April 16, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 481 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Monday, April 16, 1984 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce a very distinguished visitor to our Assembly this afternoon, in your gallery. I suppose I could say that he is junior to me both in years, by very little, and in time at the bar, without any noticeable effect. The fact of the matter is that the Hon.

Roy McMurtry, the Attorney General of Ontario, is one of the distinguished legal minds and parliamentarians in Canada, much known to Canadians across the country for his partici­ pation in so many areas of federal/provincial relationships; a distinguished representative of his province, so welcome here today. I ask him to stand and be welcomed by members of the Assembly. MR. KING: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to introduce to you, and through you to members of the Assembly, one of three Japanese teachers visiting Canada this year, each of them for a three-month term, so that they can assist teachers in Canada with the development of curricular materials about life in Japan. As it happens, two of these teachers are in Alberta. One of them has earlier been in the province, and the guest I'm intro­ ducing this afternoon has just arrived and will be with us until the end of June. All hon. members know that Alberta is twinned with the prefecture of Hokkaido, Japan.

For the purpose of that rela­ tionship, as well as for the benefit of our students, it is important to have these opportunities to develop materials that can be used in our school system. I'd like to welcome Miss Wakako Nakano, from Sendai City in Japan, here under the sponsorship of the international teachers' internship. She is accompanied this afternoon by Mr. Michael McCarthy of St. Francis Xavier high school in the city, and they are seated in your gallery. I ask that they rise and receive the welcome of the House. MR. SCHMID: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to introduce to you and to members of this Assembly two young ladies who are here under the sponsorship of the International Organization for Moral Rearmament. They are Miss Catherine Hutchinson, from Great Britain, and Renate Assam, from Austria. They are accompanied by one of my constituents, Mrs. Joy Newman. I ask them to rise to receive the welcome of this Assembly. head: PRESENTING PETITIONS MR. STILES: Mr.

Speaker, I beg leave to present the following petition that has been received for a private Bill: the petition of the town of Grand Centre for the Grand Centre expropriation Act. head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table the annual report of the Alberta Municipal Financing Corporation for the calendar year ended December 31, 1983. MRS. LeMESSURIER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the annual report of the Alberta Cultural Heritage Foundation for the year ended March 31, 1983. MR. STEVENS: Mr.

Speaker, I wish to table the Public Service Commissioner's annual report for the calendar year ended December 31, 1983. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. TOPOLNISKY: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted this after­ noon to introduce to you and to members of the Assembly 27 fine young Albertans from Eleanor Hall school in the village of Clyde, in the Redwater-Andrew constituency. They are accompanied by their teachers Mr. Truckey and Mr. Kane. They are in the members gallery, and I ask that they rise and receive a welcome. MR. STROMBERG: Mr.

Speaker, it's my privilege today to introduce to you and to members of this Legislative Assembly some 75 students from Chester Ronning school in Camrose. They are seated in the public gallery. Before I ask them to be recognized, I might add that this grade 6 class visits the Assem­ bly each year. In June of this year they will have their annual camp-out on their principal's farm, and I plan to take

part in it. I now ask them to rise and be welcomed by the Assembly. MR. McPHERSON: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure for me today to introduce to you and to hon. members 55 grades 5 and 6 students from Pines community school, situated in the con­ stituency of Red Deer. The Pines school is one of three schools in Alberta that have been awarded designated community school status by the interdepartmental community school com­ mittee. This fine award, this circumstance for Red Deer, has developed after about five years of very extensive voluntary participation by members of Pines community in Red Deer. Mr.

Speaker, our students are accompanied today by their principal, Mr. Opatril; teachers Eleanor Coene, Rick Moore, and Kelly Buday; and bus driver Peter Huebner. I ask them to rise in the members gallery and receive the cordial welcome of the House. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to you, and through you to Members of the Legislative Assembly, the first committee established under the Health Occupations Act to govern the practice of the occupation of respiratory tech­ nologists in the province of Alberta. The members are: chair­ man Mr. James Harold Coward, Dr.

Frank Alexander Herbert, Ms Marlene Elaine Irwin, Mr. Albert John Maiani, and Mr. Keith Wilson. They are seated in the members gallery, and I ask that they rise and receive the welcome of the Assembly. head: MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Department of Education MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to inform the House and all Albertans that the Great Trade Show of China, which opened in our city last Saturday, will be pro­ viding more than 40,000 of our students with a very significant educational experience.

My colleagues have already informed you of this remarkable trade show, so further elaboration is not necessary.

482 ALBERTA HANSARD April 16, 1984 Mr. Speaker, through Alberta Education, arrangements have been made to bring students in grades 6 through 9 to Edmonton to visit the fair. Travel subsidies exceeding $65,000 have been provided on an equitable basis so that students from every corner of the province are able to be involved. For the students, this visit will complement the social studies unit on China, which is offered to all our grade 6 students. The unit has adequately prepared the students to obtain maximum benefit from the visit. Mr.

Speaker, let me take just a brief moment to outline the scope of this unit of study. It requires three months of study in the social studies curriculum. It deals primarily with modem China. In an appropriate way, it encourages children to think about what the Chinese people can learn from us and what we can learn from them. It covers in detail the Chinese family, the community, industry, commerce, and technology. It dis­ cusses the ways in which the modernization of China has been occurring. Mr.

Speaker, I am proud to say that our people have rec­ ognized this very important fair and have encouraged and made possible visits from as many of our students as possible. Fur­ ther, our teachers and our students have responded to the occa­ sion. Active participation will reinforce in these young Albertans the recognition of international trade as vital to our future. Thank you. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to respond to the min­ isterial statement today. I think all Albertans will join with some sense of pride in the fact that we have in this city the Great Trade Show of China.

As we ponder this important trade show for just a moment, perhaps it's worth noting that a good deal of history has gone past which has made a show of this nature possible. It's inter­ esting that the hon. minister identified a

section of the curric­ ulum for grade 6 students. Mr. Speaker, Alberta Education might want to reflect on a little bit of our own history as it relates to modern China. Over the weekend I had an opportunity to attend a banquet in Toronto, our honoured guest from Ontario's capital city, honouring one of the great Canadians, Tommy Douglas, a man who argued and fought for recognition by Canada of the People's Republic of China. Members of the government will note that the Hon. Alvin Hamilton, who was Minister of Agri­ culture in the first Diefenbaker government, was renominated over the weekend.

We have trade links with China today because Mr. Hamilton, a Conservative, departed from tradi­ tional policy and sold wheat to the People's Republic of China. Then I suppose in this atmosphere of ecumenical recognition of our relationship with the People's Republic, we had the decision of our present Prime Minister to recognize the People's Republic in the early part of his term. A number of years of history, but history which has made it possible, as a result of changes in our attitudes, to host an important trade show today. In adding to the ministerial statement, Mr.

Speaker, the only comment I would make is that while this trade show underlines the importance of international trade to the future — no question about that; all members agree — just as it is important to recognize international trade, so must we empha­ size international understanding. At a time when the world faces so many great problems, perhaps it's well that we put inter­ national understanding and give it the focus it deserves. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Abacus Cities Investigation MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my first question to the hon.

Attorney General, with respect to the administration of justice, and ask whether or not the government has received the Alberta Securities Commission's investigation into Abacus Cities' collapse. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would have to check into that and let the hon. leader know. I'm not aware of it having, been received. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, so that he brings back as much information as possible, could I ask the minister a supplemen­ tary question.

When he does that checking, could he also check back as to whether, in that investigation, there is a recom­ mendation that charges be laid for regulatory violations of the Securities Act? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be appro­ priate enough to indicate whether or not recommendations were made with respect to charges in the sort of respect the hon. leader referred to. I might gratuitously add, of course, that no names of citizens would be involved in any such remarks I would make. MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, if I could supplement the answer of my hon. colleague, I would inform the Leader of the Opposition that the Securities Commission has a team of people going through what I understand is a very voluminous report, and information from that group will be coming to both me and the Attorney General. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Could the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs update the Assembly on the cost of the Securities Commission inves­ tigation into Abacus Cities? Last October 25 we were told the cost was about $3.5 million.

Is that still accurate, or have there been additional costs? MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr. Speaker, I believe that information is still accurate. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to either the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs or the hon. Attorney General. With respect to the Securities Com­ mission's Abacus Cities investigation, will the government still stand by the position outlined on April 7, 1981, that should charges not be laid, the investigation will be made public? MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I would have to look up the obligations that were assumed at the time by the minister of the day. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, April 7, 1981. I would ask either hon. minister to outline for the Assembly what policy decisions the government has developed with respect to the time frame for Alberta Securities Commission investigations. This was originally announced in 1979; it's now 1984. Justice delayed is justice denied. What policy consider­ ations has the government developed with respect to a time frame for studies of this nature? MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I can only say that, for my part, obviously I'm very concerned about the amount of time

April 16, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 483 it takes for such an investigation to be concluded. However, it is obviously in the hands of that person or those people who are appointed to conclude such an investigation. To put some parameters, in terms of time, ahead of the eventual report may in fact put some constraints on someone charged with such an onerous responsibility, in terms of fully completing such an investigation. MR. NOTLEY; Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Could the minister advise the Assembly what move has been under­ taken by the commission with respect to

section 167(3), which I will read for the minister. I can't expect her to have it before her. The Commission may . . . certify the day on which the facts referred to in subsection (1) or (2) first came to the knowledge of the Commission. Given the five-year time frame of this particular investigation, could the minister advise whether or not the commission has issued that certificate? MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr. Speaker, I'll have to take that ques­ tion as notice. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Attorney General. Has the government given any con­ sideration to the overall policy with respect to time frames — and I'm dealing with

section 167 of the Act, which basically sets out a one-year statute of limitations from the time the facts first became known to the commission: No proceedings under this Act shall be commenced . . . more than two years from the day that the facts upon which the proceedings are based first came to the knowl­ edge of the Commission. My question, Mr. Speaker, is simply this: if we have five- year investigations after facts become known to the Securities Commission, on what basis can there ever be any prosecution for violation of the Act? MR.

SPEAKER: I'm sure that's a question that could be addressed to every member of the House. I don't think that analysis has anything that is specially within the duties of the hon. minister. MR. NOTLEY: Then let me rephrase the question, Mr. Speaker, and ask the minister whether, given the five-year investigation into Abacus Cities, there is any intention to amend the legislation? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, in saying there is no call to amend that particular

section at the present time, I can respond in a brief way to the hon. member's other question. When an investigation is undertaken, surely it is precisely the facts that come to the attention of the investigator in the course of those inquiries that are spoken of as being the ones that may be the basis for some steps the Securities Commission would want to take.

If that is so, it clearly means that as the process goes on and as facts evolve from an inquiry, as distinct from innuendo or other indications that may be around at any particular time, I would think the argument could safely be made that that is the time when those matters come to the attention of the inves­ tigator. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Attorney General and I will have an opportunity to debate this section. I'd like to direct my second question to the hon. Attorney General too, also related to the administration of justice and to Abacus Cities.

