April 30, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 425 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Thursday, April 30, 1981 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to you, and through you to the members of the Assembly, two gentlemen who served this Legislature for many years. First of all, a man who served the constituency of Pembina from 1944 until 1967, a minister and a long time MLA, Mr. Bob Jorgenson. He's accompanied by Ray Reierson, a member of the Legislature from St.

Paul from 1952 till 1971, also a former cabinet minister. I'd like them to receive the recognition of the Legislature. MR. SPEAKER: I have the honor to introduce two distinguished visitors in the Speaker's gallery: the Hon. John Bannon, Leader of the Opposition in the House of Assembly for the state of South Australia, and Mr. Geoff Anderson, assistant to the Leader of the Opposition. I would ask them and their friend to stand and receive the welcome of the Assembly. head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. SCHMIDT: Mr.

Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs, I would like to table three copies of the communiques from the western premiers' conference held in Thompson, Manitoba. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. KNAAK: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure this afternoon to introduce to you and my colleagues in the House a class of grade 6 students from Duggan school in the constituency of Edmonton Whitemud, ac­ companied by their teacher Roger Langevin. I would ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of this House. MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr.

Speaker, it's with considerable pleasure that I have the opportunity this afternoon to introduce to all members of the Assembly a group of 30 grade 7 students from the Colonel Walker school in the constituency of Calgary Forest Lawn. Accompanied by parents Mrs. Judy Svarich and Mrs. Jean Sanderson, the group is led by their teacher, Mr. Charlie Gathercole. I invite them all to stand at this time and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure today to introduce to you, and through you to the members of the Assembly, 30 university students visiting the Assembly.

Fifteen of the students are from the University of Alberta, and 15 are from St. Mary's University, Halifax. These students are all on the Canadian studies program and exchange. We indeed welcome 15 members of our sister province of Nova Scotia to join us today. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that I am particularly pleased to have the chance to introduce somebody, since people so seldom get up here from Medicine Hat. As well I want to introduce the group leader from Alberta, Sharon Rubi- liak, and from St. Mary's, professor Colin Howell.

I also wish to point out that I'm pleased that the Alberta group includes the daughters of two of our colleagues: Carol Shaben and Susan Young. Would the group please rise and receive the welcome of the Assembly. head: MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Department of Environment MR. COOKSON: Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to announce that the Alberta government is increasing the amount of money it will grant to communities for the improvement of water and sewage facilities, with particu­ lar emphasis on smaller communities.

Essentially the change is being made to recognize that smaller communi­ ties do not enjoy the economics of scale that are available to our larger communities. The government has been assisting local governments for several years through the Alberta municipal water supply and sewage treatment grant program. For the last two years, the upper limit has been $2,000 per capita for most communities. However, smaller communities often find the costs of their projects far exceed the maximum grant available. To accommodate the smaller communi­ ties the grants will now vary according to the population.

The upper limit has been increased to $2,100 per capita for communities of 600 or more population. Smaller communities will now be eligible for a proportionately larger grant. For example, a village with a population of 300 would have an upper limit of $3,600 per capita, and a hamlet with a population of 75 would have an upper limit of $4,745 per capita. Mr. Speaker, all communities participating in the pro­ gram will be responsible for the first $250 per capita, an increase of $50 from the previous qualifying amount. The government pays 90 per cent of the costs between the qualifying amount and the upper limit.

During the 1980-81 fiscal year, the Alberta government spent about $68 million to assist 105 communities. While the same number of communities are expected to benefit this year, the total provincial grant should rise to around $75 million. Mr. Speaker, proper water and sewage treatment facili­ ties are essential for the protection of health and the maintenance of a sound environment. Alternate methods of sewage disposal, such as the irrigation of farmland with treated sewage effluent, which are now being tried in some southern Alberta communities, will be eligible for assistance under the program.

In addition, my depart­ ment will be willing to consider any other disposal tech­ niques that may be proposed by communities. Letters will be immediately sent out from my office to all communities in the province outlining the changes in the Alberta municipal water supply and sewage treatment grant program.

426 ALBERTA HANSARD April 30, 1981 head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Manufacturing in Alberta DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, my first question is to the hon. Minister of Economic Development. It has to do with the government's so-called diversification of the economy, or lack thereof. In light of the fact that we lost the opportu­ nity to have the LearFan jet in this province, can the minister indicate what stage negotiations are at for the establishment of an LRT manufacturing plant in this province? MR. PLANCHE: Mr. Speaker, the cities had elected to buy cars from a consortium of Siemens-Duwag from Germany.

Edmonton bought them first, and subsequently Calgary did so they'd have multiplicity of inventory. In addition those were the only cars of light rail transit construction that were available and had fare box ex­ perience at the time of their purchases. In view of the fact that there is every indication that more cars will be bought over a period of time, we investigated the possibil­ ity of having those two companies work in consortium with an Alberta manufacturer to see if a plant could be established here.

The difficulty is that the United States government has a policy where if federal funds are involved, there has to be a certain amount of made-in-America content which precludes economies of scale here for export to the U.S. So it was essential that a minimum car requirement be guaranteed by the government before a plant made sense here at all. Mr. Speaker, this government's stated policy on LRT is that there will be an experience factor, during which time the economic feasibility of built lines will be considered.

On that basis the government is not prepared at this time to make a guarantee of the number of cars that will be required over a period of time to make a plant economi­ cally viable. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate to the Assembly if he was in active negotiations when he made his announcement that there was a very great change of this plant being built in Alberta, or was he just looking for a headline? MR. PLANCHE: Well, I wasn't looking for a headline, Mr. Speaker. The government was never a negotiator; it was a catalyst.

As a matter of fact, the two parties from Europe and an unnamed party from this province were in advanced stages of negotiation. But as I have already stated, the lack of availability of an export market for economies of scale made the project doubtful. Unless an advance commitment could be made, the plant couldn't be put in place. That's the conclusion we came to. MR. PAHL: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister could advise the House whether the possibilities of additional markets in Canada were explored as part of the feasibility of locating the proposed plant in Alberta. MR.

PLANCHE: Of course not having a base to work from, we can hardly be actively and aggressively pursuing potential markets. We were a little surprised to see an Ontario plant selling untried cars to the city of Vancouv­ er, with some substantial financial incentives. We felt that market would have appropriately been available to this plant had it come to fruition in the future. But that is a limiting factor. As you may know, Bombardier is also able to produce cars, but not light rail vehicles at this time, and to my knowledge have never produced them; they have produced heavier cars.

But there was no ques­ tion that the market for Canadian manufactured cars is limited, and one more entry, such as the Ontario entry, made the thing that much less viable. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of Transportation. Can the minister indicate if there were any negotiations between the minister's department and the cities of Edmonton and Calgary indi­ cating to them to hold off their order for cars, in light of the fact that there was a possibility of cars being built here? MR. KROEGER: No, Mr. Speaker.

There has been no negotiation between Transportation and the cities on that basis. The only negotiation or conversation we were into was the possibility of funding further legs of LRT and, as we've suggested, that is based on testing and proving the viability. MR. NOTLEY: If I may, a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Transportation. It flows from an answer from the Minister of Economic Development concerning that process of reviewing and testing.

What specific assessment is being made of light rapid transit and other types of mass transit in those parts of the world where the world price, or close to the world price, for oil is already being paid, and the impact that sort of thing has on the use of rapid transit? MR. KROEGER: Mr. Speaker, last June I made a trip to London, England, and spent some time assessing the operations there. On an ongoing basis, we have been monitoring what's going on. The scene appears to be changing. The lines aren't very clear.

As an example, you have to think about the decision across the line, in the U.S., that the federal government is trying to reduce further funding for this kind of transportation. So we're weighing this kind of thing. Beyond that I might just add that we as a department have offered to work with the cities to help them assess not only the operation of their own systems but also to be part of examining and studying what is going on in the older parts of the world where the systems have been working for a long time. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, supplementary question to the minister.

This goes beyond the question of the minis­ ter making a visit, and hopefully we're not going to use the example of the United States. Will the review of those countries in the world now making extensive use of rapid transit of one kind or another be a formally commis­ sioned review, or will it simply be a case of politicians dropping over? Are we going to have a study commissioned? MR. KROEGER: Mr.

Speaker, what we're doing as a department is offering to have support people, planning people, from our department work with planning people from the cities — not the mayor or the Minister of Transportation, but the people who are actively involved in the planning and development — to go over and do the proper assessment. Just as an editorial comment, it's a little difficult to make the comparison, keeping in mind

April 30, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 427 that the two cities in Alberta are relatively small. So the comparison has to be done with care. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. In light of the government's commitment to higher prices for oil, is the minister in a position to give the House any timetable when this review will be completed and when in fact we may expect the government to have a more defini­ tive policy with respect to rapid transit? What commit­ ment is there to a timetable to make a policy statement on rapid transit? MR. KROEGER: Well, Mr.

Speaker, in a meeting I had a short time ago with the mayor of Edmonton, he indi­ cated to me that they as a city would like to do this kind of assessment. At that time I offered the services of our own engineering people, and he was taking that back as information. The decision when the city would like to start this kind of assessment will have to come from them, but we're prepared to help. DR. REID: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Minis­ ter of Economic Development.

In view of the apparent willingness of the federal government to bribe the city of Vancouver with $60 million to support a new industry in Ontario, is there any future possibility of building light rail rapid transit cars in Alberta with only the Alberta market available? MR. PLANCHE: Mr. Speaker, I can't make a very good economic judgment on a private sector investment like that, but it would appear that you're talking in the order of 150 cars over 10 years minimum in order to make it fly. That may even require some extra funding by the cities that are the customers.

So it's pretty 'iffy' over the longer term, unless we could develop an export market. While I'm on my feet I'd like to respond to the initial volley of the acting Leader of the Opposition about LearJets. The LearJet capability was under option to Canadair until July 1, 1979. It was cancelled at that date. Fourteen days later we were at a meeting with them, and four days after that the republic of Northern Ireland offered sufficient incentives to move them.

The member may know also that since then, we've made an offer to be involved in the R and D of composite technology with them, and that's not been acknowledged by Lear. Finally, it's also appropriate to mention that the pleasure and personal aircraft market has been fairly 'iffy' since the economies of North America have not been as specta­ cular, and since the advent of higher fuel prices. MR. KNAAK: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Economic Development.

In order to under­ stand the magnitude of this proposed plant for building light rail transit, if it does go ahead, can the minister advise what the capital investment would be in such a plant if it produced 150 cars over 10 years, and what the annual employment would be? MR. PLANCHE: I can't give a precise number because that was part of a private conversation of which I wasn't a part. But as I recall, the employment was in the neighbourhood of 120. MR. SPEAKER: May this be the final supplementary on this question. MR. SINDLINGER: Mr.

Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of State for Economic Devel­ opment — International Trade. Could the minister indi­ cate what role, if any, his department played in the LearJet decision? MR. SCHMID: Mr. Speaker, because of the involvement of the United States, specifically California, in that as­ pect, we travelled there to look at the development of the LearFan jet.

