Alberta Hansard — 22 May 1984, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 20, Session 2)

19840522

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

May 22, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 973 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Tuesday, May 22, 1984 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair] MR. SPARROW: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for unan imous leave of the House to make an announcement about the passing of a former member. HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPARROW: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes of the House today to pay tribute to a former Member of the Alberta Legislative Assembly for the Wetaskiwin-Leduc constituency. Rev. John A. Wingblade, who passed away last week in Wetaskiwin at the age of 101 years.

Rev. Wingblade was a longtime and well-respected indi vidual in this Legislature, serving from 1935 to 1963, some 28 years in total. His contributions to his community and to the province were numerous and positive. Rev. Wingblade's friendly personality and community spirit will be sorrowfully missed by his family and friends. Mr. Speaker, I'm certain that all my colleagues will agree that democracy is the result of the hard work of such pioneers as Rev. Wingblade. Our respects go out to his family and friends at this time of mourning. Thank you. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, I would also like to add my words of condolence to the family of Rev. Wingblade. I entered this Legislature in 1963 but had the opportunity to work with Rev. Wingblade on a number of projects and concerns he had with regard to his constituents. One of his greatest attributes was his concern for individuals and for everybody in his con stituency, whether they were rich or poor or whoever they were. He had great concern and compassion for those constituents and friends of his, and most of them were friends rather than just constituents that he was serving.

I'd certainly like to add to the words said today and provide a tribute not only on behalf of me as an Independent in this Legislature but I'm sure on behalf of many other associates of Rev. Wingblade over the years he served in this Legislature. head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 46 Engineering, Geological and Geophysical Professions Amendment Act, 1984 MR. CHAMBERS: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill No. 46, the Engineering, Geological and Geophysical Professions Amendment Act, 1984.

The purposes of this Bill are to improve the discipline and appeal procedures, to redefine the scope of practice and the use of professional designations, to allow for public membership on the board of the examiners, and to change the regulation- making authority to allow for greater recognition of technol ogists. [Leave granted; Bill 46 read a first time] Bill 52 Real Estate Agents Licensing Amendment Act, 1984 MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce a Bill, being the Real Estate Agents Licensing Amendment Act, 1984.

The main thrust of this Bill involves the provision to deli- cense some 6,000 salesmen and to provide for an industry-run assurance fund, which will replace the bonding provisions. This fund will increase the upper limit of protection for consumers. [Leave granted; Bill 52 read a first time] Bill Pr. 8 George Harold Sibbeston Adoption Act MR. R. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill Pr. 8, the George Harold Sibbeston Adoption Act. The purpose of this Bill is to allow for the adoption of Mr.

Sibbeston, who is an adult and who therefore cannot be adopted under the general law of adoption contained in the Child Wel fare Act. [Leave granted; Bill Pr. 8 read a first time] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to file four copies of the Chinook Country Tourism Destination Area Study. MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to file replies to ques tions 158 and 165. MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, I table the reply to Motion 148. MR. KING: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to table the information ordered by the Assembly in Motion for a Return No. 154. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. BATIUK: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure for me to introduce 60 grade 5 students from three classes, including one bilingual class, in the Peter Svarich school in Vegreville. They are accompanied by their teachers Mrs. Nawrot, Miss Popowych, and Mr. Kryklywicz, by parent supervisors Mrs. Benson and Mr. Kucherawy, and by school bus operator Mr. Zubritsky. I ask that they all rise and receive the welcome of the Assembly. MR. CHAMBERS: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to introduce to you, and through you to members of the Assembly, 19 grade 6 students from Athlone school in the constituency of Edmonton Calder. Accompanied by teachers Mrs. Farrow and Mr. Hud son, they are seated in the members gallery. I would like them to stand and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, I wish to introduce to you, and through you to members of the Assembly, 50 grade 6 students

974 ALBERTA HANSARD May 22, 1984 from Ponoka elementary school. They are accompanied by teachers Mr. Jimmy Rawjy and Mr. Gordon Hickey, and by their bus driver Mrs. Henault. They regret not being scheduled to view the Oiler parade today, but they are enjoying their tour of the Legislature and other points of interest in Edmonton. They are seated in the public gallery, and I now ask them to stand and receive the traditional welcome of the House. MR. STROMBERG: Mr. Speaker, may I have the opportunity to introduce to you and to members of the Legislature some 20 students from Daysland junior high.

Daysland is located in the Camrose constituency, about 20 miles east of the city of Camrose. With them this afternoon is their teacher Bob Ray- nard. They are seated in the public gallery, and I ask that they stand and be recognized by the House. head: MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Department of Energy and Natural Resources MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, in 1977 the government of Alberta initiated an enhanced oil recovery program, in recog nition of the fact that conventional extraction methods produce only a fraction of the oil in the ground.

The program also recognized that while enhanced oil recovery costs less on a per barrel basis than the cost of finding new barrels, enhanced oil recovery projects are technically risky and expensive. They require high capital expenditures and operating expenses, most of which are incurred during the early stages of the projects, before the technical success of the projects is assured. By the fall of 1982, eight enhanced oil recovery projects had received approval under the original 1977 initiative.

To further accelerate enhanced oil recovery and to encourage activity in our petro leum industry to help offset the damaging effects of the national energy program, additional amendments to the royalty regu lations applicable to enhanced oil recovery were announced in October 1982. These amendments were designed to simplify the application and approval process and provide greater assur ance that technically sound projects would proceed. Mr. Speaker, these amendments have had a significant, indeed a dramatic, impact on stimulating enhanced oil recovery schemes in Alberta.

The number of approved projects has increased from eight in October 1982 to 27 in May 1984. In addition to these 27 approved projects, 11 more applications are currently being assessed. It is expected that an additional 563 million barrels of oil will be recovered as a result of the 27 approved projects. And if one includes the 11 projects cur rently being assessed, that figure rises to some 682 million barrels of additional oil. These projects involve hundreds of millions of dollars in new investment, creating significant economic activity and jobs in Alberta.

The capital investment required by the 27 approved projects and the 11 pending projects is approximately $800 million, most of which will be spent in 1984 and 1985. Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased to be able to announce today that approval has been given by our government to the largest enhanced oil recovery project yet to proceed in Alberta, the $125 million Esso Resources enhanced oil recovery project in the Judy Creek area near Swan Hills. Esso Resources Canada will be proceeding immediately with the project.

Of the $125 million capital expenditure, $100 million will be spent on an ethane extraction plant and new field facilities required for project start-up in the fall of 1985, with the remaining capital expenditures to be made in subsequent years. Seventy-four million barrels of additional production of light and medium crude oil will result from the project. Mr. Speaker, the project will also create an additional market for Alberta's natural gas and ethane.

To supplement its own sources, during the next 15 years Esso will purchase about 25 million barrels of ethane and 106 billion cubic feet of natural gas, to be injected in the pools and used as a solvent in recover ing additional oil. The purchase cost of ethane and natural gas will be approximately $800 million, with the majority of the ethane and natural gas to be recovered later in the project's life. The Judy Creek project will generate 250 engineering and construction jobs in 1984 and an additional 100 similar jobs in 1985.

Two hundred and twenty people are currently working at Esso's Judy Creek gas conservation plant. This enhanced oil recovery project will significantly extend the productive life of the Judy Creek field and the employment opportunities it has brought to the Swan Hills area. Mr. Speaker, in addition to the projects which have now been approved, including today's announcement of Esso's Judy Creek project and those applications currently under review, we expect 20 or so more enhanced oil recovery projects to proceed in the next three years.

This level of activity in enhanced oil recovery is making and will continue to make an important contribution to economic activity and job creation in Alberta. It is yet another positive sign of the continued recovery of Alberta's energy industry. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I'd like to raise a question arising from Hansard of May 11, 1984. It's with regard to ministerial statements. At that time I requested the Premier to make a ministerial statement with regard to his upcoming trip to New York, with the possibility of tabling documents.

In his response, the Premier indicated that that could best be raised through question period. The point of order I'd like to raise with you, Mr. Speaker, is that during question period, answers are to be short and as brief as possible. A major trip that may have spent anywhere from $90,000 to $100,000 of public funds should take a longer period of description. In raising this point of order, Mr.

Speaker, I'm not only raising it as a matter of concern with regard to the Premier's indication that a matter such as that should be dealt with through question period but, secondly, urging the Premier to make a ministerial statement with regard to that trip and expenditure at this time.

I think the answers are quite necessary at this time, with the economy as it is, the pressing matters that are before us, and the items that have been raised in this Legislature, such as the 150,000 people unemployed, the soup lines in Edmonton, many university graduates — I raised that in question period in this House — that are unemployed at the present time, the farmers out in front of this building, and the construction indus try. The Premier made a major trip to New York to talk to the moneylenders, the businessmen of New York, to invest in Alberta.

Hopefully that investment would in turn do something for the people in need. Mr. Speaker, I urge on you consideration of that decision and certainly consideration by the Premier to make a ministerial statement in this House with regard to that trip, as well as tabling any necessary documents that could inform the Leg islature of the necessity and the contribution to Alberta that that respective trip made for the people here. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, a brief comment. I repeat what I said before I left. If, in the process of the question period, there are any questions the hon. member wishes to

May 22, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 975 direct my way with regard to that trip, I'm quite prepared to respond. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair might just comment inasmuch as question period, certainly in recent days, has been quite extensive. I note that in one question period last week, we had ample time for as many as 11 or 12 supplementary questions. The matter of a ministerial statement, of course, is optional as far as the minister is concerned.