Is the minister in a position to confirm that the Attorney General's department has received recommendations from the RCMP commercial crime division that charges be laid? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I'm not in any position to comment with respect to that matter today. I think the hon. leader would know that the way matters like this are handled, it would be some time before the fact of any actual report or recommendation would come to my attention. If that is the case and if any recommendation has in fact been made, it would be made at another level of the department. Education Quality MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, my question to the Minister of Education is a follow-up to a question I asked last Thursday, in terms of the report from a Canadian Teachers' Federation study. Just to refresh his memory, the minister's response in terms of the relationship of economic recession to quality of education indicated that the circumstances are derived from conditions in the com­ munity beyond the responsibility of the Department of Education or of the local school boards.

My question is: when a force external to the department decreases the quality of education, does the minister not have a responsibility to explore the avenues that address or counteract these forces in some way? Or is the minister's intention just to ignore it and say, that's the way it is? MR. KING: The government doesn't ignore anything that is important to education, Mr. Speaker. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. What steps will the minister be taking to address that concern? MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, we are taking steps to address that concern continuously.

The only point I attempted to make last Thursday afternoon was that we were not taking those steps in direct response to any particular study. Other studies, the com­ mon experience of people in education, are quite enough to tell us what issues we need to address. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question, to be more specific. In the minister's answer to a question last Thursday, referring to the relationship of cutbacks in budget affecting class size, and the quality of education as well, he indicated: "The conclusion does not follow from the evidence that is offered".

Can the minister clarify what he meant by that statement? Is he saying that the increased class size, due to lack of funds, is not responsible for the lack of attention given to students? MR. KING: No, Mr. Speaker. I'm saying that increased class size is not necessarily related to any hypothetical lack of funds. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question which relates to the study as well. What steps has the minister recently taken in the province to determine the level of teacher morale in Alberta, and is the minister satisfied with that teacher morale at this time? MR. KING: Mr.

Speaker, we have not surveyed teachers as to the morale among educators in the province. On the basis of our interaction with teachers and other educators, we believe we've got a pretty good feeling for the morale within education

484 ALBERTA HANSARD April 16, 1984 in the province. On the basis of our interaction with them, we believe that morale is good. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Has the minister had recent discussions with the Alberta Teach­ ers' Association with regard to teacher morale, and is he con­ sidering any type of co-operative study of teacher morale in Alberta with the Alberta Teachers' Association? MR. KING: I have not had any recent discussions with rep­ resentatives of the Alberta Teachers' Association on the ques­ tion of teacher morale.

The Alberta Teachers' Association has not raised the issue with me and has not raised any suggestion to me that we should be involved in a joint study. Therefore I think it's fair to say that we do not have it under active con­ sideration. Health Spa Membership Sales DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, my question to the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has to do with the high- pressure techniques of selling memberships to certain health clubs.

Is the minister in a position to indicate if any complaints have been brought to the minister's department as to the coer­ cive actions of some health clubs to sell memberships, espe­ cially to young people? MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr. Speaker, nothing has crossed my desk, but I'll certainly respond to the hon. member by checking with the department. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate if there have been any thoughts or discussions in the department as to the use of, say, a 24- or 48-hour cooling-off period after these young people have signed contracts that they really didn't want to get into?

Has there been any look at this type of approach? MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr. Speaker, not that I'm aware of. But once again, I'll check. Mount Allan Olympic Ski Site MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my question to the Minister of Tourism and Small Business. I know he likes to talk about Mount Allan, and I'd like to give him another chance. Can the minister inform the Assembly when it is antic­ ipated the master plan for Mount Allan will be approved and presented for public review? MR. ADAIR: Mr.

Speaker, the master plan, which is now in the final stages of completion, will be presented to the Canadian Olympic committee and, after that, filed in the Legislature and made public. As I've said probably eight or 10 times already this spring session, that will be made public as soon as I have received it and had the opportunity to review it and make the presentation to the Olympic committee, and then to make it public. I suggest it will probably be in the early or mid part of May. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

Has the government chosen a private-sector developer for Mount Allan at this point? MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, the choice of words is not nec­ essarily appropriate. We've been negotiating with a member of the private sector, and those negotiations continue. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question to the minister. Has any decision been made about how the project should be funded? In other words, is it government policy that approxi­ mately $20 million in public money will be spent developing Mount Allan? MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, I read the same news article. As I said, the negotiations continue.

If the private sector build it, they will be using their funds. If for some reason we're not able to reach a satisfactory conclusion in the negotiations with the private sector, I have said on a number of occasions that we would then ensure that Mount Allan is prepared and built by the government of Alberta, so it can meet the commitments we made some years ago to the Olympic committee that made its presentation to the International Olympic Committee. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the minister.

Will the government make decisions about how Mount Allan should be developed before the master plan is presented for public review and comment? MR. ADAIR: I'm not sure I understand the question, Mr. Speaker. MR. MARTIN: Let me rephrase it so that the minister under­ stands it. Has any construction work of any sort necessary for the project, road construction for example, started at Mount Allan? MR. ADAIR: Road construction is not part of the actual master plan relative to the construction of the hills.

There is some work going on with the Department of Transportation and the Department of Tourism and Small Business, relative to align­ ments that may be used for approaching that site when we get the final plan completed. MR. MARTIN: Supplementary question to the minister. Is it not unusual to begin this type of work before a master plan is introduced? MR. ADAIR: I'm not aware of the actual problem having occurred previously. But in the case of the Mount Allan site, no. We've been working with the consultants who are preparing the master plan.

All the parties involved have been working with them, so it's known to those who are involved in the project. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question. Can the minister assure this Assembly that no public money will be spent on the snowmaking equipment for Mount Allan, but rather left to the private sector? MR. ADAIR: I can't at this particular point, Mr. Speaker. As I said, we're in negotiations with the private sector.

But should those negotiations not reach fruition and the project [not] be developed by the private sector, the government of Alberta will in fact build the hill and look for an operator or lease purchaser. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary Buffalo, and then the hon. Minister of Economic Development wishes to reply to a question taken as notice.

April 16, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 485 Telephone Toll Revenue Sharing MR. LEE: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Utilities and Telecommunications. Is the minister in receipt of a brief from the chairman of the city of Calgary gas and power committee, in which there is expression of a desire for a specific form of input to the process with regard to the current discus­ sions between AGT and Edmonton Telephones? MR. BOGLE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. On Friday afternoon we received a brief from the city of Calgary, entitled Fair Tele­ phone Rates for All Albertans, and that brief is currently under review. MR.

LEE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the minister. Is action contemplated with respect to an acknowledgment of the substance of that brief by the Calgary gas and power committee? If so, will the minister apprise members of the Assembly from time to time as to progress being made? MR. BOGLE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. MR. LYSONS: I'd like to ask a supplemental question. In the event of Calgary having higher costs with increased fees, has the minister considered moving the AGT office from the city of Edmonton to Calgary or another outlying point? MR. BOGLE: No, Mr. Speaker. Syncrude Contracts MR. PLANCHE: On Friday, Mr.

Speaker, the Member for Edmonton Norwood asked some questions of the Premier. Per­ haps I could take this opportunity to supplement the answer. Before an industrial development permit is issued on major projects in Alberta, we satisfy ourselves that the proponent will adequately source manpower and materiel within the province and within Canada. We assure ourselves that that will happen on the basis that there will be no premium paid for manpower and materiel in the province but that it will be preferred, pro­ viding that all service and quality are equal. We do that, Mr.

Speaker, because exports are so important to Alberta, and indeed to Canada, that we don't think it's appropriate to tend toward protectionism on that issue. Specifically in the case of the $1.2 billion expansion Syn­ crude has announced, so far there have been four contracts issued. There have been two to the PBS group, which is Poole- Braun-Simons. Two-thirds of that consortium is Canadian. The head office is in Calgary and, almost without exception, the engineering will be done in Alberta.

The second one is let to Partec Lavalin, which is a Canadian company, and the engi­ neering for that will all be done in Alberta. In the case of Lummus, which is the fourth one, the project let is not a $200 million project; it's a $3 million project, for design only. It will be done in Canada, and it was for proprietary engineering that simply was not available here. Just to conclude, we're very proud of the response Syncrude has given to this issue. In fact, 75 percent of that overall $1.2 billion expenditure will be made in Alberta, 15 percent in the rest of Canada, and 10 percent outside Canada. MR.

MARTIN: A supplementary question. As usual, the min­ ister must be reading press reports rather than Hansard, because no figures were mentioned. Would the minister confirm that Lummus is a foreign subsidiary of an American company? MR. PLANCHE: Why is Lummus a foreign subsidiary of an American company? MR. MARTIN: Confirm. MR. PLANCHE: Yes they are. They've had an office here for some time. As I said originally, I'm only answering the questions that are credited to the Member for Edmonton Norwood in The Edmonton Journal, which is not always known for its relia­ bility.

It does indicate that the question was about a $200 million contract. For the record, it is only a $3 million contract. The reason Lummus was selected is that there were only two people who had the proprietary engineering; they were both American. Lummus has agreed to do it in Canada. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question to the minister. I suggest he read Hansard. Would the minister confirm that all a company has to do to become an Alberta-based company is secure an Alberta business address and register with Consumer and Corporate Affairs. MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. member is giving advice which might also come from a solicitor. MR. MARTIN: Then I'll ask the question of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. MR. SPEAKER: But the hon. member is asking about incor­ porating companies in Alberta and the legal effect of that — he's not asking, he's telling. I'm saying he is giving advice which could also come from a solicitor. MR. MARTIN: Supplementary question to the hon. Premier. Could the Premier indicate why two of the first contracts have gone outside Alberta when, in a letter to Mr.

Bleiken of the Edmonton Economic Development Authority, the Premier made two key points: the capabilities of Alberta engineering firms have increased such that they can handle a wider range of work, and Alberta and other Canadian suppliers are now com­ petitive with industry at large for price, quality and service. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, there are obviously excep­ tions to that, and perhaps the Minister of Economic Devel­ opment wishes to elaborate. MR. PLANCHE: Mr. Speaker, I seem to be having a com­ munications problem here. The fact is that there are four con­ tracts let.

Three of them will be done almost exclusively in Alberta, and the fourth is a very small one, for design, which will be done in Toronto. MR. MARTIN: There's some debate by businesses about how much of it is being done in Alberta. My supplementary question follows up again to the Premier. One of the questions I asked on Friday the 13th had to do with: . . . confirm to the House that two contracts went to international companies. The Premier said in Hansard: I would just say that we've never sort of put regulations on Syncrude or any organization that in fact they have to do it in a particular way.

486 ALBERTA HANSARD April 16, 1984 My question to the Premier is simply that this seems to contradict the official policy with Syncrude. Could the Premier explain to the House: is there a preference for Alberta-owned businesses or not, dealing with Syncrude? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I guess that really is a matter of clear debate or communication, because I don't see it as contrary to the policy. Perhaps the minister would like to elab­ orate further. MR. PLANCHE: Mr. Speaker, one more time. All things being equal. Alberta suppliers, manpower, and materiel are preferred. MR. SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Clover Bar has given notice of a motion for emergency debate. If we call Orders of the Day, the opportunity for that is gone. So we'll have to make an exception. I have noticed that an hon. member would like to revert to Introduction of Bills. Does the Assembly agree? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill Pr. 6 Concordia Lutheran Seminary Act MR. SZWENDER: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill Pr. 6, the Concordia Lutheran Seminary Act.

