 11 Alberta Stock Savings Plan Act MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill 11, the Alberta Stock Savings Plan Act. Mr. Speaker, this Act is introduced in this session in part as a follow-up from my colleague who introduced a similar Bill some time ago, before the election.

To simply reinforce the importance of this Bill, I want to stress the four elements which this Bill does in fact accomplish and to outline the intention of the government to move this legislation forward in this session.

First of all, it strengthens the private sector in its ability to create jobs, providing expansion capital for growing Alberta companies; two, it encourages diversification of investment in new plants and industries in this province; three, it attracts more Albertans to the Alberta stock market, encouraging an expansion and mustering of capital equity in a number of Alberta-resident corporations; and finally, it strengthens the Alberta Stock Exchange and the Alberta financial environment as well. I should say, Mr.

Speaker, that with the tabling of this legislation, we will continue with our commitment to provide eligibility certificates for those corporations now filing through the Treasury Department, and of course, as you well know, this legislation provides for the tax deduction by purchase of those shares in the year 1986. I move first reading of Bill 11. [Leave granted; Bill 11 read a first time] head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MS BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure today in introducing to you and members of the Assembly a special guest seated in your gallery.

She is visiting from Regina, although she was born and raised in Alberta and has a proud heritage no less. She is Dawn Martin, the daughter of the opposition leader. I ask her now to rise and receive the welcome of all members of the Assembly. MR. GETTY: She's better looking than him. MR. MARTIN: Agreed. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Oil and Gas Well Safety MR. MARTIN: After that nice introduction from the Pre mier, I'd like to direct my question to the Minister of Energy. It has to do with the ERCB's oil and gas well blowout report for 1985 and concerns well inspections. Mr.

Speaker, the report notes that there were some 76,000 active oil and gas wells in Alberta; another 8.500 were drilled in that year. The ERCB inspected 2,447 of these wells, which is about 2.9 percent. What is disturbing, leading to the question, is that a full 23 percent of those inspected had deficiencies and 13.3 percent were so seriously deficient that they had to be shut down. My question: given such a high percentage of problems with the very small number of rigs inspected, what steps is the minister taking to get more wells inspected and to reduce the incidence of deficient wells? DR. WEBBER: Mr.

Speaker, I would have to take any questions related to the details that the hon. Leader of the Opposition has indicated on notice and report back to him. However, the ERCB's report that came out recently is going to be followed up by another one. which I hope to be able to table in the near future, related to a follow-up to the hearings that were held after the blowout to the southwest of us, the Lodgepole blowout, of a year ago. The rec ommendations that were made in that report with regard to safety have been very much followed up on on the part of different departments in the government.

I will be tabling that particular report at a time in the near future but would have to take notice of any details related to the question that was asked now. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I have to admit that I'm only slightly surprised. This very important report in the minister's department came out in June. Is the minister saying then that he has not had an opportunity to review this particular document at this point? DR. WEBBER: No. I'm not saying that. Mr. Speaker: I have read the document. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question. Surely the min ister could answer the first one then.

If the minister has read it. I'm sure he can fill us in on this information. My question, flowing from the report: could the minister indicate

360 ALBERTA HANSARD July 7, 1986 to the Assembly if inspections only occur for rigs being drilled? What I'm trying to drive at: are active wells inspected at all? DR. WEBBER: Again, Mr. Speaker, I'd have to take that question as notice. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question to the minister, Mr. Speaker. It's hard to have question period when min isters won't even read the materials they hand out.

In view of the fact that this seems to be a serious problem — there were 21 blowouts in active wells and only one in the drilled — is the minister satisfied, even though he hasn't had time to review it, that environmental precautions are adequate in this area at this particular time? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, in reading the report several weeks ago, I saw nothing to be alarmed about in the sense that I thought it was an excellent report in terms of the work the ERCB have been doing in surveillance of the work that's being done across this province in the energy industry.

That report, followed up by the other report that I indicated I would be tabling, indicates to me that this government has great concern about being on top of the situation and having safety in the oil field. There are a number of steps that we have taken in the past and will be taking in the future to ensure that safety is a high priority in the oil patch. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Min ister of Energy.

Is he prepared at this time to say whether or not he will be giving permission for Occidental or their group to drill sulphur wells within the city limits of Calgary or within one mile of the northeast limits of Calgary? MR. SPEAKER: That's hardly a supplementary, Member for Westlock-Sturgeon. If you'd like to offer another sup plementary which is more germane to the topic, please. MR. TAYLOR: Does the minister establish a policy for the drilling of sour gas wells within Calgary city limits or within one mile of Calgary city limits? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, if the hon.

Member for Westlock-Sturgeon is up on that situation, he'd realize that the ERCB hearing has been deferred until further research on sour gas dispersion is completed, so that has been delayed. I would also point out what I mentioned a few minutes ago, that a number steps have been taken and will be taken in terms of dealing with safety. We have a new training school, which we're building likely in the Nisku area, that will provide some of the best blowout training in the world right here in Alberta. Petrochemical Industry MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the second question to the Premier.

It has to do with the petrochemical industry. Billions have been invested in our petrochemical industry over the last decade. I think the Premier would agree. The industry is already struggling with worldwide overcapacity and recession, and now our industry's com petitive position is threatened by deregulation. My question is to the Premier: in pursuit of the November 1 deadline, has he determined how loss of our primary advantage, which is our comparatively low feedstock prices, is supposed to help our petrochemical industry? MR. GETTY: Mr.

Speaker, there are two ways in which our petrochemical industry is supported in this province. One is that it has had the long-term, assured supply of feedstock. Probably in no other part of North America is that so. Secondly, in the area of pricing we have had the lowest prices available for feedstock to our petrochemical industry. We are committed to maintaining both of those advantages. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, you can't have it both ways. Gas deregulation means that all of Canada will have those lowest prices.

My question is: under this deregulation that the government in Alberta is so fond of, are we in fact not shipping jobs in the petrochemical industry away to central Canada? MR. GETTY: That might be possible, Mr. Speaker, if you didn't take into account my first answer. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question then to the Pre mier. Under gas deregulation how can you assure that we will in fact still have the lowest prices in Alberta? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, because we have the supply and we have the petrochemical industries right beside the supply. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

As the minister would well know, under gas deregulation we're competing in the American market with places like Sarnia. Under any free trade agreement with gas deregu lation, can the Premier indicate to the House how this will help the petrochemical industry if Sarnia has the same advantages in the American market as we do? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Oppo sition is talking about "under a free trade agreement." We don't have one. Surely I would just be speculating about it. MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier.

Can he assure the House that the question of petrochemicals and petrochemical subsidies will be on the agenda for the Premiers' meetings coming up in August? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, the member should be clear — about the Premiers' meetings coming up in Ottawa? AN HON. MEMBER: August. MR. GETTY: Oh, in August. Mr. Speaker, we haven't fully finalized the agenda of the Premiers' meeting in August.

However, I was working with members of my staff and the Department of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs today regarding it, and I'm sure that the agenda will be sufficiently broad that we will be able to deal with that matter. MR. SHABEN: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I'd like to supplement the responses by the Premier with respect to the petro chemical industry. I've begun a series of meetings with manufacturers of petrochemicals and discussed with them issues related to makeup gas and input costs. The clear

July 7, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 361 response that I received was a welcome one of the government's initiative in providing some $80 million of support to the petrochemical industry to assist them in that time frame to negotiate contracts with the pipeline companies and with the suppliers. Subsequent to the July 1 date the major petrochemical producers have reached a four-month agreement with the shippers to extend their agreement in order to further negotiate prices in terms of their contracts for supply of natural gas. Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax MR. TAYLOR: Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy in view of the rays of hope he has been putting out to the industry and the federal MPs of similar persuasion. I'm talking about that dreadful four-letter word, PGRT, disappearing. Has the government evaluated the consequences for Alberta's economy when the $700 million or $800 million will be freed up as a result of dropping the PGRT? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the consequences I think the hon.

Leader of the Opposition could do some work in looking at that in the sense that an injection of $500 million to $600 million, as the approximate estimates of it are — he uses the amount of $700 million at possibly higher prices — into the petroleum industry certainly would have significant impact in terms of moneys being reinvested. The CPA and other organizations speculate that if that money is injected into the industry, we would see at least 80 percent of that reinvested in exploration and development. MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Is the minister trying to tell me that he has no idea how many oil industry jobs will be created when the PGRT is dropped? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. Member for Westlock-Sturgeon asks a question like that, in terms of specifically how many jobs would be created by injecting that kind of money — I haven't done any specific calculation. I could take it as notice to see if any work has been done.

However, through the incentives that we've provided to the industry since April 1 — in terms of the exploratory development program, well-servicing programs, and geo physical programs — thousands of jobs will be saved in the short term. Mind you, the take-up on it has been slow to date, but over the last few days it has been encouraging, and it's speculated that almost all the moneys in those programs will be taken up before the deadlines run out. So in terms of jobs, I'm not sure what the hon. Leader of the Opposition or the — not yet; don't worry, Ray.

Given the impact of a more than 50 percent reduction in the world price of oil, how much government involvement does the hon. Member for Westlock-Sturgeon want us to have? MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, a second supplementary to the Minister of Energy. Let's make it clear. Does the government have a commitment from the oil producers that the revenue that comes in from cancelling the PGRT will be used in Alberta? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, here we go again with the hon. member advocating more controls on the industry.

And once again, if the hon. member understands the Western Accord and the natural gas pricing agreement, he would realize that the people in the industry, the federal government, and the governments of the three western provinces want less government in our industry rather than more. MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary, Mr. Minister. It's hard to believe what I'm hearing. Is he saying that the federal government will give back $500 million to $700 million to this province and he has no commitment, no idea, no guarantee that the money stays in this province, that it can be going anywhere? DR. WEBBER: Same question. MR.

SPEAKER: Same question, and the whole matter is entirely hypothetical because from my understanding the matter of the PGRT has not been brought to a conclusion. Earlier there was a point of order by the Member for Vegreville, please. MR. FOX: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if it wouldn't be possible, in the short time allotted to question period, to find some happy balance between a curt yes or no and ministerial statements, because it does use up valuable time. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question to the minister that understands everything so much.

The PGRT is an illegal tax and we've taken that stand throughout. But my question is . . . SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh. MR. SPEAKER: We await your question. MR. MARTIN: My question simply is this: even if the PGRT is taken away tomorrow, there has been no indication that that would create one job. How will that help the small producers . . . SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh. MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, Leader of the Opposition, but the moment you inject that interesting word "if," we come into the realm of hypothetical, and therefore, it's out of order. So if you'd like to rephrase it succinctly, please. MR. MARTIN: Yes.

Could the minister indicate how drop ping the PGRT will help the small producers of this province when they don't even pay the tax? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, you know. I find it absolutely incredible that we've got Albertans here who are recom mending the maintenance of the PGRT. They are hanging on to that particular tax. Private Social Service Agencies MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Social Services, and it concerns privatization.

