December 8, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 2177 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Tuesday, December 8, 1981 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Heritage Savings Trust Fund Auditing MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question this af­ ternoon is to the Premier, with regard to the letter tabled in the Legislature yesterday. I wonder if the Premier has had an opportunity to review that letter and has made a decision to forward it to the Auditor General, giving the tabled letter from Mr.

Sindlinger and the other members of the opposition the same status as the letter forwarded to the Auditor General by the Premier? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I've had an opportuni­ ty to consider that matter over the night and to refer to the questions I was asked December 3, as well as the question I was asked yesterday. What I said December 3 was that I saw no reason why any member of this Assembly could not com­ municate directly to the Auditor General, in writing, any observations he has with regard to these terms of reference and the request for the special report.

The question yesterday was quite different, after ex­ amining the Blues. It had to do with suggesting that we give some official status to the communication by an hon. member. Of course, that would be contrary to

Section 17(2) of The Auditor General Act, which reads: "The Auditor General shall perform such special duties as may be specified by the Executive Council". So it would not be our intention to change the terms of reference or to so specify. But again, if communications want to proceed to the Auditor General from any member of the Legislature or, for that matter, from any member of the public, obviously he can give it the weight he believes it deserves if he wishes. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques­ tion.

Could the Premier indicate the reasons for not accepting that letter as the chairman of Executive Council and forwarding the matter to the Auditor General for his review, particularly in light of the concern of Albertans for the realized loss . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I think we've been through some of that. This is the question period. The question is complete. I find it is quite complete. It can stand on its own feet and doesn't need any buttressing after it has been asked. MR. R. SPEAKER: I'm just giving him some help. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, I thought I made my answer very clear in my rather detailed response to the first question.

Section 17(2) of the Act clearly states: "The Auditor General shall perform such special duties as many be specified by the Executive Council". Those du­ ties have been specified and communicated, to give a full and complete review of the matter by the Auditor Gener­ al. If members of the opposition believe other matters should be considered they, together with any other member of the public, may communicate directly to the Auditor General. If he wishes, he can give the communi­ cation the weight he believes such communication deserves. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques­ tion.

In light of the answer, will the Premier consider an amendment to The Auditor General Act which would give status to members of this Legislature in terms of communication with the Auditor General — formal sta­ tus, as the status of the Executive Council, as the status of this Legislative Assembly as a whole? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. Leader of the Opposition is having some difficulty read­ ing these Acts.

Section 17(1) reads: "The Auditor General shall perform such special duties as may be specified by the Assembly." If the hon. Leader of the Opposition wished a special report to be made, he could have pre­ sented that to the Legislative Assembly by way of a special report. He may or may not have received the endorsation of the Legislature, but that is the route he should go. The Legislature can determine such special duties for the Auditor General, pursuant to

Section 17(1). In addition to that, the Auditor General can respond to a request by the Executive Council, under

Section 17(2). Of course, the important matter is that the communication I provided to the Provincial Auditor on December 3 is such that, in my view and I believe the view of any objective person, it clearly covers all matters that might be raised and are at issue. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques­ tion to the Premier. The matter we're raising in the letter that is going to the Auditor General, and in the Premier's letter as well, was raised last February.

Two questions to the Premier: one, was the Premier involved in discussions at that time, and were any discussions held with the Auditor General with regard to the realized loss of $60 million; secondly, why at that point . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Possibly these sort of buckshot questions . . . As the hon. member knows, buckshot is for the birds. Perhaps he could shoot one bee-bee at a time. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, my question to the Premier is: what discussions with the Auditor General were held on previous occasions with regard to the matter in the letter tabled in the Legislature, and specifically with regard to the realized loss of $60 million? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, there haven't been any discussions that I've been involved in. I first of all saw the item in the annual report. As I mentioned in public, as well as here, I would have been very surprised if I had not seen a provision for net realized losses.

In fact, I would have been critical of the investment policies of any in­ vestment trading group that doesn't recognize that it is appropriate, as a trading organization, to accept realized losses and move to better investments. I have a blind trustee for my own investments these days, so I don't

2178 ALBERTA HANSARD December 8, 1981 really know what he's doing in particular. But if he's not doing that and doesn't have net realized losses, he's not appropriately performing the trading function. I anticipate that in this year and as long as the Heritage Savings Trust Fund is involved in a similar process, there will continue to be net realized losses. As a result of that, there was nothing of any surprise or even concern to me.

When it was raised in the House in the fall that in the view of some members of the opposition the answers, which I thought were fully given by the Provincial Treas­ urer when he appeared before the legislative select com­ mittee on the Heritage Savings Trust Fund, were inade­ quate and suggestions were made they were incomplete, we thought it only fair and proper that the Auditor General be given an opportunity to clear the air complete­ ly on this matter. I'm sure that's precisely what he will do in due course. Marijuana Legislation MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a second question to the Premier as well.

It's with regard to the Solicitor General. Could the Premier indicate whether the Solicitor General is attending a meeting out of the province at the present time, and what the items of discussion in that respective meeting might be? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I'd have to take notice of that question and report back to the House tomorrow. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques­ tion to the Premier. Could the Premier determine wheth­ er the Solicitor General is meeting with the solicitors general of the other nine provinces of Canada? Is one item on the agenda the legalization of marijuana?

A supplementary question to the Premier with regard to that. Could the Premier indicate the present position of the Alberta government with regard to that matter? MR. LOUGHEED: The present position of the Alberta government has been the position it's had all along. First of all, it's a federal matter. From our point of view, it's certainly not our view that we intend to see any move in the direction of legalization of marijuana. If that's the position of the Leader of the Opposition and his party, we and the public will be very interested to hear it. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, the Premier can make all the comments he wants, but the government is respon­ sible for programs in this province. The minister is going to a meeting to represent this government. What position is the minister taking? That's what I'm interested in. MR. NOTLEY: Is he going to say no firmly? MR. R. SPEAKER: Is the minister going to excuse himself when this matter is on the agenda for discussion at the meetings? MR. LOUGHEED: I haven't any doubt about our Solici­ tor General.

He won't be excusing himself from anything, and he'll be taking some strong positions. [interjections] If the Leader of the Opposition wants to take the other point of view, I'll enjoy seeing that on the campaign trail. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques­ tion. Will the Premier check this matter and report to the House as to what position the minister is taking and what actions, in a respective meeting with regard to the discus­ sion of marijuana, so we know where the government stands? MR. LOUGHEED: There's no difficulty about where the government stands on this issue.

Now there's no difficulty about where the Leader of the Opposition stands. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. In question period, the Premier has always sat in this House like a saint, saying . . . [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: Order please. We have just had a marvellous example of what happens when we have de­ bating questions and debating answers and . . . MR. R. SPEAKER: He started it; I didn't. [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: . . . once that starts, there has to be some equity on both sides. Treasury Branch Mortgage Loans MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this ques­ tion to the hon.

Provincial Treasurer. It is a question exclusively with provincial jurisdiction, so I'm sure we'll have no difficulty with him saying it's Ottawa's responsibility. Is the Provincial Treasurer able to advise the Assembly why the upper ceiling for mortgages through the treasury branches in Edmonton and Calgary is $60,000, as com­ pared to $75,000 in other parts of the province? MR. HYNDMAN: I'll check on the details, Mr. Speaker.

I think hon. members will recall that since the very inception of the treasury branches — and this perhaps reflects the Alberta Opportunity Company as well — there has been an emphasis to fill in gaps where tradi­ tional financial institutions were not providing services to Albertans, and they've done that very well indeed. I would think this policy is probably a reflection of that general policy which has been followed since the late 30s, which most Albertans have found very effective. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Bearing the hon.

Treasurer's answer in mind, what is the reason for the maximum ceiling of $60,000 and $75,000, urban/rural, compared to the maximum ceilings allowed by the chartered banks, which have been moved up — in the case of the Toronto-Dominion to $100,000, the Bank of Montreal to $150,000, and the Bank of Nova Scotia to $150,000? Why is the treasury branch still employing a ceiling for both rural and urban which is significantly under the costs of acquiring a new home, whether it's in a rural or an urban area? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Speaker, one of the reasons is that the treasury branches do not have access, as do other financial institutions, to longer term funds. It's only re­ cently that RRSPs, for example, which provide long-term funds to an institution, were available for the treasury branches. Therefore, being essentially an institution that relies on shorter term obligations which have to be paid out on demand, they have not been in a similar position with similar flexibility as the larger, more traditional financial institutions to offer the same longer term loan­ ing, such as mortgages.

December 8, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 2179 MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the hon. Provincial Treasurer. Keeping in mind the legal definition of the treasury branches as such — they can't be considered chartered banks — does the Provincial Treasurer or officials of the Treasury Department, either the deputy minister or senior officials, have any role at all in determining the maximums allowed in the form of mortgages, both rural and urban? MR. HYNDMAN: No direct role, Mr. Speaker.

As I've indicated in the House before, the general mandate of the treasury branches, which of course have expanded re­ markably in the last decade, is to provide a service which to the greatest extent possible is competitive — realizing they're not a chartered bank — with other financial insti­ tutions, to emphasize filling in gaps where other financial institutions do not provide them in the province of Alber­ ta, and to run on a successful businesslike basis of making a reasonable profit, half of which is returned to the province of Alberta.

There's no day-to-day second- guessing of the policy decisions of the treasury branch, which I think would be an improper procedure to follow, if that's what the hon. member is suggesting his party would like to do. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Provincial Treasurer, who of course is entic­ ing debate. I'm sure he wouldn't want to do that.

In view of the funding of the treasury branches, has the govern­ ment given any consideration to allotting Heritage Savings Trust Fund money to the treasury branches in the form of money which could then be made available through the treasury branch system for mortgages, so mortgage ceilings by the branches could be increased? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the only way to do that would be to take moneys away from the Alberta family home mortgage program, from the various hous­ ing programs funded by the government.

I think those have been extremely successful in providing subsidized rates to many thousands of Albertans. So at the moment, even though there may have to be trade-offs there be­ cause, as I indicated, the moneys flowing into the heritage fund are far less than those being requested by the Crown corporations, I don't think that is a choice we'd make at this time. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

Is the minister in a position to advise the Assembly whether the minister has in his possession at this time any statistics on the impact of the treasury branches on the mortgage market now, both rural and urban, compared to five years ago? Is the treasury branch system maintain­ ing its share, or has it in fact declined as a mortgager? MR. HYNDMAN: I could secure information on that point for the member and for the House, Mr. Speaker. Marigold Regional Library MR. WOLSTENHOLME: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Culture and has to do with the Marigold library system. Is this fully operational now?

MRS. LeMESSURIER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It now has its headquarters in Strathcona. Its director and some of its staff are on hand. The programs operating within the library are very limited at this time, though. MR. WOLSTENHOLME: A supplementary, Mr. Speak­ er. How many people and libraries are involved with this system now? MR. SPEAKER: With great respect to the hon. member, that would look like an ideal question for the Order Paper. MR. WOLSTENHOLME: A supplementary then, Mr. Speaker. I'll bypass that one and do as you suggest. Is the Marigold system economically viable without the partici­ pation of all people?