The purpose of this Bill is to incorporate a seminary which is currently being operated by the Canadian Lutheran church. [Leave granted; Bill Pr. 6 read a first time] DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I would just like to bring to the attention of the Assembly the matter that the way the rules work, a person could very easily lose his place to ask for an emergency debate, in that you don't really know when the question period is over if it doesn't go to the appointed hour.

So I would like to say that I think we as members of the Assembly should look at that section, because you could very, very innocently miss the opportunity. MR. SPEAKER: On the point of order, I agree with the hon. member that the standing order would be a little more practical if it were to provide that a matter for emergency debate might be raised immediately upon calling Orders of the Day. As Standing Order 30 stands now, it has to be done just before calling Orders of the Day.

That's why, on this occasion and on a previous occasion, I have drawn an hon. member's atten­ tion to it., actually during the end of the question period. DR. BUCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure the Government House Leader has been listening to the comments, and maybe both sides of the House can get together and look at that rule. Request for Emergency Debate DR. BUCK: Mr.

Speaker, I have given notice to you that I'll be requesting leave to adjourn the ordinary business of the Assembly to discuss a matter of urgent public importance: the decision of the University of Alberta to impose across-the-board restrictions on freshman enrollment. I know that everyone who moves this motion quite often gives their speech without really getting permission to give the speech. This may be different for me, but today I'm going to really try to indicate to the Assembly and convince you, Mr. Speaker, and the members of the House, why we should have the emergency debate.

That may be a bit of a departure for me, but I will try to stick to the rules today. Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity to bring to the attention of the House the situation, announced on Friday by the University of Alberta, that there will be a 7.6 percent tuition increase and that 72 percent will be required for entrance. This is the first opportunity to bring this to the attention of members of the Assembly. This is also the first time that we have had an across-the-board imposition of quotas. We've had quotas in certain faculties before.

Looking at an across-the-board quota system at the University of Alberta is setting a precedent. The emergency situation also applies to the fact that at this point in time, high school students are about three-quarters of the way through their school year, and we are really changing horses in the middle of the stream. Students who were looking at getting a 65 percent average and going on to university, now may not have time to gear up so that they can get the 72 percent mark to get into the University of Alberta.

We also have to look at the fact that in light of the very high unemployment in the province at this time, students who will be excluded from going to the University of Alberta cannot get into the job mar­ ket. Conversely, people who were looking at going into the job market now find that if they had a 65 percent average, they could have gone to university if they had the choice. But now, with a 72 percent entrance, they cannot get into the University of Alberta. Mr. Speaker, I well know that the budget of the Department of Advanced Education has been passed. But the entire budget has not been passed.

If we in our wisdom decide to give the University of Alberta sufficient funding so they do not have to impose quotas, it is not too late to do that. So with my brevity, which is unusual, I would just like to say: number one, I believe this is the first opportunity to present the case; number two, it is an emergency; and number three, I am sure that all members of the Assembly would welcome an emergency debate on this issue at this time. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, Will Rogers once asked a friend of his: if you call the tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? The friend said, five.

Will Rogers said: no, four; calling the tail a leg doesn't make it one. It reminds me of my hon. colleague, who said that he was going to limit his remarks to the question of whether or not we have an emergency situation under the rules, and then proceeded to talk about the situation rather than about the emergency nature of the situation. Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that the emergency does not arise in the decision being made but in the immediacy of the implementation of the decision.

The question that we have to consider, in determining whether or not to grant an emergency debate, is whether or not the House will have any other opportunity to debate the question before we are faced with the consequences of the question, whatever those con­ sequences might be. Since we are debating a resolution of the board of governors which I understand will have effect with the commencement of the school year in September, it is quite clear that there are many opportunities for the House to debate the question by resolution of the hon. member, by a Bill, or by other means.

I don't believe he has made the case that there is any urgency to the debate itself. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, in addressing several comments with respect to the request the hon. Member for Clover Bar has made. I respectfully suggest that, first of all, this is a reasonable time to have a debate. It certainly wouldn't be if

April 16, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 487 we had the estimates of the Department of Advanced Education before the House. That would be the appropriate time for the debate. However, as you recall, Mr. Speaker, the estimates of the Department of Advanced Education have already come before the House. Several members of the House raised the prospect of quotas. We were concerned about the possibility that quotas would be imposed. But at the time we held the debate in the House, we were simply forecasting the future, and were not in fact in a position to know the decision of the board of governors. Mr.

Speaker, we still have the budget before the Legislature, but the estimates of the relevant department have been passed. In order to convey to Executive Council, Her Majesty's min­ isters — especially the Minister of Advanced Education — the underlying importance of this matter to the members of the Assembly, in my view an emergency debate is in order. The hon. Member for Clover Bar has cited a number of reasons in terms of the impact this quota decision is going to have on students now in grade 12 throughout the province.

The fact of the matter is that we have a situation where there is no obvious general debate. We've already gone through the Speech from the Throne debate; we've gone through the estimates of the Department of Advanced Education. Therefore it seems to me that the hon. Member for Clover Bar has made a good case. Should you rule that an emergency debate should proceed, my hon. colleague and I will be more than pleased to participate in the debate. We think the fact that the university has now been forced into this unfortunate decision is something we as members of the House must be mindful of.

We must have an opportunity, in unequivocal terms, to bring our concern to the attention of not only the appropriate minister but the appropriate ministers. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the motion by my hon. colleague from Clover Bar. We all recognize that in question period in the Assembly, we raised the matter with regard to changing the ground rules for entrance to the Univer­ sity of Alberta. The answer was continually that the board of governors had not made a decision. On Friday the 13th, that unfortunate decision became public.

Today is the Monday fol­ lowing that Friday, and the issue is now before not only this Legislature but the people of Alberta. The matter is an emer­ gency. First of all, if the board of governors is to reverse their position, they would need input from this Legislature as soon as possible. The cabinet would need to reconsider the finances with regard to Advanced Education, which in turn supports the University of Alberta. The priorities of government may have to be shuffled to meet this commitment.

That means we have an emergency, in the sense that decisions must be made, hope­ fully this week, to change that matter. If we leave the matter until next week or on into May — because that's when the House resumes after the debate this week — or into June, time has passed and I don't think any adjustments can be made. Mr.

Speaker, I certainly urge you to consider the position of my hon. colleague from Clover Bar as to the urgency and need for debate, in terms of the emergency being that now is the time for changed decisions by government as well as the board of governors, to meet the needs of students in the fall of 1984. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I thought I would just debate the question of the emergency somewhat, under the emergency motion provided by the Member for Clover Bar. I acknowledge that during the past couple of weeks, we discussed this issue on many occasions.

On those occasions we always said: subject to the board of governors' decision, we will consider various implications of public policy. I simply want to draw to the attention of members of the Assembly the fact that this motion essentially was discussed during consideration of my estimates on Monday, April 9. Page 371 of Hansard, for example, clearly states that if the board of governors does make an assumption with respect to enroll­ ment criteria, in particular the 72 percent which in fact has become the board's decision, then certain events would unfold.

We went on in this Legislative Assembly to give a very wide consideration of that public policy problem. So in terms of the Standing Orders we adhere to in this Assembly,

section 30(7) — the question of an emergency — this motion has in fact been discussed before. I suppose the question of the definition of emergency is contingent upon the student numbers showing up in the various institutions. In that context I submit that the emergency itself is somewhere off in the distance, perhaps sometime in Sep­ tember or October. So in the event that this House considers it today, it is considering information which is probably not even relevant to the total information which will be provided as enrollment numbers start to accumulate. Finally, Mr.

Speaker, I have indicated that I would provide some accom­ modation to the enumeration of those numbers, in the broader consideration of the numbers themselves. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I think ample consideration has been given to this issue before, one week ago today as a matter of fact. Secondly, the emergency is some distance away. In the definition of emergency, I think it is a speculation, not an emergency. And finally, I think there will be ample opportunity for proper discussion of this, should the member want to initiate a motion on the Order Paper. DR. BUCK: Mr.

Speaker, will the hon. member permit a question? MR. SPEAKER: Not in an ordinary debate nor a question period, but I suppose on the . . . DR. BUCK: Will the hon. Minister of Advanced Education entertain a question? MR. JOHNSTON: Anything for you, Walt. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, if the minister would promise the University of Alberta the funds that are required, we would not need the debate. Can the minister assure the Assembly that that will happen? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I've always had respect for the hon. Member for Clover Bar, and he knows that he has fallen into the classic trap.

I simply will not respond to that. I have already made the arguments about funding. I know that to try to further the arguments with respect to an emergency is simply a red herring at this point. In fact, that is not at all part of this consideration. MR. COOK: Mr. Speaker, one other point ought to be brought forward to the House; that is, the board of governors would have to review the decision it just made Friday, and it does not meet for another four full weeks. So between now and those four weeks, there is no urgency for the board of governors to review the decision it just made. DR.

BUCK: For the students there is.

488 ALBERTA HANSARD April 16, 1984 MR. NOTLEY: Ask the young people in your riding, Rollie. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, a couple of points that I think are relevant to the debate. First of all, it's clear — the hon. minister has alluded to it — that even in question period it was hypothetical. We were led to believe that all these Tory appoint­ ees on the board of governors would come through in the end, but they didn't. The fact is that this is the first time we have dealt with it. I think the key reason it is an emergency — to say that a month from now the board of governors may review it is irrel­ evant.

The emergency is not to the board of governors; it's to the students of this province. I remind hon. members that the university is sending out and accepting some people at univer­ sity right now. It's not a decision that many young people can necessarily wait for, that they may change it and the hon. minister may bring in money later in August or September. Decisions are being made right at this very moment. That's the key point. I know some people who have been accepted at university already. The other point I would make is that the Official Opposition asked the government.

As the House leader knows, at one time we were going to put Advanced Education on Wednesday, because then we would have the board of governors' decision. But in its wisdom the government had Advanced Education on the very first day we had estimates, as is their right. So I think if we'd followed our suggestion, a debate at this point would not have been needed. MR. NOTLEY: We could have amended the estimates; got you some more money, Dick. MR. MARTIN: But the fact is that they didn't do that. They pushed ahead when they knew full well that the board of governors was meeting on Friday. [interjections] Mr.

Speaker, I don't want them to get excited. The hon. minister might have a heart attack, and we'd have to get another one. But that is in fact the case. Two reasons: number one, students are making career deci­ sions right now and, secondly, everything was hypothetical up to that point. Now we have a chance to have a debate about a very serious issue in Alberta. MR. NOTLEY: You're going to have to learn how to quote Will Rogers better. MR. SPEAKER: I thank hon. members for their assistance in dealing with a decision which I find to be a little difficult.