I understand that the Alberta Association of Social Workers has requested that public hearings be held before the minister implements any services in her department in a privatization way. Could the minister indicate to the Assembly whether or not she's seriously considering the request by the Alberta Association of Social Workers? MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr. Speaker, this question or a question relating to it has been raised a number of times in the

362 ALBERTA HANSARD July 7, 1986 House. For the information of the hon. Member for Leth bridge West, first of all, the hon. member used the term "privatization." I'd say that we're basically talking about community living with respect to the work that has gone on thus far. However, in some administrative areas — for instance, Michener Centre, where there's been a privatization of food services — that's a reasonable comment.

To spe cifically answer his question, wherever there is a change from the present policy — for instance, if there's institutional living and we're going to a community living concept — the people who are served are always informed and there are meetings. It relates to many, many groups that have been involved over the past year or two. MR. GOGO: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Other than the food services, such as mentioned in Michener Centre, are there any people programs that have been privatized by her department that relate to individuals other than those in the Michener Centre or those moving from an institution to the community? MRS. OSTERMAN: Again, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has used the term "privatization." I'm not sure whether he wants the list of the various changes there have been with respect to a fair amount of community living moves from various institutions, because I can certainly provide that information to the House.

The area specifically that has been a trial project has been the job-finding centres. That has been going on for some time. I believe that project will be evaluated approximately at the beginning of 1987. MR. GOGO: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, which may clear the matter up for me. Will the minister consider any privatization of services in her department if it means that the quality of services to Albertans will be reduced? MRS. OSTERMAN: No, Mr. Speaker. MRS. HEWES: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Social Services.

Will the minister assure this Assembly that she will make public the report being prepared on standards and regulations, which in fact applies to privatization, before it is acted on? MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr. Speaker, a very important point has been raised by the hon. member. I should have raised that in relating to the first member's question. Indeed, we intend to have a full public discussion in the area of standards development. There have been many organizations partici pating in that field of standards development. We hope that by this fall we'll have an opportunity to discuss it publicly.

MS MJOLSNESS: In view of the fact that the minister has stated that she is in consultation with the different agencies involved in the privatization, I'll reiterate the question: can we look forward to seeing public hearings in the future? MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr. Speaker, it's very difficult to relate to a specific public hearing. At all times we'll be working with the people who are involved in whatever service is being provided. Certainly, the question is obviously getting wide discussion, and I appreciate that.

But unfor tunately, the discussion has been prompted by a report that was recently presented by the social workers. In discussion with the president of the association we came to realize that the report was predicated on discussion papers that were in the public sphere, and it certainly wasn't a policy statement by my office or any other minister. PGP Plant MR. YOUNIE: Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of the Envi ronment. Last Friday the Minister of Economic Development and Trade told the Assembly of discussions between his department and Bradbury industries to develop a PCP plant in Alberta. Mr.

Hean of Bradbury supports his plans with very skimpy scientific support,

whereas there is a large body of evidence indicating that these are very dangerous chemicals. Will the Minister of Environment guarantee an independent review of all research into PCP manufacture and toxicity before any plant is approved in Alberta? MR. KOWALSKI: Mr. Speaker, I'd just like, to repeat what I indicated in the Legislative Assembly last Friday, that at this point in time no application has come from anyone for the establishment of such a plant in the province of Alberta. MR. YOUNIE: A supplementary.

Bradbury industries will use the same process, according to their plans, that was used in the Reichhold plant in Tacoma, Washington, and that one was closed down for environmental excesses. Will the Minister of the Environment guarantee us that he will review the circumstances that led to the closure of the Tacoma plant and the banning of the process used? MR. SPEAKER: It's very difficult for the minister in Alberta to be dealing with a matter in Tacoma, Washington. MR. KOWALSKI: Mr.

Speaker, until such time as an application comes to Alberta Environment, it would seem to me that, recognizing the priorities that I've given to basically do all we can to improve the quality of life we have in this province in the environment, it would rather be foolish on my part to go to Washington and start investigating what's happening in Tacoma. MR. YOUNIE: To something that is not hypothetical, that being death and its relation to PCP.

Assuming the minister keeps himself up on all the research, I wonder if he is aware of the Gosselin study that noted the deaths of two infants and illnesses of nine others due to PCP exposure and how that will relate to such a plant in Alberta. MR. SPEAKER: Whereabouts did this event happen? It poses a difficulty for the Chair as well as for the House. MR. YOUNIE: Mr. Speaker, I'm just trying to establish that the danger has been proven and that the research is there. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Where? MR.

YOUNIE: Okay, it was done by Robert Gosselin, MD and PhD in clinical toxicology of commercial products, London and Williams. [interjection] MR. SPEAKER: For many members, I'm sure, hon. Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps the Member for Edmonton Glengarry would like to phrase one last supplementary. MR. YOUNIE: Perhaps I should switch to the Minister of Economic Development and point out, seeing as he did

July 7, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 363 discuss the issue with Bradbury's company, as he told us, and that their proposal quotes six of 11 resource people as being people connected with the Reichhold industries plant, does the minister in fact plan to consider a plant that will be designed exactly as the one that was closed down in Washington? Will the minister consider that kind of plant? MR. SHABEN: Mr. Speaker, I indicated in the last question period that officials in the department had had discussions with representatives of the company. I have not.

To date there has not been an industrial development permit for this plant or the one described by the hon. member. MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of the Environment. Is the minister prepared to give the House his assurance that no preservative plant such as the previous questions have hit upon will go ahead unless there are public hearings? MR. KOWALSKI: Mr.

Speaker, should an application come forward, the process essentially would be that such a firm would have to obtain a development permit from a particular municipality in the province of Alberta, should they be able to find such a municipality. Certainly there's provision for public hearings within that as well. Secondly, they would then have to make an application to Alberta Environment, and I as the Minister of the Environment would ensure that the technologies that might be used, should there be an application, would be of the highest possible.

There is always the provision that I might ask for an environment impact assessment, and that would include public hearings, should there be an application forthcoming. Mental Health Care MR. CHUMIR: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. minister of hospitals. The government has just announced that there will be a designation of four hospitals in Calgary and Edmonton to treat the involuntary commitment of mental patients on or before April of 1987. The previous plan was to have these in place by March of 1986.

Can the minister tell this Assembly why this delay is taking place in dealing with this serious mental health problem? MR. M. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, first of all, all of the information that the hon. member gave in terms of his question is news to me and probably news to most of the people in the hospital system.

The facts of the matter are that we are moving toward the treatment of mentally ill people in community-based hospitals, and as such we've invited hospitals in both Edmonton and Calgary, firstly the Edmonton General and the Calgary General, to voluntarily move toward meeting the terms, if you like, of the Mental Health Act, so that they may respond, as the member has described, as facilities that can treat involuntary patients. We would expect then to have hospitals in a number of other regional centres like Grande Prairie, Fort McMurray, Lethbridge, Medicine Hat, and Red Deer move in the same direction.

Finally, we would expect more than one hospital in each of the two major cities to be suitable in terms of having the necessary psychiatric wards, facilities, and exper tise to take and treat involuntary patients. So we're moving. Mr. Speaker, I think as rapidly as we possibly can, and it's in the hands of the hospitals themselves as to how soon they would want to meet the necessary criteria. I might just add in closing. Mr. Speaker, that I did have a number of phone calls from Calgary media this morning indicating that the hon. member had had a news conference there alluding to all of this information.

We haven't been able to find out where it came from. MR. CHUMIR: Mr. Speaker, it's never a surprise to members of this Assembly when the minister is surprised at what's going on in his own department. MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, hon. member. We're dealing with supplementary questions. We're now a number of weeks into session. This is general advice to the whole Assembly, not simply to yourself. Supplementaries are going to have to be supplementary questions without

preamble. The

preamble occurs in the main question. Supplementary question, please. MR. CHUMIR: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the hon. minister. Has the minister discussed the matter of when these facilities will be in place with the relevant hospitals in Calgary and Edmonton? MR. M. MOORE: Mr. Speaker.

I have not personally discussed that matter with either of the board chairmen of the Calgary General or the Edmonton General hospital, but there is an understanding that they would advise the Depart ment of Hospitals and Medical Care when they were in a position to be able to meet whatever conditions would be important to meet in moving in the direction of providing mental health services to involuntary patients. I just say again that the hon. member is entirely mistaken with regard to the facts that he alluded to in the

preamble to his first question. MR. CHUMIR: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. In light of the delay that has taken place in dealing with this issue to date, will the minister assure this Assembly that he will take some steps to expedite the matter rather than to allow it to drift as it has to date? MR. M. MOORE: First of all, Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no delay whatsoever. When it comes to treatment of mental health, this province is second to none in terms of both the facilities we provide and the finances we are putting into both capital facilities and the attraction of specialists in that area.

I was in Ponoka on Friday and announced the development of a major hospital there to replace existing facilities. All of the new facilities that have been built in the past eight or 10 years in this province have provided an opportunity for hospitals to provide psy chiatric services and psychiatric wards. So I make no apologies for the progress we've made. It's been excellent. But it's not something that's just handed down by a minister: it's a matter of co-operation among all health authorities, and that's occurring. MR. CHUMIR: A final supplementary.

Is it the position of the government that it is acceptable to treat involuntary patients from the Calgary and Edmonton regions in regional hospitals such as Ponoka. which are not located in their own communities? MR. M. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I would have to answer that this way. For many, many years in this province and elsewhere in Canada the concept of treatment of involuntary

364 ALBERTA HANSARD July 7, 1986 mental health patients saw them going to centres, perhaps one in each province. In fact, for a number of years this province didn't even have a treatment centre. Patients were treated in Manitoba many years ago. The new concept in the treatment of mental health is to try to treat people as closely as you possibly can to their homes and their own communities.

We've now moved to a situation where a lot of people who previously might have been sent to places like the hospital in Ponoka or the one here at Oliver are being treated in their homes, their own communities, and in community-based hospitals. That is not only the position of the government; that's the position of the health care professionals and everyone who is knowledgeable about the treatment of mental health. We're going to continue moving in that direction. The hospital in Ponoka, for example, used to house some 1,700 patients.

It's now down to 400 patients, and that's with a much larger population and more incidents of mental health disease than we previously had. The balance of those patients are either being treated in their own homes and communities, in community-based hospitals, or they have been treated in a hospital like Ponoka and returned to their communities. The length of stay in Ponoka has dramatically decreased over the last few years. I'd be very happy, Mr.

Speaker, to debate with the hon. member at any time the provision of mental health services in this province, what we have done over the past few years, and the direction we're going. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, a follow-up supplementary having to do with backup services and deinstitutionalization. There was a report a couple of years ago from the Boyle Street-McCauley area, which indicated that people from Alberta Hospital were being dumped there without the proper backup services. My question to the minister: has the minister had a chance to assess that particular program and give us an update?