MRS. LeMESSURIER: Mr. Speaker, when you set up a library, there is an $8 per capita start-up grant. In the budget year '82-83 there will be an operating budget in excess of $150,000. Hopefully that will be sufficient to see the library well on its feet. MR. BORSTAD: Is any consideration being given to the formation of co-op libraries in northern Alberta? MRS. LeMESSURIER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is a Peace River steering committee in place in the Peace River area. They're coming along very well.

Hopefully within the next six months to a year, we will have a regional library or a co-operative library, as my hon. colleague said. Lamb Processing Plant MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Agriculture. Is the government still offering the lamb plant at Innisfail for sale? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, over the period of the last two years, I believe, we have discussed Lambco. As the government has been operating Lambco as a plant, recognizing the role it plays in western Canada in the slaughter and marketing of lambs, I was hoping the hon. member would ask the question.

I'm pleased to announce that over the period of the last two months Lambco has made an excellent profit by increasing the throughput through the plant itself. Hopefully, for this year the plant will operate in the black. It was the intent . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. My recollection of the question — and I really didn't detect any debating unde­ rtones in it — was whether the plant was still for sale. MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, I know the interest the hon. member has. In looking at Lambco, I just couldn't miss the opportunity to announce its success.

Over the years, the government has stated that once Lambco got on its feet, consideration may be given to passing the kill-and-chill plant to the private sector. If conditions continue in Lambco, perhaps that's one of the decisions that will have to be made in the future. MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for answering my second question. The other question I want to ask the minister: have they imported any lamb from outside Alberta to slaughter at the lamb plant in Innisfail? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr.

Speaker, the movement of lamb from western Canada into Lambco perhaps has been the secret of the success. At the present time in Alberta.

2180 ALBERTA HANSARD December 8, 1981 Lambco is the main slaughter and market for all the lambs raised in western Canada from Winnipeg west. Because of that volume and an increase in the markets the new manager has been able to achieve in both Toronto and Vancouver, the markets have sort of drawn a number of lambs from out of province. Yes, it is the key for all western Canada. MR. MANDEVILLE: A supplementary question. The minister indicated the lamb plant has been operating in the black this year.

I wonder if the minister has given any consideration to diversifying the plant to boxing beef in the plant at Innisfail? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, there is a certain amount of diversity in the plant at present, other than lambs, which is its key role. White veal and some of the specialty cuts in the boxing of reindeer from the north are handled through the plant. The plant has that capability of expanding to boxed beef, if necessary, just for the cutting and the boxing. Guidelines for Annual Reports MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the Premier, with regard to guidelines on literature, booklets, or reports of the government. I have in my hand the Alberta Home Mortgage Corporation annual report, March 31, 1981, that came into my possession yesterday. I note that 12 of the 33 pages — pages which look very expensive — have pictures and sayings, such as this one: "Every bird likes his own nest best." That was written in 1611 by Randle Cotgrave. My question is: what guidelines are established with regard to reports such as this?

I ask the question in light of the fact that the target group isn't necessarily the families of this province but other kinds of groups. Not all families receive this report. I see that the . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. We're clearly getting into the area of debate again. MR. R. SPEAKER: I was going to explain the question. MR. SPEAKER: It's out there now. Having let it go, that puts some constraints on me for the remainder of the series on that question. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, of course I would be delighted to respond, because I found considerable joy reading comments from Aristotle in 38 B.C.

I really think we are criticized from time to time by members of the opposition for not communicating the heart and the soul as well as the mind and the pocketbook. In the develop­ ment of a corporation which has had such an outstanding success story, I think it's important that it not just be a matter of figures and dollars but that there really be an effort to communicate that there is a deep personal feel­ ing about the programs of this corporation and that it is not such a material thing. So I'm delighted that they have come forth with a document that says: "Men come to­ gether in cities in order to live.

They remain together in order to live the good life." Aristotle, 38 B.C. MR. NOTLEY: Sounds just like Alberta. MR. LOUGHEED: It sounds a lot like Alberta. Then they went on and in 1785 said: "God made the country and man made the town." I know you won't let me go much further, Mr. Speaker, but I want to say that Winston Churchill is quoted here, and I think that's great. In our guidelines, we do allow the quoting of Winston Churchill: "We shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us." MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I also feel there are sayings in there applicable to Alberta.

I'd like to read one: "You are a king by your own fireside as much as any monarch in his throne", Mr. Premier. [laughter] My question with regard to this document targeted to families in Alberta: is it the intention of the government to direct these reports to the various families across the province that have Alberta Home Mortgage loans or other loans from the housing corporation? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, infrequently but at times, the Leader of the Opposition does make some good suggestions.

Perhaps we should give some consider­ ation to improving our communication of our housing programs so more and more citizens are aware of what we're doing, how the Heritage Savings Trust Fund makes such an important contribution to housing, and how incomparable our programs are, so much better than the rest of the country. Yes, we'll take those suggestions under consideration and improve our communication. University Library Systems MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the hon. Minister of Advanced Education and Manpower. I as­ sume the acting minister is the Minister of Education.

I wonder if the Minister of Education would advise the Assembly what the government proposes to do with the crisis now facing university library systems as a result of the government's decision not to carry on with the herit­ age program for university libraries, where the choice at the university library is either cancellation of the periodi­ cals or . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I heard a moment ago that the hon. member was not going to incite any minister to debate.

He started off a while ago telling us what the chartered banks were doing and how much more poorly the treasury branches were doing by comparison, and why it was so bad. Well, that's debate, and we're in debate again. So if the hon. member gets a debating answer, there is nothing I can do about it. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure you that if the hon. member undertook not to excite me, he succeeded. I take issue only with his use of the word "crisis". I too manage to read the newspaper from time to time, and I don't think that was what was alluded to.

However, I will take his question as notice and have the hon. minister reply. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Is the minister in a position to advise the Assembly when we can anticipate the return of the Minister of Advanced Education and Manpower, so that we may have some indication as to when a specific reply to the concerns of the general faculty council on libraries will be addressed? MR. KING: There has been an illness in the hon. minis­ ter's family. We expect him to return to the Assembly on Friday.

December 8, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 2181 MR. SPEAKER: I believe the hon. Minister of Agricul­ ture wishes to deal further with a previous question period topic, and the hon. Minister of Culture wishes to deal further with a topic raised today. Water Management — TV Production MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I accepted a question as notice from the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview on a documentary entitled On The Water Front. I've had the opportunity to review both the documentary and the material that sparked the documen­ tary.

It's one of four the Department of Agriculture will be showing this year. It's basically a program that deals directly with irrigation as it pertains to the $300 million invested by the Heritage Savings Trust Fund to be spent over the next five years, and the impact that expenditure will have on the irrigation industry in southern Alberta. In no way does it challenge any changes in government policy, and it deals directly with those policies that exist in both the departments of Environment and Agriculture as they deal with irrigation. The program has been on study since the announce­ ment of the basic program.

On The Water Front is the culmination of two years of research and a shooting that started early this year and finished in the latter part of the summer. It was the intention to show On The Water Front to all those producers and all Albertans. The

schedule for showing was released. Over the past 12 years, the Department of Agriculture has had a working arrangement with the CBC for the presentation of documentation which is produced both in-house and out. Under that agreement over the period of years, CBC has the opportunity to pass comment on the material submitted and to accept or reject. Recogniz­ ing the publicity that water management has received very recently, it was their suggestion that perhaps the showing date should be changed.

It was on that advice that we withdrew the showing of On The Water Front and rescheduled it for closer to Agricultural Week, which will be in February 1982. The documentary itself was produced in-house. It cost $25,000 and deals directly with agriculture. It's just one of four that will be shown to Albertans this year. The opportunity of seeing it will come in early February. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture. As I recall, the minister's answer was that the film was basically on existing policies.

Does that answer imply the water management policy that is made specific reference to by the assistant deputy minister of Environment in his memo to the hon. Minister of Transportation, where existing water management policy does not negate the location of dams in such a way that they fit the eventual question of water transfer? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, water transfer in the par­ ticular documentation and documentary is not men­ tioned. It deals directly with on-stream/off-stream storage on the rivers that is now available and provides water to all irrigation districts.

It spends its total time on that discussion as to the early loss of water because of spring run-off before it's needed, from an agricultural point of view, and the need for better controls so we can meet both the demands of producers in this province and our commitment beyond. It's tied to those water basins that now exist under the irrigation districts at the present time. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. In the assessment of water management, is the program designed in any way, shape, or form to "create a demand"? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr.

Speaker, the only reply I could give is that it's designed to better utilize the water that is already there and, through that better utilization, to in­ crease production. Computer Technology in Schools MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Education is with regard to the computers the minister has purchased or is purchasing for various school boards, and with regard to the basic hardware package and the machines themselves.

I understand the actual computers purchased by the minister were at a higher price than those that could be purchased on the open market or at a retail price at other outlets in the city of Edmonton. I wonder if the minister could comment on that matter and give the special reasons why the Bell & Howell purchase was necessary. MR. KING: I can comment by saying that the hon. member's assumption is incorrect. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, could the hon.

Minis­ ter of Education confirm that on the day the hon. minis­ ter explained that his department's decision to purchase Bell & Howell hardware after consulting other Canadian and American education departments, which included the province of British Columbia and the state of Minnesota, both these jurisdictions are now purchasing Commodore hardware, and the Minnesota department is also experi­ menting with Atari hardware. They're not following through with the recommendation they made to the min­ ister.

Could the minister indicate any concern with regard to the decision he has made, when the authorities have changed their position? MR. KING: I can indicate that I have no concern with my decision, which I believe was the question put to me by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. It is not correct that either British Columbia or the state of Minnesota have changed their position, if I'm recalling the words of the hon. leader correctly.

It is correct that they have purchased into a second line of computers, but it is not as a result of any decision to stop using the computer which is in place in their system; that is, the Apple computer. The hon. member will be aware of the fact that the Bell & Howell computer is known as an OEM Apple. It is Apple technology in a black box. It's sometimes referred to as the Black Apple. To all intents and purposes, the Bell & Howell computer is an Apple. It is an Apple that is being used by JEM in British Columbia, and it is an Apple that is being used in Minnesota. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary ques­ tion to the minister. In the agreement that I believe was tabled in this Legislature, Bell & Howell has agreed to provide the department with free use of only one pass until March 31, 1983. Could the minister indicate what responsibilities the province will have to assume after that agreement has terminated? Will the province accept the responsibility for a lease fee after that point in time?