But as far as dealing with question period itself — and that is coming up immediately — there doesn't seem to be any great need to limit the discussion in that question period to supplementary questions and the number of supplementary questions. Of course if we have a great many members wishing to ask questions, then there might be some restriction. But we haven't had that problem recently. The Chair will of course always do everything possible to see that all the necessary questions are answered. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, in terms of my point of order, the importance of the issue, the economy of Alberta — and that's the one question the Premier is dealing with in terms of these trips away from Alberta. At the present time, the Premier has been away from this House for 13 out of some . . . MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member is now debating the point. The Premier has responded in the manner he sees fit, that he is prepared to answer questions in the question period. The representation has been made by the hon. member that he would like to have a ministerial statement.

I don't think we can achieve much more by discussing it further, and cer tainly we can't debate it now. We'll continue with the next order. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Agricultural Assistance MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the first question to the Minister of Agriculture. It's with regard to a meeting I understand the minister held today. My question is: has the minister undertaken any review of the Agricultural Develop ment Corporation policy regarding foreclosures? If so, will the minister be announcing a moratorium on ADC foreclosures? MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr.

Speaker, the programs of the Agri cultural Development Corporation are always under review in order to make sure they're meeting the challenges of the times we're in. With respect to a review on foreclosures, that would only be looked at on the basis of the whole area of ADC policy. As far as I'm aware, there is no intention whatsoever of bringing in a moratorium on farm foreclosures. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I understand there's some desperation.

My question is: does the minister have any information readily available in this Assem bly on the approximate percentage — a ballpark figure; I don't expect the latest — of ADC loans which have been foreclosed upon in the last year, and is he able to compare this to previous years? MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr. Speaker, I do not have those figures readily available. However, I do know that the loans that are in arrears over one year are down somewhat from a year ago.

I'm always very careful when responding to numbers, and I want the hon. member of the opposition to know that this government certainly isn't ignoring the difficult times producers are finding themselves in and, whenever able, is prepared to take whatever action necessary to try to provide to producers any assistance we can. MR. MARTIN: A follow-up, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister had his officials provide him with any information he can share with this House on the number of ADC loans which are in arrears at this point, a rough percentage? MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, they do provide me with information.

I'll be happy to review it and report back. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. For existing farmers, is the minister reviewing the lender of last resort policy of ADC, in order to facilitate the continued sur vival of many Alberta farms which are now at risk? MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr. Speaker, in all cases where there is some difficulty in an operation, we encourage producers to go to the Agricultural Development Corporation. They would be happy to assist them in reviewing their financial needs.

If repayment ability, equity, and management skills are there, we're prepared to provide a guarantee that would assist the producers over that difficult time. In addition to that, the regional economists throughout the entire region are working above and beyond the call of duty to make sure they're acces sible to individuals who have some economic difficulties, so counselling and a review of their financial situation can take place to see if there are some ways that can be used to assist them. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, fol lowing along the line advocated by the minister.

Would the minister give this House his commitment that he is willing to meet personally with farmers who hold ADC loans, for the purpose of discussing the terms of those loans? MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr. Speaker, I can't give that assur ance. Time precludes my meeting with everybody who has a loan with ADC. It's just not possible. It's been a very successful program. I'd like the hon. member to be aware that I do not get involved in who gets loans and who doesn't; I leave that to the board of the Agricultural Development Corporation.

I feel that each individual should get a loan on their own merit, within the policy guidelines, and the minister shouldn't inter fere. I'm more than happy, though, to encourage my staff in any direction the hon. member of the opposition feels might be warranted. As I said, we're always open to new approaches that might be of assistance. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question to the minister. I did not specifically mean that he meet with each person. Let me put it this way.

If there were organized meetings, dealing with a number of farmers who were requesting information — because a lot of it is a political decision — would the minister be prepared to meet at an organized meeting level? MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr. Speaker, that's something I'm pre pared to look at and review. I have to say that within the time constraints that are available, I would certainly be prepared to look at it. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question to the Provincial Treasurer. Has the Treasurer had any meetings with treasury

976 ALBERTA HANSARD May 22, 1984 branch officials recently, to review the possibility of a mora torium on foreclosures on treasury branch farm loans? MR. HYNDMAN: No, Mr. Speaker, that has not occurred. All of us are certainly sensitive to the difficulties farmers face where they are in a position of being a mortgagor who is unable to make arrangements to pay off a farm loan. However, by the same token I think farmers also realize the crucial importance of maintaining a confident investment climate in the province.

They also need to be very careful not to take any steps which might indirectly increase the cost of borrowing money in the province. The farm industry, the agricultural industry, indeed the economy of the province, is built on the investment which can be made available to farms and businesses at a reasonable rate. Therefore in viewing the total situation, I think that is borne in mind by farmers as well. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I explain that there is desperation out there, because we've had examples of this. My specific question is to the hon. Treasurer.

Can he indicate if the government has any plan to introduce debt-moratorium legislation similar to the Act which was in place in 1972, I believe, in the province of Saskatchewan, which delayed enforcement of debt collection for a specific, limited time — not forever, just for a specific length of time; I believe it was a year at that time. MR. HYNDMAN: No, Mr. Speaker. There is no plan of that kind in the province of Alberta. Certainly there could be evi dence brought forward which would indicate that the investment climate in Saskatchewan was not assisted by that move.

In any event the treasury branches, and I think most financial institutions, are trying to take the position of saying that where there is a very difficult position facing a farmer or businessman, they should make contact with the lending institution. I believe the treasury branches are taking every possible step to try to find ways to assist when foreclosure is the only option left. MR. MARTIN: One final supplementary to the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker.

Does the minister contemplate any future announcements that will deal with the plight of many, many farmers in this province who are facing foreclosures? Is anything on the drawing board? MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr. Speaker, I've met with farmers in this province, producers, both individually and collectively, to try to look at how the challenges of the '80s with respect to financing may be met. I, as well as the agricultural caucus, have been working with the Alberta Cattle Commission on a production credit type of arrangement which would create a new pool of capital for financing agriculture within the prov ince.

I think those pools of capital are most necessary for agriculture today, when agriculture is so capital intensive. So that's one opportunity there that we are looking at. Another one is that at the minister's conference in Prince Edward Island last year, all the ministers, including the federal Minister of Agriculture, agreed that we would look at the area of an agribond concept, to see if it had potential to create new pools of capital, of patient money, for agriculture. That's cer tainly one area we are looking at closely.

Also, with the Agricultural Development Corporation, we are looking at all our programs on an ongoing basis, to see if new means can be found to assist producers. It is evident that that is ongoing. When we relaxed the off-farm restrictions for beginning farmers, it was in direct reaction to the difficult times of farmers. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Outside the items raised by the Minister of Agriculture, does the minister have any other formal monitoring systems in place?

Are the district agriculturists, the regional offices, the ADC offices, and the loans officers monitoring the actual situation with the farmers and reporting, say, weekly or bimonthly to the minister so that there's updated information on this prob lem? MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Yes, absolutely, Mr. Speaker. The dis trict agriculturists' offices and the regional economists have input to the regional directors in each of the six regions of Alberta Agriculture. They in turn bring those items to me, and I have the opportunity to review them.

That's something we take very seriously, in that communications between the district offices to the regional offices to my office are always open to make sure that if there's something new that can be done, some new avenue that should be opened, we can be ready and move. Human Rights MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my second question to the hon. Attorney General. Can the Attorney Gen eral update the Assembly on any developments in the current session regarding hate literature concerns?

In particular, are there any formulations yet to provide tougher measures in the Criminal Code on the distribution of hate literature? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, that matter was discussed last year among the attorneys general, along with the Minister of Justice. At the time, Mr. MacGuigan indicated that he would probably recommend some changes to Parliament. What resulted was a discussion process, in which officials from the Alberta Attorney General's department were involved, with respect to what those legislative amendments might consist of.

To my knowledge, at the present time there is nothing before Parliament dealing with the matter. One may conclude that having brought in other extensive amendments to the Criminal Code, Mr. MacGuigan is much occupied with those. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are there ongoing, formal communications between the Attorney General's department and the federal Solicitor General's depart ment, to look at providing tougher legislation under the Crim inal Code? I'm asking if there is feed-in about how

section 281 could be changed. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, that has occurred. Without checking, I can't indicate to the hon. member when the most recent communication may have taken place. It certainly took place over the winter. Perhaps I could get that information and provide it. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question to the Attorney Gen eral. I understand that hate literature distribution through the mail seems to be on the rise in Alberta.

I'm told that Marlene Antonio, the chairperson of the Human Rights Commission, for example, reportedly has sought assistance from the min ister's department on the classification of literature she received from the Canadian citizens' rights commission, I believe, in Calgary. I too now seem to be on a hate literature mailing list, and it's quite a bundle of hate literature. For the hon. members' sakes, I guess I'd like to show the types of literature coming out. I'd like to file these three copies with the Legislature Library.

May 22, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 977 My question to the Attorney General is: can the minister advise how complaints of this nature are currently being handled by his department? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, where there's an allegation that something is hate literature and is being distributed, we always look to the recipient to help the law enforcement author ities as much as possible to find out the source of it, in order that a potential accused can be identified if there is to be a charge laid. As the hon. member would appreciate, one of the greatest difficulties is very often the anonymity of hate prop aganda.