I did some review of the authorities in regard to this matter. I must say that I omitted to consult Will Rogers. But apart from that, I looked at a number of others. There's no question about the importance of the matter. As distinct from some other proposals for emergency debate, it involves a topic or concern which is really not ongoing, some­ thing that has perhaps been in effect for some time and has perhaps aggravated or changed slightly. As was pointed out, this is something which arose last Friday.

I think this point must also be considered: the possibility of quotas or limitations is something different from the actuality of quotas or limita­ tions. So the debate might well have been of a different nature previously, when only the possibility was being considered. I looked at the Order Paper to see what sort of opportunity there might be for an early debate, and I found one motion by the hon. Member for Edmonton Glengarry, Motion No. 214, which might deal with part of the topic. But if the debate on that motion were strictly relevant, it couldn't deal with the topic totally.

I realize it could have been dealt with and debated further, and I reviewed the discussion when the estimates for the Depart­ ment of Advanced Education were before the committee of the whole House. I feel that at that time, there was still just the possibility of this occurring. I noted what the hon. minister said about this matter being given serious consideration. At least, I construed his remarks to mean that. But I would interpret that as indicating that if it is going to be given further and serious consideration, perhaps the debate should take place before that occurs.

I also considered the possibility of the motion being put on the Order Paper and then being designated but, with the Easter break facing us, that would mean it wouldn't likely be reached for perhaps two weeks. Under the circumstances, it would seem to me that the motion does qualify under Standing Order 30. Therefore it is my duty now to ask the Assembly, shall debate on the urgent matter proceed? Would the members in favour of the debate proceeding please say aye. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. MR. SPEAKER: Those opposed, please say no. SOME HON. MEMBERS: No. MR.

SPEAKER: There being lack of agreement, or there being objection, the next duty I have under Standing Order 30 is to ask the members who favour the debate proceeding to stand. [Four members rose] MR. SPEAKER: There being fewer than five members stand­ ing, I believe the procedure under the Standing Orders has been fully covered, and there is nothing further to be done with regard to it, at least insofar as the emergency debate today is concerned. DR. BUCK: We won, but we lost. MR. NOTLEY: Students will remember this one. ORDERS OF THE DAY head: GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 7. Moved by Mr. Crawford:

Be it resolved that when the House rises at 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, April 18, 1984, it shall stand adjourned until 2:30 p.m. on Monday. April 30, 1984. [Motion carried] head: COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY [Mr. Appleby in the Chair] MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Committee of Supply please come to order.

April 16, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 489 Department of Transportation MR. CHAIRMAN: There are a number of hon. members who had indicated that they wish to speak. We have kept a list and will call those if they are here. The first is the Leader of the Opposition. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding the hon. Mem­ ber for Edmonton Glengarry, I thought I would carry on with my remarks. We are dealing with an extremely important department — Transportation. Therefore it is only appropriate that we have full and adequate discussion of the issues.

At the time, I hadn't received the letter from the hon. minister with respect to the road projects in Spirit River con­ stituency. However, I have subsequently received it. Mr. Chair­ man, I want to take this opportunity to say that there are several of these projects that I would like to urge somewhat faster progress on. The first is Highway 64. The commitment that has been made by the minister at least redeems the promise the Conservative candidate made in the 1982 general election, so we are going to get the road as far as the Worsely turnoff about 35 miles to the B.C. border. Mr.

Chairman, considering the fact that you have people who have to haul grain a very considerable distance, either to British Columbia or to Hines Creek, I would simply say that notwithstanding the many strongly held views among people in the northwestern

section of my riding, one matter that brings everyone together, regardless of where they sit politically, is that for a government that can spend the money on Highway 40 quite frankly there are some roads in the northern part of Alberta which have priority, at least in the minds of local people. I want to make it clear that I share that sense of priority that people give to the completion of Highway 64. I am not arguing that over the long run there won't be some tangible benefits from the new highway south of Grande Prairie.

But when you have people who have lived, not only for a generation but for generations, in a region of this province that still doesn't have a paved road, when their forefathers during the years, in some cases before World War I — these people still don't have a paved road in Worsley. We simply [not recorded] the importance of that kind of [not recorded]. I also want to emphasize the need to get under way the paving of secondary road 733 south of Wanham. Mr. Chairman, several years back we were told by the department that this particular road had high priority. For some reason, that priority has been dropped.

I want to say that it is certainly the feeling of improvement district 19, the village of Wanham, and I want to underscore my view too, that this road should be proceeded with on a priority basis. Having driven over that road many, many times, the fact is that if we are going to pave part of the southern end of it — I realize that part of that is through the county of Grande Prairie and money that has gone from the department to Grande Prairie county. Nevertheless completion of 733, in my assessment, should be given high priority by this government. Mr.

Chairman, last Wednesday I dealt with the issue of privatization. Just to underscore what I said then, let me say to the committee this afternoon that there is no point in talking about deregulating private enterprise if in fact we are going to impose all kinds of rules on local governments. Surely the best way to get the best value for our dollar is to let local governments make the decisions on how this money will be used. It may be that it's patching in one area as opposed to a new road project.

It may be that it is making use of county equipment or municipal equipment as opposed to farming it out to the private sector. Or it may be using the private sector. But surely that decision is most competently made by the vil­ lage, town, municipality, or county, as opposed to the pro­ vincial government coming in a "big daddy knows best" way, imposing all kinds of rules and regulations and forcing local governments to follow a preconceived course of action deter­ mined by the caucus, as opposed to the best judgment of locally elected councillors.

It seems to me that if we hearken back to what this party used to talk about when they were the Official Opposition, they argued the case for a partnership with local government; they stressed the need for local government to be able to make sensible decisions on the basis of developing priorities. Mr. Chairman, I supported the position of the then opposition. As leader of another political party, I thought some of the arguments that Dr. Homer especially made in the House, when he was the Member for Lac Ste. Anne, were very per­ suasive.

As a matter of fact, I remember the great debate we had over freezing municipal grants at $38 million and the arguments the government made about an arbitrary approach at the centre and all kinds of big daddy rules that we were imposing against local government. The arguments presented a dozen years ago — more than that now, 14 or 15 years ago — by the then Member for Lac Ste. Anne are equally valid today. This government wants privatization in terms of its view of its func­ tions, where in fact it is in a position to spend money admin­ istered by the province; that is one thing.

But when we are acting as a transfer agent, if you like, using public funds and transferring them for local purposes, surely it makes sense to let that decision be made by the town, village, or municipal council. If the arguments in favour of privatization are so strong, then hon. members can make the case to their locally elected councillors in their own ridings.

But people came back from the convention in Red Deer and told me very clearly that they don't want to be forced into a policy of privatization when it's up to them, in their assessment, to determine what the policy will be and to make the best use of resources. Last Wednesday the minister suggested that perhaps local governments could sell their equipment, perhaps even to the men who have been operating the equipment. Mr. Chairman, that is very nice if you have a buoyant economy.

I don't know what the situation is in other parts of the province, but I certainly know what the situation is in the north for some of the private business people with heavy equipment who have gone broke. It is certainly not a sellers' market. You have municipalities that at their fall and spring conventions gave a lot of consider­ ation to meeting with various suppliers of one kind or another to get the best possible investment, and now they have a sig­ nificant inventory of equipment.

Surely they should be allowed to determine how best to spend these dollars, and not get them­ selves locked into a policy the Minister of Transportation deter­ mines here in this committee or in this building. Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with the issue of urban trans­ portation. Right now I suppose we can argue that with the slowdown, especially the fact that our two major cities are not growing any more, perhaps we can sidestep the whole issue of significant expansion of light rapid transit.

I say to members of the committee that, if we make it today, the investment in modem high-speed transportation, especially in our two cities, will pay dividends generations ahead. I think it is testimony to the prudence of the council of this city between 1968 and 1974, when a good friend of mine was the mayor of Edmonton. In the debate that took place over the first leg of light rapid transit, we had all the arguments about why we shouldn't proceed. Mr. Chairman, I predict that a generation down the road, the decision Edmonton council made and the decision Calgary made, the fact that we were able to

490 ALBERTA HANSARD April 16, 1984 play a role with provincial co-operation — the decision my friend Ivor Dent made to push light rapid transit in this city in the face of strong opposition from people who opposed it at a time, I might add, when energy prices were much less favour­ able for light rapid transit than they are at the moment . . . One thing higher energy prices have done is to make the use of light rapid transit much more economical and much more cost efficient. When I see the systems we have in Edmonton and Calgary, I am proud of the fact that we had some local officials who took the initiative.

It is worth noting for members of this committee that the initiative did not really come from the government, from the collected wisdom, the collected thoughts, of the members of the Tory caucus over in Government House. The initiative for light rapid transit in Alberta came from locally elected officials, the same kind of officials whose autonomy we are gradually, but nevertheless in a very important way, undermining and eroding with some of the policies which are implicit in this particular budget.

I offer these observations because I think they are important if we're going to properly evaluate this vital budget. I want to say just one other thing in closing. We can talk about road transportation and about our airport program, but one thing we aren't dealing with in the Department of Trans­ portation is the impact the change in the Crow rate is going to have on our rural road program. There's absolutely no doubt that over the long haul the decision to dump the Crow, to abandon it, is going to have very significant costs for the Leg­ islature of the province of Alberta.

I think the decision the government made a year ago was totally wrong, because it's going to lock us into the wrong way to move grain. It's going to lock us into much more trucking of grain when in fact we should be using energy-efficient rail service. Mr.

Chairman, however much I fought against the aban­ donment of the Crow and hope that a new Parliament will reconsider that very foolish policy, particularly now that there seems to be some evidence that the railroads are backing out of the commitments they made before the last decision by Parliament courted us with all the promises of better rail serv­ ices — now all of a sudden they are reassessing their com­ mitments, the same way they did when they got all kinds of commitments from the taxpayers for passenger service and then systematically destroyed the passenger service in the province.

The railroads have a lot to account for in the way in which they have reneged on historic responsibilities. Having said all those things and making it clear that I for one would want a new Parliament to repeal the Pepin-Axworthy legislation, the fact of the matter is that in this province at least we're going to have to look at more efficient movement of grain. More efficient movement of grain does not mean trucking grain. It doesn't mean taking grain from the Valleyview area down to the government elevator in Edmonton. It doesn't mean trucking grain 50 or 60 miles from areas north of Vauxhall to Lethbridge. Mr.

Chairman, it means that we should use our common sense to make an investment in rail links where those rail links have merit. If this province is genuinely interested in the development of northern agriculture, at least at a little faster pace than we've had evidence of on the part of this government in opening up to date. I think expanding our land base should be an important initiative. We're going to have to make sure we have in place a proper transport system to move that grain.

That means we should be looking at the rail links to Dawson Creek or, as Unifarm rec­ ommended, we might even take a look at the Tumbler Ridge connection in the Peace, because we have enormous volumes — and I say "volumes" deliberately — of federal and pro­ vincial dollars invested, and a rail link to Tumbler Ridge, then out to Prince George, and thence to Prince Rupert would be an important move to save a lot of time and turnaround time for northern farmers. Mr. Chairman, when we had the Crow rate, maybe it wasn't quite as important. But now that the Crow has gone, we're gradually moving toward user pay.