In fact, is this happening in that area? MR. M. MOORE: Perhaps the member could clarify what he means by "proper backup services." I'm not sure. MR. MARTIN: There's no place to live for some of these people; they're not getting counselling: the backup services for them. MR. M. MOORE: Is the hon. member referring to people who were released from the hospital then? Mr.

Speaker, that's an important question, and I am not sure that I could say that I'm satisfied that there is the proper kind of counselling throughout the entire province for people who have been released from either Alberta Hospital, Oliver, or Alberta Hospital, Ponoka. Certainly it does take a good degree of skills at the community level to assist people who have been treated and then released to make sure that they don't wind up going back into the same institution.

I know, for example, from my visit last Friday morning to Ponoka that there are a good many people who are treated there and are released who wind up going back there. We want to strive very hard, if we possibly can, to provide the kind of community- based services and professionals that would lessen the inci dence of people being released and then having to be taken back to the institution again because there's not the kind of community health that's required.

But I'd just conclude by saying that, you know, we're really dealing with something that the government can provide some assistance to in terms of money and profes sional people, but we're also dealing a great deal with a community problem. People, individuals and families, have to assist people with mental health problems in regaining their confidence in the community and getting started often times on a new life and a new direction. Low-alcohol Beverages MRS. KOPER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the chairman of the Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission.

Although the board has no regulatory powers over the sale of alcohol, it certainly is a good resource for information regarding alcoholic beverages. My question is: is the chairman aware of any beverages containing alcohol that are sold in grocery and convenience stores throughout the province? MR. STEVENS: Mr. Speaker, there are available in stores a number of products of a variety of kinds which contain alcohol, and there are certainly a number of beverages that contain alcohol in stores.

Most of these products contain alcohol of about one-half of 1 percent — about one-eighth to one-twelfth of the level of alcohol that would be available in beer in a regulated outlet. They're not generally advertised widely or promoted, and I would assume that the people buying these products would do so because they prefer the flavour of beer or wine but do not want to have a high- content drink. MRS. KOPER: Is the chairman aware of a new product on the shelves of stores in the province that contains more than .5 percent, called Sarasoda? MR. STEVENS: Mr.

Speaker, there are a number of products, perhaps two or three including Sarasoda, which have a content of alcohol of about .9 percent or nearly double the kind of products I just mentioned, which are known as de-alcoholized beverages. This particular product comes in a bottle that looks like an European import beer bottle. It has a twist-off cap like a beer bottle cap. It is being marketed widely throughout the Canadian marketing area, including Alberta now, for young people. So there is a product with .9 percent that is available in stores for people. MRS.

KOPER: In view of the fact that this is a beverage for children as well as adults, is AADAC planning to take any action in this regard — this or other similar products? MR. STEVENS: Mr. Speaker, the commission hasn't come to a final conclusion about this product, but I will convey the commission's concerns to the Solicitor General. There is a concern, I think, that all parents should be aware of this product and the fact that the company is targeting young Albertans for this product so that they will have an opportunity to make an alcohol decision at an early age. MRS.

KOPER: A final supplementary to the Solicitor Gen eral. Why is this product not sold in liquor stores, and how can children have access to such a product? MR. ROSTAD: Mr. Speaker, the Liquor Control Act spec ifies that products with 1.5 percent or in excess of that are under the jurisdiction of the Liquor Control Board. Anything that contains alcohol of less than that amount is not within our jurisdiction. But I might add that I am aware of this

July 7, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 365 product, and I believe it's being directed as an alternate to young adults. I don't think it's specifically being addressed to children. Weather Modification Program MR. FOX: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Associate Minister of Agriculture concerning the hail suppression program.

In light of the positive recommendations made by the review committee of the Alberta Weather Modification Board that the hail suppression program be continued and its boundaries be expanded due to the positive results of cloud seeding, could the minister tell us why it was deemed necessary that this project be cancelled for this year? MRS. CRIPPS: Mr. Speaker, the hail suppression program has been essentially a research program. If you're going to continue with a research program indefinitely without doing a study of the analysis and the data provided, it is no longer a research program.

So this year we are concluding a study of the data and analysis that is available and hope for a report by the middle of October. MR. FOX: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. A review of this took place in 1979. Is the minister suggesting either that the review was not sufficient or that Alberta's weather has changed that much in five years that the results are inconclusive? MRS. CRIPPS: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the member has heard of a review of the review. We are analyzing the data that is available and hope to have the report out in the middle of October.

We've had many people who claim that the weather modification program is very beneficial, and we also have people who have the opposite point of view. So we're taking this year to analyze the data. MR. FOX: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The results, I think, are quite clear. The 10 percent reduction in hail damage produces a two-to-one return on the investment. Is the minister not familiar with these, or does she doubt the results that were presented last time? MRS. CRIPPS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is indicating that every year the weather is the same.

I mean, anybody that's lived in Alberta knows that if you don't like the weather today, wait a while; it'll change. Quite frankly, some years we have a record number of hailstorms, and some years there are minimal numbers of hailstorms. That's included in the data. MR. FOX: A supplementary to the associate minister, Mr. Speaker. Has she not reviewed the presentations by INTERA, a company in Penhold that's willing to run the program at a much reduced cost while the review is taking place? MRS. CRIPPS: Yes, I have. MR. HYLAND: A supplementary question. Mr. Speaker, to the minister.

While this review is being carried out, has the minister instructed those carrying out the review to deal not only with hail in the area that's represented by the initial study but with the effect it has on hailstorms in adjacent areas or areas beyond? MRS. CRIPPS: No I haven't. Mr. Speaker, but I do know that is a contention of some people in this area surrounding the hail suppression area, and I look forward to the debate in the Legislature on that issue. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, to the better half of the Minister of Agriculture.

Could the minister explain why she is not willing to go ahead with the program when there are farmers willing to put their own money alongside the government money to continue the program? MRS. CRIPPS: Mr. Speaker, everyone's willing to put up their money providing the government puts up a major share over and above that. For this year the Alberta Research Council has committed $1.5 million to retain staff and continue the research work, and the Department of Agri culture has committed $500,000 to ensure that that data reaches a report stage. MR. SPEAKER: The time for question period has expired.

Is the Assembly willing to recognize the Member for Athabasca-Lac La Biche with two brief supplementaries? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. Transportation Deregulation MR. PIQUETTE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. A question to the Minister of Transportation and Utilities. In the Alberta government's response to the federal proposal on transportation reform, of which I have a copy here, this government has endorsed transportation deregulation whole heartedly. What steps has the minister taken to ensure that air service to remote areas of Alberta will not suffer in the federal government's drive to deregulation? MR.

ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to relate that question to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, who handles the air services side. MR. SHABEN: Mr. Speaker, in the proposed legislation that was recently tabled, provision was made for northern points in Canada where limited deregulation could occur, and that's an area that needs further discussion. There is a recognition that in some northern parts of Canada complete deregulation may not be as helpful as it would be throughout the major part of our country.

So there is a provision within the legislation, and I believe it generally follows the 55th parallel across Canada in terms of the point at which regulation and deregulation change. MR. PIQUETTE: Will that be a written commitment from the federal government? There are a lot of northern people who are very worried about a loss of service in the northern part, like Fort McMurray. Will that be a written commitment or just a proposal at this time? MR. SHABEN: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and I intend to meet with the new federal minister.

Our understanding is that that is an undertaking of the federal government with respect to northern air services. MR. PIQUETTE: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Trans portation and Utilities. In the first five years of transport industry deregulation in the United States over 350 midsize trucking companies have gone bankrupt, throwing approx imately 130,000 people out of work. Has the minister directed his department to study the impact of deregulation

366 ALBERTA HANSARD July 7, 1986 on the trucking industry and jobs in Alberta and to help Alberta's small and midsize trucking companies when such deregulation takes place? MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, Mr. Minister. The Chair has great difficulty. First we're talking about northern air trans portation. Now we're into deregulation with respect to trucking. MR. PIQUETTE: It's all deregulation. MR. ADAIR: I've almost forgotten the question now, Mr. Speaker; it was so long.

It was related to the trucking industry and whether those who may or may not lose jobs — I have to have the question clarified, because it was fairly long in the sense of what you were really after. MR. PIQUETTE: Okay. The question is: has the minister directed his department to study the impact of deregulation on the trucking industry in Alberta, especially the small trucking firms that have been going out of business in other countries like the United States, where deregulation has taken place? MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, hon. Member for Athabasca- Lac La Biche. Would you be seated, please.

Would the Member for Athabasca-Lac La Biche be kind enough to bring his question with respect to the trucking issue back tomorrow. The hon. Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care would like to supplement information given last Thursday in ques tion period. All those in favour with respect to the House, do you agree? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: Any opposed? MR. TAYLOR: No. Yes. MR. SPEAKER: No, yes — that's a very difficult decision. The Chair will try and phrase the question in an appropriate manner now that we have the attention of the House entirely.

Is the House willing to give unanimous consent to the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care giving further additional information to the Assembly? All those who are in favour of that motion, please say aye? HON. MEMBERS: Aye. MR. SPEAKER: Are there any opposed? MR. TAYLOR: No. MR. SPEAKER: The Chair notes that no one was opposed, because they were asked, "Are there any opposed?" and the answer came back, "No, there are none opposed." Therefore, the Chair recognizes the minister. MR. TAYLOR: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Isn't the question what to vote, and then part of the crowd — or in this Assembly, of course, everyone of the other side — hollers "Aye" and I answer "No" at the same time, and then you hear my "No" and you say no? I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, but you're putting me in a "Do you still beat your wife?" type of question. MR. SPEAKER: The Chair hesitates to inquire as to what the answer is with respect to that. The Chair put the question "Are there any opposed?" to which the Chair heard the answer "No." So if the question is "Are there any opposed?" the response would be "Yes." MR. TAYLOR: Yes, I am opposed. MR.

SPEAKER: Thank you. The Chair . . . MRS. CRIPPS: He just wants to ask the questions, not hear the answers. MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, hon. minister. The Chair has now received further clarification that in future the Member for Westlock-Sturgeon will listen to the question, no matter how devious it may sound. The Chair also has been recipient of a note. Perhaps we could try this one on. One of the ministers would like us to return to returns and tablings. Do we have the consent of the House to return to that item of business? All those in favour, please say aye. HON. MEMBERS: Aye. MR.

SPEAKER: Those opposed, please say no. head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the annual report of the Department of the Attorney General for the year ended March 31, 1985. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. There seem to be some problems on both sides dealing with ministers coming back the next day in terms of question period. Can I make a suggestion that the House leaders get together and try to work this out so we don't run into this problem day after day? MR.

SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes that the issue we've had before us is the matter of returns and tablings, which is an entirely different matter than what has now been raised by the Leader of the Opposition. A number of days ago this issue, as related by the Leader of the Opposition, came up. At that time the Chair said it was willing to meet with House leaders who cared to do so. At that stage the matter was directed toward the Representative Party and the Liberal Party. The Chair did not receive any communication on that date.