There is the further difficulty which relates to the earlier question; that is, the actual definition of literature of this type is sometimes very much in doubt. You may have material which is merely offensive and reprehensible but not illegal in the criminal sense. In those situations, responding to people has to be on the basis that charges would probably not be laid because of the difficulty in establishing that there's an incite ment to hatred and, as I mentioned earlier, in identifying a source. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

I'm told that in Ms Antonio's case, the recommendation from the A.G. 's office was to work with postal authorities to see if postal regulations were being violated. My question to the Attorney General is, why this particular tactic? With some of the things they send over, is it not clear that it is hate literature? Why do we not at least try to proceed with

section 281 of the Criminal Code? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, as to the nature of some of the material, in my view there isn't any doubt that some of what has come to me from anonymous sources and provided through the RCMP and the Edmonton city police — this was last year — is hate propaganda. There isn't any doubt of it. Identifying the source of it proved to be absolutely impossible. The hon. member may recall that at the time there were some public references to bundles of it being found in people's back yards, having been thrown over the fence.

In those cases, it's very difficult to identify a potential accused. As to checking the postal regulations, I think this may indeed be one of the more productive areas. If the situation is that a lot of the material is imported from the United States, regu lations and statutory provisions relative to distribution and importation would really be quite important. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question to the Attorney Gen eral. This falls back on working with postal codes. In the specific example that was mailed to my address, it gives a box and station and that sort of thing.

Through the post office system, is there any way the A.G. can follow up and find out who has that box? Is that in the realm of possibility? Is that what they're looking at? MR. CRAWFORD: I'm not sure I can respond right away to the hon. member's question. I think it's clear that if a person is operating from a particular address, there are ways of finding out who is probably utilizing it. That may be more difficult if it's in the name of a society and you have difficulty discovering an individual.

I think all I would say to the hon. member is that material of this type is examined when it comes to the attention of the police and, although I assume the material the hon. member is referring to today has in fact come to the attention of the police, I invite him to provide me with a copy. MR. MARTIN: I'd be quite prepared to do that. A supplementary question to the Attorney General. Recog nizing that

section 281 of the Criminal Code seems to be hazy at best — and I understand the difficulties the Attorney General is talking about; if he has to wait for the federal government, we may wait forever — has any consideration been given to legal clarification of what can be classified as distribution of hate literature under the existing

section 281, by proceeding with the best test case available, seeing how that goes, and moving from there? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I think the difficulty in look ing at material as such and looking from the point of view of what powers the province may have, in an administrative or even statutory way — trying to define it isn't something that could be undertaken. It's a matter that Parliament has declared a certain act to be a criminal act, and that's incitement to hatred through the distribution of certain types of propaganda. When cases go to court, they are indeed based on an assessment of what may be sufficient to meet the test under

section 281. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary to the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for the Human Rights Commission. Could the minister advise if any further planning has been given to including some enforcement provisions on hate literature distribution under the Individual's Rights Pro tection Act? I'm not sure in my own mind that this is the way to go, but I think it has been suggested by some people. I would like the minister's comments on that. MR. YOUNG: Mr.

Speaker, as I understand the question — and not being absolutely certain of the hon. member's definition of hate literature — if it falls within the ambit of the Criminal Code, I do not believe any consideration would be given. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary. I'm not asking the minister to get into the Criminal Code, but some people have suggested that enforcement provisions on hate literature distribution could be put under the Individual's Rights Protection Act. I believe that has been requested by the Jewish Federation of Edmonton. I was just asking the minister to update if they had looked at that possibility.

MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, there is some consideration now being given to a variety of suggestions by the Alberta Human Rights Commission which might lead to amendments to the Individual's Rights Protection Act. That may well be among the suggestions they're looking at. I won't know for some weeks yet. Mount Allan Olympic Ski Site MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Tourism and Small Business is with regard to the Mount Allan ski resort.

I wonder if the minister could confirm that the province, in spending $25 million on Mount Allan — a purchaser would still pay $16 million, leaving the taxpayers of Alberta with $9 million to pick up in terms of cost. MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, I read that

article too. I think what was being said at the time was if it were sold, and I have to qualify that at this point. At the present time we will be putting forth a request for proposal as a lease operator. But if the time should come that it should be sold, the site itself — in essence the hill and the buildings there — would be considered at that time. Based on the documents we have filed, the cost of that

978 ALBERTA HANSARD May 22, 1984 would be around the $16 million mark, less the road and the other improvements for the Olympics. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I wonder if the minister could indicate whether she or her office were con tacted by the Canadian Sports Pool Corporation in reference to donating $25 million for the construction of the Mount Allan ski resort, over and above the $212 million that's committed by the federal government. MRS. OSTERMAN: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question. Could the minister indicate whether the Canadian Sports Pool Corporation has indicated it would support any other projects in Alberta? MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr. Speaker, I've had no contact with the Canadian Sports Pool Corporation. Group Home Complaint MR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address my question to the Minister of Social Services and Community Health. I've been informed that complaints have been made regarding house parents in an Edmonton group home. Has the minister been made aware of these complaints? If so, what action has he taken? DR. WEBBER: Mr.

Speaker, my office receives complaints in the area of child welfare on an ongoing basis. As of last Friday, my attention was brought to this situation where there were complaints about house parents in a particular group home here in Edmonton. I referred the matter to officials in the Department of Social Services and Community Health. As a result of that referral, the house parents were asked to leave the home, which they did, and the children were placed else where. I would just like to add that all this action was taken as a normal precautionary measure. MR. PAPROSKI: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Could the minister then assure the House that the children in this particular group home are presently being adequately cared for? DR. WEBBER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I indicated that the children were moved, and they were moved into a facility where ade quate care is provided. Spruce Budworm Control MR. STROMBERG: Mr. Speaker, during the question period on March 23, 1984,I asked the ministers of Agriculture, Energy and Natural Resources, Recreation and Parks, and the Envi ronment if they were willing to contribute to help defray the cost of air spraying of a serious outbreak of spruce budworm.

My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Will the minister now be willing to reconsider supplying funding, in light of the report by the Environment Council of Alberta, Acid- Forming Emissions, Transportation and Effects, released March 1984, which states that the budworm outbreak is the minister's responsibility? Mr. Speaker, I will quote from the council's report if you will allow me, just so . . . MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. member could come directly to the question. MR. STROMBERG: I asked the question, Mr. Speaker. Is he willing to live up to his responsibilities in funding? MR.

BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of any comment in the report which suggests that the Department of the Envi ronment has a responsibility in this matter. MR. STROMBERG: Mr. Speaker, I will then table the report, Acid-Forming Emissions, Transportation and Effects, by the Environment Council of Alberta. Note page 31, and I have it marked. MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, if I could comment, the ref erence in the report is to balsam fir. It does not in any way suggest that a spruce budworm outbreak is in any way due to the report the hon. member is referring to.

It is a very tenuous relationship the hon. member is trying to arrive at. Victorian Order of Nurses MR. SHRAKE: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Social Services and Community Health concerns the plight of the 75-year-old Victorian Order of Nurses. They're reported to be near bankruptcy, and they requested aid, funds, from the local board of health, the city of Calgary, and the province. I guess the local board of health said no, and the city of Calgary has now turned them down. I understand nurses will be receiv ing layoff notices on June 30 if they don't get a little bit of help.

Can the minister advise the House if he is prepared to grant this organization some funding, so they can carry on their good work in the city of Calgary? DR. WEBBER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In asking the question, the hon. member provided the information that the Victorian Order of Nurses, which is run by a volunteer organization in Calgary, was having financial difficulties in providing home care services for the Calgary Board of Health and, over the past number of months, has been trying to work with the health unit, and the health unit with them, in resolving their difficulties.

However, at this particular time they did need a grant in order to carry on, so we have made the decision to give them a one-time only grant up to $30,000, so they can carry on for a while. MR. SHRAKE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister explain whether this funding will ensure that the VON can carry on providing this home care in Calgary, or will it ensure that the order will have the opportunity to bid on the contract to the Calgary Board of Health? DR. WEBBER: Mr.

Speaker, the Calgary Board of Health is responsible for the delivery of the home care services in the city of Calgary and will continue to have the Victorian Order of Nurses, as well as other private-sector groups such as UpJohn, [Medicorp], and others, help provide those services. There have been studies done that indicate that the board of health could possibly carry out the delivery of the home care services on a more efficient basis in-house. However, that issue is a point of discussion between the board of health and the Victorian Order of Nurses.

Currently the Victorian Order of Nurses will continue to provide services to Calgarians. My understanding is that beginning next year, April I, 1985, the board of health has made the decision to go the tendering route, and it's my understanding that the Victorian Order of Nurses plans to tender in that process. MR. SHRAKE: A supplementary. Given that the Victorian Order of Nurses is under contract to the Calgary Board of

May 22, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 979 Health, I guess, and not directly to you, does your announce ment today affect this relationship between the board of health and its contractors? DR. WEBBER: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. The Calgary Board of Health has full responsibility with regard to the delivery of home care services. The contract the Victorian Order of Nurses has with them is something arrived at as a result of negotiations between the board and the Victorian Order of Nurses. This particular grant is a result of requests the Victorian Order of Nurses made to the city and to the province.

Last week, in a very narrow vote, the city rejected the request for a grant. Today we made the decision to give them the one-time only grant so that they are able to carry on in the short term. MR. SHRAKE: Just one final supplementary. What assessment has the minister made of how the recently announced expansion of the home care program will impact on the service provided by the Victorian Order of Nurses in Calgary? One other little question, while you're answering that one. How did The Calgary Herald get Marc Lalonde's picture with your name under it?

