Alberta Hansard — 4 May 1976, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 18, Session 2)

19760504

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

May 4, 1976 ALBERTA HANSARD 1051 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Tuesday, May 4, 1976 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move that the following petitions be now received:

An act respecting a certain agreement between the City of Edmonton and Northern Alberta Natural Gas Development Company Limited, and dated the 16th day of November 1915;

An Act to amend The Mennonite Mutual Relief Insurance Company Act;

An act to incorporate the Certified General Accountants Association in Alberta;

An act, being The Real Estate Association Act. head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 50 The Racing Commission Amendment Act, 1976 MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill 50, The Racing Commission Amendment Act, 1976. The purpose of this bill is to ensure that the Racing Commission has the power to delegate its powers to the stewards and judges on the race track. [Leave granted; Bill 50 introduced and read a first time] Bill 207

An Act to Amend The Landlord and Tenant Act MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill 207,

An Act to Amend The Landlord and Tenant Act. This act contains a number of provisions: a standard lease to cover all tenancies, the rights of tenants to organize, and a provision dealing with the size of damage deposits which can be asked by landlords. [Leave granted; Bill 207 introduced and read a first time] Bill 48 The Co-operative Associations Amendment Act, 1976 MR. COOKSON: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to intro duce a bill known as The Co-operative Associations Amendment Act.

The main purpose of Bill 48 is to make provision for rural electrification associations to levy a special amount on owners of inactive power lines. There is also a very important provision in the bill for removal of these requirements if a line is not in service, and an alternative in the event the owner wants to retain the materials. [Leave granted; Bill 48 introduced and read a first time] Bill 46 The Credit and Loan Agreements Amendment Act, 1976 MRS. CHICHAK: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to intro duce Bill No. 46, The Credit and Loan Agreements Amendment Act, 1976.

The purpose of this bill is basically to codify good business practices for len ders, to require greater disclosure for tax discount firms, and to identify credit grantors with greater clarity. The passage of this bill will require credit grantors to retain records in Alberta for a period of three years. [Leave granted; Bill 46 introduced and read a first time] MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I move that the follow ing two bills be placed on the Order Paper under Government Bills and Orders: Bill No. 48, The Co-operative Associations Amendment Act, 1976; and Bill No. 46, The Credit and Loan Agreements Amendment Act, 1976. [Motion carried] head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS MISS HUNLEY: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure today to introduce to you, and through you to members of this Assembly, some 90 of the beautiful people from Rocky Mountain House. They are in both galleries. I would like them to stand and receive the recognition of the Assembly. DR. McCRIMMON: Mr.

Speaker, it's a real privilege for me today to introduce to you, and through you to members of the Assembly, 33 members of the Ponoka Drop-In Centre. Many old friends of mine are amongst them. We're delighted they could come and watch the proceedings of the Assembly today. They are seated in the public gallery. I'd ask that they stand and receive the welcome of the House. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, it's a real honor today to introduce to you, and through you to hon. members of the Legislature, a young man who lives in Edmonton and has been very active in the Air Cadet movement for some five years.

He is presently a student at Mount Royal College where he is continu ing his career in aviation. I would ask Mr. Robert Caryk, who is in the members gallery, to stand and be recognized by the Assembly.

1052 ALBERTA HANSARD May 4, 1976 head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table the reply to Motion for a Return No. 138, being copies of all studies commissioned by the government relating to the proposed pilot project for downtown redevelop ment of Peace River. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to table a letter that I sent today with a number of attachments to the Mayor of Edmonton, with copies to the various aldermen.

The attachments are the Mill Woods land banking agreement, the storm and sanitary sewer system funding agreement of July 5, 1972 between the Alberta Housing Corporation and the city of Edmonton, the recent policy of the Alberta Housing Corporation on land banked by the corporation, and a copy of some of the pamphlets on the provincial government's lending programs. MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to file a copy of each of the 10 Syncrude project agreements that were signed on Friday, plus certain letters that were exchanged in the course of coming to agreement on these documents.

I appreciate the fact that there is considerable interest in the documents; that's why I'm filing them today. I have not yet had an opportu nity to make an additional copy to be able to file the normal two copies.

The documents are: the Syncrude Project Alberta Crown Agreement, Syncrude Project Ownership and Management Agreement, the letters I mentioned, the Syncrude Project Agreement of Supercedence, Syn crude Project Alberta Energy Option Agreement, Syncrude Project Trust Agreement Bechtel Prime Contract, Syncrude Project After Acquired Rights Agreement, Syncrude Project Utilities Plant Construc tion Management Agreement, Syncrude Project Utili ties Plant Operating Agreement, Syncrude Project Utilities Plant Energy Sales Agreement, Syncrude Project Pipeline Throughput and Deficiency Agreement. I'm tempted to say, Mr.

Speaker, that the people who will probably make the most money out of these agreements are going to be [those] in the legal profession. MR. CLARK: That's what we're afraid of. MR. HARLE: I beg leave to file the annual report of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Heart Surgery MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the first question to the Minister of Hospitals, and ask if he's had discussions with the appropriate officials of the Holy Cross Hospital in Calgary and the University Hospital in Edmonton with regard to waiting lists in the area of open-heart surgery. MR.

MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a full report to the House on that matter, which I agree is very important to the citizens of Alberta. I would ask that the House provide me with a certain latitude to do so. Mr. Speaker, I could not understand the comments as reported today, because in meetings with the hospital boards prior to the actual allocation of budgets I had raised the specific matter of cardiac care and cardiovascular surgery as one that the province would consider specifically of high priority.

The response I specifically received from the hospital boards was that, in terms of allocating their total budget, they were definitely going to maintain and in fact expand their cardiac and cardiovascular pro grams with the 11 per cent and additional money we were providing to the hospitals in question. Mr. Speaker, the hospitals in Alberta which pro vide major cardiovascular programs are the University Hospital in Edmonton and the Holy Cross Hospital in Calgary. The specific items which were reported today were first raised with me at 11 o'clock last night by the writer of the article.

I would like to table the letter, because last night I responded specifically to the matter and to the allegations raised by unknown surgeons. I indicated that, in an area which I agreed was of major importance to the citizens of Alberta, I felt the seriousness of the alleged statements by unknown surgeons should be checked to ensure that the facts were accurate and valid. I indicated that I had received nothing in writing from any of the surgeons mentioned.

I had received nothing in writing from the representative bodies of the medical profession in Alberta, namely the College of Physicians and Sur geons and the Alberta Medical Association.

I indicated that, in an area which required a great deal of exercise of responsibility in terms of assessing the actual facts, I encouraged that the hospital boards which have responsibility for allocating priorities, in this case the University Hospital and the Holy Cross Hospital, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the Alberta Medical Association, and the individual sur geons in question who remain unnamed, should be consulted and should exercise their responsibility in the matter. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, last night at 11 o'clock I indicated to the writer of the

article that, upon determination of the facts, I would wish all Albertans to know that I consider this matter very important and will follow up in full what is submitted in writing to me. Since that time, Mr. Speaker, I have contacted both hospitals. I would like to pass on to the members of the Legislature what the hospitals advised me. They will be following this up in written form by letter to me, which I will subsequently table in the House.

Firstly with respect to the University of Alberta Hospital, there is no dramatic increase in the waiting list for cardiac cardiovascular surgery, but they are double-checking it. They are doing eight open-heart surgeries per week, Mr. Speaker; last year it was five. It is possible that there can be some waiting for surgery, but frequently the diagnosis procedure may indicate that a person is not a suitable candidate for very complex cardiovascular surgery.

In conclusion with respect to the University Hospi tal, they indicate that the cardiovascular surgery program at the hospital has not been reduced but is in fact expanding, which is consistent with my meetings with them a couple of months ago. The 11 per cent expenditure increase is in fact allowing them to expand somewhat their cardiovascular surgery

May 4, 1976 ALBERTA HANSARD 1053 program at the University Hospital. In a telephone call to Mr. Fred Lamb, the executive director of the Holy Cross Hospital, which maintains a cardiovascular program in Calgary, he indicates there has been no reduction in cardiovascular surgery at the Holy Cross Hospital. The hospital is maintaining its previous program of four surgeries per week. I had the pleasure to open the new catheterization lab a while back.

They are in the process of training people, which is not applicable — the funds are being provided, but the support staff must be adequately trained before they can expand both the diagnostic and cardiovascular surgery at the Holy Cross. If a patient needs emergency cardiovascular sur gery at the Holy Cross they have no problem in handling it, according to their executive director. He did indicate that a medical judgment is made regarding which patients are put on a waiting list. So the ones with highest priority receive surgery first.

They repeat what the University Hospital said: that frequently a judgment must be made whether or not the patient is a suitable risk for cardiovascular surgery. Mr. Speaker, that is the information I have to date on the matter. I will be getting letters from both hospitals and the boards of both hospitals, which I will table in the next day or two for members of the Assembly. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a supplementary question to the minister.

As a result of the discussions the minister has had this morning, is he in a position to indicate the waiting period at the Holy Cross in Calgary and the University Hospital in Edmonton? Once the necessary and appropriate medical examinations have been completed, what is the waiting period? MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, I'm obtaining that in the information I'm asking for from both hospitals.

But I would indicate to the hon. leader that the waiting list will require some categorization because, as the hospitals have indicated to me, some people on the waiting list should not in fact go forward to surgery because of age or substantial risk of major surgery, in the professional judgment of the individual doctor. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, one further supplementary question to the minister.

In the course of the minis ter's discussions with officials from the two hospitals this morning, did the hospitals indicate that there are people now waiting for open-heart surgery who are not able to proceed with the operation? MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat, because I'm passing on what the hospital has said, which I'm going to be obtaining in writing, the indica tion by the Holy Cross that anyone who needs cardiovascular surgery immediately, to quote: they have no problem in handling it.

In the case of the University of Alberta Hospital, their program is in fact expanding over last year from five to eight. Depending on the diagnosis for immedi ate surgery, the situation is proceeding satisfactorily and is unaffected by current policy. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion to the hon. minister. Can the minister advise the House whether it's true that the facilities at the University Hospital in Edmonton provide for as many as 10 operations a week? The minister mentioned an increase from five to eight, but is it not true that they can do as many as 10? MR. MINIELY: Mr.

Speaker, I would again point out that, as is the case with Holy Cross, some of it is a matter of support staff and the adequate training of staff to expand the program, and the gradual expan sion of a cardiovascular surgery program. I can only repeat that in my meetings with the boards I indicated that the province would consider this a high priority area. The boards responded that it was in application of their total budget, and they determine the priorities.

It was their intent to treat this area as high priority, unaffected by the 11 per cent budgetary increase or the additional dollars we are spending in the hospital system generally, but also the additional dollars we're spending this year over last year in the specific area of cardiovascular surgery as it is applied by the individual hospital boards. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion to the hon. minister. In his discussions with the officials of the University Hospital, the minister mentioned there was no dramatic increase in the number of people on the waiting list.