We cannot lock our farmers into a system of either trucking or rail transportation, which takes grain much further than it should. It may be convenient for the CN, who now operate what used to be the NAR. But with the Peace being one region, surely it makes sense for us to reach across those provincial boundaries and work out an arrangement which would lead to the investment in rail links now, which would put people to work in the short run and improve our long-term transportation in a much more significant way than airports. The minister vigorously defended his airport program — fair enough.

But I'm saying that if he were to put the airport program to the farmers of the north — the Milk River-Warner airport, for example, or even the Eaglesham- Debolt airport — and contrast it with a rail link to either Tum­ bler Ridge or Dawson Creek, I have absolutely no doubt as to where the vast majority of permit holders sit, including, I sus­ pect, the vast majority of farmers that support the hon. min­ ister's party. Mr. Chairman, apropros of that, before I close I want to say that there is one additional problem that I think needs to be raised during the estimates.

For many years we've had a policy in British Columbia where the department of transpor­ tation has basically looked the other way when Alberta fanners have been trucking grain to Fort St. John or Dawson Creek. That sort of ability to look the other way and not jump on these truckers in terms of gasoline tax is something which has been beneficial both to the farmers in that part of Alberta, who have to go over terrible roads to begin with, and also to the two communities of Dawson Creek and Fort St. John.

Unfortu­ nately, as the minister probably knows, in the north Peace — not out of Dawson at the moment but out of Fort St. John — we have a department of transportation in B.C. which has found the rule book and is applying the rules, if not in a rigorous way, at least warnings have been issued. I guess that would be the most accurate way of putting it: warnings have been issued.

I hope that we could see some action undertaken by the Alberta government to make representation on this particular matter, especially since the roads in the north are not going to get the priority we'd like to see in the next several years. At the very least, it would be useful if the minister could talk to his B.C. counterpart and suggest that we go back to square one; that is, officials of the B.C. department carry on their

interpretation of enforcement, which is quite all right with my constituents as long as things stay the way they were. What they don't want is the approach we've seen followed in the last few months. Mr. Chairman, in my normal gentle, positive way, I've made a few recommendations that I'm sure my hon. Conserv­ ative friends will endorse thoroughly. I hope there will be some action, especially on some of those critical northern highway priorities. MRS. CRIPPS: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a few brief comments.

First, I'd like to compliment the minister and his staff and department on the excellent job they've done since I've been elected as the member representing Drayton Valley. Transportation is one of the departments I have a great deal of contact with, and I can't speak too highly of the co-operation I as a member receive with concerns raised by my constituents.

April 16, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 491 We really do appreciate the improvements made over the past five years. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to highlight for a minute. One of the members asked me about the Transportation budget. I said, well, if you reflect the amount of the Transportation budget to 1979 when I was elected, it has tripled. So I went back and did a little bit of review of the budget estimates for Transpor­ tation. In 1976-77 the budget estimate was $272 million, in '77- 78 it was $313 million, and in '78-79 it was $330,979,489.

When you compare that to the budget we have today, even with the cutback from 1982-83 when the estimated budget was $967 million — this year it's $842 million — I think one can see that we have a substantial increase in the Transportation budget. Even though we've had to cut back, with the kind of work and the quality we're getting today I'm sure we'll be able to achieve the same amount of construction as we did in 1982- 83. I know we were all pleased with that.

My priority this year will be the development of the west Brazeau road and the Elk River road, which open up the area to the Pembina oil field, which, I might say, has supported this province very well over the past few years. Since that road is a right of occupation road, I think it's important that the government take a look at carrying some of the obligation of maintaining and upgrading that road. I have one question, and that's with regard to deregulation. I had a phone call this morning from a constituent at Lodgepole who said that the bus service into Lodgepole will be terminated.

I'd like to know if the deregulation decision on bussing has anything to do with the discontinuance of regular routes or if that just related, as I understood it, to charter service? Other than that I don't have anything else to say, except that I really want to compliment the department and the minister and thank them for the co-operation I have had over the past five years. MR. MUSGROVE: I just have a few comments to make about the Transportation budget. First, I'm happy to see that the twinning of Highway No. 1 is proceeding and that it is on target. I have one question to ask.

Is the twinning of Highway No. 1 going to be completed for the Olympics in 1988? I believe we should recognize the volume of traffic that will be on Highway No. 1 during the time the Olympics are in Calgary and in the Kananaskis. I certainly appreciate the improvements we're getting in Bow Valley. In particular, the Bassano and Brooks airports are getting some upgrading and a

section of 550 is being paved. It's a secondary road that was built some years ago by the Department of Transportation, I believe, and has been oiled for several years. In conjunction with the improvement district, part of 884 north of Suffield is to be paved also. I would like to mention a very important piece of road that we should be considering in the near future; that is, part of Highway 36, north of Highway No. 1. I say that for some reason. Secondary road 873, between Brooks and Duchess, has a traffic volume of up to 2,500 vehicles a day. It's a narrow road with a 26-foot top and no shoulders.

It has been recom­ mended by the local Department of Transportation that the county buy right-of-way so that road can be widened and have shoulders put on because of the volume of traffic. I would like to point out that if we were to pave the part of 36 north of the No. 1 that is not paved, and also a three-mile extension on the end of secondary 544 to 36, we would reduce that volume of traffic considerably, and it probably wouldn't need to be wid­ ened and have shoulders put on. I get a lot of phone calls and discussion about Highway 56.

I believe there are 12 or 13 miles north from No. 1 that are not paved; it's all in my constituency. Then Highway 56 is paved from there north to Edmonton. There have also been some requests, and I have received letters from people south of Highway No. 1, who feel that Highway 56 should be extended to the United States border.

One of the things that was suggested to me in a recent discussion with some of the municipal districts and counties about the minister's press release on the fact that for transpor­ tation grant money they have to hire private contractors was that we revert to a formula that was used some time ago: if the county used their own construction equipment, their grant was reduced to 90 percent. In other words, they got a 10 percent penalty,

whereas if they used private equipment, they would get the entire grant. One other thing I would like to discuss, Mr. Chairman, is that a year ago I got a petition from a group of people discussing the service road on the south side of Highway No. 1 east of Brooks, the twinned portion of it. At the present time, there is no provision for a service road on that side of No.1, and the old No. 1 is probably about a mile away at points and then joins the new highway at Tillebrook park.

If we were to upgrade it and pave it as a service road to accommodate traffic on the south side of No. 1, it would serve several really important purposes. One of them is that people staying at Tillebrook park and wanting to use facilities in Brooks would not be required to go onto No. 1. That is a fairly busy intersection and could be quite dangerous. If we could keep the people off No. 1 on their way into Brooks, we would considerably reduce traffic into that intersection. Also, the provincial horticultural station borders on that road, and so does the Brooks Wildlife Centre, which employs quite a few people.

They would then not be required to use No. 1 as a method of going into Brooks. When Brooks college is built, it will also border on this service road. So I concur with what the people were saying in that petition. If old No. 1 were upgraded and paved, it would serve a very useful purpose for traffic from Tillebrook, the hort. station, the wildlife centre, and Brooks college. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the minister and his staff for a very good job on the budget in a year of restraint.

We seem to be paralleling what has happened in previous years and, in this day and age, I believe that's a very good accom­ plishment. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. MR. ALGER: Mr. Chairman, I think the primary reason I'm rising to speak to this particular topic is really just to thank the minister and indeed his executive assistant, who works with me very closely, for past accomplishments.

To the member that just spoke: I think you and I should refer to past ministers from a long, long time ago, for the simple reason that this country has come an awfully long way in the nature of roads in the last 50 years, and you and I were here to watch most of it. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that when I entered this province in 1936, there wasn't a paved road anywhere — not anywhere. Everything was gravel, at best, and most of it was dirt. In fact it took a war before we even realized there was anything bigger than a four-horse Fresnel to build a road with.

We finally decided that there are D-8 Cats and D-7s and earthmovers and Letourneaus and so forth, and we could start building roads. Indeed, during that period, we built the Alaska Highway, which in itself was no small feat. In the meantime, the province was growing with great num­ bers of people, and more demands for highways were every­ where. Of course the ministers ahead of the present minister had to work hard and seriously to get the money and equipment

492 ALBERTA HANSARD April 16, 1984 to build the necessary roads that we now enjoy. The extent of our highways — just for the fun of it, I sent down to the library for a map. Of course I can't tell you the countless thousands of miles of paved road that are here, but it all has taken place in the last 50 years. It's just amazing. [Mr. Purdy in the Chair] On the other hand, you can say that in places in the United States, like Pennsylvania, where I visit quite a bit, there is no road that isn't paved — absolutely none.

I don't know how long that has been going on — probably for several hundred years — and the last 75, I'd have to guess, is when they started really paving roads. And they've paved them all. They've got a little weather advantage on us down there, and the frost doesn't break up their roads. . It's usually a good idea to pave a road if you can keep it paved and not have it breaking all to pieces. When we discover that

part in this country, Mr. Chair­ man, we will probably pave all our roads and save ourselves a lot of maintenance costs at some point in time. We're forever gravelling, maintaining, and working away on our highways,

whereas if you had paved roads everywhere, that problem would literally be over with except for scraping off the snow in the wintertime. With regard to the present administration, Mr. Chairman, I'm proud to say that anytime I'm in a real bind — sometimes it's or a weekend — all it takes is a couple of phone calls to the proper spots, quick decisions are made, and progress can go ahead.

I refer particularly to an auction market in my con­ stituency that would have been shut down completely had it not been for a real snap decision on the part of the minister to grant egress — what is the word? — coming and going on that highway. We've got a lot of needs in Highwood for improved roads. Indeed I guess I get a lot of flak with regard to how we handle our highways, our primary needs, and so forth. But I'm pleased that we're moving along pretty good, Mr. Chairman.

With the co-operation of the minister, we've improved our pavement situation in the last two years; we've got really good highways running through the county. We have a dandy sign program now in progress. I'm working with most of the better towns for improvement in their signs. Of course for the MD pavement, the municipal districts work closely with our minister. All in all, I'd have to guess that in the district of Highwood we're fairly happy with the paving program. Of course we're like everybody else; we could sure stand a lot more.

But as I pointed out earlier, it's taken us 50 years to get this far, and I'm sure in the next 10 we'll go an awful lot further. To the minister, I only have to say this much. Through my years of pushing tools, I've been everyplace from Dan to Beer- sheba. I've travelled every road in this province. I've hit most of them at 90 miles an hour and, believe me, they're not in bad shape. To end this particular topic, Mr. Minister, I'd like to say that I've been everywhere, boy; I've been everywhere. MR. R. MOORE: Mr.

Chairman, I think the county of Lacombe is one of those counties that does their work entirely by county equipment. I'd like to advise the minister that even though I felt we were in for a lot of trouble with his announce­ ment in Red Deer a little while ago, it has been fairly well accepted in that county. So if the privatization part of the system can be accepted in the county of Lacombe, I think it should go across the province. Now in 1983 . . . MR. KOWALSKI: Be careful now. The sun doesn't rise and set in Lacombe. MR. R. MOORE: I realize the sun doesn't rise and set in Lacombe.