All they really had at the time was a mock-up of the outer frame, which was included in the advance composites design, and the proposal that Alberta could finance or guarantee the loan of development if Canadair would give up the option of producing that LearFan jet. At that time we were also aware that they were in fact negotiating with Ireland because on the same trip we went back to Canada on, the delegation from Lear went to Ireland to negotiate further for the guaran­ tee of their program with the United Kingdom.

That was the involvement of our group that went to Reno to look at the development of the LearFan jet. MR. PLANCHE: Mr. Speaker, if I may, my colleagues have advised me that Northern Ireland is not a republic. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to ask one short supplementary to the Minister of Economic Development or the Government House Leader. Does the venture por­ tion of the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund have sufficient flexibility that when projects such as this come along, funds can be guaranteed to firms that are in a situation such as the LearFan jet or the LRT project? MR. PLANCHE: Mr.

Speaker, there is no venture por­ tion in the Heritage Savings Trust Fund. We have done some guaranteeing in the past, but it's been outside the realm of the Heritage Savings Trust Fund purview. Since the Lear initiative, we now have a division that can participate in an underwriting by a third party for corpo­ rate bonds. That may have been applicable, although my information is that at the time the Lear Corporation was here it was in reasonably shaky financial circumstance. That's subject to correction if I'm wrong. Sulphur Handling DR. BUCK: Mr.

Speaker, my second question is to either the Minister of Environment or the Minister responsible for Workers' Health, Safety and Compensation. This is to do with the loading and unloading of bulk sulphur. Can either minister indicate what monitoring is in place when large volumes of bulk sulphur are loaded or unloaded from railroad cars? MR. DIACHUK: Mr. Speaker, I would have to take that question as notice because of the fact that a lot of the jurisdiction involved with the railroad transportation falls under the federal Minister of Labour.

Most of the time, the provincial officials are involved in an advisory capaci­ ty. I couldn't answer that in more detail at this time. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, the minister is indicating that he is not in a position to answer if there are any safe­ guards whatsoever in the handling of dry sulphur when it's being loaded and unloaded. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is asking for some­ thing which apparently is under federal jurisdiction.

428 ALBERTA HANSARD April 30, 1981 DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, the handling of materials is certainly under the purview of the minister. Let's not waffle around with that. That's what his department is set up to do. MR. SPEAKER: With great respect to the hon. member, the question was asked in the context of loading and unloading railway cars. If it relates to the handling of bulk sulphur otherwise under provincial jurisdiction, then of course the question is in order. DR. BUCK: Mr.

Speaker, then maybe the hon. minister can indicate what safety advice or programs workers have for unloading federal cars in the province of Alberta. Can the minister indicate what safety mechanisms are in place to protect Alberta workers? MR. DIACHUK: Mr. Speaker, The Occupational Health and Safety Act applies to all workers in Alberta. Howev­ er, I've indicated earlier that I would take that question under notice because the question did lead, and the supplementary was with regard to loading and unloading railway cars.

Again I reflect and repeat that those fall under the jurisdiction of the federal Minister of Labour. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Minister of Envi­ ronment. Can the minister indicate what monitoring pro­ cedures are in place to find out if sulphur goes into the air when this is being loaded or unloaded? What monitoring mechanisms are in place? MR. COOKSON: Mr. Speaker, if it's a matter of an operation of a plant, the Department of Environment has a licensing procedure. As part of that licensing procedure, we would require certain things to be done or not done. In addition we would monitor the air.

If the question deals with loading or unloading where licensing does not apply, that is mobile units, I think you're into an area in which we don't have jurisdiction. The only way in which our department would become involved would be that if there were a spill, under our legislation they're required to report to us. Disaster Serv­ ices, under Municipal Affairs, is also involved. We would immediately be called on the scene to deal with clean-up and handling of the spill. MR. SCHMID: Mr.

Speaker, may I supplement the answer of my colleagues, since sulphur loading does in­ volve international trade, in fact offshore exports. Maybe I should explain that during the time I was involved in the sulphur business, sulphur was literally broken by big Cats from the big bulk squares of sulphur. That really created dust and in fact explosion problems.

But lately, because of the development, patenting, and construction of prilling, slating, and pelletizing plants, this sulphur dust has been so much removed that the sulphur loading process, even on to the ships in Vancouver harbour and off-loading in other countries, is now much less of a hazard than it was. DR. BUCK: I don't care what they're doing in Vancouv­ er, Mr. Speaker. The question was what they are doing in Alberta.

My question to the Minister of the Environment: in light of the fact that we don't have an environmental ombudsman in this province anymore, what opportunity, avenue, or mechanism is in place for the ordinary citizens of Alberta to indicate to the Department of Environment that there is a problem or a potential problem? What avenue is open to individual citizens of this province? MR. SCHMID: Mr. Speaker, I was saying that this pel­ letizing and slating has removed the dust and explosive problems of sulphur. DR. BUCK: He hasn't unloaded sulphur quite often, Mr. Speaker, so he wouldn't know.

And my question's to the Minister of Environment. MR. NOTLEY: He's trying to think of an answer. Give him time. MR. COOKSON: You see, I've got an environmental ombudsman responding. Again, Mr. Speaker, I think the Member for Clover Bar is repeating his question. I think I've explained to him where our jurisdiction lies. The Minister responsible for Workers' Health, Safety and Compensation comes into the jurisdiction where it involves worker health and safety. Under their legislation, they operate compensa­ tion. I have no problem with the jurisdiction which falls under my supervision.

Insofar as spills are concerned, we're called in on those and, if we have to, we exercise under the Clean Air legislation. But when it comes to worker health and safety, I really have to refer it to my colleague. MR. SCHMID: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I think you should inform my hon. colleague from Clover Bar that I was probably responsible for loading more tons of sulphur than he has pulled teeth. DR. BUCK: Not lately, Horst. MR. SINDLINGER: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the Minister of Environment.

What studies are going on now with regard to monitoring sulphur dusting at gas plants throughout the province? The reason I ask that is that about 20 million tons of sulphur are stockpiled around the province, and at one time in the last 10 years the minister's department actually stopped the loading of sulphur cars because of the dust. I might also add that another reason they were stopped was . . . SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is certainly entitled to some leeway in asking his question, but he's taken a considerable amount of leeway in making an announce­ ment in addition to that.

DR. BUCK: It's quite obvious that you have to educate these ministers, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Possibly if hon. members wish to give lessons, they might do it outside the question period. MR. COOK: Mr. Speaker, can I ask a supplementary question of the minister? MR. SPEAKER: I believe we haven't given the hon. minister to deal with the question by the hon. Member for Calgary Buffalo. AN HON. MEMBER: What was the question?

April 30, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 429 MR. COOKSON: Mr. Speaker, I was having trouble determining what the question was. There were a lot of innuendoes and supplementary observations. If I under­ stand the member's question, he was inquiring as to what monitoring we have in place insofar as gas plants in the province are concerned. All plants are licensed under our jurisdiction. All have standards which they have to meet in terms of S0 2 emissions into the air. We have 200 or 300 monitors. We do our monitoring ourselves. The in­ dustries themselves monitor.

They are required to report to us twice monthly, or whatever is required in the li­ cence. If we find them exceeding to a large degree — or consistently, let's put it that way — then we immediately meet with company officials to deal with the problem. MR. SINDLINGER: Mr. Speaker, in a supplementary, may I please try to be a little more specific.

I'm not asking with regard to sulphur dioxide emissions from gas plants, rather: is your department continuing to monitor soil leeching around gas plants from sulphur stockpiles, which it did in the earlier 1970s and which led to stop orders for sulphur loading and unloading at gas plants? MR. COOKSON: Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture might like to get in on this issue dealing with acidity of the soil. We have an ongoing testing service across the province, in co-operation with Agriculture, to determine in the long term whether any major impacts are being felt by the land itself.

We carry out an ongoing study and continue to do it closely with Agriculture. They're also involved in that a large number of fertilizers used today contain sulphur and could impact the pH of soils. So we work closely on it. MR. SINDLINGER: A final supplementary, please. Could the minister indicate whether or not the depart­ ment has done any tests on dusting levels, compared to old sulphur loading methods and those outlined by the Minister of State for Economic Development — Interna­ tional Trade? MR. COOKSON: Perhaps I could take that as notice, Mr. Speaker. Some comparisons may have been done.

I'll provide that information. MR. COOK: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Advanced Education and Manpower. Would he consider offering some remedial government course to members of the opposition so they could ask intelligent questions? MR. NOTLEY: Give him a few more years — about 30. Employment Programs MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this ques­ tion to the hon. Minister of Labour. Is the minister in a position to advise the Assembly whether he has changed his position on affirmative action, a rather well-publicized position of recent note.

Has the government changed its position in light of statements by Mr. Gordon Fairweath- er, Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and a former Tory MP, who described those who oppose affirmative action programs as "the forces of reaction"? MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, in responding to the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview, I don't really think it's my role to either apologize for or explain what the director of the Canadian Human Rights Commission says. I don't have and never had a position of being opposed to affirmative action.

In most cases I don't know what it means when people use that expression.

I have stated — and stated at a number of meetings, several within the last four weeks — that the position is for the removal of all forms of discrimination, intentional or unintentional, which can be systemic discrimination, and that over and above that, the objective of government is to achieve meaningful employment for all citizens of the province; that in order to do that, special support pro­ grams would be necessary; that we should go about engaging in these programs, and that they should be directed at areas of deficiency that cause problems for the individual who isn't able to fully participate in employ­ ment.

That is still my position. I prefer to express it in the positive and specific sense rather than, if I may be forgiv­ en the expression, a very loose phrase which in my exploration with groups has a variety of meanings, every­ thing from reverse discrimination to quota systems and all that implies. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister responsible for Personnel Administration, flowing from the answer of the Minister of Labour about special placement programs and the government's an­ nouncement over a year ago that three staff members would be hired to promote native hiring and training within the 26 departments of government. What progress has been made by the department in engaging those three people who the government announced over a year ago would be engaged? MR. STEVENS: Mr. Speaker, we are in the process of appointing a candidate for the director of the three.

We'll be seeking the other candidates as soon as that appoint­ ment has been made. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the statement, and the headlines, was made well over a year ago, and we had a discussion in the Legislature last spring about all the special place­ ment policies of this government, why has it taken over a year since the announcement was made to get the process under way of actually appointing a person? MR. STEVENS: Mr. Speaker, it's a program that we have every reason to believe would be positive and good.

But I think it's incumbent upon the government to ensure that it has the best candidate for that position. We have been very successful in the other two programs started in 1975 and 1977. I'm confident we will continue to be successful with this program. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister. I'm sure we all share that hope. However, why was the process of recruiting not gotten under way when the announcement was made? Why are we only now advertising? What happened in the last year that we didn't get into action on this? MR. STEVENS: Mr.

Speaker, I think I've answered that question. We were endeavoring to find the best candi­ dates and of course select from those the best one we could find.

430 ALBERTA HANSARD April 30, 1981 MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Is the minister telling the House that in fact the govern­ ment has already gone through and assessed candidates at this stage? It's my understanding that we are just now advertising. Why has it taken more than a year from the time the announcement was made to get anything moving? MR. STEVEN: Mr. Speaker, I believe I've answered that question. We have endeavored to find the best candidate, and that's what we will do. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister.