2182 ALBERTA HANSARD December 8, 1981 MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, we're now into an area of detail that I would not like to respond to without having information at hand. The hon. member is raising ques­ tions, the answers to which I would certainly like to communicate across the province. There has been some misunderstanding about the cost of these computers and the cost at which they will be sold to school systems throughout the province. I will undertake to return to the House tomorrow afternoon and answer the hon. leader's earlier question and this question in detail. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary ques­ tion to the minister with regard to the scholarship award that would be established by Bell & Howell, according to the contract. I wonder if the minister could indicate whether that fund has been established or when the fund will be available to persons in Alberta? MR. KING: Again, in order to be sure of my description, I would take that as notice and reply tomorrow. School Division Boundaries MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this ques­ tion to the hon. Minister of Education.

The best way of describing it would be that it deals with the trusteeship of both the Northland and High Prairie school divisions. Is the minister in a position to outline to the Assembly whether he has had any discussions on the matter of division boundaries as it relates, (

a) to High Prairie and (

b) to Northland? MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, on August 7 I visited High Prairie for the purpose of announcing the establishment of a trusteeship for the High Prairie School Division. At a news conference in High Prairie on that day, I was asked much the same question as has just been put to me by the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview. My an­ swer at that time, and it continues to be my position, was that the government would not consider any changes to the boundary of the High Prairie School Division so long as it is administered by an official trustee.

The question of boundaries and the local electorate's control over the affairs of the jurisdiction is sufficiently important that any consideration of the question should be undertaken only in the context of a locally elected board of trustees.

I might say that as recently as today I signed a letter to residents of the High Prairie School Division, advising them that I would not be prepared to consider a boundary change until there are locally elected trustees and until those trustees have been in office a sufficient length of time that they could be familiar with the operations and politics of the local community. With respect to the Northland School Division, my position at the moment is to accept the recommendation of the committee of inquiry to the effect that there not be changes in the boundaries of the Northland School Divi­ sion.

I hasten to add, though, that I will always be open to representations that may come to me from local communities. If there were a situation in which one or more of the school communities developed within them­ selves a desire to be transferred to the jurisdiction of another school division, I would certainly consider that seriously. It would depend upon the desire being develop­ ed in the local school community. It would not be in­ itiated by the Department of Education. MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the last supplementary on this topic. We're running out of time. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, could the minister advise the Assembly whether the official trustees in either case have been advised, then, that the matter of boundaries will not be considered? "Not be considered" would in­ clude not undertaking any studies or review prior to the selection of elected trustees. MR. KING: They have been advised, at least formally, that that is the position. As I say, I expressed that position publicly. Letters over my signature are going out with a statement of that position. I trust that that is sufficient communication. Hospitality Grants MR. SINDLINGER: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Government Services whether any distinc­ tion is made between profit and non-profit organizations when consideration is being given to providing hospitality grants on applications? MR. McCRAE: Mr. Speaker, my recollection is that it is the non-profit volunteer organization that qualifies, under certain circumstances, for a hospitality grant. MR. SINDLINGER: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Min­ ister of Government Services might indicate whether the Canadian Propane Gas Association falls under a non­ profit category, and therefore would be eligible for a hospitality grant?

MR. McCRAE: Mr. Speaker, if that is representation on the part of the Member for Calgary Buffalo. I will cer­ tainly consider it and advise him later. MR. SINDLINGER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I must state at the beginning that it is not a representation on behalf of the Canadian Propane Gas Association. The question I put to the minister is: inasmuch as the Cana­ dian Propane Gas Association is not a non-profit organi­ zation, why was it a recipient of a $7,700 hospitality grant for a luncheon? MR. McCRAE: Might I take that matter as notice, Mr. Speaker. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: There really isn't time. I know we have two minutes left, but I overlooked the hon. Minister of Culture, who previously indicated that she wished to deal further with something that arose in the question period today. Marigold Regional Library (continued) MRS. LeMESSURIER: Mr. Speaker, I believe I said that the Marigold library was situated in Strathcona. I meant that it was situated in Strathmore. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview.

December 8, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 2183 Hospitality Grants (continued) MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the that of hon. Member for Calgary Buffalo to the Minister of Government Services. Are any ceilings placed on hospitality grants? I certainly wouldn't want the situa­ tion where we end up doing as the federal Minister of Finance did with expensive luncheons. Are any ceilings placed on the amount of grants made available to either profit or non-profit organizations? MR. McCRAE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. What is that ceiling? MR. McCRAE: Mr.

Speaker, my recollection is that it is $14 per plate and that a maximum number of plates are allowed. I would want to check the actual detail, because memory is not always what it might be. ORDERS OF THE DAY head: COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY [Mr. Purdy in the Chair] MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Committee of Supply will please come to order. ALBERTA HERITAGE SAVINGS TRUST FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS DIVISION 1982-83 ESTIMATES OF PROPOSED INVESTMENTS Executive Council Worker's Health, Safety and Compensation 1 — Occupational Health and Safety Research and Education MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Chairman, I certainly would not want to rush through this important vote. Perhaps we can briefly review the discussion that took place when the committee last met. As I recall, that discussion centred around the issue of the farm safety program, which in my view is an extremely important one that has to be thoroughly addressed by this particular committee. Quite frankly, one of the concerns I had as a result of the discussion of these estimates last day was not the decision to undertake research in the area — obviously I would support that — but the question of how we go about that.

We had a situation last time where this particular gentleman had pretty substantial . . . I'm just trying to look through my notes here so I can recall the exact figures. I'm sure the minister will have them at his fingertips, but I wouldn't want to mislead the committee by giving figures that were not completely accurate. In any event, a substantial amount of money, my recollec­ tion is something over $50,000, was to be allocated to this particular study which to a large extent was an attitudinal study where, as I recall the last discussion, we would look at the profiles of people who tend to have accidents.

That was my recollection of the minister's response. Mr. Chairman, perhaps we could begin our study by having the minister outline to the committee specifically where he sees the study leading in the future. Obviously, if we're going to have an attitudinal study conducted by a sociologist, there must be some clear plan in mind as to what the government proposes to do with this informa­ tion. I rather doubt that we'd be asked to pass the expenditure of some $50,000 in a total vacuum unless there was a pretty clear indication that that study was going to lead to some kind of change in government policy.

As one looks back on the discussion of the estimates last time, Mr. Chairman, I suppose one option would be the option the government is following. But quite frankly, as I said last time and say again today, I would feel more comfortable if we were not spending some of this heritage trust fund research money on the sort of vague, abstract theories about accident profiles but to see that shifted to the more practical area of how we're going to encourage farmers in this province to take out compensation.

We've discussed in the House that there's no private insurance plan that can match the benefits of workers' compensa­ tion, even though the rate is very high. When we last met, the Minister of Municipal Affairs indicated that perhaps one of the things the government might have to look at is some form of incentive rate to encourage farmers to participate on a voluntary basis. I think most of us would agree that it has to be done on a voluntary basis at this stage. I certainly don't think the experience in Manitoba, where it was made a compulsory program, has necessarily worked.

There's no point in making something compulsory if people still are not going to enrol in it. You then get into a situation where you have an unenforceable program. So it seems to me that we do have to encourage the voluntary participation. Mr. Chairman, I just hearken members back to when the select committee had an opportunity to visit several European countries to compare the programs there for farmers and farm employees with our rather regrettable situation. At best, it's a void at the moment.

On that particular issue, I think both the hon. minister and I tend to agree that we'd be much happier if there were wider coverage of farmers and farm workers under workers' compensation. But particularly in the Federal Republic of West Germany, it's my recollection — and I'm just going from memory now, almost two years ago — that farm workers have been covered for many, many years, that now farmers themselves are enrolled, and that that's one of the costs of doing business in the Federal Republic of Germany.

It seems to me that on this issue of accident prevention and training in education, a lot of practical experience exists elsewhere in the world which would be useful to Albertans in addressing the question of whether or not we should make changes and what type of changes should be made in the application of workers' compensa­ tion, particularly as it relates to farmers and farm work­ ers in Alberta. Mr.

Chairman, while I don't know the university pro­ fessor the minister has engaged to undertake this attitu­ dinal study, and I'm am really not in a position to judge one way or the other on that particular study, the focus of the study seems to me to be the issue here. There is so much practical experience, nuts-and-bolts experience, that exists on this very issue in other jurisdictions. I would like to know from the minister what plans the department has to use any of this money we will be allocating for the forthcoming year to review existing programs in other jurisdictions.

I would also like to know specifically what plans, if

2184 ALBERTA HANSARD December 8, 1981 any, the department has in terms of evaluating the merits or otherwise of some of the observations by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who argued that we have a crop insurance system in place — a Crown corporation, Alber­ ta Hail and Crop Insurance — and that we do have agents throughout the province who for some months every year are not tied up with crop insurance matters.

While I don't always agree with the Minister of Munici­ pal Affairs, it does seem to me that that might be the administrative basis we could practically use to make available to farmers information on the issue of practical accident protection and coverage. I think that's really the question, Mr. Chairman. It's not just an issue of research in the abstract, because I note that we're talking about providing funds for re­ search, training, and education. I think we have an enormous education job in rural Alberta.

The way to do that education job practically is not to get the Minister of Agriculture to produce another television program that's going to cost us $25,000 — perhaps this time it will be on workers' compensation instead of water management — then argue whether or not the CBC will put it on, or whether we have to buy time on private stations. In my view, that's not the way to educate rural people at all.

The former Deputy Premier always made the point in this House, and properly so, that if you want to talk to rural people about issues that relate to them, you do it on a practical one-to-one basis over the kitchen table. The former Minister of Agriculture and Deputy Premier, then Minister of Transportation, would always talk about the kitchen-table approach, sitting down and discussing the merits.

If you're going to talk about workers' health and safety for farm workers or protection for the farmers themselves, that's where it has to be discussed — over the kitchen table — so people realize some of the implica­ tions of not having coverage. Last time, Mr. Chairman, in a marginal way only, we began a discussion of this. But the fact of the matter is that in 1981 most farmers are eminently suable. That wasn't the situation when most of us came into this House in 1971.

Especially in northern Alberta, there were enough federal Farm Credit mortgages that the net worth of some of the smaller farmers especially was relatively small. But with the huge increase in land prices, the net worth of even a quarter-section, half-section, and

section farmers is now very, very considerable. Because we have­ n't had suits in the past is a reflection of the net worth position of Alberta Agriculture. But that has changed over the last number of years because of this enormous inflation in the value of land. I would just say to members of the House that I know that the hon. minister in particular has been one of the people concerned about this. He was concerned about it in 1973, when the matter was first discussed. He was concerned about it when the second committee during this government's tenure ad­ dressed the issue of workers' compensation.

Sitting with him on the committee that reported a year ago, I know how concerned he was on the issue. It seems to me we have to take the bull by the horns, if I can use that expression, and move much faster than we have in the past on this issue. There is some urgency now. It's always been important to do it, but in the past it's been important because of the need to protect the work­ ers involved and because of the positive value of the program to farmers.