Therefore, since the Member for Edmonton Norwood has raised the issue, the Chair is indeed willing to meet with the various House leaders of all political parties to deal with that issue and is entirely willing to do so at the convenience of said members. ORDERS OF THE DAY head: COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY [Mr. Gogo in the Chair] MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee will come to order, please.

July 7, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 367 Department of Transportation and Utilities MR. CHAIRMAN: The first department in supply will be the Department of Transportation and Utilities, dealing with the material you have on page 377 in the large book and page 159 in the element details. The legislative authority dealing with these votes is found on the facing pages to the votes. I call on the hon. Minister of Transportation and Utilities to make some opening comments. MR. ADAIR: Mr. Chairman, it's a pleasure for me to make some opening remarks about the 1986-87 budget for the Department of Transportation and Utilities.

What I might be able to do is relate some of the accomplishments of 1985 in just one short paragraph. It was a record construction year for the department in terms of quantities of earth moved, miles of pavement, and every other category you want to look at: in one respect a record year in the history of the province when it comes to highway construction. The budget for 1986-87 that you have before you should again come close to resulting in record accomplishments. In '85 there were 220 major contracts issued during the year, and in 1986 there will be 240 major contracts awarded.

The following major initiatives will be undertaken in the primary highway system: the continuation of the Trans- Canada, or Highway 1, and the Yellowhead, or Highway 16, twinning programs, which started back in 1981. This year a total of 10 major projects — that's approximately 80 kilometres — on Highway 1 and Highway 16 will be worked on. This accounts for some $38 million out of the total primary highway and bridge program of $223 million. The twinning program is on

schedule and continues to be a major priority of this government. Additional major thrusts in the primary highway program are a start on the Highway 2 median and shoulder-widening to the north of Airdrie. This is the first project which will ultimately upgrade the entire narrow

section between Airdrie and Red Deer. Completion of Highway 2 twinning between St. Albert and Morinville is slated for this year; a start on the Highway 64 laning and the North Saskatchewan River bridge replacement north of Devon; and an initial shoulder- widening project on Highway 63 north of Wandering River. Ultimately the entire narrow road from Wandering River to Fort McMurray will be upgraded, but as I said, one project is included for this year. Included in the '86 program are two major grading jobs on Highway 40 plus completion of five projects started back in 1985.

The road grading will be completed by the end of this year, and the new highway connecting Grande Cache and Grande Prairie will be open to traffic. Secondary road 734, commonly referred to locally as the Forestry Trunk Road, will see grading continuing, and it will be completed in 1987. The primary highway system is continuing to be developed and surfaced. At present more than 85 percent of the system is paved.

Some of the roads that are not paved are Highway 67 — that's Fort Vermilion to Slave Lake or Slave Lake to Fort Vermilion, whichever you want to look at it — Highway 58 west; Highway 64, Worsley west; and Highway 40, Grande Prairie to Grande Cache, which is just in the process of being completed. The '86 program includes some 300 kilometres of gravel primary highway being asphalt- surfaced. Under the secondary road program, Mr. Chairman, the department has continued the upgrading and paving of the secondary road system, which totals 14,800 kilometres in length.

These roadways form a vital network supporting the rural communities, farmers, recreation and industry, and resource development. To the end of 1985 the paving system had grown to 4,900 kilometres. Included in the 1986 program is the base pavement surfacing of approximately 400 kil ometres. The 1986-87 budget for secondary road construction is $96 million. I use it approximately; it was $96,588,000 to be exact, compared to $93,639,000 a year ago.

In March 1979 a $20 million resource road improvement program was initiated to assist rural municipalities with improving local and secondary roads that function as major resource routes. Since 1979, 2,160 kilometres have been regraded and 1,545 kilometres surfaced. In addition to the 1986-87 $50,106,000 resource road improvement program, the '86-87 budget includes a new $5 million local resource road grant program to assist rural municipalities with the upgrading of short sections of local roads carrying heavy traffic.

For example, if it turns out a road is now subject to heavy loads, subject to, say, the oil industry and the hauling of those particular products, we can move fairly quickly to assist the municipality in that area to upgrade or to work on the restoration or preservation of that particular

section of road. The pavement rehabilitation program was initiated in 1980. To the end of 1985, 2,450 kilometres of older pavements were overlaid. While primarily this program was implemented to restore the primary system, some 100 kil ometres of secondaries were repaved as well. During that period of 1980 to 1985 some $225 million has been expended on pavement rehabilitation. This has been a high priority of this government, as the first priority must be to protect the existing pavement areas of the province.

A $30 million highway safety construction program involves 46 lighting installations in the province; 70 skid- resistant surface treatment projects; construction of passing lanes on two-lane highways; improving of passing oppor tunities in 15 locations; installation of rumble strips, designed to alert drivers that they are approaching stop signs, at 30 locations; widening of 190 intersections to provide for turning lanes; provision of assistance to municipalities to improve safety at 300 railway crossings; installation of highway markings, guardrails, and signing; provision of stop and yield signs to rural municipalities for installation at all intersections on school bus routes; the installation of traffic and pedestrian control signals: and the construction of road side turnouts and rest areas.

In the area of urban transportation this is the second year of the major $475 million urban transportation assistance program announced in November of 1984. A total of just under $150 million will be made available in 1986-87 for transportation assistance to 17 urban areas in the province for upgrading of both roadways and public transit within their jurisdictions. Now if I might move over to the utilities side. Mr. Chairman, the rural gas program which commenced in 1973 has made natural gas services available throughout rural Alberta.

More than 88.000 services have been built in to serve some 290,000 to 300,000 Albertans, and the distri bution system involves about 53,400 miles of pipeline; that's 86.000 kilometres, if you're of the younger set in that sense. It also covers the provision of services to 950 grain dryers and 3.100 irrigation projects in the province. The rural gas co-ops and county gas utilities faced many difficulties in the early stages of the program. However, due to the hard work of many dedicated rural people who served on those co-ops, these rural gas utilities have matured

368 ALBERTA HANSARD July 7, 1986 and are now operating on a very sound and economically viable basis. As a matter of fact, 51 of the co-ops are using the billing services provided by the department, and that serves some 30,000 customers, indicating that most of the smaller co-ops are, in fact, using the billing services provided by the department. During the current fiscal year we expect that an additional 5,000 rural services will be constructed throughout Alberta, including the installation of about 2,500 miles of new gas pipelines.

Now the question may be asked: "How many more might there possibly be eligible to receive services?" The best estimate we have at this time is that there are approximately 20,000 services that at some point or another will be applied for. In addition to the shielding provided to all Albertans through the natural gas price protection plan, the primary agricultural producers' rebate program makes available fur ther rebates on natural gas used for farming purposes. This program aimed at reducing farm input costs is expected to benefit 6,000 applicants in the 1986-87 year.

The average benefit to an agricultural producer in the '85-86 year was about $715. That also includes a maximum use of 10,000 gigajoules for the rebate, and the average residential home uses approximately 200 gigajoules. Of course, that agri cultural program, as was stated much earlier, involves greenhouses, poultry farms, alfalfa plants, and a number of other agricultural related programs. In the area of REAs in vote 9, we expect that the new master contract between the REAs and the power companies will be implemented this summer.

I had the opportunity to meet with both the REAs and the two power companies to go over just where they were at with that. The latest information I have on that particular program is that 87 REAs have signed the new master agreement; 45 have signed totally, and 44 of those have been signed by the power companies. That's in the Alberta Power and the TransAlta Utilities areas. Forty-two REAs have signed the contracts, and the power companies are attempting to sit down and discuss just exactly what it is before they sign that.

It's our hope that that will be done very, very shortly indeed and that we can get on with the job of trying to rationalize some of the other concerns that have existed between the REAs and the power companies in the province of Alberta. In the area of loans, some 1,357 loans were made to farmers under the REA fund last year, and that included 519 three-phase services. We expect there will probably be about the same number of requests for services this year. The municipal water supply and sewage treatment grant program is now focussing on the upgrading and expansion of facilities in towns, villages, and hamlets.

During the last fiscal year, Mr. Chairman, 119 municipal projects were approved, and construction of major water supply and sewage treatment projects in the cities has almost been completed. Construction of regional water and sewer systems is nearing completion, with the current emphasis on the capital regional sewage system in the metropolitan Edmonton area.

Two new initiatives that we talked about are the agri cultural processing industry's grant program, which assists municipalities with the development or expansion of water and sewer services and facilities to accommodate agricultural industries, and the Alberta farm water grant program, which assists farmers and ranchers with the installation of water transmission systems. This second initiative has already proven to be very successful and is funded on a 75/25 cost-sharing arrangement. To date more than 1,150 farmers have been assisted since its inception in September of last year. I would suggest, Mr.

Chairman, that it should be noted that the Department of Transportation and Utilities has reduced its permanent staff by some 61 positions this year; that's the combination of the two departments: the former Department of Utilities and the former Department of Trans portation. This is part of a continuation of the multiyear staff reduction program that has resulted in some 200 positions being eliminated over the last number of years. I would suggest, Mr.

Chairman, that when it comes right down to it — the total job-related aspects of all of the budget implications for dollars in both transportation and utilities — it's estimated that in this year alone, some 50,000 jobs will be created by the approval of these pro grams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. STEVENS: Mr. Chairman, before referring some specific questions and concerns to the minister, I would like to take a moment to compliment him, his predecessors, and his officials for the outstanding work that is done by this department, among many departments in the province.

Certainly transportation is a very visible department. The lives of the men and women who work on and near our roads throughout Alberta — those who work directly for us, in many cases, or are contractors — can be in jeopardy when they are working during busy traffic times. I think all of us throughout our constituencies are well aware of the excellent work that's done by officials of Transportation and now Utilities and Transportation. But I would like to bring to the minister's attention some concerns that I have driving back and forth to the constituency, and I raise them in this order.

If anyone leaves the House on a Friday afternoon, drives south, and approaches Red Deer, there is very major work, as the minister mentioned, Mr. Chairman, of overlay on Highway 2. I'm very concerned that the contractor there, either with or without appropriate supervision or RCMP involvement — there were at least two accidents that I witnessed last Friday. Drivers were driving south at 60 or 65 miles an hour, and the one line was 10 miles long on Friday at about 6:30 in the evening.

There were two accidents that I observed, and it seems to me that there could be a greater co-ordination between the officials, their contractors, and the RCMP in that area to get advance warning of something about to happen, that something is coming, like a sudden stop. I've seen that on the last three weekends, so I raise that with the minister to have special concern, as that job looks like it still has a number of miles to do. The same thing, Mr.

Chairman, is returning to the Legislature on a Sunday night or any other evening where there is interurban traffic between, let's say, Leduc and that area of the province and Edmonton — the pileups that we saw this weekend and the length of the traffic backups. I know that the problem of building roads in a tourist season is very difficult, but it seems to me that there has to be more consideration given to advance knowledge, not just one kilometre or three kilometres. It may be that at the times traffic picks up, there needs to be some special advance alert.