But it's the centre of the province, and so goes the rest, the two ends. Mr. Chairman, the maintenance program last year was excel­ lent. We never had a mile of highway in the constituency of Lacombe go behind; we maintained the level of maintenance there. We came out of that year of hold the line as well as we went into it, in fact better off I think. So again, the minister and Department of Transportation should be thanked for not allowing our highways to go behind in times of constraint. Mr.

Chairman, I noticed that the minister stated in his opening remarks that the practice of putting down base coat was satisfactory, and they would eventually have to pave some of these roads. That's exactly what we have in the constituency of Lacombe. We have Highway 51 that goes west from the town of Bentley to the secondary road coming north of Les- lieville. For years, year after year, they put down base coat, and the next year it broke up. That road serves the entire western half of the constituency. It's a market road. It's a road utilized by the recreation people coming into Gull Lake from the west.

If it were paved and maintained at a higher standard, it would also be a link from No. 2 through to the David Thompson Highway, thereby relieving pressure on Highway 12. I draw to the attention of the minister that Highway 51 goes right along with his opening statements that we need to pave these roads rather than put down further base coat. We have another concern in the constituency of Lacombe, and that's Highway 597. We started at Blackfalds, took it into the petrochemical industries at Joffre, and ended it there. The other half of that 597 linkup from Joffre to Highway 21 remains to be done.

I draw that to his attention because it's a priority to all the towns to the east of us, and it's a priority to the county of Lacombe. They've maintained it as their number one county priority in transportation for the last several years. When the hon. Member for Vegreville was talking the other night, he said, you realize that counties change and then their priorities change. Not so in this particular case. The completion of High­ way 597 from Joffre east to Highway 21 remains the top priority of the county and has for successive counties.

The towns of Alix, Mirror, and Stettler have echoed the need for this link to be completed so their access to the market area of Red Deer would be an all-weather type of road, rather than having to go around through Lacombe on Highway 12. Those are the two concerns I have, Mr. Chairman. I hope the Department of Transportation will give consideration to these two points — the paving of Highway No. 51 and the completion of Highway 597 — in the months ahead and in plans for next year. MR. CLARK: Mr.

Chairman, I'd forgotten I was on the list, but I guess since I do have a chance, maybe I'd better say a few words about the Department of Transportation. First, I would like to say that over the last few years in our constituency, the counties, the oil industry, and the taxpayers have worked together with the government and have built a lot of roads that were necessary. An example is 564. They built 17 miles: a third paid by Sundance Oil, a third by the county, and a third by the government. The people are working together.

The oil industry realizes that they use the road system and that they are responsible for its upkeep and some of its capital costs. It's worked very well in that department. Mr. Minister, you've suggested several times that we should be privatizing some of our transportation systems. I was out this weekend talking over the privatization Bill with the MDs and counties in my constituency. They asked me to drop out and were even willing to meet with me on Sunday. They do

April 16, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 493 have some concerns on this. I believe that when we all sit down together, their concerns over this can be ironed out. I think they're willing to go part of the way; they're liable to keep some of their own outfit too. With reasonableness on both sides, I think there can be some privatization in that area. I am also wondering if the minister has ever had his depart­ ment look at privatizing the land-buying department in his area, in Transportation. With the slowdown in the oil industry, it seems that there are lots of land-buying agents in private indus­ try looking for work.

Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to look at that end of his department and see if he couldn't privatize that some. I guess we have one concern in our constituency. It's not really in my constituency; the hon. Member for Bow Valley mentioned it. That's Highway 56. We would certainly like to see that paved, or at least a base coat, down to Highway No. 1 by 1985 when the museum in Drumheller opens, so that we have some type of an access into Drumheller for that very fine museum we're building, which should bring in a lot of tourists. We certainly hope we have access to Highway No. 1 by that time.

We're all going to be pushing for that. As far as continuing it on down south, I think that could be done under the secondary system with co-operation from the county. It's needed for the good of our country, to get our rapeseed to the crushing plant and to shorten the distance to Lethbridge. The hon. Member for Highwood said he's been everywhere, and I guess I'm one of those fellows who's been around a long time too. He's right when he says that we've come a long way in the last 50 years. We've come a long way in the last 10 years.

Our budget now for secondary highways is much higher than it was, and I'm glad to see that. MR. KOWALSKI: We finally got some pavement. MR. CLARK: Yes, we finally got some pavement on some secondary roads in the Drumheller constituency, and we're making progress. I hope that in the years to come we will keep our priorities on the secondary system high. With the railroads going out, there's no doubt that we're going to be hauling farther. On my own farm, we're hauling 35 miles to market, and none of it's paved except the last portion of 56, which is about 10 miles.

The rest of the county roads are in good shape most of the time and are quite able to handle the traffic. I believe this is going to be a better system than having people haul every 10 or 12 miles. I think it will help our transportation system in the rural area. It will give us roads, which we need anyway, and it will also bring more economy to our agricultural transportation than keeping all these small points: open. I think that's about all I have to say, except that I too admire the work that was done in 1942 between Norman Wells and Ross River.

I had occasion to go up where they put the pipeline in the Alaska Highway over in Norman Wells, and a couple of years ago, we drove 150 miles back. That's as far as we could go, because the Bailey bridges they put in had washed out from there on. I guess it was quite a thing to have that happen in 1942. It was such an isolated place that the machinery was left there. The old trucks and everything else are still there. They're all '42 models, so you know what year they were there. They just walked off and left them there rather than transport them out, and they're still there. Mr.

Minister, I appreciate the work we've done in the past. I would like to see Highway 56 completed some time before 1985. I would like to say that in the near future we're going to have to build some type of a tourist road down the river, and I would like to see that in the next few years. But on the whole, our highway system is improving; it's improving all through the district. Highway 1 is now twinned through almost my entire district, and I'll be glad when that project is done. I think there's one more year after this year, and it will be out of my area completely and into Tom's, if they keep it going.

As the member said. I think when the Olympics come in 1988, it's going to be needed even more than it is now. With that, I'd like to just say thank you, Mr. Minister. MR. SZWENDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's pretty hard to add any really substantial comments after the rural members have spoken, because they're all such experts on highway construction. However, I think some of us urban members may want to bring up a few points to the minister. We certainly have concerns in the urban areas as much as in the rural areas.

A couple of the members have mentioned that most of the roads built in Alberta have been constructed over the last 50 years. Something Albertans don't often take into consideration is the old adage: Rome wasn't built in a day. Certainly our province has only been around since 1905, barely 79 years. Yet we've got a roadway system which is probably equal to any in Canada and is certainly serving its purpose. Those rural guys are always looking for something, Mr. Chairman. I drive the highways, and those roads look pretty nice to me.

They all seem to be leading nowhere anyway, so I wouldn't be too concerned about the urgency expressed by many of the members so far in the debate. Mr. Chairman, just a few quick points to the minister. First of all, on behalf of many of the truckers who are located in the constituency of Edmonton Belmont, I'd certainly like to offer my appreciation and thanks to the minister for the wise and considerate moves he made in the policy affecting truckers, particularly gravel truckers, and their employment in Alberta.

I think it was causing undue mental hardship for many of the truckers, and I think the problem was in perception rather than with the situation as it existed. Since the announcement by the minister, certainly many of my truckers are feeling much more comfortable in the belief that they have an equal opportunity to contract or to do the work for government. On the matter of roads in the constituency of Edmonton Belmont, we've had some excellent roadway connections pro­ vided in the last few years. I think all Edmontonians, especially in the north end, appreciate the widening of 97th Street.

More important is the construction of the Yellowhead Trail, which is really an extension of Highway 16 through the city of Edmonton. However, I think the minister is quite aware that the total construction of that roadway has not been completed. In the constituency of Edmonton Belmont particularly, there are some traffic snags caused by the heavy volume of traffic going on the Yellowhead Trail and the arteries feeding into it. Most specifically, Mr. Chairman, it's the 82nd Street and the 66th Street entrances onto the Yellowhead, where you have a lot of trucks trying to get on the freeway.

We call it a freeway; I don't know if the city of Edmonton allows that. I think they changed that to expressway or something less offensive. But we call it the Yellowhead Trail. I would like to ask the minister if any consideration is being given to providing proper entrances and exits on 82nd and 66th streets to alleviate the traffic conges­ tion which occurs quite often and has in fact resulted in a number of traffic accidents. The other area I would like to raise for the minister's atten­ tion, Mr. Chairman, is the completion of the Capilano freeway.

Again, I don't know if the city of Edmonton allows me to call it a freeway. I think they've changed the name a couple of times, but I still refer to it as the Capilano freeway. The Cap­ ilano freeway does a beautiful job of connecting south Edmonton with north Edmonton, except for the fact that it

494 ALBERTA HANSARD April 16, 1984 hasn't been completed. People going from south to north race up that freeway and suddenly find themselves in the middle of the old Canada Packer's parking lot. From there they have to turn either left to 82nd Street or right to 66th Street and again tie in with the regular heavy volume of traffic. I was wondering if the minister could indicate what contingency plans or program he has in place in order to complete the Capilano freeway through north Edmonton.

I believe it was originally designed to connect with the Manning freeway, thus allowing complete and free flow of traffic from north to south. With those brief words I thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. OMAN: Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few comments with regard to light rail transit in the two cities of our province. The minister — I don't have to tell him — has recently been approached by the city of Calgary to try to speed up the pro­ gram. I want to make a couple of comments and maybe ask a couple of questions with regard to light rail transit, particularly in the city of Calgary, which I am familiar with.

I say I'm familiar with it, because I was on city council at the time the decision was made to proceed with it in the first place. MR. MUSGREAVE: You voted the wrong way. MR. OMAN: There is another member over there who was speaking and just missed out on that by a few years, because he came to this august body a little prematurely. Of course we missed his good counsel on the council, but we seemed to get along as well as before, some way or another.

In any case, to be serious, I recognize that as the city of Calgary went into it, it was warned by the province that it should make the first leg — from the south into the city — an experimental leg and take a couple of years to evaluate that, which has now been done. I think we're aware that that has been a phenomenal success as far as ridership is concerned and has taken the pressure off particularly Macleod Trail to the south of the city. The city made application to the province for expansion of its other two proposed lines, one going northwest and one northeast.

Again, I'm going over old ground when I recall that the one to the northwest was shelved because of a conflict with the community of Hillhurst-Sunnyside. So they proceeded to the northeast. I personally thought that was a mistake, because it made a lot of sense to go north to some of the more common day uses such as the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology, the Jubilee Auditorium, the North Hill Shopping Centre, the university, and so on.

It's certainly true that the system would be much more efficient in the sense that if one takes the LRT downtown from the south end, he has to transfer to a bus system to get to either the northwest or the northeast. So I agree with the concept, I guess, that once you have started a system, it's going to be hard to stop it. I suppose that would be true of both Edmonton and Calgary. I think the question now is only one of timing, not "if". I say that with some reservation, because the one thing that worries me about public transportation and perhaps particularly light rail transit is the operating cost.