With land prices being what they are today, we're setting up our farmers for a real fall, espe­ cially those farmers who employ others, even on a casual basis for a few weeks or months a year, unless we can explain to them on very clear terms what the historical old trade-off is: if you have workers' compensation, you can't be sued; if you don't have it, you are suable. Mr. Chairman, because in my judgment we have the practical experience of other jurisdictions to follow as a guide, because we have the position advanced in the last stage of this report by the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

I would like to know what moves this government has up its sleeve. Well, I won't use "up its sleeve", because that implies it's going to be a hit and run approach, and I don't think that's what the minister has in mind at all. I know how the minister feels in this matter. He's very direct, so I certainly withdraw that remark. I wouldn't want to have anybody think that I even suggest that. So, Mr. Chairman, what I would like to do is take away any innuendo in the question and to put it very directly to the minister. What follow-up is there going to be on the method suggested by the Minister of Municipal Affairs?

What follow-up is there going to be of an in- depth assessment of what is going on in other jurisdic­ tions? What specific directions will be given by the minis­ ter through his department and the department of exten­ sion for a massive Hugh Horner type of across the kitchen table, let's sit down and talk about the merits and the pluses and minuses of workers' compensation? That's really the issue that has to be addressed at this time. MRS. FYFE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a couple of points on this topic that the previous speaker related to.

All of us share a deep concern for the farmer, the farm worker, and the family who work in an area of very high technology where there is extreme hazard and danger. I also travelled on the same trip that the Member for Spirit River-Fairview took to West Germany. Some of the atti­ tudes and opinions I picked up are slightly different from the ones the member has communicated to the Assembly. In fact, I recall some of the concerns we had with officials in that country who communicated to us the deep con­ cern and resentment on the part of the farm community for the inspectors who came on their land.

In fact, some went so far as to take out weapons to chase inspectors off their land. What type of co-operation would we develop in this country in a system where we have farmers who would not want to have this program imposed upon them? This is the question. Farmers on the whole tend to be independent people, proud and competent, who do not want inspectors snooping around on their land without their agreement. I believe we have to continue the discussion with farm organizations and farmers as individuals, and that we must communicate the type of coverage available.

In the communications I've had with some of the farmers who live in the St. Albert constituency, they do not want to go to workers' compensation at this point. They prefer to retain the system they have of private insurance, and feel that they have benefits they are prepared to live with, without having to have the same type of inspections that would be necessary under a broader program. We can stand in this Assembly and express our deep concern for this area where there has been a very high percentage of accidents.

It has to be a system where we communicate and encourage the move in this direction, but not one in which we should move faster, as the previous member seemed to indicate. It seemed to me that whatever the intent of the comments he used about tricks up their sleeve was that he wished to impose this upon the farmers. I think that is wrong. It has to be a

December 8, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 2185 program whereby the farming community of Alberta ac­ cepts this, and on its terms. MR. SINDLINGER: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to get back into the discussion on this par­ ticular estimate. We made a very good beginning last time we were here. I suspect that we're not going to spend too much time on this Workers' Health, Safety and Compen­ sation vote. There are a few other items we could cover, though, prior to voting on this matter. One of the subject areas not completed the last time we were here was in regard to the study being undertaken by Dr. Harrell.

When we adjourned, the last question posed in regard to this study was the ability of the contractor to fulfil the obligation he had undertaken. The specific ques­ tions were the expenses that would be associated with the project and whether those expenses were included in the total contract cost. As I understand it, the cost was $8,422 for the first phase. I'm not too sure whether that has in fact been completed and expended. The cost for the second phase was $37,862. I'm not too sure if any of that has been expended at all.

To put this thing in proper perspective, it would be helpful if the minister could indicate what the dates are or were for each of these phases, and what the target date for completion is. That would help us in that respect. That first question, the specific question, was in regard to the expenses associated with that project, and whether they were included in that total project cost of about $46,000 or would be in addition to that $46,000. The second question in regard to this project — I don't know if, in beginning to talk about it, I identified the project for the minister.

It is the survey of factors influencing farm accidents. The second question is the ability of the contractor to complete the project independently. I wonder if the minis­ ter could give us some indication of whether or not there are subcontracts associated with this particular contract. The reason that question was asked was that it was noted the total cost of $46,000 for this project was within the range of a salary one might expect a professor to earn on an annual basis at a university.

So if the professor had a concomitant obligation at the university, where he was expected to fulfil that obligation on an annual basis, and at the same time had this contract, which was equal, there is a question of priorization of obligations. Do the two overlap or occur at the same time? If they do, how could the professor who has his obligation at the university also perform his obligation in regard to this contract?

Just to use an extreme illustration to make the point, it might be said that the professor had a daily eight-hour contract at the university, yet one might expect him to put in eight hours a day on this particular contract as well. It doesn't seem reasonable to expect that the profes­ sor would put in a 16-hour day divided equally between this project and his university obligations. That's why the question of some subcontracting arose. That leads to the next question: who are the subcontra­ ctors and what would their responsibilities be? I think that was the last question put to the minister before adjournment.

I have only three more questions I would ask the minister in regard to this vote. Perhaps before I go on to those, I might leave these questions to the minister to address, if I may please, Mr. Chairman. MR. DIACHUK: Mr. Chairman, I didn't want to inter­ rupt the discussion at the last committee study.

When I review Hansard of November 30, the first day we re­ viewed this vote, we have before us an amount of money: To provide funds for research, training and educa­ tion, with the objective of preventing accidents and ill health resulting from employment and promoting the health and well-being of Albertan workers through improved working conditions. Implementation is for the year 1982-83. Mr. Chairman, I have enjoyed listening to the debate, because what we're really doing here is reviewing what should take place in the Select Standing Committee on The Alberta Heritage Trust Fund Act.

I find it interest­ ing, Mr. Chairman, that we're reviewing last year's ap­ propriation throughout this whole discussion. Neverthe­ less, this has happened. I'm going to make a few comments. I just want to bring to the attention of the committee that we seem to have gotten into a study of the Public Accounts. I just don't understand, but I guess each committee has its own approach. When I reviewed my comments, I responded to the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview. His first com­ ments were fairly general.

I used these years' examples as the direction we may be going in this appropriation for the year '82-83, welcoming further submissions. I agree with the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview that if there is an interest, rather than a suggestion that we use the heritage fund to buy an island someplace in the Caribbean, as I saw on one of the submissions tabled with all of us, why not get a submission from some organization in this province?

I would be interested that the steering committee look at how best to implement some of these considerations to broaden the participation of farmers in the workers' compensation program we all support. The hon. member does. I do. Several colleagues, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and others, spoke on it. Mr. Chairman, I fail to understand why we're in the Public Accounts process on this expenditure. I share this equally. Somehow we've gone off on a tangent. True, in this estimate we don't have any identified proposals as, for example, on page 16 under Environment, where it says Paddle River Basin Development.

That is why this format is made. I just want to raise this, because I think we're going to be repeating this same process next summer when the select committee reviews this expenditure. So that I'm not accused of not responding, because that was sort of the connotation last night from the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview — that he was in­ terested in listening to the observations of the Minister responsible for Workers' Health, Safety and Compensa­ tion. Here again, a good deal of honest examination took place in the discussions and so forth.

There was some sort of inference that I didn't answer the questions. Even though I think they're not appropriate for the appropria­ tion before us, I will answer as fully as possible the questions placed. I repeat: of the nine examples I gave, I see this study which they seem to have focussed on as the first step towards trying to communicate to the rural community where some of these accidents are and why they're happening. At the same time, the concern of the hon.

Member for Calgary Buffalo that the professor may have an eight-hour contract at the university — I don't know which professors have an eight-hour contract job at the university, but whether he is shortchanging the university wouldn't be my concern. MR. NOTLEY: It should be.

2186 ALBERTA HANSARD December 8, 1981 MR. DIACHUK: No, my concern would be that the $46,284 appropriated in my portfolio is used properly, fully, and every dollar is accounted for. However, today we're studying this appropriation, not the Advanced Edu­ cation and Manpower appropriation. This seems to be the procedure the hon. members of the opposition have taken, and the hon. Member for Calgary Buffalo, with tongue in cheek I think, was sort of asking . . . Mr. Chairman, he well knows that many professors of the university undertake all kinds of studies, even economics. I'm sure there is nothing too unusual . . .

MR. NOTLEY: We've seen some of them. That's the problem. MR. DIACHUK: Just be patient, sir, and you will get your answers. I listened to you. You listen to me now. I want to continue to share that I appreciated the comments of the Member for St. Albert that it's interest­ ing how through the same experience, we had a different concept. Mind you, he stepped out when the hon. Member for St. Albert pointed out that the farmers in West Germany were no different from the farmers in Alberta. They don't like inspectors, and they chase them off with a pitchfork that may have more prongs on it than in Alberta.

This is because of their attitude, and this is part of the study, to see how we can get around to review the safety programs directed at the farm community. Again I repeat, I welcome proposals from the members of the opposition on how we could expand. The position papers were sent out this spring. I received most of the responses by September 1 or a few days later. I don't recall receiving one response from any members of the opposition with regard to greater participation by the farmers in workers' compensation coverage in this prov­ ince. However, that's possibly not expected from them, nor from the hon.

Member for Spirit River-Fairview, because I'm satisfied that he is doing his thing about encouraging his constituents who are farmers to partici­ pate in workers' compensation, without any subsidy, I trust. I did hear during the discussions of the select committee that he wasn't in favor of a subsidy, so he joined the rest of us Conservatives and one Socred member, Dr. Buck, that there should be no subsidy for participation in workers' compensation benefits. MR. NOTLEY: And one republican, Bill. MR.

DIACHUK: I appreciate the other comments made in the last two days, particularly on Tuesday, December 1, when time ran out and I didn't get a chance to respond. I think there was some good participation in what we could do in this future year, and how we could approach . . . The hon. Member for Macleod, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and even the hon. Member for Cal­ gary Buffalo looked into how could we best use this $1 million for the year 1982-83. In the time remaining, I hope I can get some suggestions here.

Also, I appreciate that we're using this opportunity to broadcast to the interested parties to come forward with submissions. One more comment, Mr. Chairman. I heard the words, the minister has engaged a university professor. I want them corrected. I did not engage a university professor to do a study. This was a proposal. As I indicated once earlier in discussion of these estimates, a gentleman came forward, as an association, club, 4-H club, organization, or even a union would come forward, and it is then considered. This man has an interest in farm safety. He placed his proposal before the steering committee.

The recommendations came to me. I then approved them and a contract was signed. I did not engage him. However, that's semantics. My Ukrainian background would say I didn't engage him; he came forward with an offer. When I want to retain a lawyer to defend me because of whatever charge it could be — divorce; my wife isn't listening to this — I would go to a lawyer. But this was not that. Somebody around here is playing with words, Mr. Chairman. None of these individuals or organizations is engaged to do work for me. I don't create jobs, work programs, or studies, nor do my officials.