Maybe that affected some of your decisions today. [interjections] DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, it's probably a matter of what is upstairs, on the top of our heads. I think the hon. member should refer that question to The Calgary Herald, or maybe even to some of the reporters here, if they wish. In terms of an assessment, we haven't done an assessment as to the impact of the announcement with respect to the home care services, the expansion of the program on the Victorian Order of Nurses. That's for the local board of health to do.

We do have a 5 per cent increase in the provision of funds to assist the local board in offering home care services to those they have provided service to in the past and to those who require some kind of medical treatment. As hon. members have noted, we have injected considerable funds in the budget, some $10 million, for expansion of home care in Alberta.

Primarily that would ensure that the frail elderly and the handicapped in insti tutions would be able to receive homemaking kinds of services — Meals on Wheels and those kinds of things — so that expansion may not directly impact the Victorian Order of Nurses significantly. However, the 5 percent increase may. But whether it does or not is certainly a decision of the local board of health. MRS. EMBURY: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister would comment.

If the Calgary Board of Health uses the tendering method for nursing services, are there any studies to evaluate the quality of the nursing care provided by the Victorian Order of Nurses vis-a-vis other agen cies? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, the Victorian Order of Nurses as well as the Calgary Board of Health had a study done relative to the question of both the board and the Victorian Order of Nurses providing services, as to whether or not cost efficiencies should be involved.

There are those who think that efficiencies can be made, and there have been ongoing discussions between the board and the Victorian Order of Nurses with respect to that. With respect to our departmental assessment, I don't recall any assessment along that line. Agricultural Assistance (continued) MR. OMAN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to return briefly to the matter of moratoriums on foreclosures, and ask the hon. Pro vincial Treasurer if he could give us some feeling as to what the reaction of financial institutions might be to farm credit if the government were to invoke such a policy.

In other words, might they put a moratorium on mortgage issuing if we put a moratorium on foreclosures? MR. HYNDMAN: That would be possible, Mr. Speaker. As well, there would be a likelihood of an increase in the cost of money in the interest rate to borrowers. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Going back to where it happened, in Saskatchewan, is the hon. Treasurer aware that during that time, farm credit from banks, credit unions, and trust companies rose by 10.7 percent from 1971 to 1972 and 28.8 percent from 1972 to 1973?

In other words, if the Provincial Treasurer is aware of that study, how would he account for that? It's the opposite of what he said. MR. HYNDMAN: I think nine other provinces did not see that as a proper way to go, Mr. Speaker. Robotics in Public Service MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Public Works, Supply and Services. I wonder if the minister could indicate to the Assembly whether he's had recent contact with two of his employees, Norman Mailer and Emily Post? MR. CHAMBERS: No, Mr. Speaker. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, could the hon. member indi cate whether two of his employees are robots? I am wondering what salaries those two employees are being paid. MR. CHAMBERS: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to deter mine what salaries are paid to those robots. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, in a more serious vein, could the minister indicate whether employees in his department have been replaced by these mechanical mail deliverers and whether that will be the practice throughout government? MR. CHAMBERS: Mr.

Speaker, I am aware that in newer installations, there is a considerable degree of robotics in han dling mail and also with regard to warehousing. I couldn't say offhand that these have replaced people. But in past years, during the expansion of these systems, the utilization of mechanical robots has speeded up the process and probably avoided the need for additional personnel. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question in the same vein to the Minister of Agriculture.

Can the minister indicate what the robots are doing within his department, and what types of functions are being replaced in terms of the use of these robots? MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr. Speaker, I really don't know. I have to take that question as notice and report back. However, I do know we have a robot that delivers mail within the agri culture building, but I don't believe they gave it a name.

980 ALBERTA HANSARD May 22, 1984 MR. MARTIN: It was one of the MLAs. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, just for the information of the Assembly, I understand that the name of the robot is Adam. I suppose one other question a person could ask is whether or not there will be an Eve, but I'll leave that for later. I would appreciate the minister's review. ORDERS OF THE DAY head: GOVERNMENT DESIGNATED BUSINESS head: GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Second Reading) Bill 1 Students Loan Guarantee Amendment Act, 1984 MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker,

section 9(2) of the Students Loan Guarantee Act provides for a statutory loan limit. It has been $100 million. Because of the programs that are involved, this has been deemed to be inadequate. Therefore Bill No. 1, the Students Loan Guarantee Amendment Act, 1984, proposes to change

section 9(2) by deleting the amount of $100 million and replacing it with the amount of $150 million. I therefore move second reading of Bill No: 1, standing in my name on the Order Paper. [Motion carried; Bill 1 read a second time] Bill 53 Rural Electrification Statutes Amendment Act, 1984 MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill No. 53, the Rural Electrification Statutes Amendment Act, 1984. As this is a statutes Act, it contains amendments to three pieces of legislation.

First of all, amendments are proposed to the Co-operative Associations Act, 1984, which will require that for the sale of a rural electrification association, proper notice outlining the purpose of the meeting must be given to the members of that association at least 10 days in advance of the general meeting. Secondly, when a vote is taken at the meeting, the vote must be approved by at least two-thirds of the members present at the meeting.

These two provisions change from the current situation whereby the matter of the sale of an REA may be raised from the floor at an annual meeting, with no advance notice to the members. At the present time the required approval to pass the motion is 50 percent plus one vote. As well, there are amendments proposed to the Rural Elec trification Revolving Fund Act, 1984, and the Rural Electri fication Long Term Financing Act, 1984. As I indicated during first reading of the Bill, Mr. Speaker, the upper limits of the loans in both of these pieces of legislation would be increased from $20,000 to $25,000.

The legislation proposes that under the part one portion of the loan there be a loan of $5,000 with an interest rate of 3.5 percent for a maximum term of 10 years. The second $5,000 would be provided in what is called the part two portion of the loan, which is an interest-free loan, and the loan is repaid by new customers when they are provided with electrical services at a later date. The remaining $15,000 is shared equally between the part one and part two portions of the loan. In addition, Mr.

Speaker, a significant change to the program is that while at the present time the loans are restricted to farmers installing up to but not surpassing the 25 kva, under what is proposed the funds will be available for large single-phase and three-phase farm installations. Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude my remarks on second reading by indicating that we certainly appreciate the support of the Union of REAs as an executive representing all of the REAs provincewide. At the annual meeting in Red Deer last June, a position was put forward on the review of the program.

A lot of work has been done since that time by the action six committee under the leadership of Mr. Ben Smashnuk and also the three-phase power committee under Mr. Ted Herman. With those organizations operating under the umbrella of the Union of REAs as well as the interest of various individual REAs across this province working with their Members of the Legislative Assembly, we have been able to bring these amend ments forward as part of the total package as announced in the Assembly a week ago this past Monday. MR. BATIUK: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to express a few comments on this legislation.

I'm more than gratified that it has finally been brought in as legislation, and I trust it will pass. Back in the early 1970s, three of the MLAs from our caucus were chosen on an REA caucus committee: the present Minister of Recreation and Parks; yourself, Mr. Speaker; and myself. At that time we met with numerous groups: individual REAs, regional REA groups, and the provincial ones. We met with the utility companies and with groups that had an interest in there. It was very difficult to come to a consensus. At that time there were approximately 300 REAs in the province. But still, Mr.

Speaker, as we met, the same problems continually came up. The concern was the master agreements, the administration of deposit reserves, and REAs should have the rights to con struct and reconstruct lines. I'm also glad that in this legislation there will be provision for loans to farmers even if they are not in an REA area. The increase from $20,000 to $25,000 will be an additional help by way of loan. I'm glad the utility companies have given good service. I know we hear many complaints about them, but as a member of an REA for almost 35 years, I can really say that the service was exceptionally good.

True enough, like anybody else I don't like to pay more. No doubt our costs of the service to the residences have doubled, trebled, and are maybe even five or six times what they were 30 years ago. But everything else seems to have gone up in costs. When I think back to the mid-1940s, Mr. Speaker, the intention of these REAs was to provide a clean light, but it went far beyond that. Shortly, little by little, rural people used this power for many things and the demands came for greater, stronger transformers. I really can say that I support this piece of legislation.

I'd like to commend the minister for finally taking the bull by the horns. This is step in the right direction. When we met a week ago with approximately 250 members of REAs, there was almost unanimous support for this legislation. Trustfully, when this legislation is passed, which I believe it will be, we can go on. I think there are still other areas where REAs or the system can be improved. So I stand on record as supporting this. I hope all members will support it. MRS. CRIPPS: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to be able to briefly speak in support of the principles of Bill [53]. I know that the

May 22, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 981 REAs and power producers have debated the master contract for at least 25 years. I know that the ability to renegotiate the master contract will assist REAs. If both parties approach the renegotiation in a manner or tenor of goodwill, I'm sure that those contracts can and will be renegotiated to everyone's ben efit in rural Alberta. For the past five years, I've participated in a committee trying to resolve the issue of fair and equitable power rates for all Albertans and trying to ensure that REAs remain viable.

That's one of the things that I think will be accomplished by the principles of this Bill. I believe the ability to manage their deposit accounts and contract work will revitalize the REAs. I support the REAs being able to service all farm customers. I think that's impor tant. Their inability to service 25 kva transformers has been a sore point for a number of years. I think this is a big step. As chairman of the utility caucus committee, I'm pleased to be able to support the Bill. MR. MARTIN: Just a couple of comments, seeing my col league is not here. I'm sure that may be one of the reasons we're into this.

You'll have to listen to it again in the Committee of the Whole. My colleague will be going over it in the Com mittee of the Whole, which is the appropriate place, but just a couple of quick comments, and the minister can perhaps think about them. It has to do with the ownership after the lines and the power of the private companies generally. I don't pretend to be an expert in this area, but as I understand it there's a lot that's good about the Bill. In the Committee of the Whole, my col league will try to make the Bill even better.