Can the minister advise the Assembly whether there is an increase? One can get into the argument of the definition of "dramatic", but is there not, in fact, an increase? MR. MINIELY: No, Mr. Speaker, the medical director of the University of Alberta Hospital indicated to me that he wanted to double-check it. His initial impres sion was that there was relatively no increase. That also had to be tempered by the fact that the waiting list can include patients for whom the judgment relative to the surgery risk is not yet completed by the assessment committee. MR. NOTLEY: I have one final supplementary ques tion.

Can the minister tell the Assembly where matters now stand on the proposed western Cana dian heart institute, which was initiated by the former government and then abandoned by the present one? MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, we can talk about names, but I think we have indicated that in examin ing Alberta medical research we see that cardiovas cular surgery and its expansion has potential. We are examining the possibility of heritage savings funds being utilized in areas of medical research. Mr.

Speaker, in relationship to what is going on in the rest of Canada, our cardiovascular surgery pro grams in Alberta are acknowledged, both now and in terms of our intent to expand these programs on a manageable and reasonable basis in the longer term, [to be] excellent. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question for clarification. Did the minister indicate to the two hospital boards mentioned that the govern ment was prepared to give priority support above the 11 per cent spending guideline in the area of open-heart surgery or cardiovascular surgery? Could

1054 ALBERTA HANSARD May 4, 1976 I also ask the minister if there are any other areas within the hospital operation which the government has told hospital boards should get the same kind of priority from the government? MR. MINIELY: Basically, Mr. Speaker, I have to respond to that in two ways. In the meeting prior to the actual finalization of the budgets, the hospital boards in question indicated to me that they could attach priority to the maintenance and gradual expansion of the cardiovascular programs in the hospitals within the 11 per cent guideline.

They would reduce in areas which they felt were of lower priority. In fact, the information they have given me today would confirm they have pursued that. They are saying that there are other areas of the hospital of less priority, that they are able to maintain and, in fact, expand the cardiovascular programs in the indi vidual hospitals on a gradual and manageable basis. MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister.

In view of the seriousness of the claims made by certain surgeons and the fact that the minister's inquiry to the hospitals appears to prove they're without foundation, would the minister under take to inquire of the hospital boards the names of those surgeons and report them to this Assembly? AN HON. MEMBER: Big brother. MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, in my letter which I am tabling today I asked that the surgeons write to me with respect to the responsibility for the statements as they are reported.

I think that's what I would say, that at this time there is the need for the exercise of responsibility to ensure that the facts are accurate and valid when people are making statements in an area very important to Albertans. MR. TAYLOR: In view of the information given by the minister and the concern created by stories of this nature among heart patients and their loved ones, is the hon. minister going to contact the editor of the paper that published this story? MR. MINIELY: Mr.

Speaker, I think the important matter is that today I've attempted to answer the question factually — and the expression of the boards of the hospitals, who, I have said many times in the Legislature, are the people directly accountable for the individual programs and priorities within a hospi tal, and how they are assigned. MR. NOTLEY: Might I ask a supplementary question MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member indicated a pre vious supplementary to be the last one. I don't think we should start another round on this question. Oil Sands Policy MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to direct my second question to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, and ask if it's the government's plan to continue making plant-by-plant decisions on future oil sands plants. Or will the government be coming forward with an overall oil sands policy? I ask the question in light of the announcement by Shell today that they've decided to defer their plant. MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, it would be the govern ment's intention to continue to assess each project plant by plant.

To refresh members' minds on the matter, the policy is that those who have a project in mind make application to the Energy Resources Conservation Board, which assesses the project and then makes a recommendation to the Executive Council. At that stage, the applicants have an opportunity to discuss with the government commer cial terms under which they would go ahead with the project and certain other conditions that might also be part of the agreement. We feel this is the best way for us to maintain the necessary flexibility when we have such a rapidly changing energy picture in Canada and the world today. MR.

CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister, then, so there's no misunderstanding on the matter. The government does not plan to come forward with an oil sands position? I ask the question in light of some of the comments attributed to responsible officials in the industry who say they've been waiting for a policy statement by the government. MR. LOUGHEED: Tell them to read Hansard. MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I saw the comments and I am puzzled by them, as a matter of fact. I've had discussions with the three companies which have applications approved by the Energy Resources Con servation Board.

I think I made it clear to them that the government's prepared to discuss commercial terms. They have had some problems with financing. I've always felt it should be left to the ingenuity of the companies, and that those who wish to develop the sands get together with those who wish to consume the production from the sands, and that we should be clear that the development of the oil sands would benefit other parts of Canada to a great degree. Alberta is self-sufficient.

I think that the companies, along with those who would be the consumers, should get together, use whatever ingenuity they possess, and propose projects to the government. MR. CLARK: A further supplementary question to the minister with regard to the decision Shell has made. Did the Shell project get to the point where there were discussions between Shell and the government regarding the "commercial terms", the term used by the minister? Did the negotiations get to that stage? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, only on a very preliminary basis.

They wished to know whether the existing commercial terms, one set with Syncrude and an other set with GCOS, were a model they should follow in either case. I said to them, no. There was nothing about either of those projects that they should feel they must be exactly the same as either one. If they wished, they could try to work out a completely different set. Beyond that — and expres sing to us their concern about the difficulties of financing when inflation has caused the investment

May 4, 1976 ALBERTA HANSARD 1055 to grow to such a large amount — we did not get into any further details. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask one further supplementary question of the minister. Is the minis ter in a position to indicate the present status of Shell's interest in the in situ process at Peace River? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I would have to check that to make it a current status report for the hon. member. I do know that Shell has been talking to the Alberta Oil Sands Technology and Research Authority about that project. I haven't reviewed it recently with the Authority. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary ques tion to the hon. minister. In light of the hon. minister's comments about the companies getting together with the potential consumers of oil in Canada to arrange "commercial terms", is the gov ernment in a position to advise the Assembly at this point what the position of Alberta is with respect to future joint venture arrangements in the oil sands? MR. GETTY: No, Mr. Speaker. As I pointed out, we would be prepared to consider projects individually and with an open mind. I might say, Mr. Speaker, I did not say the companies should talk to the consumers to arrange terms.

What I suggest they should do is get together and then propose terms to the Government of Alberta which would then negotiate an arrangement which we feel would be in the best interests of Albertans. MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the last supplementary on this topic. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question to the hon. Premier. In light of the upcoming first ministers' conference, is it the Premier's intention to raise the question of oil sands development, particularly as it relates to possible financial participation by other provinces in the development of future oil sands projects? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, it would not be my intention to raise that matter. It may be that some of the other provinces and the federal government which are concerned about future supply would raise the matter. If they do, we'll respond in the way the hon. minister has in the House today. Edmonton Municipal Airport MR. CHAMBERS: Mr. Speaker, my question con cerns the tragedy yesterday when the light plane crashed in the Kensington Shopping Centre located in the heart of the Edmonton Calder constituency.

In view of this and previous mishaps resulting from Municipal Airport traffic, I'd like to ask the minister if the government has any plans which might minimize the risk of similar accidents in the future. DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, I think this emphasizes the need for the satellite airport at Villeneuve. We'll be working in conjunction with the federal MOT to try to have that satellite airport open at the earliest opportunity. This should take a lot of light planes out of circulation at the Edmonton Municipal and enhance the safety of planes flying in and out of there. Volunteer Organizations MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the minister responsible for Calgary affairs. This past Saturday the minister made indications in Calgary with regard to the government's restraint program and funding of volunteer organizations. My question is: would the minister confirm that government policy is that governments have assumed a measure of responsibility in areas previously occu pied by volunteers? MR. McCRAE: Mr.

Speaker, I think I could answer that by saying if the hon. member would read the estimates very closely he would see where the government has in fact assumed considerable re sponsibility in areas that were previously not occu pied by governmental spending. DR. BUCK: For that you get $30,000? MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, that's a little unfortunate. A supplementary question. Does the minister support the view as indicated that those on welfare who do volunteer work should be finding jobs? MR. McCRAE: Mr. Speaker, I understand that to be a request for an expression of my personal viewpoint.

I don't think that's what the question period is all about. MR. R. SPEAKER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the indications were that it was part of government policy. Calgary Stampede — Food Concessions MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplemen tary question for the minister. What steps has the minister taken to support the volunteer agencies of Calgary in securing food concessions at the Calgary Stampede, this being one of their sources of volunte er revenue? MR. McCRAE: Mr. Speaker, I've taken no action to ensure that volunteer agencies will continue the booths at the Stampede.

In fact, I have had no representation or request from them to do that. But if the member is requesting on their behalf that [I] should intervene with the Stampede board as a private citizen and as a representative of the Calgary area, I'd certainly be more than happy to undertake that upon his request. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to the minister. Could the minister confirm or investigate whether all volunteer agencies of Calgary that wish to have food concessions on the Stampede grounds must purchase their food supplies from one of the members of the Stampede board?

1056 ALBERTA HANSARD May 4, 1976 MR. McCRAE: Mr. Speaker, might I suggest to the hon. member that he direct that question to the Stampede board. MR. SPEAKER: Might I suggest further that a ques tion with such serious implications for the reputa tions of individuals should be put on the Order Paper on notice. Shock Therapy MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Social Services and Community Health. Is the consent of the patient or, alternatively, of the next of kin required in provincial hospitals before electric-shock treatment is given?

MISS HUNLEY: I'd like to check that with the College of Physicians and Surgeons, Mr. Speaker, because I'm not aware of all the implications of the regula tions the various hospitals have. I do recall some discussions on it, and I believe they are required to give permission, and the effects of electric-shock treatment are explained to them prior to receiving it. MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary. I wonder if the hon. minister could also check with the College of Physi cians and Surgeons to ascertain whether the consent of any patient in other hospitals is required before electric-shock treatment is given.

Policy on Railroads MR. ZANDER: Mr. Speaker, this question is ad dressed to the Minister of Transportation. Some time ago I posed the same question, and that was whether the Minister of Transportation is in negotiation with the CPR on the abandonment [of the] railroad south of Breton to Hoadley, whether the negotiations have been completed, and if consideration has been given to the question of recovering the mineral rights in that right of way. DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, we have been negotiat ing with both railways, relative to a policy on the right of way.