They have come forward because of the publicity we gave for this fund and because of the advertisement and the encouragement. I have done public addresses individually, and I do it again here today. However, Mr. Chairman. I think I should say I heard that the hon. Member for Calgary Buffalo has a few more questions. I hope the questions are in the direc­ tion of what we would like to do, or even some sugges­ tions — this isn't necessarily only question time — of how we could utilize the 1982-83 funds best. MR. SINDLINGER: Mr.

Chairman, I can't pass up an opportunity to offer some observations on how the money could best be used, as the minister has solicited. I have some suggestions on how that could be done, aside from the fact that I still have three questions. Prior to getting into those three questions, I will make a couple of suggestions, or at least one suggestion, even though I would like to get those three questions out of the way as expediently as possible so we can get on to the next estimate. I don't want to hold up the minister too long on this one particular estimate. We have spent a great deal of time on it already.

In regard to how we could best use this money — and the minister has indicated he hoped he could get some suggestions this afternoon — one thing that has con­ cerned me about this particulate vote . . . Mr. Chairman, the approach we have taken with all votes is substantially the same. We ask two questions. If the minister is here asking us for more money, the first question has been, what did you did with the money you got last time? And we've addressed that. We haven't discussed it in detail. I might point out, because we didn't want to do that. The second question was, what do you intend to do with this money?

I have said at length at various times that all these particular projects in the estimates of proposed invest­ ments have considerable merit and value, but there is one criterion I have often put in terms of selecting invest­ ments from the Heritage Savings Trust Fund. It's not one I originated. It originated in the Legislative Assembly. It was first proposed by the hon. Member for Little Bow. In subsequent debates on the heritage fund. I found that the Premier picked up that same criterion as well. I note also that in introducing his estimates this year, the minister used that same criteria.

It was essentially that the funds from the Heritage Savings Trust Fund should be used to do those things which the government would otherwise not do. That has caused me a great deal of concern in some of these areas, because obviously some of these programs in here are nothing more than extensions of regular gov­ ernment programs in the first place. A prime example of that is the irrigation program, which, it is my understand­ ing, is partially funded through general revenue and the estimates, and partially funded from the Heritage Savings

December 8, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 2187 Trust Fund. The question has always arisen, how is the distinction made between those projects which should be funded from the heritage fund and those things which should be funded from general revenue? Obviously the distinction was not made in the irrigation case. It was just indicated that it was expedient to do so at the time. In this particulate case, that same question arises as well.

The other day when we were discussing this, the minister indicated that over the last five years the de­ partment had annually appropriated funds from its budg­ et to stimulate research by non-government entities. In addressing that matter, I believe the minister said there was something in the order of magnitude of $100,000 annually. What this demonstrates to me is that this type of research has been conducted on an annual basis for five years prior to it ever coming to the Heritage Savings Trust Fund.

It raises the question: after five years when this program was funded from general revenue, why should it suddenly be shifted to the Heritage Savings Trust Fund? Someone not knowing too much about this might simply suggest it's a good way to supplement the department's annual budget. I wouldn't want the minister to leave that inference unanswered. Perhaps the minister could indicate what the criterion was that was used to determine that this program should now be taken from general revenue and put into the Heritage Savings Trust Fund.

The reason I've made these observations is that the minister, in referring to the Member for Calgary Buffalo, asked if I could indicate how we can best use this money, and said: I hope I can get some suggestions this after­ noon. Looking at this from a strictly financial point of view, I might be inclined to say the best way we can use this money is to invest it so we can earn a financial or accounting rate of return, as opposed to what might be classified as a social rate of return through investment in research.

I might be inclined even to suggest that to the minister, but I would not do so until he addressed the question as to why this money should be here in the first place. If he can identify the criterion, the reason for taking this program from general revenue and putting it into the Heritage Savings Trust Fund, I think I would change my suggestion. But at this particular time, when I look back and see that this is a program funded for five years through the General Revenue Fund and suddenly was taken into the heritage fund, it just looks too conven­ ient from a departmental budgetary point of view.

That's the suggestion I might have with regard to how we can best use this money, unless the minister can otherwise persuade me from that point of view. [Mr. Appleby in the Chair] I might also make another observation with regard to the minister's comments on the way this program is being undertaken, and that is indicating to the public at large that there is in fact this $1 million pool of funds available for research. It seems to me that is addressing the supply side of the problem, if we can think in those terms. What it also is indicative of is almost an attempt to create a demand.

I wonder if that demand for that particular type of research would be there if there were not the money in the first place. Again, that comes back to the first obser­ vation I made with regard to using money from the General Revenue Fund as opposed to the Heritage Sav­ ings Trust Fund. I guess the most basic, simple way to put the question is: after being funded for five years from general revenue, why is this program now being funded by the Heritage Savings Trust Fund? At this point, I'm not questioning the different research projects.

I'm not saying they're good or bad, because that of course is a matter of subjec­ tive judgment. All I'm asking for is the criterion used in transferring the program from the General Revenue Fund to the Heritage Savings Trust Fund. If there's good justi­ fication for that, perhaps we can get on to specific recommendations as to how best to use this money. If there isn't justification for that, the only thing I could suggest in terms of how we best can use this money is simply to give it to the Provincial Treasurer and let him make his best efforts to earn the highest financial or accounting rate of return. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, I think we've spent two days on this matter that was raised in the first place by the minister. Today the minister stands in his place and says, well, I don't have to answer for past expendi­ tures, or that's passed and we should be talking about the future, and we should give them ideas as to how the $1 million is spent. Maybe that's part of the program and our responsibility, but on different occasions for two days, November 30 and December 1, we talked about the contract with Dr. Harrell.

We talked about the fact that some $45,000 was invested from the Heritage Savings Trust Fund. But the minister hasn't come forward and said, here's the contract I have with Dr. Harrell; here are the guidelines for the research that's to be done; here's the stage at which the research is at the present time; here are some possible outcomes of that research. Those are four very basic questions that we can ask about a research project done under Workers' Health, Safety and Com­ pensation.

I think the minister could have arranged in five minutes that that contract be in his possession so he could table it here today and we as the members of the Legislature could have access to it. It's a public contract, a contract purchased by public funds. Mr. Chairman, I see no reason why all the talk is going on without any specific information being presented in this Legislature. The minister can go through an argu­ ment as to whether the man was engaged or whether there was a contract. That's of no consequence.

The consequence is what the contract is: here it is, I've tabled it; two, here are the details; three, here are the terms of reference, four; here are some possible outcomes. But, Mr. Chairman, we haven't got that. We have a minister who runs around in circles and talks all around the edge of the problem but never comes to focus on good, solid, substantial information in this Legislature. I see other expenditures, and I've listed them and hope to ask questions about them. There are six other areas that we should have specific information on.

I get so tired of the ministers on that side of the House coming into this Legislature and thinking they can generalize answers to us in the opposition. It's part of the arrogance. It's part of an attitude that has been created over a 10-year period of time, where this government has come in and we in the opposition have allowed them to give any kind of . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Leader of the Opposition is becoming total irrelevant regarding this particular vote. Perhaps he would confine his remarks to the vote under consideration.

2188 ALBERTA HANSARD December 8, 1981 MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, I'll confine them to the minister. I was trying to be fair with the minister and indicate that my concern isn't only with him, but he does exemplify the pattern of answers that were given by other ministers in this House. That's why we have to ask questions, ferret out information that's hidden somewhere in the back rooms. To the minister, and this should be an easy question to answer: Specifically what does this guy do? What are his terms of reference? At what stage is the research at the present time?

What are some of the results that are going to be reported, and when? Mr. Chairman, those are very straightforward ques­ tions, meaningful to the subject at hand. It's incumbent upon the minister to answer them like that. If I had the minister's responsibility, hopefully before I came into this Legislature I could predict all the basic questions. The minister outlined an agenda of topics. Following that agenda, the minister should have been prepared, as re­ quested or on his own initiative, to present substantive information on each topic. Now we fight, we talk.

We've gone two days of genera­ lizations, and we've wasted those two days. That's the point we're at. Can the minister produce that kind of documentation? With that kind of presentation, I'm sure we could complete this estimate very easily in half an hour. But if it doesn't happen, we just continue on with the same pattern into the third day. Mr. Chairman, I can understand how you get impatient about that. What else can we do but to go on and on, and push and try? MR. NOTLEY: Come on, let's have the answer. MR. DIACHUK: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I don't think the hon.

Leader of the Opposition was even listen­ ing to my comments earlier. MR. R. SPEAKER: I did. There was nothing in them. MR. DIACHUK: When I mentioned that we're studying the estimates for '82-83, Dr. Harrell's contract is during the appropriation of '81-82. When the select committee reviews the estimates for 1981-82 I will be prepared to answer all the questions, because at that time the full year will have been completed. Mr. Chairman, he is the first one to criticize anybody who doesn't follow the rules. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.

In estimate study to this point in time — I'm sure you could comment on this — the discussion has ranged from the initiation of the project to its completion. We can give examples: the Walter C. MacKenzie hospital, a very good example, where we talked about the problems in the previous year and the previous year that led to some mismanagement. The minister freely discussed it and gave us good material. I was proud of that minister. I told him so after we adjourned from the Assembly. I said that was a good experience. The precedent's there, Mr. Chairman.

My point of order is that that rule should apply to the present minister. MR. DIACHUK: Mr. Chairman, the hon. Leader of the Opposition knows well there was no point of order. He just wanted to debate with me a little more and interrupt my trend of thought. I would like to continue with my presentation. First of all, the hon. Calgary Member for Calgary Buffalo, who said he doesn't question the different proj­ ects, good or bad, because he's got the indication we should be reviewing the '82-83 appropriation. The ques­ tion was, what do you intend to do with the money? I've answered this several times.

As the proposals come for­ ward before the steering committee with the recommen­ dations to me. I will then be prepared to approve in a contract form the expenditure that is recommended on a good proposal in the area of health and safety for the workers of the province of Alberta. Why was the program not fully funded after five years? That is part of government funding. We have continued that $100,000 through the regular funding.

It was because of a resolution that was introduced by the Member for Calgary North West, that received support from members of the opposition, to set up a program such as this that we moved into it. I sincerely say that that is not taking away from what has presently been done through the regular budgeting of the occupational health and safety division. It's a compliment to the program we have. Again to the hon. Leader of the Opposition: he says, and I hope I'm accurate, that I stood here and said I don't have to answer for past expenditures. I really did not say that, to the best of my knowledge. I hope the hon.

Leader of the Opposition — he may be tired this after­ noon — is a little more accurate. I did not say that. I only raised the point this afternoon because in two days of discussions I didn't get too many suggestions other than the first day, and I referred to it. On Monday. November 30, the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview — and I reviewed Hansard — was very good and generalized on the area of what programs we should be looking at, and then wanted some specific example for the past year because I had referred to the steering committee. I gave the examples. I hope the hon.