I know the hon. minister will wait with bated breath until the Committee of the Whole, when he can bring through some of his concerns regard ing the Bill. [Motion carried; Bill 53 read a second time] MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, just on a point of order. It's a little hard to follow; I do not have a list. Could the Government House Leader give us an idea of the Bills we'll be dealing with, so we can at least follow along as they come up in this hour and get information if we need it? MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, we've dealt with 53, somewhat out of order.

If the hon. member will turn to the Order Paper, we'll start next with 33 and go down the list in numerical order, leaving out 37 and 41 I would think. MR. MARTIN: Thank you. Bill 33 Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund Amendment Act, 1984 MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill No. 33, the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund Amendment Act, 1984. There are four amendments in the Bill. Two of them are of some considerable importance in principle.

One ensures the continuation of funding after March 31, the end of the fiscal year, for previously approved capital projects under the capital projects division, and would allow a special appropriation Act to be introduced after the start of the fiscal year. The purpose of that amendment would be to facilitate the continuing con struction of the capital project past March 31 in a situation where moneys have not been voted in the previous calendar year. The second major change of course is evident on page 14 in the budget speech, Mr. Speaker.

As part of the 1984-85 fiscal strategy, it was stressed that the transfer of the heritage fund investment income in order to pay for some 16 percent of total operating expenditures was an integral portion and part of the 1984-85 fiscal strategy. That will reduce the deficit, the need for borrowing.

Of course over the period to the end of the fiscal year 1985, close to $4 billion in heritage fund invest ment income will have been diverted to provide what is essen tially two out of 12 months of support for the operating programs for Albertans for hospitals, social services, services for seniors, education, and justice. [Motion carried; Bill 33 read a second time] Bill 38 Public Lands Amendment Act, 1984 MR. WEISS: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill No. 38, the Public Lands Amendment Act, 1984.

The intent of this Bill is to simplify and deregulate, as well as provide greater flexibility along with improving the quality of management of Alberta's public lands. There are many revi sions to the Bill, in particular as best expressed by the Member for Cypress, who earlier said to me that everybody else knew what a slough was and now the legal experts will too. I've had several members — the Member for Drumheller, the Member for Innisfail — come up to me and indicate how pleased they are with the Bill and what it will do with the deregulation and simplification of some of the particular areas.

In particular, the government will confirm its policy of not claiming ownership to the beds and shores of sloughs and other intermittent water bodies. The Act clearly stated before, under

section 3(1), that intermittent sloughs and other intermittent bodies of water could be considered Crown land. Of course that policy has not been carried out by government, but it certainly clarifies it. There is no mistake as to the ownership. Provision is made to allow prospective purchasers of public land to submit written tenders stating how much they're pre pared to pay for the land. This allows them to decide, outside of the excitement of a public auction sale, how much the land is worth. In particular, Mr.

Speaker, there have been problems in areas such as Fort McMurray, where an acreage development was proposed. In that particular area, there were no comparable land sales that could be used. In this case, the minister is now able to use comparable sales in the area where the Crown land is to be sold or located. So it certainly does assist in that particular setting. As well, restrictions on the size and shape of parcels that will be granted to schools, churches, and community groups will be removed. The minister had to adhere to some very strict regulations that specifically laid out the size.

In particular, a school division pursuant to subsection (1)(

a) must not exceed 12 acres and the length of the area shall not exceed twice its width. This went on and on and created a great deal of confusion. This certainly has clarified it. Holders of leases on public lands will be given 60 days rather than one month to appeal any withdrawal from their leases. A similar extension to 60 days will be given to lessees to attempt to settle the amount of any compensation for such withdrawals before the Land Compensation Board becomes involved. Once again, Mr. Speaker, that will provide adequate time for both parties to be involved.

982 ALBERTA HANSARD May 22, 1984 Great emphasis has been pointed out to the fact that no new homestead sales will be issued. Sales will continue under the combined farm and homestead development regulations, which are less restrictive in terms of government control over resi dence requirements and the time of farm development. It's a clear case of deregulation, supported, I'm sure, by many mem bers. In particular, where in the past members have had to try to establish their residency requirement under the homestead Act, it was very difficult.

In today's age, where there are a lot of small communities accessible to an area that's being devel oped, the applicant will no longer have to reside on that par ticular land but can live in a small community and go out and work the land. It would be more economically feasible as well and would limit the number of dollars that would have to be put into the infrastructure. The responsibility of course is still there to that applicant. He will have to adhere to it. It will just be tightened under the other regulations, just shortened in great detail.

Further regulation will occur through the residency require ment in respect of the existing homestead sales contracts. Development of good roads has allowed farmers not residing in the immediate vicinity to effectively develop and farm home stead lands. Of course this will allow the part-time farmer to develop as well, and we certainly encourage it. The minister will also be authorized to invite applicants to submit tenders for grazing leases where applicable.

Regulations will be allowed to govern withdrawal of grazing lease lands from corporations which might otherwise acquire more lease land than the allowable maximum through change in the cor poration share structure. This regulation will provide for charg ing a corporation a transfer fee which will be in direct proportion to the extent of the interest which is transferred, no matter what alteration of the share structure is used. It certainly eliminates those violators who have tried to transfer land and avoid any penalty, and ensure that the regulations are kept. Therefore, Mr.

Speaker, I'm pleased to move second reading of Bill No. 38, the Public Lands Amendment Act, 1984.I urge all hon. members to support the Bill, and look forward to any discussion that might come forth in committee stage. [Motion carried; Bill 38 read a second time] Bill 39 Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 1984 MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill No. 39, the Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 1984. This short Bill contains quite of number of arithmetic cal culations, Mr.

Speaker, but basically it simply amends two Acts, the Local Authorities Pension Act and the Public Service Pension Act, by proposing to the Legislature five-year phased increases totalling 1.25 percent of salary for employee contri butions and the same for employer contributions under each of these two plans. This would be effective January 1, 1985. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that current contributions by the employees and employer will in total, when the interest and income is added in, come closer to meeting the current costs under these plans.

The proposal is to phase them in over the course of five years at .25 percent per year on the base of 3.8 percent of salary now. What this will do is reflect advice which was given by the Auditor General over previous years to the effect that this would be a desired course of action and also reflect those actuarial studies which indicate that current contributions are lower than would be appropriate and there should be an increase in them. So what this will do in the long run, Mr.

Speaker, is assist in maintaining the fiscal credibility of the province and avoid an increase in the tax burden for Albertans in future years. [Motion carried; Bill 39 read a second time] Bill 42 Alberta Corporate Income Tax Amendment Act, 1984 MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 42, the Alberta Corporate Income Tax Amendment Act, 1984, be read a second time.

One of the major elements of this Bill is to parallel Bill 51, introduced by my colleague the Minister of Tourism and Small Business, in that it will enable the Alberta corporate tax system to deliver the benefits of the small business equity corporation program to businesses in the province of Alberta. Therefore the Bill is similar to and mirrors the elements of delivery that are present in Bill No. 51. As well, the Bill modifies the rules for calculating interest on excess refunds, and deals with the transition between pro vincial and federal corporate tax with respect to loss carrybacks.

It further clarifies exceptions with regard to communication of information under the Act, which is limited. The other amendments are technical, as is the case in the next Bill which is coming forward. If there are detailed ques tions with respect to what is complex tax legislation, I would be pleased to follow it up in committee. [Motion carried; Bill 42 read a second time] Bill 43 Alberta Income Tax Amendment Act, 1984 MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill No. 43, the Alberta Income Tax Amendment Act, 1984.

The introduction of this Bill is somewhat of an annual event, insofar as under the tax agreements in this federation, in order to maintain uniformity generally between the Alberta and the federal personal income tax laws, there are Bills of this kind introduced into this and other provincial legislatures. As well, this Bill deals with the topics I mentioned with respect to the previous Bill; that is, the carryback of losses, which now goes for a full three years pursuant to recent amend ments to the federal income tax Act and also with respect to excess refunds.

It further deals with royalty tax credits, which are treated as what in fact they are, a refinement of the royalty system. However, I stress that the amendments would in no way change the status quo with respect to a number of legal actions which are in progress vis-a-vis the royalty tax credit. [Motion carried; Bill 43 read a second time] Bill 47 Alberta Art Foundation Amendment Act, 1984 MR. McPHERSON: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 47, the Alberta Art Foundation Amendment Act, 1984. There are a number of salient points with respect to this Act.

The first three deal with pretty much the same subject. In the first instance, the Bill would amend

section 3, entitled "Objects", by adding after clause (a) "public galleries in Alberta may be encouraged in their work". The encouragement of public art galleries in Alberta is not listed as an object under

May 22, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 983 the present legislation. This particular amendment would assist in the development of public art galleries as a means of pro motion of the visual arts to the public and provide a positive economic implication. The visual arts community has been advised of this, has been canvassed, and is generally in agree ment and welcomes this particular proposal. In addition to that,

section 1 is amended by adding "public art gallery" after clause (b). Simply, this will define "public art gallery" for the sake of understanding and to be abundantly clear so there will be no confusion by anyone as to what would be interpreted as a public art gallery. The third small amendment in this

section would be to amend

section 4 to allow the Minister of Culture to make regulations prescribing public art galleries, and these public art galleries would be prescribed in the regulations. I believe there are 11 at the moment. The other area that makes amendments to this particular Act is amending

section 6, entitled "Financing", by deleting sub section (1): The Provincial Treasurer shall pay to the Foundation in each year a grant in the sum of $50,000 from the General Revenue Fund. That whole area is being deleted in deference to the rather massive and recent infusion of lottery funds to the Alberta Art Foundation.