I can report to the Legislature that the Canadian National has been quite willing to negotiate and allow the province first right of refusal. The Canadian Pacific took a different view. Because of that, a week ago the cabinet passed two orders in council under The Public Works Act, in which we placed a caveat upon the particular land that the hon. member refers to and the other

section scheduled for abandonment. The province will have a caveat on that land for future use either as a transportation corridor or such other use as may be deemed desir able by the people of Alberta. The question of mineral rights will vary, Mr. Speaker, depending on when and how the particular railway acquired the land. My understanding of the

section in the Breton area is that in fact the mineral rights belong to the Crown on that particular stretch of right of way, but that would vary, depending on when the land was acquired for railway purposes in the historical sense. MR. KING: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

In light of the hon. minister's statement that negotiations are under way between the government and the railways, I wonder if the government has an opinion as to whether the Canadian Pacific corporation continues to honor the spirit or the letter of commitments which it made to the people of Canada, including Albertans, when it received massive financial assistance, includ ing land grants. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member may perhaps be familiar with that certain portion of 171 of Beau- chesne which refers to asking the government for its opinion rather than its policy. MR. KING: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question. Has the government commissioned or completed any studies to determine whether or not the Canadian Pacific corporation might be deemed legally to be maintaining the spirit or the letter of its commitments? DR. HORNER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I could go on at some length, though I think that the best answer would be to refer the hon. member to the presenta tion that the Government of Alberta made in some detail to the Hall Commission, relative to our position and that of both railways.

I might add, in a broader sense, the policy relative to right of way has to be that the province has control of those corridors. That's why we moved by order in council when we couldn't get the co-operation of Canadian Pacific Railways. MR. KING: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Has the government given any further consideration to an extended study of a proposal made by a former Minister of Industry and Commerce that the province take over the ownership, maintenance, and extension of rail lines and road beds in the province? DR. HORNER: Well, Mr.

Speaker, we continue to press the federal government to have a look at that proposition put forward by the former Minister of Industry and Commerce, which was endorsed by all the western provinces at the Western Economic Opportunities Conference and re-endorsed at the recent meeting of western premiers at Medicine Hat. So we continue to press the federal government at least to assess the proposition that the federal government should in fact buy the road beds for all the railways in Canada. This may have an important impact indeed upon the question of rail passenger extensions or re-organization.

As my colleague, the minister in Manitoba, recently put before the CTC in the opening discussions, the CTC in fact should have a look at the question of road bed ownership relative to rail passenger costs. MR. KING: One final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister consider recommending to the investment committee of cabinet that some portion of the Alberta heritage trust fund should be used to purchase railroad road beds in this province or, alternately, that it might be loaned to Manitoba in order that it could achieve this same end? MR. CLARK: After the approval of the Legislature. DR. HORNER: Mr.

Speaker, surely we're talking about a national transportation system. There are

May 4, 1976 ALBERTA HANSARD 1057 some responsibilities for the federal government, even though it doesn't accept them all the time. MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary to the hon. Deputy Premier. In view of the recent court decision and the success we are having with PWA, is the government considering taking over the CPR? DR. HORNER: Not at this time, Mr. Speaker. MR. ZANDER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Minister of Transportation.

In view of the fact that you're making every effort to obtain this right of way, I think it's a very good asset for the constituency of Drayton Valley since, if they're going to take the elevators out of there, it provides an excellent link for the transportation of grain. MR. SPEAKER: I was unable to detect the question mark at the end of that question. VS Services Contract MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this question to the hon. Minister of Social Services and Community Health.

It concerns the contract with VS Services which was tabled yesterday, and which appears to be a cost-plus type of arrangement. Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that, in reading it over, there doesn't appear to be either a cost ceiling or for that matter any penalty clause, is the minister in a position to advise the Assembly by what means the government can give the assurance that there will be an almost $1 million saving in the costs of operating ASH/Deerhome? MISS HUNLEY: Mr. Speaker, we're quite assured that with the contract we have we will be able to have the substantial savings we've been discussing.

As the hon. member has noticed — and he's talking about a cost plus, it might indeed be a cost minus if you wanted to take the other side. If the anti-inflation guides work, the cost may go down, and even more than we have indicated. We have a very good monitoring system in the department. We have the cost base of what we've been paying and what we know our estimates were originally when they were prepared for this fiscal year. In addition, we have a 60-day termination clause which we believe is a very strong clause in our favor. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion to the hon. minister.

The contract provides for certain utensils, equipment, vehicles, and operating costs [being] turned over to VS Services without cost. Mr. Speaker, can the minister advise whether this involves only existing equipment, or will there be any new equipment or renovations under this particular clause of the contract? MISS HUNLEY: Our intention in the contract is certainly to make available equipment that's being used at the present time. It would be ludicrous indeed to require that to be put into storage while someone purchased new equipment to use on the site. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary ques tion to the hon. minister. Is the minister in a position to advise the House whether it's a government inten tion to provide or authorize expenditure for any new equipment or facilities and, if so, whether there will be any ceiling on the amount of new equipment? MISS HUNLEY: To my knowledge, we have nothing in the estimates for new equipment. As for any capital improvements, those would be handled by Public Works and are not required as part of the terms of the agreement with VS Services.

We expect them to operate in the same environment as in the past, but in an improved situation. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, one final supplementary question to the hon. minister. Is the minister in a position to explain to the House the reasons for

Section 8 of the contract, which bans the Alberta government from hiring certain employees of VS Services for six months after the termination of the contract? MISS HUNLEY: Yes. That's not an unusual term in any business agreement. Rather, it's what you refer to as good will. I think it's standard in most contracts that I've had anything to do with in business life. The idea behind it is that, if the contract is not renewed at the end of 23 months or if for any reason it's terminated, the government cannot then turn around and hire away from VS Services some of their valued employees.

I don't think that's too unusual a clause to have included in any agreement. Foreign Students DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address my question to the hon. Minister of Advanced Education. I'd like to know if the minister has instructed the Department of Advanced Education to gather figures on the number of foreign students and landed immigrants attending universities in Alberta. DR. HOHOL: Yes, we are doing this and are getting excellent co-operation from the institutions in compil ing figures as accurately as we can. DR. BUCK: Mr.

Speaker, can the minister indicate when this information will be available, and if it will be tabled in the Legislature? DR. HOHOL: It's working information, and unless it were in the context of a study — and this is not — it's simply information for us to see the nature of the population in the institutions. It can well be public information, but it's not in the nature of a study. It's just a compilation of students, both under visa and with immigrant status. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister.

Has the minister personally contacted the presidents of the Alberta universities to indicate to them the policy decision of the government on foreign students? DR. HOHOL: Not in that literal sense, but we have discussed this in the most open forum in the prov ince, here on the floor of the House during the

1058 ALBERTA HANSARD May 4, 1976 question period and in my estimates. Last October I spoke on several matters with presidents of public colleges of Alberta. This is one of the things I talked about to them as we looked at things down the road. We talked about student fees. I said to them that inevitably in speaking of student fees we will have to look at the global notion of student fees which would include the possibility of a different fee for foreign students. In a meeting with chancellors, presidents, and chairmen of boards of governors, we also talked about many things not on the agenda.

There was no formal agenda. We simply talked of things as we would work together in the months to come. One of those was student fees, and in that context I mentioned things like foreign students and foreign academics. MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the last supplementary on this topic. DR. BUCK: A supplementary to the minister. In that short answer, did the minister indicate that he has not personally given the presidents of the universities this policy decision of the government? They've had to find it out in the media? He has not formally given the decision of the government on that? DR. HOHOL: The hon.

Member for Clover Bar is asking for pretty specific information eminently suit able for the Order Paper. I'd be prepared to deal with it over there. [interjections] I have just indicated that I personally spoke to the three heads of the universities in the context of looking at problems that we will have to work on together. This was one of them. If you're asking whether we had formal kinds of consultation with an exchange of papers and documents and so on, clearly not. For the record, clearly not. DR. BUCK: That's terrible. Rent Regulations — Evictions MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon.

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Has the minister received any complaints where agents of landlords rather than landlords themselves have served notice of termination of tenancy in order to get around the

section of the act which previously stated that a tenancy could not be terminated because the tenant made a complaint under the act? MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, I'd have to ask the hon. member to repeat that rather long question. Primari ly, as I understand it, it relates to an agent of a landlord. Am I correct in that? MR. MANDEVILLE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that's right. I'm referring to the agent of the landlord serving notice of termination of tenancy, rather than the landlord himself, which is under

Section 38 of the rent regulations act. MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, I believe we have, but I would like to check that for sure. I will look at Han sard and see whether I can respond any differently. MR. MANDEVILLE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Have any convictions been obtained under the rent regulations act to date? MR. HARLE: Not as yet, Mr. Speaker. Power Generation DR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Utilities and Telephones regarding effec tive use of energy, coal versus natural gas. It's a follow-up to a question I asked the other day.

I wonder if the minister would indicate to the House the policy regarding the use of coal for future power plants at Edmonton — namely, Clover Bar — after the present plants are completed, recognizing that clean fuel like natural gas should be reserved for home fuel. DR. WARRACK: Mr. Speaker, I would understand that the hon. member intends to include Clover Bar No. 4 that's now at the design stage in the present configuration of power plants designed by the city of Edmonton.

My understanding is that at the time the question was addressed with respect to natural gas versus coal, the city of Edmonton made representa tion to have the opportunity to complete the plants it was then contemplating, which includes Clover Bar No. 4. At that time, this was agreed to. In addition, it was indicated that in future coal would be the preferred fuel for generating electricity by Edmonton Power. That's how the matter stands now, although there might be other alternatives such as the city of Edmonton purchasing blocks of power and this kind of thing as it plans electricity continuity in the future.

DR. PAPROSKI: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister would indicate to the House whether this policy applies to future power plants across the province. Will a penalty or sanction be imposed if they don't follow that course? DR. WARRACK: The second part of the question would go further than anything I have contemplated at all, or to my knowledge, the government itself prior to my involvement.

The way it stands now is that the preferred fuel for generating electricity in Alberta for base-load purposes is contemplated to be coal, having regard to the fact that the hydro developments so far have been the most economic ones. This is where the matter would stand. Hearing Aids MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Social Services and Community Health. I'd like to ask the minister if she's considering changing the senior citizen's extended benefits pro gram to require that senior citizens consult a medical doctor before acquiring hearing aid assistance.

MISS HUNLEY: No, I'm not at the present time, Mr. Speaker, although it is a matter I'll be discussing with the Hearing Aid Advisory Board as soon as I have the opportunity to meet with them.

May 4, 1976 ALBERTA HANSARD 1059 MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. Has the minister had representations from officials of the Alberta Medical Association with regard to that aspect of the program? MISS HUNLEY: I've had a number of submissions from various people. Some senior citizens would be very reluctant to see that happen. We feel it would increase the costs. Of course we want to make the most effective use of a very valuable program. I think it will need to be looked at carefully. I'm prepared to do that. MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to ask whom the minister consulted prior to the raising of the prepaid services for the Alberta hearing aid association? The minister will recall that the price went up from $200 to $220 for hearing aids for senior citizens. That amount is simply for the fitting of the hearing aid itself, not for the actual mechanism. MISS HUNLEY: That discussion would not take place with me but by negotiations within the department, because it's part of an agreement for service. We have a number of those.