Has there been any discussion with native organizations in the province by the government, the minister's office, or anyone representing the govern­ ment of Alberta? In the last year has the minister taken any initiative to discuss with native organizations possible people who could fill these positions, promised now for lo, these many months? MR. STEVENS: Mr.

Speaker, the position and the thrust of the program are intended to ensure that no candidate for employment in the government is denied access to the opportunities, to ensure that the qualifica­ tions of candidates are not — all those systemic barriers that my colleague has discussed are considered. So it's much more than simply meeting with the native organiza­ tions. It includes advertising program review and review­ ing the classification standard. So it's more than meeting with the native organizations. However, consultation has taken place with my colleague the Minister responsible for Native Affairs. MR.

NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Minister responsible for Native Affairs. Con­ sidering the importance of this issue and the publicity it was given by the government, what steps has the minister taken? Is the minister in a position to outline to the Assembly this afternoon the formal meetings the minister has held with native organizations, to facilitate the ap­ pointment of these three people, promised now for more than a year? DR. McCRIMMON: Mr. Speaker, I can't speak for the Minister responsible for Personnel Administration.

With respect to my own department, at the present time I have had the native personnel increased to 50 per cent. We are now advertising for several more positions. When those positions are filled, I expect that within my department the native personnel will run to two-thirds of the personnel. With respect to the pattern laid out by my colleague, I'm very supportive of it. Hopefully we can get some more people from the native sector into government serv­ ices. I think it's a good program. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister.

The question is not what the situa­ tion is in the department the minister heads. That's fine, and well it should be. The question is: what steps has the Minister responsible for Native Affairs taken to facilitate the appointment of the three people who were to under­ take, if you like, the positive program that the Minister of Labour keeps telling us, as far as placement and training of natives is concerned in the 26 departments of govern­ ment, including the minister's? MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I think there's a mite of confusion. I'm not talking just about the government services.

The program and policy I have described I hope would be applied in the private sector as well as govern­ ment services. It's just plain common sense that we should strive for a program which is effective in involving persons who aren't meaningfully employed, either at the capacity they could be or aren't employed at all. We should work to remove those deficiencies. I see it not a great deal differently from the special programming that was provided for veterans of the Second World War when they came back. So, Mr.

Speaker, as far as I'm concerned, I think it applies broadly and shouldn't be interpreted, as the hon. member opposite seems to be trying to do, as having application only to natives and government. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Quite the reverse. Bearing in mind what the minister just said about involving everybody but especially the private sector, what kind of example is this government setting for the private sector when with great ballyhoo . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Obviously an excellent introduction for a debate. It would be a shame to waste it on the question period.

Perhaps the hon. minister could put it on the Order Paper. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could rephrase it. I wouldn't want to be argumentative. [interjections] With respect to these positive kinds of placement programs the minister has referred to, what review has been undertaken by the government of the impact on the private sector of an announcement by the government of action being made one year but no action being taken even a year later? MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, that kind of question is clearly a matter of opinion.

I would just like to indicate to him for his information, without the ballyhoo that seems to be evident in some of the questioning this afternoon, that the Alberta Human Rights Commission and officers from my staff met with leaders of the construction industry — the owners, con­ tractors, and the senior union representatives — just a matter of three weeks ago, when we reviewed this whole programming area and some of the challenges in it from the point of view of the commission, the private sector, and the government. I think it was a very constructive meeting. I've had very good reports back from it.

I was personally present and presided over the meeting. It was done quietly, Mr. Speaker. Maybe I should get a trumpet and announce it so that in future the hon. member may get reports on it. Exports to Israel MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Economic Development — International Trade. Has the minister or anyone from his department met with officials of Israel with regard to selling Alberta coal to Israel? MR. SCHMID: Mr. Speaker, a couple of months ago, in fact three months ago now I think, Mr. Baruch was here discussing the possibility of Alberta exporting coal to Israel.

However, at the time, and of course now, the potential of exports of coal to other countries, including

April 30, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 431 Israel, is not provided for due to transportation difficul­ ties, and in fact our mines have to be opened to avail ourselves of the opportunity. MR. MANDEVILLE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister plan to send a delegation to Israel with regard to marketing Alberta coal? MR. SCHMID: Mr. Speaker, the intention of sending a mission to Israel to discuss not only the marketing of Alberta coal but also other prospects is definitely in our plans. MR. MANDEVILLE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Has the minister met with officials of British Columbia to see if they could work out a deal to market B.C. and Alberta coal to Israel? MR. SCHMID: Mr. Speaker, the overall development of our coal potential in the export market is presently being discussed. I think my colleague the hon. Minister of Economic Development could further answer that, be­ cause I think he may have had discussions with his colleague Mr. Phillips in British Columbia. MR. PLANCHE: No, I can't make any more comments on that, Mr. Speaker. MR. MANDEVILLE: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

I understand Israel is looking at setting up a trade office some place in western Canada. Has the minister approached officials in Israel to see if they would set up a trade office in Alberta? MR. SCHMID: Mr. Speaker, no we have not, one of the reasons being that the total export from Alberta to Israel is rather small. In fact in '79 I understand it was only about $35,000. There are other provinces, for instance, Ontario, which have a much higher export potential to Israel, excepting coal. MR. SINDLINGER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

Could the minister be a little more specific please, and identify what the transportation difficulties were that impeded the negotiations? MR. SCHMID: Mr. Speaker, the transportation difficul­ ties are that where the coal is presently being found, no transportation is available to export the coal — in this case, to Israel, or for that matter 10 million tons to Italy. Not only that, first the coal has to be produced and the mines have to be opened. These are all matters of nego­ tiation. That is why we presently have under study the feasibility of a slurry pipeline from Alberta to the coast. MR.

SINDLINGER: A supplementary please, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister indicate what stage the slurry pipeline study is at, and if it would be made available to members of the Legislature when it is completed? MR. SCHMID: Mr. Speaker, I understand it is expected to be completed by June. Whether it will be available to the Legislature of course depends on when the outcome of the study comes and if the Legislature is in session at the time. MR. SINDLINGER: A final supplementary please, Mr. Speaker.

Could the minister please indicate what routes are being considered for a slurry pipeline and what volumes or tonnages are being considered as well? MR. SCHMID: Mr. Speaker, in fact the feasibility study is looking at the routes or the possibilities of where the coal could be taken from to be the most marketable economic factor of the export of coal to other countries. MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. minister wish to deal further with something arising from question period? MR. PLANCHE: Yes I did, Mr. Speaker.

Because it's so important, I want to supplement my colleague's answer in terms of the capability of the transportation system. Our forecasts are that by 1985 the shortfall could approach 8 million tons a year going west from here. It's our respon­ sibility to look at alternative modes to move commodities economically and competitively. The slurry pipeline study was initiated for that reason. Of course we are also looking to shipping coal east, possibly through Churchill. DR. REID: Supplementary to the minister, if I may, Mr. Speaker.

Is the shortfall of 8 million tons he mentioned in spite of any improvements to the CP track through the Rocky Mountains and the other ranges and in spite of the proposed twinning of the CN track from Edmonton to Red Pass Junction? MR. PLANCHE: Mr. Speaker, forecasts are never very precise, but they do serve to limit options. The forecast­ ing we've done includes twinning from Red Pass Junction to Edmonton and Red Pass Junction to Vancouver, as well as the completion of the CPR Beaver Tunnel. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: May the hon. Member for Three Hills revert to Introduction of Special Guests? HON.

MEMBERS: Agreed. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS (reversion) MRS. OSTERMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's with a great deal of pleasure that I introduce two separate groups of young people from the constituency of Three Hills: fine young Cubs and Scouts led by the Cub leaders Dick Farmer, Henry Peters, and Ann Peters, and the Scout leaders Ron Bozzer and Charles Bathurst. They're from the community and the village of Acme. Would they rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. head: MOTIONS FOR RETURNS MR. HORSMAN: Mr.

Speaker, in dealing with the ques­ tion of Motions for Returns, I wonder if I could ask the Acting Leader of the Opposition whether he is prepared, in the absence of the Leader of the Opposition, to provide the amendment that has been agreed upon with respect to Motion for a Return 118 or whether he would prefer to have it stand over until the leader returns. DR. BUCK: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'd like the hon. Acting Government House Leader to hold it over.

432 ALBERTA HANSARD April 30, 1981 MR. HORSMAN: Thank you. Then, Mr. Speaker, I move that Question 111 and motions for returns 113, 116, 117, and 118 stand on the Order Paper. [Motion carried] head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 214.

Be it resolved that the Assembly urge the govern­ ment to consider making public its policy on the Crowsnest Pass freight rate as was promised in the Assembly by the Minister of Agriculture and by the Minister of Economic Development. MR. SINDLINGER: Mr. Speaker, the question of the Crowsnest Pass freight rates is very important to the province of Alberta, given the fact that agriculture is our most important activity. I've spoken on this subject be­ fore, and I've made the point several ways.

However, today in the province there is some confusion as to where the provincial government stands on this matter, and that's the purpose of this resolution. Since we have only a very short time to spend on the subject, I'm going to sit in my place and, along with other people in the province, wait for a response from the government. MR. SPEAKER: Do I take it that the hon. member has moved the motion? MR. SINDLINGER: Yes, sir. MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to this motion. It's always a delight to get up and take another shot at the Crow. It's one of the national pas­ times here in Alberta.

Another thing I like about this motion today is that this is not our jurisdiction. At this time in our history, we're always worrying about the BNA Act and provincial jurisdiction and several things like that, but this area is completely under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Therefore we can have a policy, we can advise, but they are the ones who imple­ ment any changes in the rate. I think the thing that causes people to get more and more interested in the Crow rate is the so-called Crow gap. That probably has been basically caused by the kind of inflation we've had over the last 10 or 15 years.

It's growing and growing and growing. I'd just like to give you a few figures on what I consider the Crow gap is. What happens with the Crow gap is that you have your Crow rate, and the railroads get about $135 million of income from that a year. Then you have the federal government giving out a branch line subsidy of $200 million. But then there's a shortfall between the actual costs and the income received, Mr. Speaker. This is increasing at a terrific rate. I'd like just to give the members some figures. I've said this in the House before, but some people don't have quite as long an attention span as others.

The shortfall in 1974 was $157 million. In 1977 it was $239 million. In 1980 it was over $300 million. The projection of these figures is that in 1985 it's going to be around $0.75 billion, and that's just at the present time. If the Wheat Board reaches its goal of exporting close to 30 million tonnes of grain a year, the shortfall will be $1.2 billion. I don't think any reasonable man or lady here in the Legislature would expect the railroads to pick up the difference. And of course they don't, because there's a certain amount of cross-subsidization on other bulk commodities being shipped by the railroads.

So they don't pick the total thing up that way. Other people pay, and many of them know it very well. So this is one of the problems we have with the Crow rate, and some kind of solution has to be made to it. I think we're approaching a crisis in this area, Mr. Speaker. We all know — especially the hon. Member for Calgary Buffalo, because he's very expert in this area — that there's increasing traffic on the railroads. If there's not a more reasonable return to the railroads for grain, it is going to become a second-class commodity. It is today to a great extent anyway, but it'll become even more so.