Leader of the Opposition is calm and collected and contributes something to this discussion for this year's appropriation, '82-83. He is the first one who has risen in this House and criticized us for not following the rules of this Assembly as he interprets them. I would sincerely say that I haven't heard any submission from the hon. Leader of the Opposition on what would be a good way to appropriate some of the funds for the year 1982-83. It's good to know there is some support for this program, even though I detect more negativism from the three members in the opposition present.

But I'm glad there is some support, and I will continue to cultivate that support for a program of research and education in health and safety in this province. MR. NOTLEY: I hope the farmers are more successful in their cultivation techniques than the hon. minister. Otherwise, we're going to have a food shortage of a worldwide scale. Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to a couple of observations before I go into some detail on a number of proposals I have. One can get into a general discussion on what can and can't be discussed during the estimates. I think there are really two things we should use as a guide.

I respectfully suggest that you, Mr. Chairman, should use them as a guide as well. One is the government's main case for the Heritage Savings Trust Fund, as outlined by the Premier on April 23, 1976. It was made very clear that the study of the estimates was important, not only the study of estimates for the current year but in the government's management of the fund. When members on either the government or opposition side raise ques­ tions about how money has been invested and whether an investment has been prudent or otherwise, in my judg­

December 8, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 2189 ment that's totally in order. We're not in a position to satisfy ourselves that any more money should be ad­ vanced unless we are convinced the government has done a satisfactory job of investing the money already allo­ cated. Traditionally, as I look at the estimates the whole question of control of the purse strings and the accounta­ bility angle rests on the decision of this committee to grant supply. On what basis do we grant supply, Mr. Chairman?

First of all, we grant supply on what the government proposes to do with the money, but secondly on what it has done with money granted before. As I review the precedents, supply has always been based on the proposi­ tion that if you don't like the way in which the govern­ ment has done something, that is the appropriate place to demand accountability. Mr.

Chairman, I don't know whether we have a point of order here in terms of examining future discussion in Committee of Supply, but I suggest that that is why we have the provision in the estimates, which is a time honored tradition: if you don't like the way something is done, you move that the minis­ ter's salary be reduced to $1. That makes the government accountable, not just for future investments and expendi­ tures but for past expenditures. I'm not suggesting that I'm going to move that the hon. minister's salary be reduced to $1, because basically I think he's doing quite a good job.

I think we could have had a little more information on this question. I'm not entirely sure I agree with the focus, but I'm not going to call for a minister's resignation on the basis of one study. Neither am I going to stand in my place and allow any minister of the Crown to suggest that we do not have the opportunity of holding that minister totally accountable in Committee of Supply, for past investments as well as future. If we did that, Mr. Chairman, we'd be turning a thousand years of parlia­ mentary history totally on its head. Mr.

Chairman, I didn't rise primarily to get into a discussion of the point of order, but rather to go into some detail on what I think is an important area. We've talked at some length now, and properly so, about compensation for farmers. I've always made my position clear on that, and do so again. I'd like to move from there to deal with this entire issue of the relationship of the organized trade union move­ ment in Alberta to the research capacity of this govern­ ment in the area of health, safety, education, and train­ ing. I think we should take some time to discuss it in a little detail.

I'm sure the minister's had an opportunity to peruse this, but for the benefit of hon. members who don't have it, it's a document called Hazards in the Workplace, The responses and recommendations of Al­ berta's unionized workers. It was prepared for the Alber­ ta Federation of Labour. Mr. Chairman, the reason I raise the question very directly relates to the executive

summary. The executive

summary says, and this is a program which would involve: a variety of approaches (mix of training courses) which includes: an instructor's training program; a comprehensive health and safety representative course; a basic introductory course; and shorter, industry-specific and hazard-specific courses. Then it goes on, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Minister: It is recommended that the program be imple­ mented over a four-year period at an approximate cost of $1.5 million. It is further recommended that there be joint government-union funding with the objective of union self-funding by the end of the period.

Over the four-year period, unions would con­ tribute $645,000 while government's share would be $855,000. The Alberta Federation of Labour would be responsible for administering the program. The recommended program is based on a hazard inventory which demonstrates that although thou­ sands of workers are faced with numerous hazards to their health and safety they are not adequately trained to protect themselves.

Further, it is based on the assumption that a well-informed, properly trained workforce will help to reduce workplace in­ jury, disease and suffering; improve productivity: and cut workers' compensation and medical costs to society as a whole. Mr. Chairman, the minister was asking for positive suggestions on where we go from here. I would say to the minister that this particular proposal, in my view, would certainly qualify as an area where we should be working closely, using heritage trust fund money to follow through on the proposal made by the Alberta Federation of Labour. Mr.

Chairman, I'm quick to defend the work and the contribution of farmers. On the other hand, I have never been afraid to defend the role of the trade union movement. I think it's very important. I just want to underline this for other members. On page 50 and 51 of this report, it's very important to note just how much money is already being spent by unions in this province in the area of health and safety training and education. The very thing the minister is responsible for. On page 51, Mr.

Sentes observes: It is quite possible that the total amount spent by the AFL [Alberta Federation of Labour] and its affi­ liates during an average year is well over $1,000,000. Mr. Chairman, that's equal to the appropriation this Legislature is making available and is an indication that the trade union movement is in fact doing an excellent job on this issue. Too often trade unions get bad publici­ ty, because the only time they receive any publicity is when there is a strike and people see the pickets marching around. MR.

CHAIRMAN: I apologize for interrupting the hon. member, but the hour designated for government busi­ ness has now elapsed. MR. CRAWFORD: I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. [Motion carried] [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] MR. APPLEBY: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has had under consideration certain resolutions, reports progress thereon, and requests leave to sit again. MR. SPEAKER: Having heard the report and the re­ quest for leave to sit again, do you all agree? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

2190 ALBERTA HANSARD December 8, 1981 head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 201. Moved by Mr. Batiuk:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the government to consider entering into negotiations with the government of Canada to withdraw Alberta from the Canadian Wheat Board designated area. [Adjourned debate October 20: Mr. Schmidt] MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure this after­ noon to add just a few more comments to those I had the opportunity to address the last time the motion came before the House, and to speak again to the hon. Member for Vegreville who presented Resolution 201.

The presen­ tation of the motion provides each and every one of us with an opportunity to stop and assess the system of grain handling within this province and Canada, the operation of the Wheat Board itself, and whether our end results and our own personal views are such that they fall into line with the motion as it stands; in other words, the demise of the Canadian Wheat Board as far as the province of Alberta is concerned, variations of that reso­ lution, or the use and continuation of the Canadian Wheat Board with some recommended changes. If I remember correctly, Mr.

Speaker, in the comments I made prior to the motion, the direction I personally felt was that some changes are necessary in the system of grain handling within the province; hence some changes to the operation of the Canadian Wheat Board as they effect the province of Alberta was the basic trend of the remarks that I brought forward at that time.

It's interesting to note that just the other day, the last announcement on behalf of the Canadian Wheat Board was a year's supply of wheat to Japan, and the sale for the coming year of 1.3 million tonnes of wheat and 900,000 tonnes of barley — a fair sized sale, recognizing that the total goal for the shipment of grain by the Canadian Wheat Board on behalf of Canada represents some 26 million tonnes. It's an admirable target, and I wish them luck. I think the problem perhaps may lend itself more close­ ly to the movement of that amount rather than the actual, physical sale.

I mention that part for two basic reasons. Within the province, as we come to the close of a record crop in excess of 15 million tonnes, at a time even with a very limited quota, we find ourselves with the total eleva­ tor system in the province pretty well plugged because of grain. With an indication that even though rolling stock is moving at a fairly rapid pace and there are no indica­ tions of any hindrance at the ports, we still find ourselves in a condition where it's difficult for individual producers to deliver the balances of their quotas. It's a challenge that lies before us.

Not only is the Canadian Wheat Board responsible for the sales of the products grown but also it controls the transportation tied to those sales. It's also interesting to note that as recently as last week, the week before, statements were being made by various organized groups, and in fact the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, at looking further afield at areas where perhaps a commod­ ity such as canola would fall under the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board.

On one hand, we have it being considered that all those commodities not now outside should fall under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board; and some producers looking at those now controlled by the Wheat Board, looking at opportunities to have those freedoms withdrawn. Mr.

Speaker, on behalf of a province that's somewhat different, although we produce 35 per cent of all the grain in Canada, the production within the province of Alberta in the area of hard spring wheat, which is of course Canada's key, is perhaps to a lesser extent produced in a different way than, we will say, our sister province to the east, Saskatchewan.

In other words, some of the quotas that are established with Saskatchewan farms in mind may or may not meet our needs here within the province because of the versatility of the producers and the varied numbers of commodities which we grow, especially crops that find themselves perhaps more aligned to the province of Alberta than other provinces. I was pleased to note that the Canadian Wheat Board has of late taken an interest in soft white wheat, and has established markets. They have recognized that it is a saleable commodity, and markets do exist.

As it is one of the specialities in this province, perhaps that's a direction the Board may have to extend and look at some of the specialty crops grown, whether they be entirely in the province of Alberta or in other provinces as well. If they fall under their jurisdiction, they will continue to be grown and, in some cases, expanded as new varieties come to the fore and some of the growth moves farther north out of the higher heat units that exist in the irri­ gated areas down in the southern part of the province.

One could pass judgment, and I'm sure the individual producers throughout the province have a number of suggestions on how the Canadian Wheat Board could better serve their individual needs. Some would like to go further, and some would like to withdraw those that exist at the present time.

I suggest to all hon. members that, faced with presentation on behalf of the federal govern­ ment, increased production is the key and the password for the future in agriculture, recognizing the goals that have been established this year for sales and for delivery and recognizing our own capabilities, both our ability to produce and the varieties of products we produce.

The challenge that lies ahead for the Canadian Wheat Board in its present form is certainly going to be difficult to meet: the challenge of marketing and delivery, which are tied basically in our total transportation system and our package; the differences of opinion that exist in that particular route at the present time; the opportunities of bringing all those other grains, whether they be specialties or not, under the purview of the Wheat Board: or whether we withdraw those that are now totally the responsibility of the Board itself.

The other question of representation as a province: perhaps it's time that consideration be given for this province, recognizing that as a producer of 35 per cent of all the grain for Canada, it may be timely that a commis­ sioner to represent this province be part of the Canadian Wheat Board. At present, we have advisory board mem­ bers.

We feel that the job ahead of them and the job they have been doing in bringing to the board itself the feel­ ings of Alberta producers has been well done, recognizing that as a major producer, perhaps a commissioner on the board itself, plus the advisory board members, would be a goal and certainly not asking too much on behalf of Alberta producers. Mr. Speaker, we come to the time when some change has to be made. The question is to what degree and the matter of timing. Although the motion itself suggests that perhaps the province of Alberta withdraw from the des­

December 8, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 2191 ignated area — in other words, withdraw from the Wheat Board as an agency for the marketing and delivery of the grain products we grow in this province — a change of the existing system into something that would meet, perhaps to a better degree, the marketing of our Alberta grain would be a partial solution, recognizing that we are a producer of many products. If the future, through the irrigated areas in southern Alberta, makes even more specialty crops available — and one comes to mind.