I have not yet personally discussed this matter with the various groups, although I wish to do so and am planning a

schedule of meetings early this summer to discuss this very matter, because it is quite difficult. We were the first province to institute such a program, Mr. Speaker. We had nothing to go by. We're attempting to design the most effective pro gram for hearing aids that we have. So far I'm convinced it's been a very worth-while effort. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the last supplementary. We've run over our time. MR. CLARK: No one is quarreling with the program.

The real concern is that in some situations people on social assistance and some people under 18 years of age are getting two hearing aids. Rather than getting $200 or $220 for the fitting of the hearing aid, under the new regulations the people supplying the mechanism are now getting $400 or $440 simply for supplying two hearing aids of the same type. The real concern has to be about how . . . MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. leader leading up to a question? MR. CLARK: The real concern has to be the manner in which public money is being spent.

The question is: is the minister prepared to sit down with the medical association and other concerned groups to see that public funds are being well spent in this area and to prevent a rip-off, if that's the case? MISS HUNLEY: Yes, I'm as interested as the hon. Leader of the Opposition in assuring there is no rip-off. Certainly I'm prepared to meet with the various groups. I would prefer probably that my Deputy Minister of Health, who is very knowledgeable in this matter, do a lot of the meeting and advise me, but I also am prepared to meet with them, and I've so indicated to many of them.

ORDERS OF THE DAY head: WRITTEN QUESTIONS 179. Mr. Notley asked the government the following question:

(1) Does the government have a policy concerning the citizenship of senior civil servants? If so, what is it?

(2) Have any guidelines regarding citizenship been given to departmental selection committees? If so, what are they?

(3) Have any senior civil servants been advised by the Public Service Commission, or any other agency, to change their citizenship? If so, in how many instances did this take place in the last three fiscal years? MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, I move that Question 183 stand and retain its place on the Order Paper. [Motion carried] head: MOTIONS FOR RETURNS MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, I move that the following motions for returns stand and retain their place on the Order Paper: 175, 181, 185, and 186. [Motion carried] 176. Dr.

Buck proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: Copies of all studies prepared by or for the Depart ment of the Environment with respect to the water quality of Baptiste Lake, County of Athabasca, which were completed between the dates January 1, 1971, and April 30, 1975. [Motion carried] 182. Mr. Mandeville proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: A copy of correspondence, with attachments, dated December 30, 1971, between D.J. Russell and B.R.

Orysiuk, with respect to legal counsel for the Alberta Housing Corporation. MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, it's not my intention to make a long speech on this motion, because the hon. member knows full well that this is interdepartmental correspondence, that the attachment to the corre spondence is part of such correspondence. The only reason I can deduce as to why he put it on the Order Paper is to bring something to my attention. DR. BUCK: You're just assuming that.

1060 ALBERTA HANSARD May 4, 1976 MR. YURKO: Well, he certainly has brought the matter to my attention. Nevertheless, I'm sure this Legislature can't under any circumstance entertain a motion of this sort, because this is interdepartmental correspondence and it would necessarily set a prece dent in this regard. So I would ask that the Legisla ture, without paying too much additional attention to this motion, categorically reject it. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, taking

part in the debate on Motion for a Return 182, I too will be very brief. We found most interesting the comments by the Minister of Public Works with regard to the place ment of legal work by the Alberta Housing Corpora tion, I think it was 10 days or two weeks ago. We had hoped that on this motion the government would be prepared to show a new openness in this area and, pretty frankly, to level with the Legislature as to who is doing the work and under whose direction. MR. SPEAKER: May the hon. member conclude the debate? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr.

Speaker, the reason I wanted to get this information — I did get some of the information that became available. As the leader indicated before, the minister did indicate that he gives the Housing Corporation a free hand in getting the legal profession to do the work. I would just like briefly to read the information I did get, Mr. Speaker. It was dated December 30, 1971. The Government wishes to rotate the services required by the Alberta Housing Corporation insofar as legal firms throughout the Province are concerned.

The attached list deals with the legal firms the Government wishes the Alberta Housing Corpo ration to use in the Cities of Calgary and Edmonton. For your assistance and guidance the name of the particular partner in each firm is listed and also a suggested percentage of the annual volume of work that might be diverted to each firm. Will you kindly see that the attached informa tion is distributed to the appropriate officers of the Alberta Housing Corporation at your earliest convenience. Mr. Speaker, we were just wondering if any other information was available in this area.

This is why we asked for this motion for a return. MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question. MR. MANDEVILLE: Yes. MR. RUSSELL: Is the hon. member aware that the list referred to in the letter was voluntarily tabled in this Legislature along with a similar one which had been prepared by the hon. Mr. Ludwig, the former Minister of Public Works, some two and a half years ago? MR. CLARK: So what? MR. RUSSELL: So both lists have been public for some time. MR. CLARK: Why don't you give them to us? MR. MANDEVILLE: This is the point, Mr. Speaker.

We thought if there was any further information we could possibly get it tabled again at this time. AN HON. MEMBER: That's right. AN HON. MEMBER: Why stonewall it now? AN HON. MEMBER: You'll try again. AN HON. MEMBER: Did you lose your copy? [Motion lost] DR. BUCK: Open government again. 184. Mr.

Clark proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: (1) the names of the contractors who were asked to submit tenders for the primary construction of the proposed Wardair hangar to be located at the Edmonton International Airport; (2) the amounts of the tenders referred to in (1); (3) the name of the contractor who was awarded the contract for the primary construction of the proposed Wardair hangar to be located at the Edmonton International Airport. [Motion carried] head: GOVERNMENT DESIGNATED BUSINESS head: GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Second Reading) Bill 28 The Planning Amendment Act, 1976 MR.

COOKSON: Mr. Speaker, in rising for second reading of The Planning Amendment Act, I could just briefly add to what I said at the outset about the purpose of the amendment. For some time there has been a method of circumventing the actual subdivi sion and transfer regulations in The Planning Act, and it has been done through the courts by means of what is known as the partitions act. The purpose of the amendment to The Planning Act is primarily to in effect plug that hole, if I may say it in that way, and prevent this from happening.

The provision is there that, until approval of this bill, any provision to circumvent The Planning Act and the subdivision and transfer regulations as they now exist would be null and void. The amendment would require that it come through the proper channels. Now, it doesn't roll back any provisions that have happened in the past under the old partitions act. I think those must stay. They are registered. So there is no intent in the amendment to roll back that situation. But by proclamation of this bill any that are

May 4, 1976 ALBERTA HANSARD 1061 pending, before the various planning commissions and councils or municipalities, or are in the process of circumventing these regulations would not be possible. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to ask the member sponsoring the bill one or two things. First of all, we're concerned, and we'd like to know when the new planning act is going to be coming before this Legislature. Some of the areas of concern, of course, are the really long delays in trying to get some decisions on planning.

Of course we know there are some problems in trying to process some of these things, et cetera. But the main concern, of course, is that we hope, when the new planning act does come in, many of these problems will be resolved. At least the people outside are hoping some of these things will be resolved, because many people get very, very frustrated when they have to wait sometimes up to a year to have a large lot divided into two small ones, which should seem almost automatic.

So we'll be looking forward to the new planning act, and at that time we will certainly be discussing the area more fully. [Motion carried; Bill 28 read a second time] Bill 31 The Marketing of Agricultural Products Amendment Act, 1976 MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 31, The Marketing of Agricultural Products Amendment Act, 1976. Mr. Speaker, the act basically provides for control of the production of poultry and eggs. It provides for the operation of indemnity funds. It changes some of the administrative operation in the calling of meet ings, and openly defines the system of appeal. Mr.

Speaker, in regard to control of the production of poultry and eggs, the act itself, without the amendment, controls both the numbers and the production of poultry and eggs throughout the prov ince under the agreements this province is involved in, both federally and with the Alberta boards. At the present time, it controls numbers. Each commercial producer has a quota, and it is a basic number. The amendment to the first part of Bill 31 goes direct to the factory and controls the hen. For all those commercial producers, over 250 in number, the control will be by number only. The reason for doing this, Mr.

Speaker, [has] really three aspects. You have a better utilization of the capital facilities that exist for the commercial breeders and producers. It's easier to control because you count numbers. Third ly, it doesn't penalize a top producer. You establish the number of hens that each commercial producer can have, and you guarantee that the production from the number given to him is available as his production. The second aspect involved is the operation of indemnity funds. The funds are covered in

Section 9(3) in two areas. The first is the establishment of a fund, if a producer board so wishes, to indemnify the producers against the damage or loss of a regulated product. At the present time such a fund is estab lished by the hog marketing board which, in turn, guarantees to the producer the safe transportation, in this case of hogs, to the board and to the market. The second aspect provides for the financial loss. In other words, a producer board may establish a fund to cover the financial loss suffered by each producer. Mr.

Speaker, basically producer boards have the responsibility for the marketing of the product. At present the hog marketing board deals in every pig marketed in this province. It deals with a number of purchasers. There is a delay from the time the hogs are shipped to the producers across, in some cases through, the province itself to packers in British Columbia. The return — in other words, the actual payment for the pigs — could be three to five days and, I suppose, in some cases a week.

If at any time the purchaser of hogs were to go into a state of bankruptcy, the board itself may be short on behalf of the producers for the payment of the hogs entrusted to them for sale. This provides the boards the opportunity for the producer to pay per head to indemnify each and every producer for financial loss in this case. But I must point out, Mr. Speaker, that the producer has the right to make an application to the producer board to be exempt. So 9(3), in the amendments to the act, provides the guarantee of financial loss on a voluntary basis to all members of producer boards.

The last part of the amendments, Mr. Speaker, provides for a clarification of the holding of meetings of marketing boards. It also clarifies the situation of appeals. I think the appeal procedure and the administrative procedures outlined in the bill itself, Mr. Speaker, are self-explanatory. MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, making a few comments on Bill 31, I would like to say I do support the bill. However, I have some reservations. I do approve of expanding to grass seeds and vegetables. But the reservation I have about the bill, Mr. Speak er, is putting more controls on production.

I think we should keep the controls as much as we can in the area of marketing, and not get into the production area. As the hon. member who introduced the bill indicated, it's especially going to be on poultry and eggs. The concern I have is for some of our smaller producers who want to have some hens and get involved in supplementing their farming operations. They're restricted by having to be licensed and to go through the marketing board to market on a small scale. This is one concern I have.

The one area I certainly agree with is the indemnity fund to compensate for some of the bad examples we've had in the past, where producers have lost money selling to individuals or packing plants that went broke, and so on. This is a good portion of the bill, I think. It's good to set up an indemnity fund, which the hog marketing board is doing at this time. I myself have more support for the commissions than for the marketing boards. One concern I have in the bill [is that] the commissions can direct a specific product to a specific packing plant or market, if I understand the bill right.