And the farmer is going to suffer. So obviously we're going to have to do something in the area. Now we all have solutions for it. The federal govern­ ment's solution is just to sit and ignore the problem. We have the Hon. Hazen Argue, the minister for Saskatche­ wan, representing the people of Saskatchewan. AN HON. MEMBER: He got appointed. MR. THOMPSON: Well he's still representing them in the federal cabinet, Mr. Speaker, whether he was ap­ pointed or elected. He's running up and down Saskatch­ ewan, hearing what he wants to hear. He says, no change in the Crow rate.

The Liberal government, of course, is happy to go along with that. We have the Hon. Bud Olson, our Alberta representative in the Liberal cabinet. He's our contribution. AN HON. MEMBER: He's not ours. MR. THOMPSON: He's really not making much of a case for the Alberta livestock producers, from anything I've ever heard him say up to this point. Anyway, there's always hope.

I would like to get on to what the resolution says: . . . that the Assembly urge the government to consider making public its policy on the Crowsnest Pass freight rate as was promised in the Assembly by the Minister of Agriculture and by the Minister of Economic Development. Mr. Speaker, I'm very puzzled to have the Member for Calgary Buffalo bring this motion forward. The policy has been public over at least a year that I know of. Maybe for his benefit, if he has a pen there, I would state the policy for him. Producers are to retain the Crow benefit. That's part of our policy.

Number two, the railways should receive adequate revenue for moving grain. Number three, any change in the rate formula is to be legislated and regulat­ ed. Number four, any rate change must be accompanied by clearly defined steps to improve capacities and effi­ ciencies. Number five, the livestock and processing sec­ tors are to be allowed to achieve their full economic potential, recognizing the present loss of natural advan­ tage of local feed grains and grazing capacity because of freight anomalies.

I think this has been public for at least a year, and possibly two years that I know of, so I cannot understand why the member feels that the government has not stated its policy on the Crowsnest rates. Now maybe for just a few minutes, I'd like to go over those points. Number one, producers are to retain the Crow benefit. I don't think the government has to feel defensive on this point, and for these reasons: right now in Canada, there's a real maze of subsidies to transporta­

Aprill 30, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 433 tion in various forms. We even have it here in our grain transportation policy with the branch line subsidy. But we can use other examples. We can look at VIA Rail, the passenger service they have. The last I heard — I'm sure it's up by now — they were losing over $300 million a year, or they were subsidized to that effect. We also have the St. Lawrence Seaway. That seaway is to the benefit of all Canada, but it loses money too. It seems like that's one of our natural assets here: anytime we do anything, we lose money.

I'll give a really good example of something that is a vital cog in our economy, the Mirabel Airport. Every person who steps off the plane at Mirabel Airport is subsidized to $30 by the federal government. So I don't think the provincial government or the western provinces or anyone else has to feel defensive about the fact that the federal government should consider picking up what we call the Crow benefit; that is, the difference between the actual cost of transporting grain and the actual income the railways get today.

I'll go on to number two, which says the railways should receive adequate revenue for moving grain. Well, I think that's pretty self-evident, Mr. Speaker. If they don't — and they haven't in the past — what's the result? The result is a deterioration of the system. The rolling stock wears out; they have a great reluctance to replace it. In the end, the farmer or the producer suffers because the grain just does not get to market. You know, times have changed in agriculture. It used to be that you couldn't sell your product. Now you can sell it if you can just get it to tidewater.

We have just plain got to face this factor. We the provincial government must realize that this is a complex thing. I mentioned just a little bit ago that we should really take a look at grain transportation in the context of a total transportation policy in western Cana­ da. Grain is a bulk commodity just like coal, sulphur, potash, and lumber, for instance. So this whole freight problem affects every one of the western provinces. The grain farmer may feel that he's getting a free ride or a free lunch.

But basically when you take the total picture, and take a look at what's happening to the coal people, the sulphur people, the railroads are leaning on these people as hard as they can — well, I'll say this, they're charging what the traffic will bear, and in many ways they are subsidizing the grain rates. I don't think it can continue to any more degree than it's doing today. Obviously the railroads should receive adequate compensation for carry­ ing a commodity, whatever it is. Now, the number three point, any change to the rate formula is to be legislated and regulated. I have no real problem with that.

If we're going to achieve any type of stability in grain rates, I think they have to be set in legislation and they have to be set down in regulations, so there is not a year to year or government to government change in them. To keep any kind of stability in the industry, they have to be able to project ahead of time just what some of the costs are. So there's no problem for me in that area. Number four, any rate change must accompanied by clearly defined steps to improve capacities and efficien­ cies.

I think most everyone here will realize that the railroads don't have the confidence of the general public in western Canada that maybe they should have. There's no doubt it really gives an incentive to the railroads to improve if it's tied in on a basis like that. If they can see that by getting an increase in rates, and justify their increases by upgrading the system, there's more incentive for them to my point of view it really does keep the railroads honest, and many of us would be a lot happier with that.

Number five, the livestock and processing sectors are to be allowed to achieve their full economic potential, rec­ ognizing the present loss of natural advantage of local feed grains and grazing capacity because of freight anomalies. You know, Mr. Speaker, this is probably the most important one of them all. The way I interpret that is, we're basically against the feed grain assistance pro­ gram because it has really cost western Canada, and especially Alberta, a very big economic advantage. I don't know for what reason, but in Alberta we have traditionally been a livestock related group of farmers.

I suppose the history of farming in this country started with ranching, and we've always had a certain affinity for the livestock sector. We raise over 50 per cent of Cana­ da's feed grain. I think it was 65 per cent last year, but that was a bad year in other areas. We consume about 60 per cent of what we raise. So in Alberta we are really tied into the livestock sector, and we have natural advantages because of those things I mentioned. But with the feed freight assistance program, those advantages are being eroded.

It's no secret to anyone here, I don't think, that in Ontario, Quebec, and even British Columbia, they are given a certain advantage. And, give them credit, they're taking advantage of it. They are getting more and more into livestock production. So as far as Alberta is concerned, from my point of view at least, I honestly think that as one of the bigger areas — and we also have things like a rapeseed proces­ sing industry and dehydrated alfalfa plants. To me at least, it's of real importance that we get out of this area and let the natural factors of the economy of the country work in their natural state.

Thank you for your attention, Mr. Speaker. MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratu­ late the mover of this motion, not for the content but for his brevity. I think the Crow rate is something important that we have to deal with. As the old saying, it's as old as the hills. We've been dealing with it since 1897. It's by statute. It's something like the constitution we're dealing with now, the British North America Act: we've been dealing with it and not able to come up with any solu­ tions. We've had studies and decisions — haven't had any conclusions. But I agree that everybody is concerned.

The Prime Minister of Canada, Pepin, Hazen Argue: the whole gamut is working on a solution to the Crow rates. I agree with the five points the hon. Member for Cardston told us about here, with regard to improving our Crow rates. I want to say only one thing, Mr. Speaker. I'm certainly not going to be an ally for the Canadian Pacific railway. I think that if any of us members of the Legislature have an agreement, we have to adhere to it. It's not a result of the Crow rate. As well as the Crow rate, they've got a lot of benefits in many different ways.

I'm certainly one who doesn't want to let the rail companies off the hook. I agree that we have to retain the benefits, but who should pay the benefits? Should it be the farmer? Should it be all Canadians? I think part of the benefits should be absorbed by the people we have the agreement with. We have the agreement with Canadian Pacific railway, and I think they should be responsible for picking up some of the benefits that should go to the farmer. I agree that the farmers should have every benefit that's coming to them. I certainly have to agree with the other points the hon. Member for Cardston pointed out.

I'm going to be the

434 ALBERTA HANSARD April 30, 1981 first to say that there are pitfalls in the Crowsnest rate, and there always have been. I can appreciate that the CPR, or even the CNR, isn't going to transport our grain satisfactorily so long as they're losing money doing it. What it's doing is discouraging the food industry in western Canada, because it's promoting the manufactur­ ing of our agricultural products down east. Ontario promotes this. They've always promoted the Crow rate and wanted to hang onto it, because they have great benefits as a result.

The beef producers in Alberta have certainly suffered as a result of the Crow rate. What are our packers doing? A lot of them are going down east. They can move feed and our cattle down there. What happens in the west? We can't promote anything like this in the west. Another area that disappoints me with our rail compa­ nies is that they were given the natural resources for 20 miles to supply spur lines to transport our grain out of western Canada. What's happening? Have you gone to some of those hearings? I've attending some of the hear­ ings, and I get very upset with some of the input we get there.

They agreed on some of the deals we gave them. They agreed to put the spur lines in and transport our grain. I think they should be held responsible to do this. Those big tracts of land were given to the Canadian Pacific railway by John A. Macdonald. I happen to come from a constituency where the Eastern Irrigation District owns 600,000 acres that the CPR turned over to them. In 1935 a group of farmers from the Eastern Irrigation District went to Ottawa and negotiated a deal. Do you know what happened? The CPR turned over the 600,000 acres to the Eastern Irrigation District.

They weren't operating them efficiently. They gave the farmers of the Eastern Irrigation District $300,000 to take it over. They couldn't operate it efficiently. The only thing they didn't turn over to the farmers was the natural resources, and they take millions and millions of dollars out of there. If the Eastern Irrigation District delegation had spent an­ other few days negotiating, possibly we could have got the natural resources. Then possibly we could buy out Alberta, just take over Alberta. We would have had a heritage trust fund similar to Alberta's. Mr.

Speaker, maybe this is something we should take a really good look at. They have the transportation system. They say they're losing money transporting our grain, and I agree they're losing money. But they had an agreement with us to transport it. Maybe the federal government should be negotiating a deal to take over the rail system, the same as the farmers in the Eastern Irriga­ tion District did. Maybe they should be paying some benefits to the federal government in order to take it over.

It's not only the Crow rate, it's the full transporta­ tion system that is involved in this as far as transporting our grain is concerned. We gave them big tracts of land. I can recall the city of Calgary at one time not getting any revenue from the CPR or the Palliser Hotel. Also there are no taxes on their depots all across Canada. They got the right of way free to put this in to provide this service to us in western Canada. I think it's incumbent on the federal government to negotiate with the CPR and come up with a deal to provide the Crow benefit to the farmers in the province of Alberta.

I would like to say that I think four of the points of the hon. Member for Cardston are good. The only one I disagree with is letting the rail companies off the hook. I'm the first to say that we have to have the federal government negotiate a deal and see that they get the benefits and that the CPR and the CNR pay their share of the revenue. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate, during the course of debate on the motion put forward this afternoon by the hon.

Member for Calgary Buffalo, I hope the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Economic Development will take the occasion to clearly state the position of the government of Alberta on this matter. The province of Saskatchewan has made its posi­ tion unequivocally clear.

The province of Saskatchewan favors the retention of the Crow rate and is strongly of the view that as a result of the very significant public investment that has recently been made — not only by that province but by our province, Manitoba, the federal government, and farmers themselves, through the Wheat Board — it is simply not justifiable to let the railroads off the hook. It's my submission that in the long run the two rail­ roads in this province have to be brought into one inte­ grated, publicly owned system. I think that's the only way we can have a rational and effective railroad policy.