It's felt that there is no longer a need to provide a $50,000 grant from the Department of Culture to the Alberta Art Foundation when one considers that under the new distri bution of lottery profits, the Alberta Art Foundation will be receiving 18 percent of the cultural component of the lottery distributions, to a maximum of $1.1 million. So there's a con siderable injection of funds and no longer the necessity of a $50,000 grant. Mr.

Speaker, another amendment is to the effect that the foundation may make grants to any person or organization carrying on activities that are within the objects of the foun dation. The foundation doesn't have the authority to make grants under current legislation. The power to make grants is required so that the foundation can offer direct financial assist ance to those institutions such as public art galleries, for the production of such things as catalogues to promote visual art activities.

These activities have taken place before, but they were carried out by the foundation through a co-sponsorship mode that has been determined to be rather cumbersome and more expensive. The Alberta Art Foundation is amenable to these proposals, and it would be of great assistance to the potential recipients of grants to the foundation. One other amendment that takes place under Bill 47, Mr. Speaker, is to amend

section 8(3), ministerial direction, by deleting subsection (3)(

a) and including "providing priorities and guidelines for it to follow in the exercise of its powers". Essentially, this amendment provides greater ministerial dis cretion in the present legislation to broaden the discretion of the minister with respect to the regulations.

It's felt that the considerable infusion of substantial lottery funds into the foun dation and the proposed authority for the foundation to make grants requires a broadening of the ministerial direction in such areas as exercising fiscal responsibility, ensuring there are proper accounting mechanisms established, avoiding duplica tions of programs and services between the Department of Culture and the foundation Act. Those are the four salient points, Mr. Speaker.

I move second reading of Bill 47 and seek approval by members. [Motion carried; Bill 47 read a second time] Bill 48 Cultural Foundations Amendment Act, 1984 DR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 48, the Cultural Foundations Amendment Act, 1984.

The Bill comes as a result of requests by various groups throughout the province representing writers, publishers, and library services that, given the fact the government has made a decision that some of the lottery funds will be channelled in this direction, there follows that there must be a foundation to handle receipt of the funds and the disbursement thereof, in terms of various programs. This amendment will simply add the Alberta Foundation for the Literary Arts to those covered by the existing Act.

It will provide for a mandate for the new foundation, similar to those set out for the Alberta Cultural Heritage Foundation and the Alberta Foundation for the Per forming Arts, and will have similar goals and powers. The amendment will have no effect upon the existing foundations. The objects of the amendment are listed in the Bill, and of course the primary reason is to promote the literary arts within the province.

A foundation board will be established to admin ister various programs, and it is hoped that various individuals and organizations throughout the general public in the province will indeed see fit to follow the example of the provincial government with respect to giving donations for the ongoing work of the foundation. [Motion carried; Bill 48 read a second time] Bill 50 Law of Property Amendment Act, 1984 MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move second reading of Bill No. 50, the Law of Property Amendment Act. Mr.

Speaker, the important provisions of this legislation deal with the law of foreclosure in the province. The principal ingredients are aimed at what are called "dollar dealers" in the province at the present time. Numbers of people have observed the activity of dollar dealers. Primarily their method of operation is to acquire property for a dollar in circumstances where the mortgage is perhaps equal to or exceeds the value of the property, and then, by being the insubstantial defendant in lengthy foreclosure proceedings, collect rent on the property during that period of time.

This is a way of ripping off lenders, and I think some hardship has resulted, with no countervailing benefit. In other words, given the hardship of the lender in losing moneys that have been legitimately advanced in respect of the property, the only other thing that occurs in the circum stances is that someone, who has up to that time had no interest whatever in the property, profits because of what might be called a slick transaction. In order to try to discourage this type of practice, Mr.

Speaker, the proposal in the Law of Property Amendment Act is to provide that in foreclosure proceedings, the normal waiting period, which is called a period of redemption, would not apply. The period of redemption should and does apply in more normal situations, where a person may have some equity in the property and where the original owner or resident at the time the property went into arrears is still occupying the property. In those sit uations, the normal processes would still be followed.

In these less than ordinary circumstances, though, where the person in actual legal ownership of the property is the dollar dealer, the proposal is that the first and second orders of fore closure — that is, the order that precedes the period of redemp tion and the order that ends the period of redemption, which is called a final vesting order — could be merged into a single

984 ALBERTA HANSARD May 22, 1984 order. That way, the profitability of having the property for three or four — or perhaps, given the fact that proceedings normally take some time in addition to the redemption period, a dollar dealer might be in possession of the property for six or even eight or nine months. In circumstances that would be possible, given the difficulty perhaps in obtaining an order, in serving certain parties, and all the various other reasons there may be for delays.

In the result, if that period, which could be several months, can be shortened to a very short time indeed by merging the two orders, it is thought that that would dampen the enthusiasm of dollar dealers. One would want to know what it is that triggers these special provisions in respect of foreclosure. What would trigger these special provisions would be if the property were transferred while a mortgage was in arrears or if it went into arrears in the first four months after a transfer.

I note that dollar dealers usually feel that if they can get three or four months rental income from the property, they've had a profitable deal. That's why the suggestion is that if it goes into arrears anytime in the four months following a transfer, these special provisions would apply. There is one other provision. At the present time, an order for receiving of rent has to take place in the course of a legal proceeding which has been commenced by the lender against the owner of the property.

This Bill would provide another procedure, where a receivership order could be taken out on an ex parte basis, without commencing an action in respect of the mortgage document itself. Mr. Speaker, I hope hon. members will support Bill No. 50 in second reading. [Motion carried; Bill 50 read a second time] Bill 51 Small Business Equity Corporations Act MR. ADAIR: Mr.

Speaker, on a point of order before I get into the reading of Bill 51 — I'm trying to keep my ups and downs as limited as I can — I would like to seek unanimous consent of this Assembly to send a written letter of congratu lations to the Edmonton Oilers, who again have put not only the city of Edmonton but the province of Alberta and Canada on the map and around the world as a point not only of excel lence as a team but in essence proved that by hard work and diligence you can win the Stanley Cup for the first time ever on Alberta's soil. [applause] Mr.

Speaker, I now move second reading of Bill 51, the Small Business Equity Corporations Act. The purpose of this Bill, a new Act, is to provide the opportunity for the creation of private-sector pools of equity capital and that that capital would then be invested in small- and medium-sized businesses in the province. Thirdly, by providing incentives by way of grants to individuals and tax credits to corporations that have invested through the equity capital corporations in businesses in the province of Alberta, they would then benefit by that incentive of the grant to individuals or the tax credit. In essence, Mr.

Speaker, with the approval of this Assembly, it's hoped that we would have $15 million for that program over the next four years and that that kind of incentive pool by the Department of Tourism and Small Business on behalf of the government of Alberta would see the creation of some $50 million worth of equity capital generated throughout the province. The need for this particular Bill has been identified by a number of requests over the years that have come from the private sector.

I should point out at this time that one of the groups that deserves a great deal of credit for helping us as we put the Act together is the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not wishing to cause the hon. Min ister of Tourism and Small Business ah extra sit down and stand up, I didn't ask if we had unanimous consent to the message he suggested. Do we have agreement? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. ALEXANDER: Mr. Speaker, I don't think this event should pass without being celebrated, at least in a small way.

I think it's very important, and I want to say that Bill 51 does something which is desperately needed in this country at the moment; that is, it stimulates the formation of equity which is in an otherwise very punitive environment. For a long time I have regretted that the government of Canada has taken such a punitive approach to capital formation and investment. It seems that we're one of the few countries, in the modern world anyway, which makes a fetish of penal izing success, certainly investment success.

In my view it's an irony of the ultimate order that we look almost daily to countries like Japan and the U.S., and the Pacific Rim countries — one thinks of Singapore and Taiwan and Hong Kong — where there has been incredible capital formation in the last few years, encouraging and stimulating investment of all kinds. Not in Canada though. Over the last 25 years we have adopted a kind of secular religion, if you like, that has to do with the redis tribution of income.

When we've gotten to the ultimate level in the redistribution of income, we then proceed to the redis tribution of wealth, transferring investable funds from producer to consumer in massive size, with a huge cost of administration on the way through. At the same time we recognize that small business is the backbone of our economy and that it must run on some kind of fuel, either personal savings of the owners, its own internally generated cash flow, or bank loans.

Then when business slows down or falls, as it has in the last couple of years, the first of these, personal savings or assets, has to be diverted to secure the third, bank loans. By now we have learned that this is a poor way to do business, as we all witness the impact of the recession. If it is not an impossible system altogether, it is extremely difficult, especially for small businessmen. Mr.

Speaker, I don't think I've seen a statistic that dra matized that more significantly than one that was given to me not too long ago by the Canadian Federation for Independent Business, which indicated that small-business bank loans are guaranteed to the extent of 92 percent at the banks. Those guarantees are assets other than assets of the businesses them selves. In plain English, it means that small-business men have secured their small-business bank loans at today's banks by personal assets. That may contain some kind of commentary on the dedication of major banks to small business itself.

I leave other members to make a judgment based on that if the evidence is in fact valid. What do we do then? Small business clearly needs equity. Our country doesn't permit too much of that, except in instances of its own approved, centrally planned programs, usually in the form of tax shelters. We all know what those are — movies, MURBs, oil and gas funds, and the current fad of flow-through research and development credits.