Under the marketing boards at the present time, I know we have to have a vote by the people before we set up the marketing boards. However, with the commissions it's not compulsory that we go to the people. I'm pleased the Minister of Agriculture has agreed to go to plebiscite now as far as the bee commission is concerned. So I do have

1062 ALBERTA HANSARD May 4, 1976 some concern about the commission being able to direct a product to a specific market. One suggestion I would like to make to the hon. member who introduced the bill is on appeals. At the present time, appeals are handled by the boards and the commission. I see in the act that appeals can be heard by the court.

If the member would look at the possibility of these appeals being heard by the Public Utilities Board, I think they would be able to handle these appeals much better than they're now handled. [Motion carried; Bill 31 read a second time] Bill 34 The Pharmaceutical Association Amendment Act, 1976 MISS HUNLEY: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 34, The Pharmaceutical Association Amendment Act, 1976, be read a second time. Mr. Speaker, the principle involved in this bill is very simple.

Hon. members will recall that in the fall session last year we passed amendments to The Pharmaceutical Act whereby there was a date change, and it related to a federal statute. That statute was intended to be amended so that it would become effective July 1, 1976. However, the federal government subsequently found that that date was premature, so they are now in the process of amending their act to make the repeal date April 1, 1977.

Our legislation will give us the capacity to proclaim our consequent amendment whenever it's appropriate, and thus would take care of any future eventualities of amending our act because of some change in the federal government's legislation. [Motion carried; Bill 34 read a second time] Bill 37 The Public Works Amendment Act, 1976 MR. SHABEN: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill No. 37, The Public Works Amendment Act, 1976. [Motion carried; Bill 37 read a second time] Bill 45 The Ground Water Control Amendment Act, 1976 MR. THOMPSON: Mr.

Speaker, I'm pleased to move second reading of Bill 45, The Ground Water Control Amendment Act, 1976. As I indicated in the first reading, the purpose of The Ground Water Control Amendment Act is to provide the legislative base necessary for the optimum development of Alberta's ground water. The Department of the Environment, and formerly the Department of Agriculture, through The Ground Water Control Act and The Water Resources Act, is responsible for inventory, develop ment, and allocation of Alberta's ground water.

The proposed Ground Water Control Amendment Act and its subsequent regulations will more clearly define the water well drilling industry's responsibilities in the development of water supplies. Regulations necessary for inventory and protection of the resource are: qualification criteria for drillers; well construction standards; notification by the driller to the controller of non-domestic wells; submission of reports by drilling firms; and surety to guarantee proper drilling and abandonment of dry holes and wells.

This bill extends the scope of existing legisla tion included in The Ground Water Control Act, now administered by the Minister of the Environment, to meet the needs of the consumer, the water well contractor, and The Water Resources Act. MR. ZANDER: Mr. Speaker, at this time I may have to bring to the attention of the Legislature that although I believe the act will somehow clarify some of the problems we have in our area, [there is] the problem of water injection for industrial purposes in the oil-bearing strata in my constituency that is still using the fresh ground water for repressurizing the fields.

I've had a petition. I've also had a number of letters from the farmers in the community within the oilfield objecting to fresh water being used for injections into the oil strata. They probably have rightfully pointed out that taking some of the surface water either from the North Saskatchewan River or the Pembina River in that area would be a much better plan. It would also utilize the ever-increasing rainfall, the water generated by snowfall, rainfall or whatever means, and also from the Rocky Mountain watershed. Mr.

Speaker, it is extremely difficult at this time to measure the degree of harm that is or will be created by using fresh ground water for the injection repre ssurizing of these fields. However, the farmers in my area claim the water table has been dropping, although we know that some of the wells used for water injection are taken from a much lower level. We do not have a control whereby we can measure whether the upper strata of the water are flowing into the lower part of the formation they are now taking it from.

But in my estimation we must decide one thing: the use of fresh water to repressurize the fields when there is sufficient water from either of the two rivers I mentioned or from ponding by creating smaller dams on some creeks. I would certainly hope that the minister or the people in control of our fresh ground water supply in the farming community would take some type of measurement. They tell me they are doing it by having some wells in the area drilled for that purpose, to find out the depletion of the water in that area. From past experience, Mr.

Speaker, I can only say that in the town of Drayton Valley, with a population of almost 5,000, they had to go to the North Saskatchewan River for the water supply, although they had an adequate supply of water from 14 wells drilled in the area. I'm hoping the minister or those people in control are advising the oil industry — or for whatever else fresh ground water will be used — that we will not endanger the supply of fresh water to the people living in that area. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to delay the debate, but one principle in the act worries me somewhat.

That is the rights of ownership of land, where a person is not permitted to drill a well on his own land unless he does it with a drilling machine owned by him. I find this a little difficult to under stand. It seems to me it shouldn't make any dif ference who does the drilling as long as the man who

May 4, 1976 ALBERTA HANSARD 1063 owns the land wants to have the well drilled. To put on another restriction, that a man can't drill a well on his own land unless he owns the equipment — I can't understand what the object is or what we're trying to achieve. I believe there should be control of ground water. We should be making sure we don't waste ground water, and that we make the best use of ground water. There are many places where it's not availa ble at all. I don't even object to a holder of a subsisting licence drilling a well with a drilling machine in respect of which a permit has been issued.

I think that's fine. But when a man owns land and wants to drill a well on his own, surely he can hire somebody to drill the well and not be forced to buy the drilling equipment. I can't follow what we're trying to get at in connection with that item. I would appreciate some elaboration on that by the mover of the bill when he's closing the debate. MR. MANDEVILLE: In making a few comments very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I also am concerned with the item the hon. Member for Drumheller brings up, controlling an individual drilling a well on his own property.

Many times one doesn't really have to have equipment to drill a well. He can put in a well without drilling. Mr. Speaker, what I'm saying is, in a case like this, do they need a licence or a permit if they're going to dig a well on their land? Sometimes we can get water at shallow depth that can provide for livestock and for any other use. It does give me concern. We're getting these regulations, moving out into the individual's private property, and putting on these regulations. For example, we have another bill here where they're going to have to have controllers or inspectors for sewage.

I think we've got to be a little careful in getting too much of this type of legislation in here. We're controlling. AN HON. MEMBER: Agreed. MR. MANDEVILLE: Especially the ranchers and the farmers in these particular areas. I would like the hon. member who introduced the bill, if he could, to outline this in the area where it indicates that one's got to hire a drilling rig and get a licence to drill on his own land. MR. SPEAKER: May the hon. member conclude the debate? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, when I first read this bill I was confused too.

But let me assure the House that no one has to get a permit to drill a well on his own land. This business of licences and permits has to do directly with well drillers themselves. I would explain: "licence" is somewhat like a driver's licence when you drive a car. You use that licence to use the highways. You need a licence to drill for water in Alberta. A permit is to do with the individual drilling rig. It's so the government has more control over who is drilling wells on private land. But as for the landowner himself having to get a permit to drill a well, this is not in this act.

Another thing was brought up. Say you want to clean out a spring or drill a shallow well. This doesn't have anything to do with this at all. It was in the old act. It's not in this act at all. [Motion carried; Bill 45 read a second time] Bill 38 The Highway Traffic Amendment Act, 1976 DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 38, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act, 1976. In effect, Mr. Speaker, this puts back into legisla tion those things that were in the former act and were omitted in the question of peace officers' powers of arrest and seizure with regard to offences under The Highway Traffic Act.

It's a question of finalizing the separation relative to the two depart ments and the change in the departmental responsi bilities. There is nothing new in the bill that wasn't in the older Highway Traffic Act prior to the change in the administration relative to the two departments. [Motion carried; Bill 38 read a second time] Bill 39 The Occupational Health and Safety Act MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in moving second reading of Bill 39, The Occupational Health and Safety Act.

I think all hon. members would expect me to observe at this time that the bill now before the House is one of the most important areas in which the government could be moving at this time. It's one of the priorities set out in the Speech from the Throne, one of the five priorities for this session outlined by the government. The presentation of this bill was and is timely, Mr. Speaker. It's important to reflect just for a moment upon the background of the bill and how it was made the subject of broad consultation.

In the past I've made reference in the House to the recommendations of the Gale commission and the substance of those recommendations having been put into the language of the bill as it has been presented to the House. It is with some hope for the future, Mr. Speaker, and some real feeling of the significance of the reading of this legislation, that I note that having had an outstanding report, much public debate, and declarations of interest and support from various sectors of Alberta society, we're now moving beyond all those stages.

We're now moving into the area of positive and useful action in regard to occupational health and safety. It's embedded deeply in the principle and the entire philosophy of the bill that there will be a balanced approach to the question of health and safety at the worksite. The work that has been done until the present time in the area of occupational health has been very useful in Alberta. In most respects, it has been contemporary; and in some respects, I would suggest, right at the forefront of the type of work being done by other jurisdictions in the country.

In saying that we're moving ahead, there is no implied criticism of the excellent work done in the past by Dr.

1064 ALBERTA HANSARD May 4, 1976 May and no doubt by his predecessors, and certainly by his successor, Dr. Buchwald. The important provision of the bill that brings the accident prevention branch of The Workers' Compen sation Act into a combined thrust within a special division of the Department of Labour is the other side of the important equation to the worker and to the employer. For the worker who is injured or ill, it's all the same.

He may lose his health or his life as a result of an insidious type of condition which may take years to develop and which may be, as the example is so often used, a respiratory ailment or the like; or he may have his injury or his potential loss of life in a very sudden and tragic way in an accident. So you can't choose between them. They have to be balanced and placed in the proper perspective, both of them. That is what the bill in its philosophy and its main thrust intends to do, Mr. Speaker: to put a full balanced forward-looking emphasis on the concerns in both areas.

It would be wrong if in this day and age the bill didn't propose to try to grapple with those issues by dealing with the possibility of preventing them. So much of what is proposed in regard to, say, data collection, monitoring, or reporting systems that may be provided by the act or by regulations referred to in the act — all these things are meant to identify the areas of concern in health, the areas of danger, and to move to make the possibility of injury or illness that much less. It is critical to the whole of what is proposed to note that the responsibility is joint.

Somebody looking at it from the employers' point of view has coined the phrase, safety is good business. There's no question about that. However, it would be cynical to come forward and say that would be the reason for proceeding in this way. All it does is show that whatever the benefit to the worker, the employer himself is not without benefit if he has a safe work place.

Now in promoting the concept that it's the respon sibility of both the employer and the employee to see to the safety and potential safe working environment of the worker, it's [simply] dealing with the matter in a very practical and realistic way. After all, the worker has to have responsibility in regard to safety at the worksite, because he is there. He is the one who is present. He knows the procedures to be followed and knows the type of equipment or tool to be used. So he has a responsibility. Then you look at it from the employer's point of view. He's the one who manages, who directs.