Elsewhere in the world, most of the countries that are doing best have recognized the importance of an inte­ grated, publicly owned transportation system. Mr. Speaker, there's absolutely no doubt that there is an enormous amount of subsidy in the transportation system. That's going to continue. The question really is: are we going to maintain Crow rates which were part of an historic bargain? The hon. Member for Bow Valley talks about letting the railroads off the hook, and well he might.

Because I think it is rather disgraceful to have the railroad, particularly the CPR, coming to westerners and saying, while we've made a deal, we would like to be able to evade the part of the deal where we lose money. We're not offering to give up the lands that were part of the deal, or the revenues from an empire that has been built largely because of the freebies that were associated with the construction of the CPR in the first place: we don't want to get out of that part of the deal. We only want to get out of the portion where we think we're losing a little money. You know, Mr.

Speaker, it's worth looking at our own province. In Alberta approximately 13 million acres of freehold are owned by the Canadian Pacific railroad. In this province we aren't able to collect a royalty on free­ hold. We have a freehold tax but it's very modest, working out to about 4 per cent; significantly less, I might add, than the royalty

schedule for either new or old oil. But if one just takes the difference between the amount of revenue our province receives from PanCanadian, the CPR subsidiary, and add everything — the freehold re­ serves tax and the provincial share of corporation tax — and contrast that against what would come into the province from the production of oil and gas on CPR land, the difference is something over $500 million a year. Now we keep hearing from the railroads that for the entire country this Crow gap is around $500 million.

In one province alone, the gap between what we receive from this particular company and what we might if we owned the reserves outright, as we do in our provincial reserves, is some $500 million. But is the railroad coming to the government of Alberta and saying, well look, we're prepared to give up the mineral rights. Of course not. They're saying, that's a different company. We want to keep the mineral rights and this windfall that we're making out of oil, just as we want to keep the money we're making in real estate. The only thing we want to

April 30. 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 435 change is the Crow rate as it applies to the movement of grain. Mr. Speaker, I just find it incredible that we would have this kind of argument being seriously advanced and supported by anyone in public life, at least in western Canada. Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with some things that have been said over the last eight or nine years. I've argued, as I did a moment ago, for a publicly owned system. I think it would be useful to have the Minister of Agriculture tell us in the debate today where the government stands in 1981 on the proposal of Mr.

Peacock, when that particu­ lar hon. gentleman was the Minister of Industry and Commerce. At the economic development conference in Calgary in 1973, Mr. Peacock, in a momentary lapse of being a red Tory, advocated complete nationalization of all the railbeds. Now is that formally the position of the government? It was in 1973, but I've seen a little hedging. On the other hand, from time to time we've had the odd minister imply that they may still be thinking about that. Well, are they or not? The hon.

Member for Calgary Buffalo has given us an opportunity this afternoon to find out from one of the ministers who are responsible for government policy just where that flyer stands in 1981. Is it still the government policy or not? I think some of the arguments that have been raised about why we have to do away with the Crow rate are really fallacious in the extreme. We have the suggestion that if we just dump the Crow rate and bring in compen­ satory rates, those railroads are just going to take all that money and improve the service. Things are just going to be hunky-dory.

Well there's absolutely no evidence of that. As a matter of fact, the record of the railroads elsewhere — the example I want to site is east of Thunder Bay, as far as hauling potatoes in the maritimes is concerned. Commitments which had been made were done away with in the hope that we'd have better service. In fact that has not worked out. The idea that just removing the Crow rates is somehow going to improve the service as if by magic is, as I say, hopeful. Certainly there's no evidence at all, in the track record of the railroads in the last 30 or 40 years, to indicate that it's going to mean a darned thing.

We've had compensatory passenger rates on the rail­ roads, and we've seen the railroads deliberately dump their passenger service. With energy prices going up, we're now in a position where we should have a good rail passenger service in this country. But we've allowed both the CN and the CPR — and I would be just as critical of the CN, as a publicly owned system, as of the CPR — to deliberately downgrade passenger service. So the idea that it's all going to be fine if we just pay whatever the railroads are asking, is hopeful in the extreme. Mr.

Speaker, the railroads tell us that if we move from the present Crow rate to the actual cost of moving grain, the cost would be about six times the current level. The National Farmers Union has reckoned that that would mean the average cost for each producer in Alberta would be $4,320 compared to $720 at present. That's the average cost based on 1980 figures. But with energy costs rising, there's absolutely no doubt that the difference will grow. If we take away the Crow rate, that $4,320 figure will be substantially greater down the road.

But even taking it as a base, the total loss to farmers' net income, because that's the only place it can come from, would be about $170 million. That would mean a reduction of 20 per cent in the net income of Alberta farmers if we move to the full compensatory rate. We've had some interesting proposals made. We have some of the commodity groups suggesting that, well, we'll keep the benefit. But instead of maintaining the Crow rates per se, we'll just pay the benefit to the farmers on some kind of acreage basis. Well, Mr.

Speaker, I could suggest to the members of this House that that may work for two or three years, until we have a build-up in the national media of people who are cashing in their Crow benefit cheques. They could be doing any one of a million different things, but there would be one story after anoth­ er. Before too long the federal government, with a $12 billion or $14 billion deficit, would find all kinds of plausible excuses for ditching the Crow benefit.

You could have it in statutory form if you like, you could have it there in black and white, but it's not going to stop a majority government from amending the legislation and removing the Crow benefit. In my view, the idea of sort of handing this back to thousands of individual farmers is a built-in recipe for a two- or three-year program at most. Then as the bad publicity builds up — keep in mind that farmers are a very small minority of the voters in this country — there would be absolutely no doubt that poli­ ticians who have no particular commitment to rural peo­ ple would very quickly change the rules. Mr.

Speaker, as I review these various arguments on the Crow rate, pro and con, I think the only really signifi­ cant one is the assertion that the Crow rate would stifle the development of secondary manufacture and proces­ sing of agricultural commodities, and is unfair to the livestock industry. I think there's some argument for that on the surface. But before we commit ourselves to remov­ ing the Crow rate, we have to do our cost/benefit analy­ sis.

The information I've seen leads me to the conclusion that if we were to abandon the Crow rate, the loss to grain growers would be much greater than any positive impact, either on the livestock industry or even on the manufacturing of agricultural products in this province. I say to members of the House, why are we as wester­ ners committed to let the federal government off so cheaply on this issue? Why should we not argue for the extension of the Crow rate to everything produced from grain? Then you would have the same relative balance.

You wouldn't have discrimination, because it's the rela­ tive balance between the different types of production that counts. It seems to me that this would be the basis, if you like, of a new national policy. This government is saying to Albertans that we should accept as our objective three-quarters of the world price for oil. I think that's a reasonable goal. But that's less than 100 per cent of the world price.

All right, if we're going to accept a differential, if you like, of 25 per cent between the world price for oil and the oil we produce in western Canada, is there not an argument for a trade-off, a quid pro quo? If Alberta and to a lesser extent Sas­ katchewan are going to shield energy prices in Canada by 25 per cent, is there not some argument in return that there should be shielding on a consistent basis in trans­ portation systems? It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that there is. And rather than going the route of saying we'll remove the Crow rate, surely the best approach would be to extend it. Mr.

Speaker, I conclude my remarks — because I think it is important that members of Executive Council have an opportunity to participate in this debate — by saying that I support retention of the Crow rate. I think we need an integrated, publicly owned railroad system in this country. Most important of all this afternoon we need a formal position outlined to the House by members of Executive Council, not just members of the back bench

436 ALBERTA HANSARD April 30. 1981 getting into debate, however laudable that might be. Other provinces have done so. There have even been formal resolutions on this matter in the Saskatchewan Legislature, introduced by the government. I hope either the hon. Minister of Agriculture or someone who can speak for the government would take the opportunity given by the resolution of the hon. Member for Calgary Buffalo to tell us where this government stands on the important issue of the Crow rate. [Mr. Purdy in the Chair] MR. STEWART: Mr.

Speaker, I think that any rural MLA in this Legislature is well aware of the long debate that's taken place on this issue. If a clear-cut public opinion of an alternative to the Crow rate had been put forward, I'm quite sure it would have been resolved long before now. As a person involved in agriculture most of my life, I probably have been exposed to every argument, pro and con, on the benefits and disadvantages of our freight-rate system as it now exists.

Particularly being involved in the livestock industry, I felt the effects of the present freight-rate structure in making my product non­ competitive in eastern markets. I have knowledge of people in the industry today — running a ranch operation in Alberta — who have gone to Ontario, invested in a feedlot, transported their live­ stock to Ontario, and fed them there. In their estimation, about $50 a head more was to be made feeding western barley to western cattle in Ontario than feeding them in Alberta and selling the product here.

I don't think there's any doubt that if we want to build an industry in this province, we have to get to where we're taking advantage of some upgrading of that product before it leaves this province. We have a packing industry that's quite capable of upgrading the beef and pork we produce and making it a saleable commodity anywhere in the world. The boxed- beef industry is relatively new and could put our product in a world market. The quality of beef and pork from Alberta is probably as good as anywhere in the world.

It has a recognized, almost trademark tradition in most areas that appreciate what good beef and pork is all about. If we're going to expand this industry — and certainly in Alberta we have the opportunity, the land base, the livestock industry, people expert in producing those commodities — I think grain producers in this province have to recognize that the livestock industry is a very important customer in disposing of over 50 per cent of the barley grown here.

We also have an alfalfa processing industry in this province that could well be supported by the incorporation of that product into the feeding indus­ try. A lot of the by-product of our rapeseed meal is consumed locally in Alberta by the feedlot industry, and could continue to do so and be expanded. These are all upgrading processes of raw commodities that this prov­ ince is capable of producing. So when we talk about the Crow rate and its advan­ tages, we're really recognizing the disadvantages it's had to upgraded produce. It does not apply to the upgraded produce of any of our industry.

I think we should look for a commodity transportation agreement where all products in western Canada have a compensatory rate to get them to market. This country has produced a seaway to give central Canada a better opportunity and a break in transportation. We're competing against America, which has the Mississippi River transportation system that gives them a distinct advantage getting product out of the central part of their country to export markets of the world.

There's no doubt in my mind that the benefits of the Crow rate to agricultural producers has on one hand worked in their favor and on the other hand against them. I think commodity groups that are asking for a change of transportation arrangements with the federal govern­ ment have to get a more unified opinion of what they feel would resolve the issue. I think the four western prov­ inces all have to be involved, because I think we all stand to benefit. There is no doubt that air transportation is subsidized by the federal government, as was stated earli­ er.

I think western Canada can justifiably expect the federal government to subsidize a rail transportation sys­ tem that would make it possible for agriculture in western Canada, and all other manufacturing and commodity groups that have to transport large quantities of produce, to put it to our seashores at a price that would make it competitive on the world market.

We see the people in eastern Canada expecting to get our oil at less than world price and expecting western Canada to accept that as a natural philosophy because we're all Canadians, consequently we should be prepared to share some of our good fortune with the rest of Canada. I think our past performance has shown that as Albertans we're prepared to share with the rest of Cana­ da.