Drivers do not expect to find the traffic going down to one lane going northbound from Leduc with a sudden stop and piling up into cars ahead of them; I saw one again this morning as I came back. Where the officials are standing, it's all very adequate, but I'm talking about

July 7, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 369 far back, where drivers should be given much earlier awareness of these problems. Mr. Chairman, I'd also like to compliment the department on the work that's been done in my constituency for the Olympics: the Canmore Nordic Centre and the road through Canmore, working with the town council of Canmore and the town of Cochrane. And I assume that the passing lane that will be developed north of Cochrane on Highway 22 is in the minister's budgets for this year. But I would like to ask the minister to give consideration to the oldest pavement in Alberta.

The Bow Valley Trail, Highway lA west of Cochrane through to Canmore, is one of the oldest paved highways in this province. Parts of that road are a disgrace. Parts of that road were badly beaten this spring. There needs to be some work done on this old part of the highway to make it safer, easily travelled, and a good agricultural distribution road. I'd also like to ask the minister if he would look at updating us, or at least this member, on the Smith Dorrien connection between Canmore and part of Kananaskis Coun try.

You might think of as the Y: Highway 40, the Kan anaskis Trail from number 1 south to the Peter Lougheed Provincial Park, then the Smith Dorrien road returning from Peter Lougheed Provincial Park to Canmore. I know that the community of Canmore and the surrounding Bow valley communities have expressed some concerns that this road is apparently still in gravel. Upgrading it to a paved surface, complementing the remainder of the roads in the Kananaskis Country area, would give the tourist industry in the Canmore and Bow corridor area quite an improvement. Finally, Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to ask the minister if he is aware that the federal Minister of the Environment, who has retained his post in the recent federal cabinet shuffle, has for some time been endeavouring to implement a drive-through fee for Albertan drivers or visitors to our province who would drive on the Trans-Canada Highway west of the east gate of the park and through to British Columbia. For some time he and former ministers have been endeavouring to establish a fee; this would be like a tariff for the movement of people.

If the federal minister has his way and the Treasury Board, in its federal wish to deal with the deficit, imposes a drive-through fee, would the provincial minister do whatever he can to encourage the transfer of the Trans-Canada Highway through the national park to Alberta so that when revenues recover, we'll be able to continue to develop that road properly, as it should be, for the Alberta visitor and other tourists? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR.

PIQUETTE: The estimates from Transportation and Utilities is a fairly lengthy document, but I'd like to indicate that from what I've been able to look at, the portfolio as a whole comes out to a total of $980 million, the fourth highest budget of all the ministries, after Hospitals and Medical Care, Education, Social Services, and Advanced Education. Together the budget of the two divisions has fallen by 4.2 percent from last year.

Transportation fell by 2.1 percent, from $877 million to $858.8 million, and utilities declined by 2.7 percent, from $172 million to $168 million, including the budget for the Alberta Electric Energy Marketing Agency. In terms of summer employment, I have to point out that one of the most important job-generating sectors in the government in terms of expenditures is definitely the trans portation area. I'm quite sad to see that the transportation area has fallen by approximately 2.1 percent.

We should perhaps have looked at spending more money this year, especially with the lower costs of a lot of the contracts the government is able to get this year in terms of road construction. A much higher emphasis could have been placed by Transportation on developing a lot more roads in terms of the tourist areas; for example, providing a lot of roads that are needed to give tourism in northern Alberta a much greater emphasis. Without good roads — excellent roads — you just don't attract many tourists in many of our provincial campsites that are second to none in Alberta.

The ministry's budget is divided between 20 percent for operating expense and 80 percent for capital construction. The ministry will also be responsible for administering $30 million worth of capital project funds for the universal rural private telephone line service. The government should be applauded for adopting our idea about private lines in rural Alberta, except that I would like to comment that it does include user fees of approximately $500 per rural customer and does not address the need to move toward the use of fibre optics so that the installation will not be outdated within the decade.

I think the government should review that policy, and I'd like to have the minister respond about the possibility of going to fibre-optic technology. For exam ple, in relation to the whole research and technology depart ment that we have just created, people in the computer field have indicated to me that the lines contemplated by the government in rural Alberta might not be up to date in terms of personal computers on the lines. Personal computers might create interference on the lines, so that should be looked into when we're upgrading our rural telephone lines.

In terms of highways, this year more than three-quarters of the Transportation budget will go toward the construction and maintenance of highways. There are a number of issues to take up with the minister on this, ranging from the general philosophy of highway construction to Highway 16 and the awarding of heavy equipment contracts in construc tion. While Marvin Moore was the minister last autumn, he said unofficially that all secondary roads in the province should be paved within the next 10 years. Is the present minister committed to this idea? Has he studied the viability of doing so?

We would certainly support it. It would be a boon to rural Alberta, the construction contractors, and thousands of unemployed Albertans, and also in terms of developing tourism and secondary industries. Is it still the policy of the department to allow each town and village only one paved highway access, without exception, or will the minister agree to look at each situation on its own merit? I can give an example of this in terms of Plamondon, the village where I come from, where they have one access. There is a real traffic problem in terms of the connection north of Plamondon to Highway 63.

The latest traffic count is approximately 360 to 400 vehicles per hour on weekends. With the roads not being paved, the people are complaining about ruts, potholes, dust, et cetera. In terms of a number of situations that could be looked into in Alberta. I think two accesses to villages and towns would be something we would recommend the department look at in terms of alleviating this problem. The twinning of Highway 16 is scheduled lor completion by 1991, from what we were told. This was set up by minister Henry Kroeger in 1981 as part of a 10-year plan.

After five years. 329 kilometres of the 560-kilometre-long highway remain untwinned. Only 40 percent of the kilometres have been completed in half the time allocated — 40 percent, and we're already halfway through the project. Marvin

370 ALBERTA HANSARD July 7, 1986 Moore hinted last year that the deadline would be extended to 1992. Is the current minister committed to completing twinning by 1991? In light of the average of 20 fatalities per year, the concern of municipalities along the route, and Alberta's desperate unemployment situation, will he under take to accelerate the process by which the highway is being made a safer passage for transport? In April of 1984 Moore announced a five-year street assistance program for towns and villages. The plan was worth $30 million, but we had some problems with it.

Financially-strapped towns and villages were forced to pay 25 percent of construction costs and 50 percent of engineering and planning costs. The towns would also have to contract out all work to private contractors, even if they had the personnel and equipment to do the work themselves. We have not seen the benefit of an annual report from Trans portation, so we don't know how many towns and villages have taken advantage of this program and how much work has been done. Is the minister satisfied with the performance of the program?

Would he consider avenues of supplying funds for construction that would not have as much cost and restriction placed on the local jurisdiction? Again, a lot of the areas in my constituency have expressed that problem, especially where they have the equipment. Where they could be doing the job at a much reduced cost to themselves and to the government, they've been forced to use private contractors with all the other associated costs. Also of particular interest are the hiring procedures carried out by Alberta Transportation.

I've recently received a number of phone calls, brought about by the slowdown in the oil patch, I guess. I think we can appreciate that there is a lot of competition out there for the small contractors who want to have equipment working for Alberta Trans portation, improvement districts, or municipalities. The pol icy of the department at one time was to hire a maximum of six pieces of equipment from any one contractor.

From the complaints I've received, this is not being done, espe cially where contractors have spin-out types of companies: one owner creates two or three companies with the same ownership with his sons or friends, and then they qualify to have up to 17 or more pieces of equipment working for them. I would recommend that the minister look at that practice in order to be fairer to all the contractors in the areas who have equipment working for the government. It should be seen to be fair by the government so that some of these practices are corrected.

As the $654 million budget represents a good tool for aiding contractors through these tough times, will the minister commit himself to ensuring that the maximum possible numbers of contractors benefit from the department's pur chasing policies as well? I think we should be looking at making sure the government is seen to be fair and not simply saying that they are fair. There are always loopholes for getting around some of the department's regulations, which are spelled out. It is no secret that the government is also hesitating on mandatory seat-belt legislation.

We are the only province west of New Brunswick that has no such legislation, despite the obvious benefits it would bring. I think all the statistics indicate that the whole . . . We were talking about high hospitalization costs. We were talking about workers' com pensation, et cetera, and the high cost of medical care. It has been shown that seat belts reduce injuries and death by approximately 30 percent in terms of provinces which have the mandatory seat-belt legislation.

Again, in a time of recession, even for the economic aspect — we're not even talking about the human aspect — isn't it about time that this legislation be brought in so that we protect our future and the population of this province as well as the money of the taxpayers of Alberta? In the first year of legislation Saskatchewan realized a reduction in fatalities of 19 percent; the total number of accidents rose 10 percent. The province estimated that its savings — hospital charges alone declined by about $15 million in the first year.

The government has said all along that it knows the reason for legislation, but it goes against the rugged individual grain of Albertans. They suggest that more public education would have the same effect as leg islation. The budget for public communication and the traffic safety board in Transportation combine to equal about $3.8 million, or .4 percent of the funds under the minister's control. Can he say what portion of these funds will be spent on educating Albertans on the benefits of seat belts?

What is his assessment of education and its impact on seat- belt use in this province or in other jurisdictions where a seat-belt education program has been successful? Has the government looked at this? Turning again to provincial policies relating to road construction, I see in the budget that in the construction of roads to provincial parks, there is a decrease of 6.7 percent this year. I thought the government was placing a higher focus and priority on tourism. I don't care what people say; there is definitely a lot of interest by tourists in making sure they can get to some of the lakes they enjoy going to.

If we want to develop tourism, especially in northern Alberta, the quality and the paving of these roads have to be a priority. So I find having a decrease of 6.7 percent this year in terms of road improvement to provincial parks to be quite an aberration. For example, I look at Cross Lake Provincial Park in the Athabasca constituency. I passed through it just the other day, and a couple of shocks in my vehicle just about let go. I'm sure a number of people driving there must not want to return too often. As well, another aspect is the provincial campsites.

Some of our provincial campsites up in northern Alberta, like at North Buck Lake and Plamondon beach, register almost as high a traffic count as some of our provincial campsites. Some of them actually have more room than some of our provincial parks. I don't see any commitment by this government to ensure that we provide better quality roads in those areas. A lot of these are improvement district or county roads, and they don't have the budget at all to improve these roads.

I would like to ask the minister whether he had made or will be making a commitment to help the municipalities, or in terms of special grants, to ensure that where campsites are well-used and are already established by traffic counts . . . We need to get away from simply using dust controls on these roads. We need to move in terms of providing a base on these roads so that we are not receiving complaints every year on the roughness of these roads. For example, the local residents who live along these roads see a complete deterioration of their roads because of the high tourist traffic in the area.