Presumably, he is the one who buys or rents equipment which is used, buys or rents a type of machine that may be used with a particular process. Maybe that process is very noisy, and causes hearing loss. In that type of example we would be looking at the same time to both the employer and employee to understand that the problem they have is not the problem of only one, but both. The injury may be to the employee; the responsibility is upon both employ er and employee to identify that as a problem and to see to the correction of it.

Now what is the role of government if you have the employer and employee working together in what I am satisfied will be almost always a co-operative atmosphere at the worksite? The responsibility of government is to provide the framework in which that system will work best, because there's no possibility of any government ever having an inspection service large enough, expensive enough, skilled enough, far- flung or widespread enough throughout the province to be sure that each day on each of the tens of thousands of worksites, employers large and small are operating according to the rules.

That's why the focus is on joint responsibility and the important input of both employer and employee at the worksite. The government has a special interest, of course, in the small businessman. Government doesn't have any desire to impose upon the small businessman expensive, difficult requirements that will only lead to frustration and punishment of that small employer. We're far more interested in a much more positive approach than that.

It is our hope that the relationship between government and small employers throughout the province — and of course the majority of our work sites are small employers — it is our hope that the relationship there will be such that, in the beginning, the government can provide the necessary instruction and guidance as to whether or not that particular type and size of industry may require a joint worksite committee, whether the particular type of procedure the small employer may be carrying out with greater or less experience in the hands of the small operator is or is not dangerous, and basically to motivate both the small employer and the employee to work jointly and enter into joint problem-solving.

We think the type of approach which will cause people to generate a co-operative atmosphere around the potentially dangerous situation is vastly superior to a system where stringent regulations are suddenly sprung upon the entire economy and the government marches its horde — if that is a way of describing it — of inspectors out to start serving summonses. We have much higher hopes for this legislation than that. Mr. Speaker, I have emphasized — I hope not too much — the desire we have to see this legislation well received by industry, large and small, and by labor, organized and unorganized.

What more useful thing could be undertaken than to try to reduce injury and death? Any government is very concerned about the area of general safety for the entire population. Without going into the other areas, because it wouldn't be appropriate now, we worry about accidents in the home. We worry about accidents on the farm. We worry about accidents on the highway. We worry about accidents relative to specific causes; for example, alcholism and the like, absence of training, unsafe equipment, all these things. I suggest what we're looking at in this bill, Mr. Speaker, is the opportunity to do two things.

One is to upgrade the safety awareness of the population as a whole through positive action on the part of the government directed — because after all, your activi ties have to be directed to a specific purpose — in this case to the worksite itself. So that's the first objec tive: to increase the general awareness in the population through the use of the work force and of course, the employers. The other is to achieve the more specific and perhaps narrower result that has been the subject of my remarks this afternoon, and that is the individual worker at the worksite. Mr.

Speaker, I mentioned that the thrust is a joint and co-operative objective. The benefits are certainly

May 4, 1976 ALBERTA HANSARD 1065 mutual. The only other thing I would want to say about the hopes we have for the success of what are in fact far-reaching changes being proposed in this area of legislation, is that we recognize that the full benefits will only take place over a period of time. I can't conceive that the new thrust can do other than to make perhaps a small beginning this year, and add to that next year.

In a current work force of some .75 million in Alberta, there will be many many people to be communicated with; many many pro grams to be outlined; many tests to contemplate and to begin to take; much more information to give; much consulting with individuals as well as groups; and so on. So it can't be that all of a sudden everything will turn around and the passing of the legislation will achieve wonders. However, it will give us a practical vehicle to achieve a great deal. My confidence is based on the belief that that can be achieved and that that will happen.

Having said that the progress I would be happy with would be much better and much more sure if it can be slow but sure, I recognize that at the same time we need continuing consultation. I know that at the time of first reading and now at the time of second reading, some people have already made their comments known and have said, don't you think you might have provided a little differently in the bill in this respect, couldn't some change be made? I'll make more remarks about that at committee stage, of course.

But I did want to say that as the principles of the bill are the subject of the debate this afternoon, then of course we're willing to discuss and look at whether they can be improved. If changes in any detail are to be made, of course we'd be willing to look at that. We don't want to have it happen that any employer or any representative of the employees, be it organized or unorganized labor, should say that this is the final word and government has so decreed. We have not. We're in a learning process.

All the people of Alberta are in a learning process in regard to this interesting and promising type of legislation. We have the enthusiasm. We just want the opportu nity of working along with both labor and manage ment in this respect. As a result of that, I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, we will achieve many very, very useful results. Thank you. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, first of all I certainly applaud the government's decision to move in this very important area. I intend to support Bill 39 on second reading. The minister, I think, chose very fitting words when he talked about a practical vehicle.

That's all legislation in fact can be. I want to make some comments with respect to some of the principles contained within the bill. Bill 39 is certainly an excellent place to start. I'm sure all members of the House will support it. There can be no doubt, Mr. Speaker, as we look to the diversification of the economy of this province, that we have to place a very high priority on industrial health and safety. I think one can talk endlessly about the need for employment opportunities.

But equal to those opportunities is the ongoing vigilance on the part of government, workers, and employers that we have the safest possible standards. The minister mentioned several examples. All one has to do is look at the tragic problems in Ontario with some of the miners or the steel workers who find, as a result of inadequate precautions taken a number of years ago, that their lives are coming to an unfortunate and early end. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the need to proceed in this area is, in my judgment, basic to any sort of industrial strategy in Alberta.

The corresponding commitment to the best set out and most stringent standards for health and safety is a prerequisite to our future moves in diversifying the Alberta economy. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, let me look at four or five principles which, in my view, should be discussed during second reading. I know that the minister would prefer to see these matters raised during committee stage, but it seems to me they do have a bearing on the principle of the act. I would ask him to respond when he concludes debate on second reading.

The minister is obviously aware of the concern expressed by many people in the trade union movement that the act sets up the joint health and safety committees on a discretionary basis. The act says "may" set up health and safety committees. The position the Alberta Federation of Labour takes is that this should be mandatory. This is also the position, as I understand it, recommended by the Gale report on industrial safety in the province of Alberta. Mr.

Speaker, it seems to me we should take a second look at this question and not just see it as something to be frightened of or annoyed at because the Alberta Federation of Labour has raised it. The reason is that when we're dealing with strong organized unions — the minister will be well aware of this — there won't be any major problems in making sure that there health and safety committees are established. I have no doubt that in the various shops and plants bargained for by the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers [International Union], for example, health and safety committees will be established.

No doubt about that at all. I have no doubt that in those jurisdictions represented by the United Steelworkers, health and safety committees will be established. But it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, the concern I have about the word "may" is that, in the very substantial portion of industry in this province which is not organized, where there is no strong union to go to bat for the workers, these are the very plants or shops where health and safety committees won't be established. Mr. Speaker, I could see the argument against health and safety committees being estab lished if we were looking at huge expenditures.

But as the minister quite properly pointed out, the purpose of this bill is to facilitate co-operation on the job sites so that we could maximize health and safety within the province. It would seem to me that it would be something an employer would desire. An on-site health and safety committee would, in my view, pay dividends over the long run. Even in the short run, as the minister knows and as members know, workers' compensation rates are related to accident records. If the number of accidents dropped, that will show up in rates charged to industry by the Workers' Compensation Board.

It seems to me there is a strong argument for this being a mandatory provision. The whole concept of a co-operative approach and the fact that increasing safety in a given shop over the long run will reduce Workers' Compensation Board rates to the employer

1066 ALBERTA HANSARD May 4, 1976 seem to me to add up to a pretty compelling argument that these health and safety committees should be established by legislation. Again this is not going to be a problem with respect to the shops where the workers are already repre sented by strong unions. That will be part of the collective bargaining in any event, and woe betide any employer who wouldn't move on this particular provision. I raise it because it seems to me this is more of a concern for unorganized workers.

While any employer might be tempted to say, this is something I don't want to get into at this point in time, surely the long-term merits of a lower accident claim by workers in his shop are that, at the very least, the rates of the Workers' Compensation Board would go down. The second point to which I'd like to address a few comments, Mr. Speaker, is with respect to the overall health and safety council. In reading the act, I notice that a council will be established, but there is no specific provision, as I understand the act, that half the members will come from the trade union movement.

It seems to me there's a pretty strong argument that if you're going to maximize co operation, half the representatives should come from management and half should come from labor. Simi larly, the trade union movement is somewhat con cerned that during the job site inspections there be employee representation. Finally, Mr. Speaker, when he concludes the debate I would like the minister to give us some indication whether there's going to be any change in philosophy as to the payment of the costs of operating health and safety in Alberta.

Quite clearly the histor ical position has been that workers' compensation is a charge against the employer. In Alberta we have modified that to a certain extent because the prov ince, through the provincial government, has assumed that portion of old pensions, bringing older pensions up to more reasonable levels. The basic philosophy of the Workers' Compensation Board still remains that it is a legitimate charge on industry.

As I understand it, by transferring the accident preven tion branch of the Workers' Compensation Board to the new health and safety division, we would be transferring from the WCB, where the financing comes from industry, to a department where the financing would come from the provincial govern ment 100 per cent. So I think it would be worth while, Mr. Speaker, if the minister in concluding debate would advise us whether he sees moving forward in this area as primarily a function of the taxpayer; that is, financing the division of government. Obviously there are going to be certain expenses at the job site.

Obvious ly the changes in equipment and what have you, and improving industrial health and safety in the plant or the shop, are going to be the obligations of the employer. But I am raising this question as it relates to the administration of the supervision of health and safety in Alberta. Had this been left under the Workers' Compensation Board, given the present philosophy of financing that board, we would have had that in large part as a charge against the employer. Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding those four ques tions, I certainly believe Bill No. 39 is an excellent start.

I have no doubt that health and safety is going to be an area that will be part of the collective bargaining process, even more so than it has been in the past. I have no doubt that many unions will look upon this as the basic minimum, as a starting-off point, and that in collective bargaining with their employers they will want to go somewhat beyond the terms of Bill 39. But I think the argument can be made legitimately about the impact on the unor ganized.

In my view, this bill goes somewhat along the road to providing sensible and reasonable stand ards with what seems to me to be a pretty impressive inspection system. For that reason, I think it's worthy of support and is probably one of the more important bills we'll be debating at this session of the Legislature. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on The Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Since health and safety are being moved from the jurisdiction of the Workers' Compensation Board to the Department of Labour, it would appear this would be a good time to assess the safety work done in the past by the Workers' Compensation Board. Generally speaking, I believe the board has an excellent record in regard to safety work. There is some concern that some of that machinery set up to deal with safety insofar as accidents are concerned may be lost in the shuffle. I want to speak for just a few moments on that aspect.