So I think it's very reasonable that we ask the federal government to come up with a system of pricing com­ modity movement that would give Alberta and western Canada a fair opportunity to export to world markets without the disadvantage of a long freight haul at full market value, which puts our product at a distinct disad­ vantage to most of our competitors. I don't think any issue has been more widely discussed in western Canada than the Crow rate and its benefits and disadvantages.

I believe that we as provinces have to go to the federal government with a united voice and a determined alternative to what we have at the present time. As long as we cannot agree among ourselves on the ultimate solution to the problem, I can't expect that the federal government is going to give us any more than we have at present. Rail abandonment is a major issue in many parts of this country, which would create an additional disadvan­ tage to the people in agriculture in those areas.

I think this has to be part and parcel of any readjustment of our transportation system: a recognition that all parts of western Canada have to have access to rail or a reasona­ ble alternative that would be subsidized to replace it, and in that way make each geographic area have a reasonable opportunity to be competitive. At a recent meeting of the premiers of the four western provinces, I'm sure a transportation system that would be more equitable to the advantage of all western Canada was uppermost in their minds. I think they're working together. I believe there's a solution to the problem.

If we have the four western provinces in agreement on the solution, I think the federal government will have to heed what they agree upon. But as long as we're prepared to disagree among ourselves, we're leaving the federal gov­ ernment in the comfortable position of doing nothing. For that reason I believe that what was expressed here earlier this afternoon is Alberta's position. I'm quite hopeful that ultimately it will be the position of western Canada. With that in mind, I think this particular long­ standing issue could be resolved to the benefit of all western Canada, particularly agriculture.

April 30, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 437 MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, representing the historic constituency of Pincher Creek-Crowsnest, I'm very pleased to get involved in this debate today. When the hon. Member for Cardston led off debate today, I was wondering if the crow was going to become an endan­ gered species. He mentioned that he was going to take a shot at the crow. I almost rose on a point of personal privilege with regard to the future longevity of the namesake of my constituency. Over time we've heard that the crow must go.

Again that raises concerns, particularly with the namesake in the constituency of Pincher Creek-Crowsnest. I remember when Dr. Horner was deputy premier in the House. I once accused him of using the word "Crowsnest" more than me, being the representative of the constituency. Actually some of the problems we have today with regard to rail transportation could have been resolved a long time ago, if there had been recognition when the CPR was first constructed that actually the best route to build that line would have been through the Crowsnest Pass. The Crow has been maligned for a long time.

Back in 1857 the Palliser expedition was investigating locations for the construction of a railway through the Rocky Mountains to the west coast. They were told by the Indians that the Crowsnest was a bad pass. That is one reason the Crowsnest route wasn't built in the first place. Later we saw the error of our ways, and it was decided that the Crowsnest rail line was a necessity and had to be built. I know this is a very serious topic, and I am going to give a history of the development of the Crowsnest rates in my speech today.

But I also want to comment on the history of the Crowsnest Pass and bring to the attention of hon. members a very excellent publication by the Crowsnest Historical Society entitled Crowsnest and Its People, which really gives the true history of the Crows­ nest. This book won the 1979 regional history award for the province of Alberta. Let's get back now to the serious debate before us today with regard to the Crowsnest freight rates.

I think it would be very useful for members if we were to go through the history and development of the Crowsnest Pass freight rates for the edification of members, so we are exactly clear as to what took place with the construc­ tion of that rail line and what commitments were made. I'd like to go through that history and the history of the various commissions which have looked into and investi­ gated this matter over the years.

The original Crowsnest Pass freight rates developed in 1897, when there was a commitment between Canada and the CPR to construct a line from Lethbridge west through the Crowsnest Pass to Nelson and the Kettle Valley area. This is where we have some confusion in history. The original building of the CPR — there were land grants, that's correct. Twenty-five million acres were given to the Canadian Pacific railway to construct the original line, but that in no way was tied to a lower freight rate component. That didn't happen until 1897. I have no affinity for the Canadian Pacific railway.

I have a lot of concerns myself, and we as westerners certainly have some deep-seated grievances with regard to the operation, particularly relating to freight rates and some of the concerns we have in real estate developments. But in no way, I think, are we justified in tying the Crow freight rate agreement to the original land grants which were made for the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway, which was really the promise to British Colum­ bia to join Confederation, that we have an east-west rail link to British Columbia.

Those land grants were made in order to tie this continent together and build a nation. But there was no commitment at that time with regard to lower freight rates for certain commodities. That didn't come until 1897. In return for lower freight rates, the CPR received a subsidy of $3.4 million to build that line. That was the dollar allocation to the Canadian Pacific railway with regard to the present statutory rates we have in place for moving grain. I think those are very important.

It might be noted that during the period 1899 to 1925, when the statutory rates were put into effect, only in seven of the 26 years between the construction of the Crowsnest part of the CP line were those freight rates actually in opera­ tion. In 1925 they became statutory, and the 1897 rates were put into place. Since that time we've had a number of things crop up.

A number of hon. members have alluded to some of the problems that have occurred because of the statutory rates, particularly anomalies we have witnessed here in western Canada due to the dislocation we've had in development of our livestock and processing industry. This has been a result of the subsidized rates we've had regarding the movement of grain. That has resulted in a number of commissions which have looked into the prob­ lems of getting our grain to markets and the dislocations we've had in other parts of our economy. We had the MacPherson royal commission in 1961.

They made a number of recommendations, and I'd like to go through them a little later. Then we had the Snavely commission, actually two studies by that distinguished group. Recently we had the Hall commission. And then there was the Booz, Allen commission. If I may depart a bit from the topic of the Crowsnest Pass freight rates, talking about Booz, Allen brings me back to another important part of the history of the Crowsnest pass, related to the era of prohibition. The rest of the province voted dry, but the area along the moun­ tains voted wet, the Crowsnest Pass area particularly.

When I first heard about the Booz, Allen study and that it was looking into freight rates, I wondered if there was any connection to this other historical phenomenon that had occurred in the Crowsnest — actually a fairly fas­ cinating part of Alberta's history with regard to Emilio Picarielo, who was known as Emperor Pick, a sort of Robin Hood of the west who was involved in the booze trade at that time. But we had the Booz, Allen study conducted in 1979. Let's go back now to the MacPherson royal commis­ sion, which reported back in 1961.

One of the underlying principles of the commission's recommendations was that railways providing an uneconomic service in the public interest should be compensated. In keeping with that principle, the commission recommended that the railways receive subsidies for the movement of grain and for the provision of branch line services. But this ran into some problems in the House of Commons in Ottawa. There wasn't exactly unanimous agreement as to how the rail­ way cost ascertainment procedures were arrived at, and as a result the proposed grain subsidy was defeated at that time.

So in 1975 we had another commission, under Mr. Snavely, and again one in 1977, looking into the question of grain transportation by rail and the costs associated with that. Some of the interesting conclusions of that were that a number of different factors had to be included: variable costs, whether there were contributions to fixed costs, the question of the different operating procedures and levels of investments, and the costs re­

438 ALBERTA HANSARD April 30, 1981 quired with regard to branch line rehabilitation and pro­ vision of hopper cars. If a number of these things were included, there would be significant increase of the ratio of costs over revenues with regard to the Crow. This brought us to the Hall commission, which raised some very significant points with regard to the effect of the statutory rates in relation to our agricultural proces­ sing industry.

He identified that the statutory rate on grain made it more advantageous to ship grain out of the western region and process it elsewhere than to process the grain in the west and ship out the processed product. That has really raised a number of concerns with our livestock producers in this province, and with the produc­ ers of canola and rapeseed and the processing industry associated with that. Here in western Canada we have a natural advantage with regard to raising cattle and growing grain products.

In my estimation it would be most appropriate for us to be processing these products here and shipping them out. Yet we have a freight rate structure which creates a disadvantage to us in an area where we should actually have an advantage. In terms of the economic strategy we should be following in our nation, I believe we should be supporting and developing industry where it has a natural advantage, rather than creating policies which create a natural disadvantage to a particular industry.

Let's face it, the growing of cattle and livestock and the producing of grain is the mainstay, one of the principle industries we have in Alberta, yet we have policies which tend to discriminate in an area which should have strength. I'd like to move on to the study by Booz, Allen and quote from some of the conclusions he made with regard to this freight rate question. He says there's a substantial body of opinion among major participants in the produc­ tion, handling, and transportation of grain in Canada that some way must be found soon to provide a compen­ satory return to the railways for moving grain.

Failing this, the lack of capital renewal of relevant rail facilities will become critical, vitally affecting the grain industry, the railways, and other important industries. From that conclusion I gather that unless we move quickly in terms of investment with regard to our railway infrastructure, we are going to limit the capacity of this nation to fulfil its opportunities and obligations to the world in terms of shipping grain and other products to market. In the question period today, we had some questions raised with regard to the movement of coal.

We know we are going to be limited in terms of our east-west access, particularly through the Rockies to the west coast, in terms of the capacity of our rail lines to move our products to market. It seems to me that the Crow is to some degree having an effect with regard to our ability to improve these lines, because of the nature of the invest­ ment required to improve these rail lines and the revenues available to do it. I'd like to mention that the rates for moving coal, a commodity with which I am very familiar, have increased dramatically over the last couple of years.

I've had a coal mine actually shut down in my constitu­ ency. One of the factors was the high freight transporta­ tion component. I think we have to rationalize the entire freight rate structure in the country if we are to be fair and equitable in a number of areas. That brings us back to some of the remarks by some of the other members in the debate today. I was very in­ terested in the comments by the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview when he was trying to relate the land grants for the original construction of the CPR to the Crow rate.

I think I've dealt with that, in that the railway actually got a $3.4 million subsidy to build the Crow line, not the 25 million acres we associate in western Canada with the grants made to the CPR. AN HON. MEMBER: They got lands for the Crow too. MR. BRADLEY: Not a considerable amount. It was under a million. The other argument by the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview was with regard to a trade-off, that some­ how we should trade off oil royalties or revenues for fair and equitable freight rates. I think we in western Canada are Canadians.

We should be treated fairly and equitably by our federal government in terms of national policies. We shouldn't be discriminated against, and these policies should affect all Canadians fairly and equally. Why we should have to embark on a trade-off of one resource for which we are receiving less than our fair market value, in order to get something we should receive as Canadians, and why we would even suggest that we have a policy such as that, is beyond my comprehension. The hon. member inquired with regard to a position which the former minister . . . MR.

ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I hesitate to inter­ rupt the hon. member, but the time for the debate has lapsed. head: PUBLIC BILLS AND ORDERS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Second Reading) Bill 207 The Agricultural Land Protection Act MR. COOK: Mr. Speaker, maybe I could just start off by saying I'm glad to see the hon. Member for Stony Plain is in the Chair and I'm safe. AN HON. MEMBER: That's what you think. Declare him out of order. MR. ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we could arrange to have the Deputy Speaker come back. MR. COOK: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your vigilance.

I wouldn't advocate you changing your position one bit. I'd like to start off the debate this afternoon on Bill 207, The Agricultural Land Protection Act, by saying that I think the farm community is vitally important to the future of this province. Three billion dollars in farm cash receipts was processed last year in Alberta. If you consider the multiplier effect of that $3 billion on the economy as the farm products channel themselves through our provincial economy, then the impact is much more significant than that. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to acquaint hon. members with the motivation for my Bill.