We also all recognize that what we really need is to release small business to follow the paths of its own ingenuity, creativity, and initiative, and to make its own decisions without the smothering influence of left liberal wisdom — thus Bill 51. As the minister has informed us, the Bill

May 22, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 985 is to create the opportunity to stimulate the formation of pools of equity capital by relatively small investors throughout the province of Alberta. Once formed, the private-sector equity capital pools would provide small businesses with access to equity . . . to replace their debt, hopefully, . . . which has been difficult to obtain through current programs and practices. I have just tried to briefly describe those in outline form.

These pools of equity would . . . provide a means whereby Alberta small businesses are able to replace debt with [much needed] equity, thus resulting in a better finan cial structure. Perhaps a do-able financial structure. In closing, as a private-sector, free-enterprise advocate I must say that I am sorry our government is forced to do this, that such lengths are required to re-establish the integrity of the financial structure, but they are. So, Mr.

Speaker, I com mend the minister on the introduction of the Small Business Equity Corporations Act, because there's simply no other way to go in today's environment. I commend second reading to all members. MR. LEE: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join this debate on second reading of Bill 51. I too wish to commend the Minister of Tourism and Small Business for his sponsorship of the small- business equity corporation program and the Act. In some ways, this Bill has received relatively little public acknowledgment and media attention.

It is my view, and it is just my opinion, that this Act may be the most significant and important legis lation and legislative initiative for the long-term stability and growth of small business in this province in over a decade. I say that recognizing that in the past decade this government has introduced and sponsored many very important political initiatives.

The establishment of the Department of Tourism and Small Business, the creation of the Alberta Opportunity Company, the small-business interest shielding program, our present corporate tax structure, initiatives to develop interna tional trade, Vencap, and many, many other programs — all very good, laudable initiatives. In many ways, this initiative has the potential to be the most creative business policy initiative in some time. It is not a handout, it is not government interference, it is not a make- work or a makeshift program, and it has not been created in isolation of Alberta's business community.

It is an important, positive incentive to stimulate individuals and corporate inves tors who have traditionally invested their savings in savings accounts, who have traditionally invested in investments such as large corporations, blue chip investments, and were satisfied with a safe rate of return in a relatively safe investment.

I believe the objective and the result of this Bill will cause them to reconsider, to take a risk, in partnership with the entrepre neurs of this province, to participate through providing invest ment capital in five areas: the formation of new companies, the refinancing of existing businesses, the expansion and improve ment of present corporations, the development of research, and finally, launching new divisions or enterprises of existing cor porations. Mr.

Speaker, most of all, I want to address my remarks today to the need for new capital for the formation of new companies and refinancing of existing companies. I am certain that in my office in Calgary, I must get an enquiry once every two weeks from constituents looking for some assistance and direction in the creation of a new company or the refinancing of an existing company.

Because of the old DREE programs, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion programs of the federal government, I think most people going into business believe there are handouts, that there are large capital grants that we give away to assist them to form new companies. There is that misconception or myth out there that government has a large amount of equity to give away to people who want to start new businesses, and that isn't true. So what I do in my explanatory process is identify the sources of capital that are available to them. We go through a very traditional information process.

I immediately explain that the primary source of government assistance in Alberta is the Alberta Opportunity Company, the AOC. I explain to them that in order to qualify for an AOC application, they have to be turned down by three banks. I'm told very quickly that that's not difficult, particularly today, given the current situation. But AOC has very strict, very definite policies in terms of what it may do. We then go through the process of looking at the established banking system and how it can assist.

As the previous two speakers have pointed out, in the traditional banking system there is really no provision for long-term equity, for patient equity. It's evident, after the past three years in Alberta, that no company, no corporation, whether it's a new business or whether it's Dome, can finance its growth or its stability on demand notes that can be called at any time. Banks have respon sibilities to their charter, to federal regulations, to their share holders. They really don't have an instrument for long-term equity. Then we look at the stock market and private investment opportunities.

The immediate consideration many small-busi ness men look at is, there's no point in my going to a public offering. To get a Securities Commission approval today is costly. I think the minimum legal bills today are about $60,000. It's complicated; it's not always successful. There's no guar antee that a public offering will be accepted. In many cases, the amount of capital that would result from a public offering is too large. You don't require millions of dollars; we're really looking at sums of money less than a million dollars.

There's a second option, of a private placement under the provisions of the Securities Commission here in Alberta. Again, the same problems exist: it's costly and it's complicated. Of course there are many inquiries today about Vencap. Is Vencap the mechanism for the creation of new capital? It's my observation thus far that it really doesn't meet the needs of 80 percent of small businesses in Alberta, because most businesses aren't looking for in excess of a million dollars.

It's my obser vation as well that Vencap has been relatively conservative, if you'll pardon the expression, in the types of ventures it is investing in, for many reasons known to itself and its investors. Why are individuals looking to government for assistance? Because the first place they should look is the most difficult place to obtain new investment — private individuals. If we look at our track record in the past two years, thanks to inter national interest rates, to the national energy policy, and to the world economy, I think private investors have been burned and are reluctant to risk any more.

We look at savings in Alberta today. Savings are up to 14 percent of gross income for indi viduals. People are not speculating. They are not risking and they are not investing. I attended the opening of a bank in Calgary. I won't name the bank, but the credit manager there informed me that for one branch he had a credit line of $58 million available for investment, but he couldn't place it because business simply couldn't meet the investment criteria that most banks establish today.

I'm afraid we have a belief system setting in by the public that yes, they were willing to risk three or four years ago but they're reluctant to today. Fortunately we still have a breed of

986 ALBERTA HANSARD May 22, 1984 entrepreneurs in this province who have visions, who have new ideas, who have new proposals, but simply can't seem to attract those private investors. This will provide the primary instru ment to do that. Mr. Speaker, the second area is refinancing existing busi nesses.

One doesn't have to go very far today to find many very worthwhile, successful operating businesses that are barely hanging on in terms of survival because of losses during the past three years, because of interest rates, because of the tre mendous loss in equity and land, that are unable to survive today because they need new capital, new equity, refinancing. Many have already gone into receivership, and in my view there are literally hundreds of businesses today that are looking for some opportunity to attract new investment equity. I believe Bill 51 is that mechanism. Number three: research and development.

When a corpo ration is fighting for survival, when it's not showing any kind of profit or rate of return to its investors, when it's attempting to aggressively market its existing product, there is little oppor tunity for investment in research and development. If we lis tened to the debate in this House in the past two months, there is clearly a need for high-tech research and development in this province — any kind of research and development. I believe that Bill 51 provides a mechanism for many corporations to look once again at that particular facet of their business.

Expansion and development: how many businesses today are taking advantage of the opportunity to increase their market share? It's my experience in Calgary that there are relatively few, because they are unable to attract sufficient additional new equity to expand. Bank lines of credit are limited. Banks don't want to provide additional debt to expand because they look at the balance sheet and say: where's the equity in your existing business; what is the security you can provide? There's rela tively little security out there in the business world today. Again.

I think Bill 51 will provide a new mechanism for existing businesses to expand, and finally, for existing businesses to launch into new enterprises and new initiatives. Mr. Speaker, I think the program is solidly organized. It says there must be a minimum of $100,000 in investments . . . MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I regret having to interrupt the hon. member. The time for Government Designated Business has expired. head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 217. Moved by Dr. Carter:

Be it resolved that the Assembly urge the government to con tinue to promote the development of high-technology industries in the province by: (

a) encouraging the use and development of computers, robots, and lasers in design and manufacture, and (

b) working with industry and labour to develop strategies to prepare the Alberta work force for the impact of high technology. DR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move Motion 217, which is a very complicated motion in one respect, being that it covers the complete spectrum with regard to a number of issues which are very important in terms of the education process, the development of new technology within this prov ince, and the social spin-off which takes place as a ramification of the development of high technology.

If hon. members would be good enough to read over the motion, they will see that there are indeed three focusses. The first is to urge the government to continue to promote the development of high-technology industries within the province. That takes note of the fact that various programs and consul tation processes have been in place, and so we are urging the continuance of the development of high technology. The second focus is with respect to naming a number of particular areas which are in need of further investigation, as well as the matter of usage, and that is with regard to computers, robots, and lasers.

Then we go on to mention the area of design and man ufacture with respect to high technology in the province. The third focus is to request the government to continue not only to have in-house discussions in various departments but to have dialogue between various departments of government and then to continue in dialogue with industry and labour. [Mr.

Purdy in the Chair] So the focus of this motion is not at all narrow but one which really challenges the government to deal with the issues and also to reach out in terms of constructive dialogue with industry and labour, because the full impact of this revolution, where we are at the moment, affects all the people in the province of Alberta as well as the spin-off in terms of the rest of the world. Mr.

Speaker, it would be much my preference to stand in the wind and beauty and tranquillity of the Cypress Hills and listen to the melody of the coyotes, the screech of hunting hawks, or the call of hunting owls, and watch for deer or other wildlife. There it would be much easier for me to lean back and think that perhaps if I stay there, I wouldn't have to come face to face with the reality of not only the changes involved in terms of living everyday life but the impact and rapidity of change. However, even in the tranquillity of the Cypress Hills, I am really a subject of the high-tech revolution in various ways.

The other evening I could watch television as the Oilers won the Stanley Cup. But at the same time I was observing that game on television in as remote a place as the Cypress Hills, I myself was being analyzed from outer space. It's one of those things that on an evening you can observe the satellites passing overhead, and a number of us did spot satellites. That's at night. But in the daytime, the satellites still spin high above the earth's surface, and in their orbits they may well be observing such productive things as environmental factors or the change in agricultural land use.