When an accident has taken place in the province, the Workers' Compensation Board has been very diligent in checking the site — particularly if it is a serious accident or a fatality — to see what could be done to prevent a similar accident from happening. Inspectors appeared at that site almost immediately and checked it very carefully. There have also been periodic checks by inspectors of the Workers' Com pensation Board in regard to safety at mines, fac tories, lumber camps, et cetera.

While we will never know for sure, undoubtedly a great number of injuries have been avoided because of these preventive acts by the Workers' Compensation Board over the years. Since this will now be moved to the Department of Labour, the method of checking may be a little more difficult. I hope there will be very close liaison between the Department of Labour and the Workers' Compensation Board, which must pay for injuries with money from the employers, from industry. If that close liaison is worked up, it may be that even better inspection can be carried out.

It appears the act is based a great deal on safety, proper inspections and so on, and I think . . . MR. SPEAKER: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member. Perhaps he would like to wind up his present thought in a sentence or two. We've run slightly over the allotted time for the designated business. MR. TAYLOR: I beg leave to adjourn the debate. HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

May 4, 1976 ALBERTA HANSARD 1067 head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 1. Mr. Kidd proposed the following motion to the Assembly:

Be it resolved that the report of the Alberta Land Use Forum be received. [Adjourned debate: Mr. Cookson] MR. COOKSON. Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to have an opportunity to say a few words about this very worth-while Forum authorized by the government of the province basically to review our land-use policies and, I presume, to make recommendations and indi cate directions in which it felt government should move. The Land Use Forum cost a fair amount of money, something in the neighborhood of $.5 million.

I suppose we can stand up in the Assembly and talk all we like about the important recommendations in the report. I don't think that would be of much value if some of the recommendations weren't initiated by government in reasonable time. I suppose what I'm saying is, I hope we'll be able to act in a positive manner on some of the recommendations. We're not going to agree totally with all the recommendations. We're all individuals who have our own opinions.

But I think sometimes we have to rise a little above the pros and cons and pluses and minuses to look at the overall benefit to the province of initiating programs. [This] supersedes all the arguments you can pose for and against any issue that comes before the Assembly. I just want to refer to a very important part of the condensed version of the Forum.

It says: "The objective of the government is to enable individual . . . singularly or in association with each other, to have land to grow food and trees, build shelters and factories, establish recrea tional areas and such other . . . activities as the ingenuity of man may design, according to their desires and resources, within law that prohibits gross misuse of the land itself as well as uses which affect adversely the welfare of others or which lessen unduly the options of future generations." Mr.

Speaker, I think if the Forum — and I think they have — followed through on the various recommendations on the basis of those particular objectives, and if we can follow through in this Assembly as a government on those objectives, I don't think we can go very far wrong here in Alberta. I would be the first to say that I think our land-use policies in the past have been pretty darn good. I think some of the other members who have spoken have referred to this, that we haven't done too badly. On occasion I commend former governments.

I'll commend the former government for maintaining some of the good policies recommended from time to time. However, we are faced with a new era and a new situation. We have an extremely fast growing prov ince, now one of the fastest in Canada. We have two of the fastest growing urban centres in Canada. We are now attracting people not only from other parts of Canada but from other parts of the world. We are faced with pressures that perhaps haven't been faced before. We should be able to do anything we can to alleviate these pressures.

All we have to do is review what's happened in other countries and some of the problems they have run into because of major growth. If we can follow through on the recommen dations given here, based on their travels, experience, studies, and hearings throughout the world, we should be able to chart a pretty good course for the province. Now I'd just like to touch on a few things. The Member for Banff reviewed the Forum excellently. I scanned some of the speeches given in the Assembly. It pretty well sums up some of the things I intended to say, so I'll try to touch on a few areas that won't be repetitive.

There was some brief mention of the recommenda tion for a land-use secretariat, something that could be directly responsible to the cabinet or one of the cabinet committees. In government, we have a tendency to set up hundreds of stops and checks to try to solve the political problems without their being referred directly to the politician responsible in the first place. Maybe this is another attempt to expand the role of [the] civil service in order to establish these stops and checks, in order to take the heat off us. I guess that's what I'm saying. So I have some questions about the recommendation.

The policy laid down through this secretariat would be to assist the cabinet, where requested to do so, to prepare policy guidelines, develop long- and short- term strategy, and so on. It goes on to cover this. I'd just make the remark that all of us, as MLAs representing large groups of people, have this re sponsibility all the time in the Legislature, if we're carrying out our responsibilities, to make recommen dations to the government and carry them out. So I'm not sure whether the idea of a secretariat may be just a repetition of what we are already trying to do.

It would set up task force committees on an ad hoc basis from within the government to study and give recommendations. We, this government, have set up very successful task forces on occasion. There's nothing wrong with the concept. I think it particularly gives those people who aren't in the cabinet extra responsibilities and extra involvement in government in terms of the political climate. There is nothing wrong with that. After all, we are branded as politi cians, so on occasion I suppose we have to act like politicians.

These task forces have been set up, and I think they've made excellent recommendations to government on occasion. It also says the secretariat would set up a task force to investigate, hold hearings, and [make] recommen dations with regard to annexation and changes in municipal boundaries. Well, we have these quasi- judicial boards at the present time. We have the Local Authorities Board, which deals with boundaries and other issues. At the present time, we have the Boundaries Commission responsible for dealing with boundary problems.

So some of these things may be just a duplication of what we are actually doing at the present time. They pose a problem with regard to urban sprawl. I must say I have mixed feelings about this. I think one of the members gave the figure that 80 per cent of the population of Alberta covers only about .25 per cent of the total land in Alberta. I presume that's a pretty reasonable figure. If you look at it in those terms, you come to the conclusion that sprawl by

1068 ALBERTA HANSARD May 4, 1976 urban growth is maybe not that serious. Yet on the other side of the coin, for example, I know just recently the city of Red Deer, with the approval of the planning commission, purchased probably one of the highest assessed quarters in that area for residential use. This really gives me great cause for concern. One of the remarkable things about all this is that farmers themselves seem to be more concerned about sprawl by residences and so on than any other group of people.

It seems strange in this respect, because many farmers derive some considerable benefit from rezoning and resale of their land for uses other than agricultural. So I think the consumers and other bodies, professional and so on, in the province should be aware of this concern of farm people. I suppose it's because of their agrarian background and because they are basically interested in conser vation. They are basically interested in providing food — I must confess, some of the cheapest food in the world for the consumer.

At least at the present time, they don't seem to look at the increased value of land in terms of making a fast dollar in inflationary times. In that respect, they are more concerned with the actual use of the land, when it is converted from agricultural use to other purposes. I know they must just cringe to see this black soil piled up in huge mounds to be later spread out over lawns which will in turn be fertilized by high-priced fertilizer, clipped every second or third day, and in between the water poured on them, they could grow. It just seems like an inconsistent use of a resource.

The Forum recommends that authority to approve subdivision be given to the local government of all rural and urban municipalities. I guess this is done to a certain extent now. In the new planning act we hope to bring in this spring, this and the procedure for speeding up this process will be laid out. There is a problem in leaving it to local government in that each government seems to develop its own philosophy about how land should be used. A bordering munici pality may have an entirely different concept from the one next to it as to how the land should be used. This tends to cause some conflict.

I suppose, in general terms, one should argue that the province lay down the basic rules under which municipalities should operate, and they in turn could set down their own rules and guidelines within the gamut of those basic rules. The Forum refers to the issue of parks. They are of the opinion that the need for major parks should be established by the province. I would just like to commend the government in initiating the two major parks for the city of Calgary and for the city of Edmonton, [and] including those people who are not part of the cities.

To say the least, it's unfortunate that the province had to initiate at tremendous cost something that should have been done before. I can't help but remember in the early '50s and late '40s, when I attended university here, there was a huge area of land, now circled by the city, which was the university farm for agricultural students, with some excellent soil, probably top-quality soil. Slowly the city fathers seemed to see fit to close in on this area, and today it's confined to a very small area. That seems rather a tragedy and a lack of foresight and of planning.

I think the provincial government has to have and exert authority to protect any of these areas. We're talking now about rail line abandon ment and, I understand, abandonment of rails within cities and so on. Let's make sure that we reserve that, because we don't know how important those corridors may be down the road. If we let everything pile up and then try to reverse the direction, the cost is phenomenal. I'd like to commend the government and the Department of the Environment, which for some time has initiated the practice of purchasing land through out the province for various recreational uses.

I'm thinking in particular of my area, where land has been and is being purchased around the limited areas of lakes. We have only so many lakes in the province. We have a lot in the north, but in our major population areas they are pretty well limited. Far be it from us to start constructing artificial lakes to any great degree, because of the expenditure and so on. Let's try to protect as much as possible the habitat around the few natural lakes we have. I say few; I'm referring to the populated areas. This is important for a number of reasons. First of all it's important for the public in general.

If we let it all fall into private hands, we end up with all the frontage, land bordering the lakes, totally controlled by a very small number of people. I really don't think this is good for Alberta. There is going to be a large number of people, more as time continues, who will never have an opportunity to have access to a lake with their families, unless we can continue to reserve and work against the pressures we're faced with to protect that frontage around the lakes. There are other areas of aesthetic value that are not necessarily lakes, other recreational areas throughout the prov ince.

I think when the opportunity lends itself we should be continually purchasing frontage along rivers and so on, and holding those for some future recreational use. There are several other things I'd like to refer to. There's one recommendation, that if federal action cannot be secured regarding capital gains, the prov ince consider the possibility of levying an unearned increment tax on land sales. I think this is in addition to the capital gains tax. I remember one time nego tiating salaries for a professional group.

In the due course of the negotiations, and this person was very positive about this, they had to have more money because they were paying more income tax. Now if you relate that to this situation, and if we tack another tax on top of a tax, do we get the same kind of mental block, reaction, or whatever you might call it, to the value of land? Do we not end up with the person who is trying to make a fast dollar, or even a slow dollar for that matter, tacking onto the price of the land not only the capital gains tax, but also the increment tax? I leave that with you.

I'm not sure whether the Member for Spirit River-Fairview was quite interested in this possibility, but I think we should look at it very carefully before we initiate it. I'm not saying it's wrong, but again I think we should consider all the ramifications of extra tax. With regard to foreign buyers, I've had a number of discussions with people in my constituency about foreign ownership. It's always the person selling his land to someone outside who doesn't want us to do anything with legislation. Then there's the other fellow not selling his land to anyone outside who wants us to do something. Mr.

Speaker, I don't think

May 4, 1976 ALBERTA HANSARD 1069 we should panic because of considerable pressure to reactions against foreign ownership. The one point I'd like to make, and I think I've said it before, is that where you have absentee foreign ownership, you have not a good situation. It doesn't matter whether it's in the area of ownership of land or whatever. We've said this about corporations and we've taken steps to improve the identification and so on of foreign ownership of our corporations. So it's not all bad.