I'm imagining a province in 25 years with a population of some 4 million people. That province will have had its conventional oil and gas re­ serves pretty well depleted. We will have a province with a population twice as great as today, with increased demands for government services, with less cash income every year, and it seems apparent to me that agriculture will become even more important than it already is. For me, it's the fundamental industry for this province.

April 30, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 439 The farm community is doing a tremendous job, when you consider the problems they're up against: our very difficult climate, a short growing season, cold winters, and limited supplies of water in some areas. It's remarka­ ble that we've been as successful as we have been.

It seems to me that if we are operating on the marginal end of agriculture in the continent — we're at the extreme north end of the range of productive soils in North America — and if agriculture is going to be one of our most important industries, as it is now, then we should be conserving our prime agricultural land for future genera­ tions. I think agricultural land is a resource, not a commodity. It's a resource to be passed on to future generations unimpaired. If we do not pass on that re­ source, Mr. Speaker, our children will judge us poorly.

With those opening remarks, I'd just like to suggest that that's the motivation behind Bill 207: the desire to pass on to future generations a valuable natural resource that can never be reproduced, not as a commodity but as a resource. I'd like to take hon. members through the Bill and acquaint them with some of the features of the legislation. I think it's important that we establish some basic con­ cepts as we go through this debate. I'm sure some hon. members will have some different views and I look for­ ward to them, but I'd like to try to point out the main features of this Bill. Mr.

Speaker, we set up an agricultural lands commis­ sion, composed of a number of representatives from dif­ ferent government agencies who have a vested interest in agricultural land. Three people are nominated by the Department of Agriculture. I would hope that at least two of those nominees would represent the farm commu­ nities; they would not be civil servants, but representa­ tives of various farm interest groups. There are also other representatives of departments that are vitally concerned with the use of land in the province: the Department of Environment; Energy and Resources, for example, for pipelines.

I'm sure the Minister of Economic Develop­ ment would have an interest in ensuring there is no impediment to the growth of the province; the Minister of Transportation; Municipal Affairs; Housing and Public Works; and Utilities and Telephones. I think the commis­ sion is fairly well balanced between the need to conserve agricultural land and the need to ensure a healthy economic environment for the province to grow in. So that is the basic make-up of the agricultural lands commission.

The commission has broad powers under The Public Inquiries Act to do some basic research, find out the problems in preservation of agricultural land. It has a mandate, Mr. Speaker, that has been outlined in a report I prepared, that some hon. members might be familiar with. We outlined the nature of the problem. The prob­ lem is basically that we don't have very much Class 1 or 2 soil in this province. About 7 per cent of the total land area of the province is Class 1 or 2 soil. We have about 10 per cent more Class 3 soil. It's a fairly limited resource in the province.

You shouldn't think of Alberta simply as one area of agricultural land stretching from the North­ west Territories to the south, or from the mountains to the Saskatchewan border. It's not like that at all. Our best agricultural lands are concentrated along the Calgary-Edmonton corridor. The corridor is under a lot of pressure for urbanization, and commercial and indus­ trial development. There is a land-use conflict along that Calgary-Edmonton corridor, where our best agricultural land is.

On Tuesday I referred to important research that suggests that the yield on Class 1 soils is twice as economic as on Class 4 soils. The farm input costs are twice on No. 4 soils as they are on No. 1 soils, because there is an increased supply of natural nutrients and nitrogen. The soils are better drained, they're flatter, they're easier to work. We can thank Fred Bentley from the University of Alberta soil sciences

section for that valuable research and information. So if we have a limited amount of Class 1 and 2 soil, and if we risk taking that land out of production — and it is the most efficient land to produce agricultural products from — then one can reach only one conclusion: should our agricultural land be taken out of production, paved over, and put under blacktop, we're going to be left with an agricultural sector that is going to have some inherent problems. It's going to be much more expensive to produce those products from that land.

If we're in a competitive, worldwide market place, it seems only rea­ sonable that we would want to have the most efficient agricultural sector possible. That wouldn't be possible if we take our best land out of production — in effect, creamed it off. Well, that's the problem, Mr. Speaker. The next question becomes, what can we do about it? Some say we have protection already: don't worry about it, we have subdivision regulations in The Planning Act that encourage municipalities and counties to protect ag­ ricultural land. To some extent that's true.

However, the bad actors in the province are the counties and municipal­ ities that have lands that butt up against the major metro areas, the growth centres. The good actors are the munic­ ipalities that really don't have much activity to threaten agricultural land. Mr. Speaker, it seems that our planning regulations are not all that effective in preventing urban sprawl onto good agricultural land. The mayor of the city of Edmonton hasn't been very popular with me, Mr. Speaker, and I antagonized some of my colleagues who represent the farm community.

Perhaps that suggests that my interests lie somewhere in between, and that might not be a bad place to be. That either means I'm going to get shots taken at me from both sides — by the way, my blood type is O positive — or I'm dead wrong. [interjections] Just dead or dead wrong, I don't know which. I think we need to toughen up our zoning. I'm follow­ ing the reasoning that agricultural land is a valuable natural resource. It's under a lot of pressure. Our failure to take some action today may lead to a difficult situation for the agricultural sector tomorrow, and we need to do something about it.

We looked at a number of different ways to try to solve the problem, and we came up with seven. The first is a general policy review of government activity that impacts on agricultural land; for example, the policies of the Alberta Housing Corporation, which buys land willy-nilly with no regard for whether it's on good or poor land. We're looking at the water and sewer program of the Department of Environment, which takes municipal serv­ ices out to good farmland and then puts increased pres­ sure on it. Those are a couple of examples of government policy that impacts negatively on this area.

So we thought we should have a general policy review. Secondly, there should be some regulatory changes to the Local Authorities Board legislation that would tough­ en up the restrictions on conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural purposes. We thought there should be some selective grants for water and sewer programs, highway programs, and other government activities that direct growth. In short, those grants should be selective

440 ALBERTA HANSARD April 30, 1981 on the basis that they would only be provided in areas of poor soils. We would not put water and sewer lines into No. 1 and 2 soils. In effect, Mr. Speaker, we're subsidizing the conversion of good agricultural land into commercial and industrial purposes and residential land as well. Fourthly, we looked at trying to provide compensatory grants to developers.

If we had a case where there was a choice between developing good land and poor land for a residential, commercial, or industrial subdivision, and the developer was going to face some extra costs because he was going to choose 4 or 5 soils as opposed to 1, 2, or 3 soils, then we would provide some assistance to that developer to direct his growth in that area. Fifthly, we thought we would purchase, if you like, a caveat on the title of land. In the United States, they are called development rights.

It's not entirely accurate to call them development rights in Canada, because we don't necessarily have the right to develop our land. But we would purchase from the farmer a caveat registered against the lease to develop or subdivide the land for any other purpose, so in effect the land would remain agricultural. Now, Mr. Speaker, it's important to point out that this would require a willing buyer and a willing seller. There's no suggestion at all that there be any compulsion on the part of a farmer to sell those rights. There's no suggestion at all that the state would impose its will.

It's a willing buyer and a willing seller. Mr. Speaker, that has worked very well in a number of states, Pennsylvania in particu­ lar. New York is an example, and it's quite effective. It ties up that land for development. Finally, we looked at an idea from the state of Califor­ nia. It's called the Williamson Act. They provide very low rates of taxation for agricultural land, as we do here. But, on the other side, if a piece of land is taken out of agricultural production and converted to another use, they require the developer to pay 20 years' back taxes at the higher commercial/residential rate.

Now it makes the developer think twice, Mr. Speaker, if he has a choice between developing poor land and agricultural land, be­ cause the developer is going to have to pay a very stiff penalty in one shot. So those were the concepts embodied in the legislation I have before you today. Bill 207 doesn't have one point that I'd like to make, but it is in the report; that is, this concept should not be thought of as a growth or no-growth scenario. We're not trying to freeze the development of urban communities. Mr. Speaker, some very important work was done by the Environment Department in Ottawa.

Recently there was an assessment of the agricultural capability of lands around major cities. The Canada Land Inventory grades lands on a scale from 1 through 8 plus 0 — 0 being lands that have no agricultural capability at all. It's interesting to note that within a five-mile radius of the city of Calgary, there is really no No. 1 soil. There are 230 acres of No. 2 soil, 2,259 acres of No. 3 soil, and 43,000 acres of relatively poor pastureland to the west. AN HON. MEMBER: That's northwest. MR. COOK: To the north and west, as my hon. col­ league points out. So it would seem a shame, Mr.

Speaker, if the good land is developed first and the poorer land developed last. That's exactly what we see happening. Within 10 miles of the city, though, we have a very significant change. About one-third of the land is No. 1 or 2 soils, and two-thirds of the land is No. 3 down. We're saying we can direct the growth of the city of Calgary onto those poorer quality soils and still have our best soils preserved. That's the whole thrust.

There's enough land around the cities of Calgary, Edmonton, Red Deer, Medicine Hat, or Lethbridge, because the land that was developed by mother nature isn't just one broad sheet where she laid down a lot of No. 1 and 2 soil and then a big patch of No. 3 and 4. So we can direct the growth of the cities onto that poorer soil. That's the whole thrust of Bill 207. I'd like to turn just for a moment — and then I'll conclude my remarks — to some support for this concept in this province.

It's interesting to note that the Edmon­ ton Chamber of Commerce just approved a resolution on land use that's being submitted to the Alberta Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to read into the record three short paragraphs: With urban expansion being on the increase all over Alberta and much farm land being taken out of production, a renewable resource becomes an irre­ versible, non-renewable resource. Agricultural land should be under the direction of the Department of Agriculture and any further change in its use should be controlled by the [De­ partment of Agriculture].

Only after Agricultural Land-Use has been deter­ mined in accordance with the Act should other con­ trols under municipalities, government departments, etc. be considered That's a resolution of the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce. In the last couple of years, the Alberta Institute of Agrologists has produced a very valuable brochure. It talks about the need to preserve agricultural land in Alberta. It's geared to that. I'd be glad to make a copy available to the library of the Legislature a little later.

In a release on Monday, January 28, 1980, our Minister of Agriculture said there is an ongoing policy review about this problem: . . . we are studying input from various farm organi­ zations and concerned citizens. I hope within the foreseeable future we will be able to offer a refined policy that will better meet both the needs of this generation and of generations to come [with agricul­ tural land]. He talks about the need for land classification, the need to study the actual rate of farmland disappearance, and the defining of prime agricultural land.

His department is actively reviewing that, and I commend him. In its annual presentation to the government in Fe­ bruary of this year, Unifarm made the point, and it was the second point in its submission to the government, that agricultural land is disappearing very quickly. I'd like to read a couple of their points into the record: Encroachment of non-agricultural developments on agricultural lands continues to be of [great] con­ cern.

We urge all levels of government and its agen­ cies to co-ordinate their efforts so that a policy is established for the purpose of preserving [agricultur­ al] land for food production. Unifarm recognizes that lands capable of food production are a finite resource, and a heritage to future generations. Wherever and whenever possible, lands with good agricultural capability must be pre­ served within an agricultural use. That's the submission of Unifarm this year.