I don't know if the minister has any figures to indicate what the operating cost would be for the city of Calgary if it had a full-blown system. I recognize that the city of Calgary itself has done a study and indicated that the cost of moving a passenger per mile from the south end of Calgary downtown by way of light rail transit is cheaper than by the traditional bus system and, obviously, much faster. However.

I don't think that takes the whole picture into account, because in a city like Calgary, which is not a concentrated or highly dense city, you have to have two things in operation which are now there; that is, a large parking lot or several of them around LRT stations where people can park their cars and take the train downtown, or you have to have a bus feeder system. I don't think the cost per passenger per mile that was quoted took those costs into account.

I suspect that, all things taken together, it would find the operating costs relatively high unless we can build up concentrated apartment nodes around the LRT stations. Of course the other thing that's a factor right now is that the growth projections for the city are not what they were a couple of years ago. Therefore perhaps the need as far as urgency is concerned isn't quite as great as it might have been.

The Calgary transportation authority made a study, and the study which was conducted under the minister's immediate predecessor indicated that if the cities are going to have a full­ blown system, the likelihood is that the province is going to have to get more into the operational side. What I'm wondering is whether or not the province, as it looks down the corridors of time, say, five to 10 years, feels that it can afford to get into this, because I'm rather persuaded that the cities by them­ selves could not afford full-blown LRT systems across the board.

With those unanswered questions, I don't know if the min­ ister can shed much light on it. But I think they are ultimately important, because in most projects the capital costs are not that important; it's the operating costs. I think we've seen that in the construction of new hospitals, and I'm sure this is another one. Public transportation has never been very cheap.

On the other hand, if it is ultimately true that those systems are going to be completed, I guess I have to ask myself and the government: does it not make sense to enter into completion at this stage, particularly when we have great need right now in the cities of Edmonton and Calgary for construction activity? Because we have been so oversupplied in the area of building particularly, our construction people by way both of those who are employed and of companies is sadly sagging.

It seems to me that the city of Calgary makes a good point that inasmuch as contracts that would be let now would likely come in far under their original estimates, it makes good sense to do it now. Because of high unemployment and high lag in the con­ struction industry, we should take effect of that. It would help the economies of our two cities. So, Mr.

Chairman, all other things being equal, if we can answer the question of the operating deficits, which are unques­ tionably going to come, and settle that as a policy, I think I would be in favour of looking favourably on the city of Calgary's request to speed up the LRT systems. I don't think the argument of the Olympics is a good argument, because we know they can handle the movement of people for some 10 days to two weeks in another way. It doesn't justify building a full-blown system on the basis of the Olympics alone. I guess it does provide a springboard or a target at which to aim.

I would appreciate the minister's comments on some of these things. I should ask one thing before I sit down, Mr. Chairman, if I may. Some members of Calgary caucus met representatives of both the separate and public school systems' boards of edu­ cation. One of the complaints or difficulties under which they are operating is the increasing cost of transportation for pupils within the systems. They are only able to recover something like a third to 45 percent of their operating costs from the present grants coming through the Department of Education.

One of the questions raised was whether or not we ought to be considering a global grant rather than separate ones from Transportation and Education. That ought to be lumped into one system and the city of Calgary, as the city of Edmonton,

April 16, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 495 ought to be considering more favourably, rather than hiring private school buses or the case, whether that might not offset some of their operating costs. The more people you have on a bus, generally speaking — and they're somewhat off hours, a little bit off peak hours — would help the system in its operating deficits. So the question really has been raised as to whether or not we ought to consider that in one block rather than two blocks and see if we can get a little more co-operation between the provincial government, the cities, and the school systems. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman. MR. SZWENDER: Mr. Chairman, if I may, in my earlier remarks I made reference to the Capilano freeway ending in the middle of Canada Packers' parking lot. That was an error, and I'd like to correct it because a constituent of mine has quickly brought that to my attention. The Capilano freeway ends in the Bums' parking lot. For the benefit of Hansard, I'd like to make that correction. MRS. FYFE: Mr.

Chairman, some of the comments that are made regarding transportation, whether roads are more impor­ tant in the rural part of the province or whether upgraded streets are more important in the cities, sometimes reminds me of the old story of the city mouse and the country mouse, the city mouse feeling that he was far more important than his country cousin but then, getting out to the country, realizing he wasn't nearly as self-sufficient as he thought he was or as he was within his own environment. Roads and transportation policy across our province are very similar.

The roads that are used in the rural areas are not simply used by those that reside in the rural areas. On the weekends we see a very large percentage of our urban counterparts travelling on rural roads to recreation properties and stamping around Alberta. We have to remember that tourism is the third largest industry within our province, and roads facilitate the development of that industry. I would like to say how pleased I am with the progress we've made, particularly within the last five years. We have paved and developed a very large number of roads within the constituency I represent, St. Albert.

The pressure has been removed dramatically from the road system that was there pre­ viously that was not adequate. The progress is really remark­ able, and I would like to express my appreciation to the minister and to his department for the consideration that has taken place. Within this current fiscal year, the minister has announced the improvement of Highway 2 from St. Albert just north of secondary Highway 635, which will be a four-lane development of that roadway that the minister has said on a number of occasions is busier than Highway 16.

This is going to be very welcome to those people that travel this highway daily and to the commercial transportation that uses Highway 2 north. One suggestion or comment that I made some years ago was regarding lay-bys on some of our busier highways to facil­ itate the movement of traffic past slow-moving vehicles.

I am wondering if there has been any consideration for the devel­ opment of a third lane or a lay-by, which is less expensive than the upgrading of an entire highway — particularly Highway 28, which J know is slated for improvement sometime in the future — particularly in the summer months when there are a large number of weekend vehicles moving. The hazards that build up are, in my opinion, often caused by some vehicles moving very slowly, other vehicles or other drivers becoming frustrated and maybe taking chances trying to get past the buildup of a very large number of slow-moving vehicles.

I would appreciate any comment on what has happened to the suggestion of lay-bys. I would like to compliment the minister on the tremendous amount of work that his department has done to develop our province as a whole, urban and rural dwellers. We are all the beneficiaries. I want to thank him very much for the work within our constituency. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Chairman, just a few brief comments and basically four general questions in four general areas.

First of all, I don't think it's any surprise that this is one department where we were trying to help the minister out from time to time, suggesting that he needs more money. We see this as an important department in terms of stimulating the economy, when we have a huge unemployed. When we get into public works, Mr. Chairman, we still maintain that now is the best time to do many of the things he has to deal with, like roads and LRT, in terms of putting people back to work, and it is the cheapest time to do it. The minister is well aware of our proposals there.

I will make a couple of general comments and ask some questions. First of all, to deal with the LRT, I know that in the budget we are not to expect much more. In fact we have actually had a decline over the years in how much we are prepared to spend, and we are told it is because of restraint. I am sure the minister would like to update us, if it has not been brought up. I happened to notice a story today in The Calgary Herald about a meeting that he had with the mayor. The mayor seems to be very happy, very positive.

If the reporting is cor­ rect, he is very encouraged after a positive meeting with pro­ vincial Transportation Minister Marv Moore to discuss the $ 100 million Calgary needs to build the LRT. I take it that part of that discussion had to do with advancing $3 million to $4 million for the engineering work that must be done, and of course it had something to do with the Olympic deadlines. Perhaps the minister could fill the Assembly in on this very important meeting. Along with that, I would ask the minister — I understand that Calgary has specific problems getting ready for the Olympics.

Is the same sort of discussion going on with Edmonton about perhaps an advance of something to do with engineering works, or is this just particular to the Calgary situation? The other area I want to ask the minister about is that in the past there has been some discussion by some top people in his department, one person in particular, about the advantage of using lighter-than-air balloons. I saw a proposal, and I know the minister is aware of it, specifically dealing with construction equipment. Some people even went as far as to say that they could be used for passengers.

Is the government doing any feasibility studies on this? I know it has been advanced to the minister a number of times. The other area I want to generally look at, which I think perhaps the minister has alluded to in the past, is to see if there are any studies going on for the high-speed corridor rail plans between the two major cities, Edmonton and Calgary. Are there any studies going on or any thought that we might move in that direction of having the LRT, the beds upgraded, and centre to centre of the city, instead of having airplanes that take a lot of fuel and inconvenience.

I know it's not going to happen overnight, but are there any plans in that direction? The fourth and last question I would like to ask the minister is, I suppose, a philosophical question. We have had many debates in the House about seat belts. I understand there is a split in the caucus about it, if my information is correct. But at this point the government has decided that basically it's a matter of individual freedom to decide whether to buckle up, although the government advertises and encourages seat-belt use. We know that the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care

496 ALBERTA HANSARD April 16, 1984 has complained a lot of times about the high cost of medicare. We know that seat belts save lives; they also save money in the long haul. Seeing as we haven't gone the route of making it mandatory — I know we have had some discussion about even doing it for children. I believe we have heard this minister and perhaps other ministers say that we will use education instead. We will educate the people to the need to use seat belts, that this would be desirable in saving both lives and money.

If we are going to use education instead of making it mandatory, my question is: why has the Department of Trans­ portation's 1984-85 communications budget, Vote 1.2.5, been cut by some 30 percent? It seems to me that if we believe in seat belts and believe we have to go the education route, this is perhaps where we might do it. I would ask for the minister's comments on that specific question. Mr. Chairman, with those few comments in four general areas, I will leave that with the minister. Thank you. MR. HIEBERT: Mr. Chairman, a number of areas have been covered this afternoon.

I will not take up too much time, but I would like to highlight a few items for the minister. I have mentioned it before, and it has to do with the Dawson Bridge corridor. It was a political issue in the last civic election, and the citizens are concerned with regard to how the traffic is being channelled into the city from Strathcona county and Sher­ wood Park, along the Baseline Road, north on 50th Street, and west along 106th Avenue. The Dawson Bridge improvement is considered a vital factor in terms of increasing the volume of traffic along this neighbourhood.

They are concerned that if there was support for improving the Dawson Bridge, the present traffic flow through a neighbourhood community would increase to the extent that it would destroy the community as they have known it. Likewise on 50th Street, towards the southerly part from the Baseline Road to Sherwood Park freeway, the dangerous goods route is a concern to the people in that particular area of the city.

They've been promoting the idea of rerouting the dangerous goods route to 34th Street which, as a result of the new annexation decision, is now the boundary between Strath­ cona county and the city of Edmonton. With the easterly leg of the Whitemud freeway and the Sherwood Park freeway chan­ nelling traffic up 50th Street, they're looking at possibly going through the industrial area so that the carriers taking products from Refinery Row could use 34th Street. That would probably mean that 34th Street would have to be upgraded somewhat, but it's a question as to whose jurisdiction it is.

Does 34th Street fall within the confines of Strathcona county, or does it belong to the city as a responsibility? I would like to know if any representation has been made by either jurisdiction with regard to 34th Street to allow the big carriers to move in this direction. Mr. Chairman, the third item is still with 50th Street. Res­ idents have been trying to obtain some attention from the city fathers in order to get some noise barriers, because the increase in traffic flow certainly has made a noticeable change in this regard.