We should have a good look at legislation that would require anyone who owns land here in Alberta to reside in the province. This could result in some retaliation, because I know situations in my own area where a number of people go to the States in the wintertime. They own homes in Arizona and various other recreational areas down there, at least for the winters. I think we should weigh this very carefully before we overreact on it. But I think it should be considered, and I would like to see the government act on that segment of foreign ownership; that is, absentee foreign ownership.

In the little time I have left I'd like to refer to the

article on the importance of wildlife and protection. You can see what's happened because of income tax, Mr. Speaker. Again this is manipulation by govern ment. The government said that if you cleared land we would exempt you from tax on the cost of clearing the land. So everybody ran out and started clearing the land. Now the brush, et cetera, is all gone, and we have a problem with wildlife habitat.

I brought in a private resolution some time ago, asking the prov ince and the government to look at funding, perhaps from the heritage trust fund, and set at a municipal level in such a way that it could be administered and would encourage the farm people to preserve wildlife habitat. Some do it without any encouragement. Others don't see any value in it, because they're basically looking at the dollar. It could be done in a number of ways, either through the heritage trust fund or by means of a reverse effect of income tax. In other words, tax someone for clearing his land, or some compromise of that type.

To me, this would be a very important and worth-while contribution to the province, because the wildlife have a problem in trying to maintain their numbers. We're now going to spend a few million dollars establishing pheasants in the province, and maybe we could accomplish just about as much in terms of priority if we used some recommendation here in this Forum. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I again pose the question, again on foreign ownership, why money is coming in here.

One of the reasons is that we've got one of the few places left in the world with good stable government and not torn internally by revolu tions, dictatorships, communism, and so on. There fore we're going to be continually faced with pre ssures from outside foreign investment, in Canada and in this province in particular. I think we have to address ourselves to this. I know a landowner who was offered the best part of $1 million for his property just the other day. I think he takes the attitude that the land means more to him than the money.

The sooner we take this attitude, I think, the better off we'll all be. Mr. Speaker, I notice that when a very large number of the people who have immigrated here in recent years from other countries in the world eventually own a piece of land, it stays in their ownership. They're not looking for that fast dollar. Maybe second- and third-generation Canadians who haven't been confronted with this problem better address themselves to it too. They don't have to sell the land. Land in some of the older countries goes from generation to generation to generation within the family. There's nothing wrong with it.

I'd like to see some recommendations in the Land Use Forum report carried out in the not-too-distant future. Absentee foreign ownership would be one I would like to see some action on. DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure for me to take

part in the debate on the Land Use Forum report. First of all, I'd like to compliment the Member for Banff for remarks he made in introducing the motion. It was a very thoughtful and interesting speech, in my opinion. I've had the opportunity to make a few remarks during the throne speech debate, but at this time, as a member of the caucus land-use committee, I would like to make some more remarks about the Forum report. The report is a most comprehensive docu ment and covers a broad spectrum of uses of land.

In addition to some of my general remarks, I would like to restrict them to basically four areas: one, the objectives of land use in Alberta; secondly, the role of government with respect to those objectives; thirdly, urban land use and housing. The Forum's report limited its discussion to objec tives and principles, with limited treatment of management-oriented responsibilities. It was the Forum's view that once a principle or objective was put forth, it could be discussed by government. If the government agreed with the concept, they could work out the management details of operation.

The report contains specific recommendations so we could accept, modify, or even reject them. An example of a specific recommendation, of course, was the specula tor tax. In preparing the report, the Forum first established an objective for the use of land as a base from which they could work. The objective they developed con formed with the views of the majority of the public responses received by the Forum.

While the Forum found a strong concern for the preservation of agri cultural land and proper use of land in Alberta, there was also a strong view that the individual should have as much freedom as possible to own and manage the land. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the majority of the public wants the government to set the bounds but give the private sector freedom to operate within those bounds. The Forum recommends that the Legislature con sider putting the objective into legislation. The objec tive was read earlier by the hon. Member for Lacombe.

I'm sure you will see upon studying this objective that it allows freedom for the individual Albertan to pursue whatever objective he may have, whether it is buying a lot in order to build a house or buying a farm. The Forum outlined a series of more precise objec tives for specific uses of land, such as the urban use of land. In order to provide policies and programs which will enable Albertans to realize their objectives for land use, the Forum indicates that all levels of

1070 ALBERTA HANSARD May 4, 1976 government will be required to provide a framework of regulations and broad outlines. The Forum main tains the government should concentrate its efforts on decision-making and leave the doing to outside managements which can pursue their goals once the government has decided what should be done and within what parameters. As the Forum points out, the present laws govern ing land use in Alberta are probably the most comprehensive of any jurisdiction in North America, but are not so far advanced in comparison to some of the European countries.

However, as the Forum points out, the complexity of existing laws and the responsibility the government has assumed have resulted first in a degree of confusion as to who is responsible for what between the provincial and the municipal jurisdictions; and secondly, in some lack of co-ordination within the departments of provincial government and slowing of the decision-making process. This is a common complaint of land devel opers. The total structure becoming rule-bound obviously increases costs and decreases efficiency. The Forum outlines five areas of responsibility for the provincial government.

These are listed in the report. One of those responsibilities, referred to as its allocation role, indicates that the provincial govern ment is responsible for the preparation of land-use inventories, which should be co-ordinated and super vised by a central agency. The chief reason for the existence of that agency is to make land-use policy and recommend guidelines to cabinet. The Forum also outlines recommendations regard ing the planning process and clarifies the role of the various levels of government and planning agencies.

They point out that policy planning is virtually ignored in the present Planning Act. I'm sure the new planning act, to be brought in by the Minister of Municipal Affairs this session, will correct this defi ciency. When the new planning act is introduced, elected members and the public will have an oppor tunity to study that along with the recommendations of the Land Use Forum report. Mr. Speaker, I would like now to discuss two specific areas of concern to my constituents; namely, the urban use of land, and housing.

In a recent survey in my riding, the urban use of land and housing were of top concern to them, along with inflation. With regard to the urban use of land, the Forum claims that the total amount in Alberta is small, only .22 per cent of the total area of the province. They conclude that urban growth in itself is not a problem, and that the amount of urban land used in Alberta is small in comparison to the land taken up by roads and highways.

But considering that approximately 17 per cent of the land in Alberta is suitable for the growing of agricultural crops — in other words, 17 per cent of the area is class 1, 2, and 3 soils — and considering as well that the urban areas are primarily located in the better agricultural soil classes, urban land takes up 1.3 per cent of the agricultural land. However, translating this into square miles, 1.3 per cent becomes 562 square miles of urban land in number 1, 2, and 3 soils, which would be a chunk of land approximately 20 miles by 28 miles.

However, 562 compared with a little over 10,000 square miles for roads and highways doesn't seem that much. I agree with the recommendation of the Forum that where alternatives exist, urban expansion should be directed to the lands of lower agricultural quality. According to the Forum's public hearings, the primary public concerns regarding urban use of land were the urban expansion into the good agricultural area and, secondly, the urban sprawl and need for increased density and the limiting of single-family home devel opment.

Another concern was the problem of deterioration of the central core areas of the larger cities. Another concern, although little mention was made of it at the hearings, was the cost of urban land for housing. Well, the Forum realizes that it is an issue of significant concern. The major land-use categories in the cities are residential and transportation, each occupying about 30 per cent of the total urban land area. The Forum claims that in urban areas the demand for land for transportation systems appears to increase with the size of the urban centre.

With low-density urban expansion, the proportion of urban land required for transportation tends to increase with the population of that urban centre. Related to this statement are, I think, two very important statements in the land-use report that I would like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker. They appear to me to be contradictory. The first one, on page 184, says, "In recent times, the per capita demand for urban land has increased".

They indicate a number of reasons why this is so; for example, the increased minimum size of a residential lot, wider streets because of increased use of the automobile, the desire of urban dwellers for more open space and recreation space, and larger shopping centres with larger parking lots. So the statement I've just read, along with the fact that our cities are getting bigger in population, implies that the more people who move into our cities, the more land each person seems to need. A little later in the report, Mr.

Speaker, on page 190, they indicate that "as urban areas increase in population, they tend to become more densely deve loped", or the land use per capita tends to decrease. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this statement is in contradiction to the first one I referred to, and this apparent contradiction makes the validity of some of the other statements in the report questionable. For example, they state that "arguments condemning the sprawl of Edmonton and Calgary for their land- consumption patterns, as opposed to the same sort of development in the smaller centres of Alberta, then, lose validity." Mr.

Speaker, the 1972 Task Force on Urbanization and the Future studied aspects of urbanization which were of concern to the people of Alberta.

In their publication, which is entitled Choices For Metropoli tan Growth, they claim: A review of the form that growth has taken in the past suggests that there are implicit in present civic development policies the following commitments: first, a commitment to and delib erate encouragement of growth of the city at the maximum obtainable rate; a commitment to private transport and the motor vehicle as a means of moving throughout the city; and, third ly, a commitment to the present form of growth of continuous outward expansion. They're referring to the city of Calgary. They go on to say, Mr.

Speaker, that what is now

May 4, 1976 ALBERTA HANSARD 1071 needed as a first priority is a detailed economic review of the costs involved in the present form of growth prescribed by artificial boundaries relative to other forms of growth, including the possibility of satellite communities. Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge such a review has not occurred to date. It appears the city of Calgary continues to believe that adding a thin layer of growth around the city centre is our only option. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased with a recent document I received. It's put out by the Calgary Regional Plan ning Commission.

It's entitled The Planning of the Future of Calgary Region: Proposals for the Next Fifteen Years. This came out on April 21 of this year. It doesn't contain the detailed policies of a regional plan, nor is it a general plan, but simply a list of recommendations for managing growth; recommen dations that could form the basis of a regional plan. Their objectives guiding the recommendations I think include the recommendations the Land Use Forum states with regard to the urban use of land.

In this document they recommend that we direct a greater proportion of growth to selected existing towns and villages around Calgary, such as Airdrie or Okotoks. This agrees with statements from the land-use report. However, the Forum does indicate that government should not subsidize the industries or businesses that move into the smaller communi ties around the city. Mr. Speaker, even with the encouragement for growth outside the cities in our province, I think it's unreasonable for us to expect that the cities will not grow. They're going to grow.

In fact, I think they will probably take the largest share of the growth. The second recommendation I'd like to refer to in the Calgary Regional Planning Commission report states that regional town centres and local centres should be developed as balanced communities with housing services and job opportunities. In other words, Mr. Speaker, they recommend that they not be bedroom communities or dormitory communities. In fact, the Forum recommends a similar sort of thing. The third recommendation I want to point out here is the recommendation to develop communities in the region of higher densities than cur

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19760504
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L18 S2 19760504 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	65130fcb0129fb753e1555c81d330d9f6274c79a

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