If anyone thought five years ago that we would be a producer of corn as a grain, even though a fair amount of corn was grown for silage, we now have an industry in the southern part of the province growing corn for grain. There's only one way it will go, Mr. Speaker. It will grow. Again, that provides another challenge for whatever system we work under as to marketing and delivery of yet another product. In closing, Mr.

Speaker, I can only sum up by saying that if I were to have a choice, I would prefer the Canadian Wheat Board to operate, first of all, in the area of a seller of Canada's number one product, the No. 1 hard spring wheats.

If the board were to consider or continue in the markets of all the other grains of which it now has the authority, if at any time, those markets were abandoned by the board; in other words, if through a specialty crop, the time element did not allow for an orderly marketed system, they would voluntarily pass that opportunity back to provinces to handle the sales of those specialities and commodities. I think producers of a special commodity — I'm thinking now of canola — would have the opportunity to have a choice before the total production of canola were placed under the board.

That should be a choice of the producer groups themselves. Mr. Speaker, in regard to the motion, I agree that we're faced with some challenges, some change. I thank the hon. member for bringing forth the motion that would give us the opportunity to air not only our con­ cerns but some of the suggestions for change for the future on behalf of producers within the province. MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a few comments with respect to Motion No. 201, brought to this Legislature by the hon. Member for Vegreville.

First of all, I want to say this: I don't believe that the member's intention in bringing this motion to the floor of the Legislature was to do explicitly as the motion suggests. I recall that the timing of this had to do with the advent of the program advocated by the famous advisory board to the Canadian Wheat Board, largely controlled by the left wing in Saskatchewan, which put out a market assurance plan, MAP, for producer reaction across western Cana­ da. They got that reaction very quickly, including the placing on our Order Paper of Motion No. 201 by the hon.

Member for Vegreville, who, incidentally, is a member of the Alberta Grain Commission as well and extremely knowledgeable about these matters. At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that in spite of all the problems with the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board and the different policy directions they might take in a variety of areas which I will come to in my remarks, I believe the Canadian Wheat Board, on balance, is an effective way for western Canadian farmers to market grain throughout the world. I want to talk about that later.

At the outset, I want to explain how I would look at what we should do with the Canadian Wheat Board, by comparing it with the four political parties in the prov­ ince of Alberta. First I make reference to the NDP and use some comments made a few weeks ago by my hon. friend the Associate Minister of Public Lands and Wild­ life, when we were discussing a government program.

I would say that if the Canadian Wheat Board operated with the kind of philosophical policy and management system that the socialist party in Alberta does, I would hit it on the head; in other words, we would end it, put it out of its misery, and farmers could go about the business of growing grain and marketing it. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, if the Canadian Wheat Board's operations were like the Alberta Liberal Party, I would let it live, because it doesn't hurt anybody. We don't hear about it very often. Every once in a while, it flies overseas for several weeks, and there's no problem.

Why hit something on the head when it isn't hurting anybody? If the Canadian Wheat Board's operations were like the Alberta Progressive Conservative Party, the odd shortcoming — not very many; the odd one — operating smoothly and effectively, sometimes throughout the night and into the wee hours of the morning, I would just want to make a few touch-ups in its operations, once in a while provide it with an additional policy suggestion or two, and tell it to move forward quickly with its business of marketing grain for western Canadian farmers.

If the Canadian Wheat Board operated like the Social Credit Party of Alberta, which has some major weaknesses, needs a good overhaul, makes the odd spurt in the direc­ tion of public relations and then sort of retreats from that; if it had an absentee leader, a senator who couldn't get elected in Saskatchewan who now runs that organiza­ tion, similar to the leader of the Social Credit Party who I don't think has ever run for election in the provincial House — no doubt I would not want to hit it on the head, not leave it alone, but make some major changes in that operation. Mr.

Speaker, my conclusion is that the Canadian Wheat Board operations do need some major changes, and I'd like to elaborate just a bit further on those major changes in terms of where they should start. Surely it is incumbent upon any government in Canada to put in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, the most important selling agency with respect to agriculture in western Canada, someone who at least has enough confidence in the people he represents to go out and get himself elected.

Frankly, I don't think that operation can survive more than another year or two of leadership by the senator who has been appointed to that position. Probably the only thing that could be worse would be if they had picked a senator from Alberta who failed to get elected. Mr. Speaker, I want to review a number of things in connection with the Canadian Wheat Board operation, but before doing that, take a look at the market as­ surance plan as outlined a year ago by the Canadian Wheat Board advisory committee and put forward in a paper for consideration by western Canadian grain farm­ ers.

I want to refer very briefly to the objectives of that plan that are listed by that organization, that advisory committee, as being three in number: 1. To provide a strong incentive to farmers to increase production (more seeded acres and higher yields). 2. To reinforce the ability of the Canadian Wheat Board to meet market demand effectively and efficiently. 3. To eliminate "distressed" feed grain prices in Western Canada, thus helping to provide equi­ ty in the domestic livestock industry as well as

2192 ALBERTA HANSARD December 8, 1981 assuring supplies for an important growing market for western grains. All very, very laudable objectives, Mr. Speaker, which need to be assessed very carefully before one would agree with such a plan. Let's start out and see what indeed is positive about the MAP objectives. First of all, it's a positive thing indeed "to provide a strong incentive to farmers to increase production". It's a strong incentive indeed if the market assurance plan, as it was outlined, in fact will do that.

It's a strong objective indeed if after having done that, the world market place, the system of transportation, and the selling of grain in western Canada will provide that farmer with a return that's reasonable, that will pay for the input costs of machinery and all the other things farmers are faced with today. The second objective, "to reinforce the ability of the Canadian Wheat Board to meet market demand", really relates to the first.

In other words, what we're saying is that there may be the odd year when there are insufficient stocks of certain kinds of grain the Canadian Wheat Board doesn't have and for which there is a world market demand. So the objectives should be to grow as much as possible to fill the storage in both the country elevator system and on the farm with a variety of kinds and grades of grain so that we never run short. All very, very fine objectives, Mr. Speaker, but one must assess how we're going to meet those objectives and what the market assurance program said about that.

If one gets to the end of the objectives as outlined by the Canadian Wheat Board advisory committee, you will see a little comment that says: Related Programs: The Federal Government and/or Provincial Gov­ ernments should be responsible for carrying charges on a specified quantity of carried over grain, as required to stabilize the domestic feed grain market and to contribute to international food security. Mr. Speaker, there in a nutshell is the entire MAP program.

Quite frankly, it says farmers should be allowed and encouraged to produce to the very utmost without due regard for market demand throughout the world, and that the federal government and/or the provincial gov­ ernments in the western region — and I'm not sure why provincial governments in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta should be the ones to foot the bill for Canada's contribution to international food security. It seems to me it might be useful to call on the people of Toronto to pitch in a little if we're talking about international food security.

Surely that's not something that farmers from three of 10 provinces in Canada would pay for. But who should pay is another issue, and we could debate that at length. The fact of the matter is that if there's enough money in the government treasury, both federal and provincial, to pay farmers in this province and across western Canada a fair value for whatever they produce, regardless of market demand, it's a very excellent plan and a laud­ able objective. Let me suggest to you, Mr.

Speaker, that federal and provincial dollars have been allocated in some form or another to the grains industry with respect to production, marketing, and transportation. I need only mention in Alberta the commitment that this Legislature and our government made to the purchase of 1,000 hopper cars, which are being discussed with programs this Legislature has been debating in Committee of Sup­ ply and the Heritage Savings Trust Fund over the last several weeks — very extensive dollars in that area. Not more than a month ago, the hon. Premier, the hon. Minister of Agriculture, and the hon.

Minister of Economic Development announced the signing of an agreement that would provide extensive funds, from both the General Revenue Fund of this province and the Heritage Savings Trust Fund with respect to the devel­ opment of a major terminal for grain handling in Prince Rupert — very extensive funds again with the objective of making sure that when we get to Prince Rupert we have a place to store grain, and that unit trains won't be held up waiting for ships to enter the terminal that exists there now. Mr.

Speaker, I could go on at length in the involvement of this government alone with respect to grain handling. Let's look briefly at the federal government. For years, that government has been involved in a variety of pro­ grams to assist in the movement of grain handling throughout Canada: the entire rail system upgrading and branch line subsidies that are in place there, and the guaranteeing from time to time of initial payments by the Canadian Wheat Board — and that has happened in past years.

As well, that government does a great number of things with respect to assisting in the financing of the production, marketing, and sale of western Canadian grains. Does anyone for one moment believe that a new program of those two levels of government, of paying the cost of storing grain, for however long, for people who are growing it to meet a market that doesn't signal them, can be born without detracting from some other govern­ ment expenditures?

Does anyone suggest that the gov­ ernment of Alberta would have entered into a hopper car purchase program through the Heritage Savings Trust Fund and entered into an agreement to put extensive dollars into the terminal at Prince Rupert if at the same time the government of Alberta was paying $500 million from the General Revenue Fund every year in storage charges for grain that was being produced for a market that didn't exist? Let's just think about the traditional grain production in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, in the Palliser tri­ angle.

It's significantly easier for 80 per cent of western Canada's farmers to grow wheat than it is anything else. Over the years, we've developed very good varieties of wheat that don't give us the kinds of problems we have with oil seeds and other specialty crops. The existing marketing system for wheat is probably better than the marketing system for barley, at least on the international market.

If you did not have any signals in the market place with regard to what to produce, and if you could get the same kind of income from producing wheat under the market assurance program, in all likelihood within a few years you would see the very beneficial thing that has occurred: farmers moving into other crops, demands would be altered, and we would go back to what many of us have referred to in years past as the one-crop economy. On the other side of the coin, the same thing could happen with respect to production of oil seeds. We've had our market demands up and down.

In this province and in western Canada, canola follows quite closely the mar­ kets with respect to soya bean oil and meal, and other vegetable oils and types of meal. Indeed, there are times when we are required, because of world demands and market conditions, to cut back on our production of canola. Indeed, we would not cut back. If we're canola growers, the opportunity is there to grow it, and the market assurance plan guarantees us a price no matter what the world or domestic market conditions, we simply

December 8, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 2193 wouldn't be involved. I could go on at some length about the financial and market signal problems that could, and ultimately would, exist if the market assurance program were put into place. There are some fairly good features to this program, though, and I'd like to talk about them. As a matter of fact, one is the proposal that the market assurance pro­ gram would seek to improve the equitability between prairie grain producers marketing through the Canadian Wheat Board system, by paying for our on-farm storage costs. Let's talk about storage costs for a little bit.