I would again like to point out that on the weekend I received a petition from the Plamondon area, as one example. I've received another from the Owl River area, where the residents are really upset about the condition of the roads and feel the government is not acting in terms of providing better roads, especially in the campsites and provincial park areas. Turning to railroads, one concern within the province is the movement of grain from the Peace River area. For

July 7, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 371 the past several years farmers have been asking for improved rail links between that district and the west coast. Grain presently travels to Grande Prairie, then along the Alberta Resources Railway leased to CN, to Swan Landing, then on the CN rail line to the west coast. The people in that area have made three proposals that would involve upgrading of tracks in one instance and new construction in the other two.

The improvements would relieve pressure on the CN line between Swan Landing and Red Pass junction and would help moderate rate increases across the prairies, as it is a short route and rates are calculated taking all routes into account. Overall, as we all know, the west has really not been well-served by the federal transportation policies since day one. Since about 75 percent of Alberta's gross provincial product is transported out of province every year, we have a special interest in railway deregulation. As the government admits, the problem is that 60 percent of Alberta's shippers are captive shippers.

They have no choice as to what mode of transport they choose for their goods. How will market prices benefit them when they have to live with a monopoly? In March of last year Moore said that the government would consider contributing part of the estimated $189 million cost of upgrading Canada's passenger rail service. Is this the new minister's idea as well, and has he passed this along to his federal counterpart? Passenger service is very important to Alberta, especially with the government's new priority on tourism.

The northern route Super Continental service is going to be reinstated after a sudden cancellation in 1981, but there is not much cause for rejoicing. The rolling stock is outdated. Many tour operators were burnt by the cancellation and are hesitant to take a chance on the service, and the service may be restricted to three trips a week. On top of this the government has given the service two years to recoup 60 percent of its cost. We say that deadline must be pushed back until new cars, tour operators' confidence, and daily service can have an impact on its financial position.

We hope that our ministers will act in the interests of Albertans and ask the federal minister to push back the deadline for better profit in the future. We notice again that the ARR had an increased deficit of $9.8 million this year. The Alberta Resources Railway still services only two major industries in northern Alberta. The NADC and economic development ministers have indi cated that it is a priority in terms of economic diversification in this province.

We feel from this side that the only way to make this railway profitable is to return to its mandate, that the railways there must be a focus of economic devel opment in northern Alberta, in terms of making this trans portation - this very vital transportation network — profitable and part of the whole economic development of Alberta. We do not advocate that this railway line be abandoned because I think we realize that it is the only mode of transportation for those major industries out there and also for the rural communities and the farmers.

But unless we address the whole aspect of economic development and diversification — forestry in that area — that railway line will probably continue to deteriorate and lose around $10 million or more every year, supported by the taxpayers. So again we have to start looking; if we're going to lose money, why can't we invest it in areas that will give us a greater return down the line than that money? Returning to Utilities, going through the TransAlta report, I noticed that our electric revenues for 1985 were $833 million, up 5.9 percent from $786 million in 1984.

This was announced by the corporation chairman, Marshall Wil liams. Earnings applicable to common shares provided a 1985 return of 15.2 percent on the average common share holder's investment. I cannot for the life of me understand, with the kind of economic recession that we've suffered in the past number of years, how TransAlta and the other utility companies have been able to amass this kind of profit — close to a billion dollars in 1985 — and why we have not passed on some of the savings to the consumer. When we allow a private firm to simply monopolize this area . . .

One of the things we feel very strongly about in our party that I would like to recommend to the minister and that I think there's been a lot of talk about recently is that if we are going to have a private firm monopolizing the power- producing capabilities of this province, at least let's allow our small power producers to have a fair shake at competing on that market so that it will create jobs and make it at least a competitive system as opposed to the system at the present time, which is a heaven's dream for unfettered capitalism.

Since mid-1985, the Small Power Producers Association of Alberta has been trying to get a regulatory change to the Electrical Energy Marketing Act. It needs only an order in council that would allow for the development of renewable and clean power sources. Their proposal is to have the AEEMA purchase a maximum of 30 megawatts of power a year, or approximately five-tenths of the power on the interconnected grid, from small power producers generating power on their own land, mostly in southern Alberta with windmills.

They expect that purchasing this power will inject approximately $843 million into the pockets of farmers and ranchers over the next decades and will inject a further $100 million into the economy in the development and sale of alternative power generating equipment. Again, we would like to ask the minister what his stand on the small producers is. When these hearings with the Public Utilities Board take place, will he act to ensure that they will be allowed to sell power on the provincial grid?

In my constituency, the Athabasca charcoal and animal feed manufacturing plant is being proposed and has made appli cation to the Public Utilities Board. Premier Don Getty, during the election campaign, made a commitment that he would personally support the Athabasca or agro-power asso ciation petition. I would also like to ask the Minister of Transportation and Utilities if will he ensure that this proposal, which will soon be before the Public Utilities Board, is encouraged to pass a needed adjustment to the sharing of the provincial grid.

What they are recommending is that they be allowed to sell — I don't have the documentation here as to exactly what they're asking in terms of the percentage of the cost or the revenues, but they're looking at getting pretty well what the consumers are now having to pay in terms of the 7 percent return on their money, which is a lot further from the whole 15 percent return that TransAlta is presently getting. The small power producers in my constituency will probably generate around 150 permanent or part-time jobs.

There's even talk that if this is allowed to continue, a second plant up in the Lac La Biche area is also envisaged by the developers. So I think it's very, very important, especially in an area where welfare is so high that our government . . . Again, the wastage of money in those areas in terms of paying welfare — it's almost the situation now among about 80 percent of the native population in that area that their major source of income is directed from the

372 ALBERTA HANSARD July 7, 1986 welfare roll. These types of plants which would create a lot of jobs in the timber area in terms of cutting, et cetera, would generate a lot of needed jobs, especially for the northern Albertans living in my constituency. So I would urge the minister to personally pay attention and note the demands of the small producers of Alberta in terms of the spin-off benefit and the economic development potential that it will project for Albertans. At this time, I think I will sit down. I believe I've asked a lot of constructive questions for the minister to answer.

I hope he pays special attention to a lot of these, and I'll be looking forward to listening to his response. Thank you very much. MR. DROBOT: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a couple of short comments regarding the transportation depart ment, followed by a question or two to the minister. It's also a golden opportunity to thank Marvin Moore, the past minister in the transport portfolio, for his co-operation and understanding in dealing with my particular constituency and the road concerns in northeastern Alberta.

Also, on behalf of my constituents, to Alberta Transportation from the top level to the regional and district engineer, my sincere thanks for their co-operation for many years in my municipal experience. I know that the new minister has a soft spot for northern Alberta, but I also hope that his pocketbook will be opened. In fact, I receive more calls and letters about roads or lack of them than I do about any other concerns. We have to realize that as the province developed from south to north, so did our road network.

Northern Alberta has just lately come into its own with oil devel opment, acreages, small farms, and tourism, with a crying need for a bigger and better road system: a sign of progress, certainly. The St. Paul constituency is the gateway to the lakeland, and our road network is of extreme importance to the well- being of northern Alberta. Yes, we have opened a new bridge at Elk Point, and another one is being completed at the meridian, a joint venture with the Saskatchewan government. Improvements are coming on stream.

Our Alberta transportation system has made great progress in the past couple of decades in primary highways, airports, et cetera. But as is always the case, we cannot and must not sit back on our achievements. We realize that there is an economic downturn, but by accelerating our secondary highway program, we would be moving forward in job creation, tourist mobility, and tourist development. I personally take this opportunity to invite the minister and every MLA to tour our beautiful lakeland area in northeastern Alberta, where there are thousands of lakes, natural scenic beauty, and natural tourist attraction.

It's a tourist Utopia except for the road system. My question regards the status and future funding for secondary roads: can some secondary roads be brought to a paving standard with subsequent paving? The people in my constituency, Mr. Minister, richly deserve that and so does the travelling public. MR. ALGER: Mr. Chairman, I too would like to add my vote of thanks to the former Minister of Transportation, Marvin Moore, and many of his staff. The co-operation with the Member for Highwood was just exceptional, I thought, in the last three years, and we've accomplished a great deal down there.

We've worked with fellows like Bernie Kathol, Harry Protopappas, and Blair Deman, just to name a few. Even the executive assistant, Laurie Pushor, was an exceptional help to me in all my problems down that way. Now, when I refer to problems, I also refer to accom plishments, I guess. I want to stress that very vehemently, because I see that on some of the notes where I've indicated things I'd like done . . . As I went cruising through last week's mail, I discovered that the new minister, Mr. Adair, has already answered some of the questions I was going to ask.

For instance, highway 546 from Turner Valley to the Kananaskis, which is a desperate situation and has been for a long time — he's answered the call to get after that one. It's an especially pleasant route into Kananaskis Coun try, and we appreciate that, Mr. Minister. Number 783, which I think is a newly numbered road, would indicate to me that you're busy on that one as well. However, I would like to describe to you, sir — I didn't hear you mention that Highway 22X, from the overpass south of Calgary out to the corner at Priddis, is scheduled for four-laning.

While I was on it on Sunday, I saw no machinery whatsoever lined up, and I should think that this would be about the time of year to get after it. I'd also appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the minister finishing the road to Bragg Creek. It's 10 years overdue and has been in the works for a long time and, of course, we desperately need that done.

On behalf of the Member for Macleod, the Minister of Tourism, and myself, I would like to suggest to the minister of transportation that Highway 2 be fully developed as a four-lane highway through the rest of the Highwood con stituency, down through the Macleod constituency, and from there on right to Fort Macleod.

Having personally taken the former minister down through that country, he realized at the time, and I'm sure you will too, that this is a desperate need for the heavy, heavy traffic that emanates from the southern areas, particularly from the American border, not only for heavy truck transportation but for all kinds of tourist and, indeed, local transportation. It's a dangerous blessed road, and we kill a lot of people between Nanton and Parkland until they get used to fact that they're back on a two-lane highway.

I'd like to see that straightened out and have a four-lane, median highway installed, as soon as we can possibly afford it. There are other things in Fort Macleod that have to be done that have some bearing on my constituency. For instance, number 3 from Fort Macleod to Monarch is another road that desperately needs twinning. I think it's been scheduled, but we don't know when you're going to get it done. If the other MLAs will allow, I'll get all the trans portation money there is, if there's any way to do it.

I think I've indicated to the minister that on the same Highway 22 that he's going to overhaul to the Priddis corner, I'd desperately like him to do something for that road right into Turner Valley and beyond. But the scheduled road that is there now, from Longview to the Chain Lakes and down to Lundbreck, is in absolutely perfect condition for paving, Mr. Chairman, to the minister. It should be done now, before it gets out of condition and requires a lot more money than I would like to see spent on it.