The Environment Canada study of Canada land inven­ tory in February '79 makes solid points that agricultural lands are being taken up around Canada's agricultural

April 30, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 441 areas. In particular the major metropolitan areas in Canada are eating up prime agricultural land. More than 50 per cent of all the good agricultural land is within 25 miles of a major census district, like Edmonton or Calgary. Mr. Speaker, Canada is becoming almost a net food importer; not in certain areas like grain and livestock, but if you take agricultural production and food in the ag­ gregate, Canada is rapidly approaching the point where we are a net food importer. That should come as a shock to most members of the Assembly.

Agriculture should be a contributor to our foreign exchange. It's one of the reasons this country was settled to begin with. This province in particular was opened up because of agricul­ ture. I think it's a real shame to have that statistic thrown back at you by people in the farm community. When you think of the amount of the food that's brought into this country, it just seems anomalous; it just doesn't make any sense.

Fred Bentley at the University of Alberta says that agricultural self sufficiency in Canada is going to be lost: Only the Prairie provinces are self-sufficient in ag­ riculture, he said, while Canada exports only 10 per cent more in agricultural produce than it imports. The former dean of agriculture at the University of Alber­ ta makes that point. Agriculture is a way of life, Mr. Speaker. It's more than just agricultural produce and dollars. Agriculture is a very important industry in the province. We should be protecting it, because it's a way of life for the farm community.

Farmers value the land much more than just simply having an economic return. That fact must be self-evident because of the cheap prices that urban dwel­ lers like me pay for our farm products. Farmers are not getting a good economic return for their products. I can only think that the reason they're on the farm is because they value their way of life more than dollars. A friend of mine was kidding when he said that another fellow who won a lottery prize, when asked what he was going to do, said, well I'm going to keep on farming till it runs out. He's probably right.

Farmers are not getting the kind of economic return they deserve. Mr. Speaker, with those remarks, I think I'd be in­ terested in listening to the comments of other hon. members. I think though that I should make a couple of final points. As a city boy, an urban dweller, I have a vested interest in the health of the agricultural commu­ nity. I have a vested interest in two ways: as a consumer who pushes his cart through Safeway, IGA, or some Co-op and pays the price of the agricultural products in my basket; and as a person who lives in a community that is largely dependent on serving the agricultural community.

As I was pointing out earlier, farm cash receipts in this province amounted to $3 billion last year. The multiplier effect of that $3 billion contribution to our provincial product has an impact on the urban environment that is just massive and awesome.

So as an urban dweller I think I have a responsibility to my cousins on the farm to make sure that the environment they operate in is both healthy and economically attractive, but also one that is pre­ served and maintained so that future generations can look back on the people in this Chamber in 1981 and say, they did a good job preserving a valuable natural re­ source, not as a commodity but as a resource. That's what it is, Mr. Speaker. It's something that is irreplace­ able. Our decisions and actions now are going to be looked upon and judged by future generations as being wise or not so wise. [Mr.

Speaker in the Chair] So I look forward to the debate, Mr. Speaker, and I ask hon. members to support Bill 207. MR. BORSTAD: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to partici­ pate in the debate this afternoon on Bill 207, The Agricul­ tural Land Protection Act. I support it in principle, because I don't believe we should be squandering good farmland. There are a number of ways that prime farm­ land is being removed from agricultural purposes: through annexations, oil well sites, roads, battery sites, strip mining, rural subdivisions, plants, and industrial subdivisions. All these prey on good agricultural land.

As it happens, because of our historic settlement patterns along the agrarian economic base, present urban centres in this province are generally situated on rivers and close to good farmland. Some of the best land classifications in the provinces are in that situation. These centres were started by early pioneers near rivers, lakes, and waters, usually because of good soil nearby and because of water supply for gardens and crops. I suppose you might say that this was the beginning of our land-use conflict.

I believe that land should not be considered solely as a marketable commodity, and that land within a good agri­ cultural area must be determined in the best interests of the public in general. As it happens, the better lands in this province are situated in central Alberta, in an area which corresponds to the most intensive urban and indus­ trial development. Of the 163 million acres of land in the province covered by the Canadian land inventory, only one-third has the potential to produce crops such as barley, wheat, and canola.

Some 50 per cent of that one-third consists of marginally productive Number 4 soil, most of that being in northern Alberta. While the total amount of agricultural land has not changed, or been significantly changed in the last 10 to 20 years, the quality of that land has made a very remarka­ ble change. For example, as we cover up the good, prime soil in southern Alberta, the Department of Public Lands and Wildlife has been opening up in excess of 150 million acres a year in northern Alberta, most of it being gray- wooded Number 4 or even higher.

Studies show that with the same input costs of fertilizer and those types of things, you will only get about half the yield on No. 4 soil as you will on No. 1 soil. Therefore we have to bring twice as many acres of No. 4 soil into production as we drop that No. 1 soil in the southern part of the province and cover it with pavement. These costs of farming poorer lands recur each year and are closely tied with increasing energy costs. We have to ask ourselves: will we continue to have sufficient productive capacity to supply our needs in the future?

The question will have a significant impact on our economy as high revenues from petroleum are depleted, which is going to be in the not too distant future. I believe every regional planning commission in this province has a firm policy of commitment towards the preservation of prime farmland. But between 1966 and 1975 the Edmonton region alone acquired 125,000 acres of prime land for development.

When we look at oil well target areas in the centre of quarter sections, each site approximately 8 acres for site and road; [with] some 8,000 wells drilled last year, you're looking at another 64,000 acres lost to farm production — not necessarily all lost, I suppose, because some would be on Crown land, but a good portion would be taken out of production. Strip mining will remove a large number of acres of

442 ALBERTA HANSARD April 30, 1981 farmland for a long time. I believe we should be develop­ ing coal on non-agricultural lands first, before we disturb our good farming areas. When we disturb the soil and stripping takes place, we should take out smaller areas so the land is reclaimed and a smaller amount of land is disturbed at one time. To not cause too much disruption and mental anguish to people on that land, I believe the owners of these areas being affected within the 5- to 10-year span should be bought out immediately and relo­ cated.

Those lands not stripped immediately should be leased back to those in the area who are not going to be affected at that time, so that there is a gradual removal of land by smaller amounts and people are moved out of the affected area as soon as possible so there isn't mental anguish. I also believe that rural subdivisions can and should be cut in size. A few years ago we had a 10-acre subdivision policy where we had 10-acre subdivisions all over the province. I think that was a total waste of good land.

Anybody living in an urban area who has 10 acres of farmland for a farmstead or to live on — if he's working in the city, there's no way he can look after that 10 acres unless he's doing intensive farming. If he's doing intensive farming, then 10 chances to one he's not working in the city. I think those subdivisions should be cut in size. We should be looking more realistically at one-half to 1-acre parcels of land, so that a person can look after them if they want to live in rural areas. By allowing smaller subdivisions located on non-agricultural or marginal land, we're also going to reduce that conflict.

Plants and industrial subdivisions may have to be told where they're going to locate or [given] some incentive to locate on non-agricultural land. I believe we're coming to the time when we have to put some incentives on moving plants to areas off good productive land. Because of the competition of every urban centre in the province to locate industrial and commercial development within their boundaries to assist their tax base, we are defeating our purpose.

Maybe we should examine sharing industri­ al and commercial revenues with municipalities across the province, which would eliminate that competition — every municipality striving to get industry and commer­ cial businesses to locate within their boundaries, which necessitates expansion of boundaries. This also has the effect of more transportation services being needed to move masses of people through congested urban centres. Therefore I believe the province must take a more active role in the preservation of good farmland.

Instead of channelling provincial funding to encourage develop­ ment away from better soils, in many cases I believe the province has subsidized the destruction of prime agricul­ tural land by loaning to developers of large rural subdivi­ sions just outside of cities. It is recognized that there will be destruction of prime agricultural land, but it is surely in the public interest, yours and mine, to minimize that loss for future generations.

I believe this preservation can be accomplished by several methods: policy revisions, regulation changes, possibly selective grants, an equalized tax revenue distribution for municipalities across the province, preferential agricultural tax rates around urban centres — that's where a person might have a preferential rate if he owned land near a city. Rather than having to sell his land or be gobbled up by annexation, he would be able to continue to farm there. I also believe there should be more in-fill in the urban centres, rather than going for large annexations.

I look at the city of Grande Prairie and see many hundreds of acres within the city boundaries which could be in-filled, but they still go to annexations. When I talk about the city of Grande Prairie, I look at the recent annexation which took in — I'm not sure of the number of quarters of prime farmland to the west, north, and east, when they could have gone south for 50 miles and not affected prime farmland at all. In fact you're moving closer to your water supply and sewer disposal.

In recent months a number of organizations — such as the Christian Farmers, agrologists, and other farm or­ ganizations — and the public themselves have renewed the call for preservation of our prime agricultural land through a new policy or legislation. On the surface rights committee I had the opportunity to hear the concerns of many farmers this winter as we crossed the province. Therefore I support in principle the Act before us this afternoon. If it were passed by the Legislature and policy changes were created, it would probably create some short-term problems for future development.

But I be­ lieve the short-term loss would probably be very much the long-term gain for future generations in the lands that would be saved and available for food production. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address several comments generally on the issue, then deal with the Bill itself. I'm sure all members of the House would sympa­ thize with and support the intent of the Bill. Before I get into the specifics of the Bill, I think some points have to be made in second reading on what in fact the hon. member is suggesting we undertake.

I think the overall thrust of action to protect agricultural land has overwhelming merit. Not that long ago, we had a debate in this House — in 1973, if my memory serves me right — when the resolution was passed that established the Land Use Forum. Extensive hearings were held throughout the province, and a number of recommendations were made. It's not that long ago either — again, in 1973 — in the province of British Columbia that the land commission Act was passed, which created a tremendous amount of controversy at the time.

I doubt that many actions of any Legislature in any province in this country were as con­ troversial as the action in British Columbia when Bill 41 was passed. But, Mr. Speaker, regardless of where they sit in British Columbia now, regardless of what view they took in 1973, I would say most people would look back and say, yes, that was the wisest move to undertake by the province of British Columbia. There may be dif­ ferences over the administration of the B.C. land commis­ sion, but the fact that it is still in place with a change of government is probably eloquent testimony to its need. Mr.

Speaker, last Friday in the town of Lacombe I had an opportunity to sit in on a county meeting where a discussion was taking place over changes in land zoning in the county of Lacombe, which would permit Union Carbide to develop their plant in the Prentiss area. I was very impressed with the quality of representations from a number of farm organizations as well as from people in the county. It was quite a surprising afternoon, inasmuch as there must have been at least 100 people present.

People made submissions, and over and over again the concern was expressed that if we were really worried about the future of this province, we have to protect the industry that has the best long-term potential; that is, agriculture. You can't protect agriculture unless you pre­ serve our priceless No. 1, 2, and 3 soils. The fact is that despite the discussion that has taken place in this province setting up the Land Use Forum in 1973, the work of the forum, the changes that were made in The Planning Act in 1977, in 1981 we still have a

April 30, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 443 situation where a good deal of agricultura