To start with, the market assurance plan suggests that there would be some incentives for people to move their pro­ duction into the primary elevator system as rapidly as possible, but then it goes on to suggest we should do something about on-farm storage. Mr. Speaker, as you know, during the period of 1971 to '75 I was vice-chairman of the Alberta Grain Commis­ sion and at that time took quite an interest in what we could do to improve the equity that existed in Alberta vis-a-vis one producer against another, in terms of deli­ very.

During the term that I served as Minister of Agri­ culture, I had the pleasure of presenting a proposal to a quota review committee that was established by the min­ ister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board — at that time the Hon. Otto Lang, who has not yet made it to the Senate — that I think has a great deal more validity than MAP and would do a great deal to alleviate congestion in country elevators, to bring some fairness and equity into the delivery opportunities that would exist throughout the western Canadian grain production area, regardless of how far an individual might be from market.

I want to review that briefly, Mr. Speaker. The submis­ sion I made to the quota review committee on behalf of the government of Alberta contained an approach that would provide some incentives for carrying grain on farm storage. There is no question that the cheapest place to store grain in western Canada, aside from the ports, is on the farm. I say aside from the ports — it's more costly to store grain there but it is in position to be sold, and it's important that we have sufficient quantities in position all the time to make spot sales and to meet our long-term delivery commitment.

But when you get out into the country, it really isn't very cost effective to plug your elevators with grains that are not being sold, not in demand, and to pay the kinds of storage charges we do to the country elevator system. I recall, Mr. Speaker, in January 1970, having pre­ sented to my colleagues at a Progressive Conservative policy conference on agriculture in Red Deer a policy paper involving the marketing of barley through the Canadian Wheat Board system.

I did a little research and found that some elevators in the town of Sexsmith had barley stored in them that had been there for up to eight years and had not yet been marketed. I don't have to tell you what that cost western Canadian grain producers.

The program I proposed to the Canadian Wheat Board quota review committee was an established, initial pay­ ment at the beginning of the crop year, August 1, for every grade and kind of grain, then a sliding scale of increased payments over the course of the crop year which would reflect the storage costs for farmers, which would be less than the cost that might have been incurred by the country elevator system, plus some return to the farmer for his loss of interest on the moneys that might have been gained from the sale of that commodity, plus some reasonable amount for risk and insurance.

The ef­ fect would have been that if I were ready to market, say, 1,000 bushels of wheat on September 1 in the crop year 1981, I would have received, if I had taken it to the country elevator system, $100 per tonne, we'll use as a figure. If I had deferred the delivery and sale of that wheat into the Canadian Wheat Board marketing system for 10 months, to July 1982, taking the pooled price that exists, I would have received $116.50 per tonne.

The effect of this would have been to create an incen­ tive for people to store grain on their farms as opposed to creating an incentive for farmers to move grain into the country elevator system. Just ask yourself as a farmer the question, what is the most effective thing to do with your grain crop the day you get it harvested? Under today's system, the best thing to do is to haul it to the country elevator system. You don't have to sell it. You can take out a storage ticket. You don't have to worry about gaining income in an income tax year. If you don't want it, you can defer that.

But if you haul it into the system in September, you do a couple of things. You avoid the deep winter snow. You absolve yourself of any risk for spoilage, or fire, or all the other kinds of things that can happen to stored grain. You're able to collect at any time you want by simply making a phone call to the elevator agent and saying, put my cheque in the mail. There is no incentive to provide for any kind of orderly market. Mr.

Speaker, the final part of my proposal at that time suggested that in addition to that system, the Canadian Wheat Board should have a policy of providing some incentive payments throughout the course of the year if in any given month the Canadian Wheat Board required certain kinds and grades of grain for delivery to its customers. In other words, if the price in January for No. 1 wheat was $107 a tonne as opposed to $100 in August, but it was urgently required in the system to meet our market commitments, there might be a premium of $5 per tonne on wheat delivered during the course of that month.

That system would have been fair to producers wherever they resided from elevator systems. Mr. Speaker, I want to go on quickly and talk about a couple of other things with respect to the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board. In my view, certainly there is room for a system that encompasses the best of two worlds. I believe it should continue to be the case that the Canadian Wheat Board would have sole responsibility for the marketing of red wheats throughout our market area.

I believe, however, that it is essential that consideration be given to allowing the private grain trade in Canada to market both feed barley and malting barley in world markets in competition with the Canadian Wheat Board. I believe the same case could be made for soft white winter wheat. I would not suggest that we make a unilat­ eral change to say that the Canadian Wheat Board would no longer be a marketer of barley or white winter wheat.

But I do believe that significant opportunities exist for the Cargills, the Bunges, and even the Alberta and Sas­ katchewan wheat pools and others to get involved in international marketing of feed grains, in particular malt­ ing barley. [Mr. Purdy in the Chair] Just think about malting barley for a little bit. From western Canada we sell malting barley around the world. We also sell it to Canada Malting in Calgary. Anyone who has farmed in this province knows that if you trot down to the elevator with your sample of malting barley, and if you live in the part of the country that I come

2194 ALBERTA HANSARD December 8, 1981 from, one time out of 50 your sample of malting barley is accepted; not because it is too poor for malting barley, but simply because in Alberta we grow about four times as much malting barley as Canada Malting wants. Where the balance goes, I don't know. It goes into the system as feed grain, and I guess it comes out of the system as malting barley sold by somebody. If it's the Canadian Wheat Board, some year I wish they would give the report on that. If it's a private grain trade, some year I wish they would pay us a little more.

But the point is that if the private grain trade was actively involved in the export marketing of malt barley, then we'd have some people to sell to besides the single purchaser of Canada Malting in Calgary. I'm not criticizing Canada Malting Company. If you're the only one purchasing malting barley in western Canada, surely you should pick and choose, and they do. Mr. Speaker, if I could move on very quickly to some other matters with respect to marketing grain in western Canada, I had the privilege of visiting the U.S.S.R. in 1976 with Premier Lougheed.

We met with a number of important ministers, including Premier Kosygin, and Exportkleb, the U.S.S.R's international purchasing agen­ cy, to discuss the sales of Canadian grain to that country. As I said earlier in this Legislature, we were extremely well received and it was a useful trip. One of the things we insisted upon when we returned was that the Cana­ dian Wheat Board and the federal government, in partic­ ular, play a leadership role in developing some long-term contracts for the U.S.S.R.

While it may have been that Exportkleb, their marketing purchasing agency, preferred not to have long-term contracts and would rather buy on a yearly basis, it was evident from the discussion we had with the U.S.S.R. that they were honoring their long- term commitments to purchase from the United States, even though they said they would rather purchase Cana­ dian grains. Mr. Speaker, that's an exercise in having made some suggestions, I guess, and seeing some very rewarding action taken.

We now have a situation where the Cana­ dian Wheat Board, as I understand it, has signed some long-term contracts with the Soviet Union, and have others under discussion with other major trading partners which, hopefully, will be completed. Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude with a couple of comments. On the plus side, in 1981 and into the 1980s I believe it's essential that Canada maintain a state trading agency in grains, because we do a major portion of our business today with countries like the U.S.S.R., China, and others whose way of trading is to use state trading agencies.

Canada has been well served in those markets by having an organization like the Canadian Wheat Board. The other remark I want to make in conclusion is that I have had some considerable conversations over the years with Mr. Esmond Jarvis, chief commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board. I would say this about his inten­ tions and his ability: I believe he is anxious and sincere about doing the best job he possibly can under the circumstances with respect to marketing Canadian grain. However, I believe that if the hon.

Don Mazankowski, Minister of Transport responsible for that organization for a short nine months, had been able to serve out a tenure of three or four years, we would have had a dramatic turn-around in the marketing, transportation, and selling of grain in this country such as we've never seen before. As well, I believe Albertans and western Canadian grain farmers are benefiting today from the short one year plus that was spent by Dr. Hugh Horner, former Deputy Premier in this government and member of this Legislature, in his tenure in setting up and being head of the Grain Transportation Authority.

During the one year Dr. Horner was in charge of that authority, there was an increase in excess of 20 per cent over the previous year in terms of movement of grain from the country elevator system to our port system. If that kind of increase can be achieved under the minister I referred to and under the leadership of Dr. Horner in operating the Grain Transportation Authority. I believe increases perhaps that dramatic could have continued year after year. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, my fear now is that the Grain Transportation Authority will not be allowed to live.

It doesn't appear that the federal Liberal government has the interest at heart of letting it live. Surely the minister responsible, the unelected Senator, doesn't want to let it live. My closing comment is that if that's a fait accompli, if the federal government wants to do away with the Grain Transportation Authority, it owes western Canadian farmers a major shake-up in the Canadian Wheat Board system.

By major shake-up, I mean starting at the top by putting an elected official into a responsible position with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board, then moving to appoint an astute and knowledgeable Albertan as a commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board — I can think of one or two who could be suggested — and moving forward with some aggressive marketing policies throughout the 1980s that will ensure that we can stand in this Legislature 10 years from now and say, yes, the Canadian Wheat Board is doing a good job and it should be kept. MRS. CRIPPS: I move that we adjourn debate. [Motion carried] 208. Moved by Mr.

R. Speaker:

Be it resolved that this Assembly urge the government to suspend the maximum petroleum production regulation under The Mines and Minerals Act for 30 days as an indication to all Canadians of Alberta's good will and serious intent to negotiate, in good faith, an energy pric­ ing agreement with the federal government. [Adjourned debate October 20: Mrs. Cripps] MRS. CRIPPS: Mr. Speaker, I didn't have much time to talk on this motion last time, but I was reading through my notes, the speech, and the information given in the last debate.

The motion was untimely and ill-conceived at that time, and it's even more untimely and ill-conceived today. Mr. Speaker, the petroleum marketing production reg­ ulation was established in reaction to the imposition of the national energy program on Canada in the budget of 1980. It was detrimental and devastating. It had that kind of effect on Alberta and, in fact, on all the Canadian economy. In retrospect, the province of Alberta had abso­ lutely no choice. Anything more would have been used by the federal government to take over our natural re­ sources.

Anything less would have been totally unaccept­ able to Albertans. Even at the time of this motion, the effect of the national energy program and the federal budget had become apparent in the Drayton Valley constituency. There can be no doubt left in anyone's mind of their

December 8, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 2195 detrimental impact. The intent of the national energy program was to shut down the western basin and direct all oil activity to federal lands. Even today in Drayton Valley, Nisku, Swan Hills, Fox Creek, Valleyview, Rocky Mountain House, Brooks, and Whitecourt, there has not been a resurgence of activity. The service industry is working at approximately 40 per cent capacity. There are 43 service rigs in Drayton Valley. Last week, between 10 and 14 of them were working.

The plain truth is that the imposition of the PGR tax, or wellhead tax, and the incremental oil re­ venue tax have caused low production wells in Alberta to be uneconomical to produce or service. Small independent oil companies are suffering too. Recently I received a letter from a resource company. We're talking about Canadian companies which have a cash flow of under $10 million. They're small. One hundred fifty-seven of th