In Priddis, a new part of my constituency, I've looked and inspected and agree with the highway engineers that the bridge in that town must be realigned. It's a rather odd situation in that the bridge seems to be kitty-corner to the town's main street. People come off it and run into fences and all kinds of nonsense. I really don't know why they do that; I guess they're just going too fast, for the most

July 7, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 373 part. But if we straightened it out and signed it properly, I'm sure we could avoid a lot of problems there. I could go on for hours about the roads in Highwood, but having made these few remarks, if you would give me an audience as soon as possible in your office and maybe even the time of a given day, I think we could go through the constituency rather thoroughly, as I have done before with former ministers, and our accomplishments will be more than somewhat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. FOX: Mr.

Chairman, if there's any money left after spending it in Highwood, Vegreville needs a little too. I'd like to start, too, by offering congratulations to the minister. I think it's a good move to combine the two departments under one portfolio. I think they naturally fit together in many ways. I think we can look for a more streamlined delivery of service and policy in the future. I'd like to ask a few specific questions about some areas to the minister, Mr. Chairman, if I might.

Concerning the twinning of the Yellowhead Highway, it's something that's of great interest to all people in northern Alberta and certainly of interest to the minister and a stated priority of the department. I wonder if we can get some more specific dates in terms of completion estimates for different sections of the highway. We're just about completed all the way from Edmonton to Vegreville now, and portions of the highway east of there to Lloydminster have been twinned already. We recognize that it has great benefit for tourism in the area.

There is a heavier and heavier volume of traffic travelling the highway both east and west of Edmonton. If we could get some information in a more specific way from the minister about his estimated completion dates for the various sections of the Yellowhead Highway, that would be a big help. They had stated in the past, Mr. Chairman, that there was going to be a greater commitment of funds to this project. I just wonder if we could get some comparison of moneys spent on this project in 1986 as compared to 1985, 1984, and so on, if it's possible just to see . . .

If there's anything we could do to speed this up, it would be greatly appreciated by residents of northern Alberta. There is another thing that I was wondering about, and the minister could perhaps advise me on this. We have to recognize that whenever anything is done for the overall benefit of the public, there are groups that are affected by it. There's some negative impact for every positive step that's taken. There's been concern expressed by some busi nesses in the very large town of Vegreville about what impact the bypass and twinning will have on their business prospects.

I know the department has made some arrangements to build overpasses at either end of the town, which will certainly help facilitate the flow of traffic into Vegreville. But I was just wondering if the department has ever given consideration to some sort of compensation to affected parties in instances like that. What I'm suggesting is perhaps a sign at either end of the town that promotes the businesses that exist within the town, the ones who have lost this direct off-highway business. It might not cost very much money and would certainly build a lot of goodwill in the community for the department of transport.

Just a specific suggestion there. I think the government's program to have these rural resource roads help provide funds is a very good and welcome one, and one we'd certainly like to see continued. I've had some concerns expressed to me by a couple of towns in the constituency about grants. As much as 75 percent of the costs are available to fix up a road that has increased volumes of traffic on it, but they're not able to come up with the required one-quarter on their own.

I wonder if there is some way the amount of funds available under programs like this could be downsized in those instances to compensate for the difficulties some of these communities have in coming up with their required 25 percent of the costs. I am also wondering, Mr. Chairman, how the department establishes its priorities in a given constituency as far as regrading of secondary roads and paving. Some of the councillors I deal with have expressed concern that they are asked to submit a list of paving and regrading priorities.

They are asked to lump them all together now and compare or state which is a higher priority, either regrading this road or paving this one. They'd like to do it, as they have in the past, with two separate lists in terms of regrading and paving. I'm wondering how the department looks at that. I know that the costs involved in regrading are sub stantially less than base coat paving and the top cap, but I'm wondering how they determine what's going to happen in a given constituency in a given year.

Is the department able to make a commitment to pave a certain number of miles or regrade a certain number of miles in each con stituency every year? Something arising out of this, too, is a comment made by the former minister that it would be an objective of the department to see all secondary highways in the province paved within the next 10 years. I think that's a laudable goal and one I applaud the department on. I'm interested, though: is that still a goal of the department of transport?

It would go a long way to providing an increase in jobs in rural Alberta and providing the kind of road system that we could indeed be proud of I'm sure the minister realizes that he has the opportunity to save the government's bacon in the next election by providing good roads for Albertans all over and keeping rural Albertans very happy. Another question in a specific way. Mr. Chairman, is about Highway 64, which I'm sure the minister is familiar with. It was a stated procedure of the department in the past to grant funding to certain highways, upgrading of highways, based on traffic volumes.

I think we can recognize that there are some highways in the province where the volumes may be relatively low due to the population in the area. For example, Highway 64 is in a resource-rich area that contributes a substantial amount of wealth to the prov ince's economy in terms of both agriculture and oil. I wonder if the minister is going to continue with the policy of priorizing roads where the traffic volumes are highest or if there are other considerations that may enter into those decisions. If I may turn briefly to utilities. I have a couple of questions for the minister, Mr. Chairman.

Concern was expressed to me by one of the agents of delivery through the Gas Alberta system. The county of Two Hills gas system is committed to some sort of pooling price through the Gas Alberta system for delivery of natural gas to their customers. It was probably a good program that was set up when prices were increasing, and it was meant to cushion the users from the effects of higher prices.

Now that prices have softened somewhat and in view of the government's stated intention to deregulate gas prices, is there any way the minister could review this agreement and perhaps make it possible for the agents of delivery of this rural natural gas system to lower their prices more, in line with what prevailing rates are?

374 ALBERTA HANSARD July 7, 1986 Another question I have for the minister, Mr. Chairman, is concerning REAs. There has been some discussion about the signing of a master contract and the move toward that and also a great deal of activity between the two power companies buying up REAs. It seems to me it was a program that was very weak in its inception, and we have paid for the problem ever since. We've had to keep coming up with programs to try and cope with the decisions that a government made back in the late 1940s when these systems were originally set up.

Their mandate at the time was to deliver power at cost to rural subscribers. I think we can see that with the 17.5 percent return guaranteed these utility companies on delivery of power to rural sub scribers, that goal has been lost. I wonder if the minister is able to make any comparison or would he plan to make any comparison between the rates that rural subscribers in Alberta are charged and the rates that comparable users in Saskatchewan are charged.

I think we have to leave our philosophical bent behind and just look at the dollar advan tages of private versus public power, because it's a system where we all recognize that there is no such thing as competition. We're a captive market, and it's a natural monopoly. With the REAs being purchased outright by the utility companies, it's a situation that's going to become worse rather than better. I'd appreciate some information on that from the minister. I think I've about run out of questions for now, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. MR. TAYLOR: Mr.

Chairman, I too would like to com pliment the minister, my honourable friend from Peace River, for being short and succinct in his introduction to the estimates. It was a pleasure to hear someone from that side talking to the point without any excess verbosity or redundance. I want to try to cause a schism in the party. I want to remark on a number of things, Mr. Chairman. I noticed that costs of our urban transportation are down. Philosophically, I wonder. They're down 7.3 percent at this time.

That's something we could possibly take some pride in in boom times, but in rough times when most unem ployment is concentrated in cities, really I don't think it's wise management to be cutting down the amount of money you're spending on transportation in the cities. It's one of the biggest job creators you can do for dollars spent. You can usually employ more people in doing roads and upgrading transportation in the cities than anywhere else.

I would like to assure the hon. minister that he will not get any sassy questions from this side of the floor if he increases the budget to do more transportation work in the cities. Secondly, while we're on job creation — and this of course applies some to the Minister of Tourism, although why somebody from Macleod would be handling tourism . . . I got him to move around. I thought that while the Minister of Tourism is right at his elbow, he could consider a couple of things.

One is that if he would accelerate the present four-year plan for Highway 16 to Jasper, you would not only create jobs but you'd make the hon. gentleman from Macleod's job much easier by increasing tourism a quantum leap. So if you'll pardon the expression, I think you would kill two birds with one stone if you shortened the time span to do the highway and did more construction there. You'd have jobs and tourism. While we're talking about tourism, I'd also like to suggest an idea to the minister of transport. We often think of tourists as people who flow in here and out and drive in from far off places and out.

But I submit to you that there are half a million people in Calgary and half a million people in Edmonton that get awfully bored on weekends and super bored on long weekends. I'm not taking away from your program of highways and resource roads, but maybe little paved highway loops to hook up the resorts so when somebody takes a drive up one highway to the beautiful constituency of Westlock-Sturgeon, for instance, they can cut across to the other highway and go back in a little loop.

They can go out and spend some money and drink some of the products the minister over there is worried about. [interjection] That's the point I'm getting at. Tourism would pay for it. It would accelerate tourism, create jobs. Tie the roads together. One of the things you'll notice if you're looking at Calgary and Edmonton is that the roads quite often go straight out. Whoever goes for a Sunday drive either has to come back the same way or take a gravel pothole road over to another highway and come back. I think it would be a good idea, Mr. Minister, to look at that with the Minister of Tourism.

Get his input, and see whether or not some of the rural highway con struction can't combine tourism into the small towns and allow people to get out from the smog and the concentration and the overcrowding in Calgary and Edmonton and give them a chance to get out to the countryside. The next item I want to touch on — naturally, I can't get up without speaking about roads in my own constituency, but this I think transcends just a constituency problem.

The road straight south of Westlock, for instance, to Highway 16 is being used rather than the main highway north of Edmonton to Morinville, Legal, and so on for people coming all the way from Alaska or Peace River. They come into Westlock and come straight south to Highway 16. It's a beautiful road, but it has no shoulder. Not only does it have no shoulder but this road from Highway 16 to Westlock and then to the Swan Hills is the official dangerous goods route for all of northern Alberta. All the hazardous wastes that come out of the refinery areas are coming up this road, yet it's a road without a shoulder.

One of these days there is going to be a major accident on that road. With the PCBs or whatever it is that's being hauled out of the downstream end of Edmonton, I think we're going to have a lot to pay for. One of the things that should be high on your priority, purely for safety's sake if nothing else, is a shoulder on the road from Westlock to Highway 16. Rural gas co-ops have always been of interest to me. I throw this out as a suggestion to the minister. Right now you as buyers are able to get gas on one- and two-year contracts for sometimes half what rural gas co-ops are paying. I know, Mr.

Minister, that in your and your friends' addiction to free enterprise it will probably be hard for you to try to cook up something, so I thought I would offer my advice free of charge for a bit. The minister of transport could, possibly with the Minister of Energy — this would be something that could be done — loan moneys to the gas co-op, the gas purchasing group that you have now, to buy reserves ahead.

Now is about as cheap as you're ever going to get gas reserves in Alberta, so why not, rather than buying on a current basis, rather than having farmers pay more than the U.S. is now paying on short term, rather than asking the farmers to pay more than the industrial consumers are, because the industrial consumer has the power . . . [interjection] The natives are a little restless over there behind the NDP; they get hidden out of sight too often. [interjection] I'm sorry; I thought you were with the NDP for a minute. Mr.