Since they have proven very effective in other parts of the city, through provincial co-operation with the city, they're wondering if this could be given some priority, because 50th Street has certainly become a major artery in the last few years. Mr. Chairman, I guess my underlying concern is that if there is to be any funding with regard to these projects, I would appreciate being consulted before, so that there is an awareness as to what's happening and how things could be priorized with regard to funding for the traffic problems of that area. The twinning of Highway 16 has been mentioned before.

I don't know if it was a reconsideration from the announced cutback or if twinning is now proceeding maybe at a reduced pace from what had been anticipated as a 10-year program. Certainly I see evidence of work being done, and it is greatly appreciated. I think the Yellowhead route is very vital for the transportation of goods and services for the city of Edmonton. I'm sure the hon. gentleman sitting in the Chair would also recognize that as being very important for his constituency. With regard to LRT, it has been brought up in terms of Calgary.

I would just like to know from the minister where we are with the next leg of Edmonton's LRT. It's my understanding that submissions have been made with regard to the extension of the leg from the Corona station to Government Centre. Has anything come forth with regard to that? With those very brief comments, Mr. Chairman, I await the responses from the minister. MR. LEE: Mr. Chairman, I'll just address a few succinct remarks to the minister and congratulate him on the extent of his budget.

There's no question that $631 million is a significant achievement by any minister for any project, and I think it's a credit to the minister's ability to bring forward the priority of transportation. Mr. Chairman, when I address this particular area, I think it's important to stress the importance of balanced transportation for an urban community.

By "balanced" I mean an adequate combination of both public and private transportation, because in many respects an urban transportation system is very much like two rails of an LRT system, it requires one rail being the public sector — buses, LRT, those components — and the other rail being the private sector. We should recognize in the city of Calgary the importance of private transportation. Despite the economic times of late, the city of Calgary still has the highest rate of automobile ownership of any municipality in North America. I think that's significant. Calgarians truly love the automobile. Mr.

Chairman, there is a new love affair taking place right now, and I'm sure the Minister of Transportation has recently become keenly aware of that. The city of Calgary has fallen in love with its system called the C-Train. They've even created their own name, the C-Train. I think it's an attractive name; it's a fun name. It reminds us of the old song. Take the A- Train. Well, in Calgary we have the C-Train. Six years ago, as I was elected to the city council of Calgary, I'm not certain I could have said there would have been a love affair.

There was a great deal of concern and skepticism by the taxpayer, the potential user, about the utilization of the system. But we've seen a tremendous response since the system began. If we look at the number of passengers carried during Stampede time alone, it's an indication of the tremendous capacity of the system. I address my remarks to the Minister of Transportation with respect to funding particularly for the northwest leg, as my colleague mentioned earlier. Mr. Chairman, it's estimated that this particular leg would cost $100 million.

The city of Calgary is asking that the partnership between the province of Alberta and the city of Calgary to fund this project continue. The key ingredient for the successful completion of this project would be the continuance of the present public transit capital grant of $25 million a year through to and including the year 1991. So we're not asking for the creation of a new capital grant program. We're simply saying, take the program that's been successfully in place for the past five years and continue it through to 1991. Mr.

Chairman, the cost of building this project is not exces­ sive when we compare it to the original estimate of three years ago. In fact it looks like there's a potential benefit, a saving, of some $30 million because of the recent changes in the labour

April 16, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 497 scene, particularly the changes in the cost of land acquisition and the cost of labour. It's estimated that in order to complete this project in time for the 1988 Winter Olympics, the city of Calgary would require interim financing of $2.5 million in 1985, $6.6 million in 1986, and $8.9 million in 1987. That's for the construction engi­ neering costs. The actual capital expenditures would be $5 million in 1984, $49 million in 1985, $30 million in 1986, and $16 million in 1987. What are the advantages of proceeding right now?

If we look at the area that is of course of great importance not only to all Calgarians but to all Albertans, this project would create 1,600 direct man-years of employment and over 2,000 indirect man-years from other sources as well. Potentially 3,600 man- years of employment are related to this project, Mr. Chairman. There is of course the importance of the unique destinations necessary for this extension.

Over 15,000 full-time students at the University of Calgary and the research park at the university would have an opportunity to utilize this extension; 13,000 full- time students plus an equal number of part-time students at the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology; the Jubilee Audito­ rium, an extremely successful project undertaken by the government of Alberta, 3,000 seats; and McMahon Stadium, soon to be expanded to 50,000 seats. Mr. Chairman, clearly there is very strong evidence that the extension of the northwest LRT would bring the current two legs and this system together.

We would in fact have a system. I was on city council when there was a proposal to change the alignment from the northwest to the northeast. I must say I wasn't very enthusiastic, because it was evident to me, as to some of my other colleagues, that we ought to proceed with the northwest leg first. The city of Calgary in its wisdom chose not to. Now we have an opportunity to complete the system. I think we should look at this as a system. Without that third leg, we're simply not finished building this system. It's nec­ essary to have all three legs in place at least to complete it.

What about market conditions, Mr. Chairman? I'm sure the minister is aware of the benefits that are taking place in the construction of anything, any road system, in the province of Alberta today. It's estimated that as a public project, the cost of construction at this time would take advantage of prices 70 to 80 percent of previous levels experienced in the city of Calgary.

Since we're talking about a project that is going to be servicing and in fact is going to be a legacy to the city of Calgary for the next hundred years, here's a tremendous oppor­ tunity for us to grasp a temporary advantage in the economic situation and build the project substantially cheaper. Mr. Chairman, extension of the northwest line for the down­ town core would realize additional ridership of over 40,000 trips per day. I know the hon. Member for Calgary North Hill raised the question of the efficiency that would be brought about.

With an additional 40,000 trips a day, we would see 120,000 trips on all three lines. In other words, one out of four Calgarians per day, given this ridership, would be utilizing the system — a significant factor to be considered in terms of the efficiency of public transportation. Mr. Chairman, what are the long-term benefits to the city of Calgary? Clearly, when the decision was made to proceed with LRT, a deliberate decision was made not to proceed with the $250 million capital expenditure project for roads.

If in fact the city can proceed with northwest LRT, it can defer the need to widen Crowchild Trail at a substantial cost. The cost of the free-flow interchanges and the ramps would be significant. Clearly there would be the preservation of the quality of life within the inner city. Many of the inner-city communities are looking forward to the advantage of an LRT extension as an alternative to widening the freeways that threaten the stability of their current neighbourhoods.

Thirdly, there would clearly be a giant step towards a bal­ anced transportation system: a system to the south, a system to the northeast, and a system to the northwest. Finally, a significant long-term legacy would be provided to all the cit­ izens of Calgary, in fact all the citizens of Alberta. I think in some terms we look at LRT as just a system that is an advantage to the urban dweller.

But how many of our neighbours from rural Alberta drive into southern Calgary, park their cars at the large parking lot, and take LRT downtown so they don't have to fight the traffic or fight for an opportunity to find a parking spot? In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to draw to the minister's attention the importance of the relationship of this project to the 1988 Olympics. If we were to look at this from a strictly engineering point of view, I think it could be said that Calgary could host the Olympics quite adequately without the extension of LRT.

We could utilize our existing bus system; we could borrow buses from other municipalities in Alberta and British Columbia. But here is an opportunity for Calgary to become a showcase to the entire world, and all of Calgary will be on show during the Olympics. MR. SCHMID: Alberta. MR.

LEE: How will we be able to explain an LRT system that services the southern part of Calgary, where very little related to the Olympics takes place, services the northeast part of Calgary, an important part of our city but clearly where no major portion of the Olympics takes place, and yet we haven't completed the leg to the very part of the city where the major focus of the Winter Olympics will take place — the University of Calgary and McMahon Stadium?

Timing is of the essence in terms of building the project in time for the Olympics; timing is of the essence in terms of taking advantage of the current economic climate to save the taxpayer significant amounts of money; and timing is of the essence in bringing together the city and the province to finalize and complete a showcase project that all Alberta can be proud of. To the minister, Mr. Chairman, I ask for comments in terms of the timing of the construction and the completion of this project.

I would ask the minister if he would care to comment if he accepts the deadline that June 30 is in fact the final time frame in which a decision could be made. Secondly, I'd like to ask the minister if he would care to comment on the appro­ priateness of not just a meeting between the minister and the mayor but perhaps a joint meeting between Calgary caucus, the mayor, Calgary city council, and the Minister of Trans­ portation.

Perhaps by all of us getting together and putting our heads together, we can look at some other financing options that may be possible, other than just what is being proposed presently by the city of Calgary. I for one would like to look at the possibility of the Olympic Organizing Committee par­ ticipating in the financing of this project. They now have a commitment from the federal government for $200 million; they have a commitment for the sale of the TV rights for some $330 million. Perhaps there could be some role for involvement by the Canadian Olympic Association or the local organizing committee as well.

Mr. Chairman, I acknowledge the interest that the current minister has taken in this project. I must say that I'm encouraged by his remarks privately, and I look forward to his response to the questions I've asked.

498 ALBERTA HANSARD April 16, 1984 MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the hon. minister like to conclude? MR. M. MOORE: Mr. Chairman, just a few brief comments. First of all, there have been a number of very good represen­ tations with respect to various projects that members would like to see the Department of Transportation undertake, com­ plete, or start. All rural members have received from me a listing of the projects which are planned for the 1984 construc­ tion season.

As well, some of you are aware — in fact I've made public a number of programs wherein we are planning on rebuilding or building a highway over a period of years. Examples are the twinning of highways 1 and 16 and the con­ struction of Highway 40 and the rebuilding of Highway 21 and so on. For the balance of the comments with respect to construction work that members would like to see undertaken, Mr.

Chair­ man, I trust that it's sufficient for me to take those as notice of what should be in the budgetary estimates for 1985 and to squeeze the odd one in if our construction expenditures allow for it during the current year. I would like therefore to dwell more on some of the policy comments that have been made by members with respect to a variety of areas. First of all, the Member for Cypress asked about negotiations between the city of Medicine Hat and decisions with respect to the twinning of the Trans-Canada Highway through Medicine Hat and Redcliff.

My information is that the city hopefully has ironed out the difficulties with the local business community and is in the process of presenting a new plan to my department for the construction of Highway I through Medicine Hat. I should also advise that we have concluded that that highway can be constructed on the current alignment through Redcliff, and I hope we'll be making progress in 1985 on that particular part of the twinning of the Trans-Canada Highway. In terms of comments made by other members, I only want to briefly mention a couple that were made by the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview.

Highway 64 from Worsley to the B.C. border was completed last year to a gravelled stage and is an excellent highway for the traffic that is currently utilizing it. Obviously, many people would like to see it paved. First of all, though, we have to complete the base coursing and paving to Worsley corner on Highway 64 from Hines Creek, and hope to be able to do that at least by the end of the 1985 construction period. The base coursing should be completed this year, but then there's still final pavement remaining. The Member for Drayton Valley mentioned bus se