Chairman, the question is that the industrial consumer has the power to deal directly with the gas producers and

July 7, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 375 get a very good price indeed, so why not empower and use some loans to the gas purchase people to buy on behalf of rural gas co-ops and the farmers of this province cheap gas reserves that could be used in the next 10 to 15 years? It would do an added benefit. It's a good old free-enterprise method of pumping some money into the oil and gas producers' economy in Calgary. It might bring down that 40,000 to 50,000 unemployed to only 30,000. That will hardly get you re-elected, but it would keep you from being lynched.

If we could go on to the next area, I would like the minister to look at the whole area of a central sewage collection. He has a good program in helping the various small towns to put together sewage systems, and most of them are using settling ponds. I would suggest to the minister that there might be some value in financing the study for various central sewage collection systems that might even be able to run on a free-enterprise basis. Because if you collect and process enough sewage, there may be money or profit in it.

Certainly with the number of pipelines we have in this province and our expertise in pipelines we should be able to come up with something, a way of bringing sewage, as in much of West Europe now, into central treatment plants, possibly even on an economic basis that would make money. Of course, there is the added benefit that it will be a tremendous boon to the environment — not that I am trying to do him out of an appointment after all these years of waiting for the post.

The fact is that if we could handle some way of centralizing sewage collection and bringing it in, it would do much to clean up our environment. The last area I want to touch on, because I know there are other people who want to speak. Mr. Minister, I know you come from the banks of the mighty Peace, where water seems to be in infinite quantities, but if you came from where I do, Cypress, where water is in minimum quantities — I don't think enough is being done to see that our freshwater supplies are not used to drive oil out of the ground or, in other words, for secondary water floods.

We are not doing enough, in my opinion, to force the oil industry to use fossil water or nonpotable water — water that is of no use for drinking or irrigation — to take the oil out of the ground and for industrial purposes. There are too many spots yet in this province where good, fresh surface water is being pumped down well bores, that may not be able to be used ever again. I also suggest that you get together with the Minister of Energy, Mr. Minister, because there is so little infor mation on our freshwater supplies. "Adequate water sup plies" are your very own words. I forget what page.

It says that you're in charge of ensuring adequate water supplies. Adequate water supplies means to me that you have a very good survey of what water supplies there are. I would suggest that you check with the Minister of Energy, and he might get the present department's fascination with oil and gas toned down enough to see whether indeed there are enough technical requirements made on the oil industry when they drill their surface holes to put in casing, to see whether it is mapped and logged to the extent to show all the fresh water.

I don't purport to be an expert in this field, but I do know that the attitude has been to keep surface waters from being contaminated. It has also been very much to see that there's adequate casing in the hole to make sure that blowouts can be controlled, but I'm not too sure that there have been adequate regulations set out to make sure that the hole is surveyed and that the freshwater capacity is measured through electronic means for future use and reserves. That, Mr. Chairman, is all I have to say now. I think it is good for openers. Thank you very much. MR. EWASIUK: Mr.

Chairman, to the minister of trans portation: I can appreciate after hearing all the presentations thus far why his budget is probably among the highest of the provincial departments. Obviously, the people of Alberta are mobile. We still have our rural roots instilled in us, and while we may reside in many numbers in urban centres, we do tend to get out on the highways and travel. I think the points are well taken by the members from rural constituencies who are raising the point and the need for improvements in transportation roadways in their areas.

However, I must rise and make some comments for urban transportation needs. After spending time on the city of Edmonton council. Mr. Chairman, I've learned the kind of frustration that urban centres, particularly large urban centres, have in dealing with Transportation Alberta, relative to the devel opment of roadways within our large municipal centres. I suspect that part of their problem, as with many other departments, is that the municipalities in this province are treated as children of the province. The attitude seems to exist that the municipalities and the large centres are still the children.

They are regulated by the province with a sort of "we'll give you so much and you'd better like it" attitude. I hope that's going to change, because we appreciate the kind of sharing we have with the provincial government in urban road development, but there is a problem. Let me cite a couple of examples we experienced in the last couple of years in the city of Edmonton. It's frustrating. The Beverly bridge was on the verge of being closed. We felt that it was unsafe. We couldn't expose the public to it, yet we could not get the shared funding from the province to do the necessary work for it.

It wasn't until the city actually had to close the bridge that the province came forward and gave us sufficient funding to allow us to upgrade that bridge and make it a viable operation for the next 10 years. Another case in point is the expansion of the Yellowhead, which is a good road but has bottlenecks in it. The bottleneck on 82 Street — it took two years. I believe, for us to finally get confirmation that, yes, the province was going to cut in with its shared revenue, so we could attempt the cloverleaf.

The problem here was that the residents who were going to be impacted by the proposed expansion of this interchange were kept in the lurch. We didn't know from day to day whether we were going to move it or not going to move it. whether they should sell their homes, whether they should move. It's these kinds of problems that I think frustrate our transportation department in the city and also the residents that are impacted by the devel opment of these roadways. The other area was already alluded to briefly, and that is the ring road systems.

There is no doubt in my mind that the need for roadways around major centres is of primary importance. We have more and more dangerous goods being driven through major centres, through urban residential centres, through areas where if any accident occurred the potential to the residents in these urban centres is one to think about. I say the need for expansion of ring roads is important, and I hope the minister in his consul tations with the urban centres will continue to look at how we can expedite the development of these roadways.

376 ALBERTA HANSARD July 7, 1986 The major thing the municipalities have is unsureness as to when and how much money they're going to get. The municipalities, like your department, need to plan in advance. They need three to five years to plan major roadways and construction. Yet the provincial government does not give indication to municipalities as to when they're going to receive their funding. As a matter of fact, they're not even concerned about how much; they would sure like to know when they're going to get it, so they can do their planning. Mr.

Minister, the question I have for you today is: can you implement a procedure that would expedite notification of funding to municipalities so they in fact can do proper planning on the roadway systems? I would like briefly to move to utilities, if I may. It's one of my favourites, because it ties in closely to the city of Edmonton. The minister obviously knows that the Energy Resources Conservation Board came down with its decision on Genesee in May of 1985. Their recommendations were that Genesee Unit 2 be deferred from 1988 to October 1989 and that Genesee Unit 1 be deferred from October 1989 to October 1991.

Executive Council has the prerogative, of course, either to affirm the decision of the board or to alter it in some way. The question I have for the minister, and I think I tried it the other day: now that the ERCB has released its decision entitled Electrical Generation Expansion 1986-1991, Sheerness And Genesee Power Plants — as I said, released in May of 1985, and of course you've had ample time to review the board's decision — can the minister tell us whether or not Executive Council has reached a decision responding to the ERCB recommendations? If not, when we can we expect an answer to them? MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, I welcome this opportunity to add my lobbying efforts to the minister of transportation. I would like to begin by acknowledging this government and the previous minister for the tremendous strides that were made in building what is probably the best highway system in the country. One rural area in the southern part of the Stettler constituency was promised a first-class road in compensation for the abandonment of their rail line. I speak of the Byemoor-Endiang area, which is now served by secondary roads 855 and 589.

The roads are now regraded to highway standards but have a gravel surface, which creates a tremendous dust hazard with present traffic volumes and is expensive for rural authorities to maintain as gravel is scarce in the area and the hauls are long. For these reasons this road is in critical need of hard surfacing. My question to the minister is: could not a higher priority be assigned as part of our previous commitment to provide a first-class road? Possibly it could be considered under the resource road program, which enjoyed an 8.9 percent budget increase.

Secondary roads 855 and 589 carry large volumes of grain, oil and gas condensate. Surely these are the important primary resources in this province. I want to make it clear that I'm talking not just about tourism but of basic service. I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to urge the quick completion of paving on Highway 53 between highways 21 and 36. There are only about 20 miles remaining for base coarse. The only ones who are benefitting from its present condition are the car repair shops. I have a couple more questions, Mr. Chairman.

With regard to construction of secondary roads, item 2.3.1, I note that the budget amount is only increased by 3.1 percent, and this doesn't seem to match the 10-year commitment that was made for completion and hard-surfacing of sec ondary roads. I note that grants to MDs and counties are up 18.1 percent; this is a welcome commitment. One final question. I note that grants to towns and villages are unchanged. The yearly amounts in a lot of cases are insufficient to tender.

Is there a mechanism either in place or anticipated for a smaller town or village to accumulate funds in reserve until the sum is large enough for an attractive tender? Thank you. MR. HAWKESWORTH: Mr. Chairman, there are a number of points that I'd like to address briefly this afternoon, a number of issues related to some experience I had on Calgary city council, and some of the issues in the areas of utilities and transportation that we dealt with as a munic ipal level of government.

At the present time one of the largest public works projects in the city of Calgary is winding its way through Calgary Mountain View, that being the northwest light rail transit leg through the communities of Sunnyside and Briar Hill. Both of them are within Calgary Mountain View. It was of concern to me for many years as a councillor on Calgary city council that that alignment was being considered and eventually adopted by the council of the day, on which I sat.

On a number of occasions, as my colleague opposite knows, we sought extra funding from the provincial government in order to look at other align ments, somewhat more expensive but of less social and environmental impact than the one that was eventually chosen by city council. I noted with some interest that my hon. colleague across in the months leading up to the election campaign was also seeking some assistance from his colleagues in the cabinet to get extra funding in order to reduce the impact of that particular public work on inner-city communities through which that project was proposed to be built.

I would like to see this provincial government and this department give some thought to this whole business of LRT and its impact on inner-city communities, established residential areas, to what extent public funds from the provincial government should be used without adequate mitigating compensation to the inner-city residential communities in which these align ments are being built. It's a real concern to me because I think the real costs are being borne disproportionately by the communities through which these alignments are being built.

The second thing I want to briefly discuss is the question of the adequate disposal of waste water from our sewage treatment facilities. It's an environmental issue. The big cities of Edmonton and Calgary, because of the high assess ment within those two municipalities, have been excluded in the past from participating under these municipal water and sewer grants. It has created a very onerous financial load on the taxpayers and the users of those systems, at least in the city of Calgary. We went through a boom in the late '70s and early '80s.

In order to adequately plan and prepare for what we thought was going to be a major increase in the populations of those two cities — certainly in the city of Calgary — we went ahead with the Bearspaw water treatment plant as well as an expansion to the Bonnybrook sewage treatment plant, both facilities together in the order of $200 million. All that we received from the provincial government for any kind of assistance to those two projects was something in the order of $13 million for phosphorus removal at a tertiary

July 7, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 377 level facility at Bonnybrook treatment plant. In relation to the amount of money that the city is putting into that kind of treatment facility, $13 million is a very small amount of money. It would be of significant assistance to the city of Calgary if this provincial government were to restructure its grants programs in order to allow the city of Calgary to be able to participate. It would make a big difference to the financing and the debt load of the taxpayers and the users of that particular city.

As well, about 50 percent of the population of this province resides in the two cities of Edmonton and Calgary. I think that a particular program of this magnitude and significance to the environment of Alberta requires that in som

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19860707
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L21 S1 19860707 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	4e3c52fdca511fc08120462a6169ae1f17d338f9

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