They may be able to detect salinity factors in terms of land use, and agri culturally they are also able to detect where certain types of fertilizer could be used to better advantage. All of that is very interesting and productive. But at the same time, those same satellites are observing you and me for military purposes as well. So no matter where we go, we are impacted by obser vation, which is just one of the spin-offs of the technological upheaval which has taken place and which comes under the very broad definition of what technological development or high tech is all about.

I wish to quote very briefly from Megatrends, a book by John Naisbitt. He puts certain things into a very special context; that is, that during the agricultural period of man's history, the real issue was man pitted against nature. When we moved to an industrial society, we had man having to work with and against or in the context of fabricated nature in terms of machin ery. But now, at the same time we are in an agricultural society and an industrial society, we are in an information society where for the first time in civilization — the game is people interacting with other people

May 22, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 987' and interacting almost instantaneously. What has happened is that the shift from an agricultural to an industrial society, whether in North America or in other parts of the world, was a shift which took place over a period of 100 years. The present restructuring from an industrial to an infor mation society took place [over 20 years]. Change is occurring so rapidly that for most of us there is no time to react. But somehow we must try to "anticipate the future".

The five most important things to remember about a shift from an industrial to an information society are these, which are a number of points hon. members might well reflect upon: The information society is [already] an economic reality. Innovations in communications and computer technology [only] accelerate the pace of change as it affects our lives. New information technologies will at first be applied to old industrial tasks, then, gradually, give birth to new activities, processes, and products. Then there's a drawback to all this, which is referred to in Motion 217. It's the societal impact.

In this literacy-intensive society, when we need basic read ing and writing skills more than ever before, unfortunately in North America our education system is turning out an increasingly inferior product. It's in the context of writers such as these that we really have to reflect upon the immediacy of the information age which is upon us and how we in Alberta have to adjust at a very rapid pace. Number one, we have to recognize that change is here, and that items such as computers, robots, and lasers are not just something to deal with in terms of the future.

Most of us have indeed adjusted to the reality that one must face trying to come to grips with how to operate a computer in terms of our own working lifetime. Many of us, though, still think of robotics as being very much an esoteric kind of development, that robot ics really don't affect our lives too much. The same thing holds true with lasers.

We still think of lasers as something out of Star Wars or Buck Rogers, when in actual fact there is an interrelationship between computer development, robots, and lasers in terms of design and manufacturing as they affect us today, whether they're being employed in a car plant in Japan or the United States or being used in other industrial spin-offs. The sheer reality of the situation is that we are already well along in the development of microcomputers, robotics, and the use of lasers. How will we as a province adjust to these kinds of chal lenges?

That obviously is a challenge not only for the Depart ment of Education but for the frontline troops, in terms of teachers, students, and parents. So the parents and teachers will encourage the children and, altogether in terms of the system, there will be a search for the more rounded individual in terms of education, the more adaptable and flexible individual who has the initiative to deal with facing change and to see change not as a threat but indeed as a very real opportunity for personal growth, not just for personal survival.

The challenges are there not only in the Department of Education, as mentioned, but in the Department of Advanced Education. We have that division between advanced education and education, and what's happening here is that the lines are blurring even more with the development of microcomputers. As the hon. Member for Cypress realizes, in some of the day care facilities which he and I visit within this province of Alberta under the Social Care Facilities Review Committee, there are children aged four and five who are working with computers right now.

I'm willing to wager that some of those young children, and those who are not too many years older, have far greater computer literacy than any of us in this Assem bly. What we have there is a whole impact in terms of the educational system at the basic level and, as I mentioned earlier, the blurring of the lines in what we call advanced education.

We could sort of say to ourselves that in the last number of years computers have a reality — the use and development of them, the working toward supercomputers — and we can rest assured that those kinds of issues will be dealt with at our institutions of advanced learning. But in actual fact, that type of advanced education has moved down into the high school system and the lower grades as well. So it is that the challenges are there. Of course the challenge is there for parents to have to try to deal in conversation with young people today, espe cially with their own young people.

They have to have some kind of working knowledge, a very basic understanding of the potential of computers in addition to the operation of the same. The motion before us talks not only about computers; it talks of robots and lasers. With regard to the matter of com puters, it's my understanding that in Britain in 1982 the government recommended that they should be spending $700 million on a five-year research program for enabling technol ogies.

The technologies with respect to the development of microcomputers were these: software engineering — that's a phrase most of us here understand — the development of com puter software, the programs. They also recommended that much research funding be put into the area of very large scale integration, man/machine interfaces, and knowledge-based sys tems. With respect to computers, they're already dealing in terms of what are known as fifth-generation computer systems. These systems are expected to give considerable competitive edge in world markets to whoever can successfully produce them.

It was in this regard that in an earlier debate a week ago, I made reference to the fact of the computing capability of the Calgary area, looking forward to the matter of having a super computer hopefully installed at the University of Calgary within the next year, one which will be kept at world-class standards. Its full capability is an exciting challenge. It's mind-bending to try to imagine the infinite number of computations and the analysis which can take place within such a facility, and the speed. Of course there will be negative sides to the matter of further computer ability.

Oftentimes one of the first issues to be dealt with, or one which rises, is the matter of the potential damage to the quality and privacy of life, especially in the workplace. So it is that this has ramifications for labour organizers as well as for administrators and manufacturers, in terms of dealing with excessive intrusion into the privacy of an operation, the monitoring. In addition, microcomputers, robots, and lasers make for shrinkage in jobs.

But on the other hand, there's the social benefit that oftentimes some very humdrum activity on an assembly line has been taken away and replaced by the use of a robot. It's interesting to know that the whole development of micro chips has led to some fantastic developments with regard to the size of computers, the portability of computers, as well as the expanded usage and increase in speed with which com putations indeed can take place. It's very interesting to note that a single chip can do what would have required a whole rack of equipment only two years ago.

This continuing trend toward even more complex custom chips and the concept of total systems integration has reached the stage where a complete modern telephone switching system can be put on a relatively small area of silicon. In terms of industry, that obviously

988 ALBERTA HANSARD May 22, 1984 reduces the amount of space required to house such a system, and it certainly leads as well to reduction of costly wiring, connection, and maintenance problems. In an international context in this information technology, industry and university leaders throughout the developed world are needed to plan to meet their various national needs in terms of highly skilled manpower, because this really is the whole matter of survival in the years ahead.

We will still have our basic resource industries and resource development, but we need to indeed focus much more of our attention on the devel opment of high technology, even including such developments as having chip fabrication facilities or factories. There is no doubt, with regard to computers, that there are a tremendous number of challenges. Computers allow us to interface with a lot of other developments that indeed take place within society. Computers allow us to be able to program and direct the workings of robots.

That in itself allows for a greater shrinkage in terms of demands upon the time of the individual human being. High technology really can become a bit of a conundrum. Is it really going to be a blessing or a curse? Whether it is blessing or curse, we're faced with what is there. With respect to high technology in the United States, it really is a glamour industry.

As an industry it really is a hodgepodge, if you will, of computer electronics, software, robotics, communications equipment, computer-aided design and manufacturing, fibre optics, optical instruments, vapour phase technology, medical instruments, and biogenetics. And all of this stands on the continuing frontier of innovation. In early 1984 in the United States, roughly 2.5 million to 6 million people were employed in the high-technology industry, and that's out of a work force of over 103 million individuals. It's obviously a very high growth industry and one where there will be dramatic trans formation.

The real impact will be felt upon the manufacturing industry, to make them into leaner and more versatile facilities in dealing with the future economy of the whole world. In terms of the impact upon labour, unions have been making very little progress with respect to organizing workers in high tech industries. In part that's because high-tech industries tend to be smaller companies, often run as much more of a family- style business, the approach which was adopted within Japanese firms.

Again there's another factor, that high-tech workers often regard themselves as professionals and therefore are not quite so interested in being unionized. With regard to computers, computer-aided design, CAD, is another catchphrase we will have to incorporate in our vocab ulary more and more in the next few years. Another phrase is computer-aided manufacturing. Computer-aided design is an exceptionally helpful working tool, because it makes scaling models possible.

In terms of the design process, I was speaking last week with a friend of mine who is involved in the archi tectural and engineering aspect of the Alberta economy. They are moving immediately to computer-aided design, because it helps tremendously with respect to modelling of buildings and other construction projects. It allows for great input with respect to the design. You can call up the model on the computer and even move the model in a three-dimensional fashion. You can make immediate program changes, push the button, and away the whole modelling process goes.

This of course takes away the very tedious process for a tremendous number of draftsmen. Computer-aided design has been compared to what word pro cessors have done for typists and writers. This matter of the process involving innumerable revisions, with resultant fatigue to the operator, has now almost been done away with in terms of that device. [Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair] Computer-aided manufacturing then takes us into the areas of programming robots or other kinds of design and building so you can have a more efficient operation in terms of the manufacturing process.

But that really means there is a third area, called computer-aided production planning. This is where we bring computers into the whole planning process within the operation of a business. That in turn helps to cut down on costs involved and make for much more efficient design of plant processes. The matter of robots can cause great concern to people.

Nevertheless, I'm given to understand that within North Amer ica there has been considerable development from 1954, when the first patent was awarded for a so-called playback manip ulator, which later became known in the nomenclature of the marketplace as an industrial robot. The first commercially avail able robot was marketed in the United States in 1960. So it is that most robots were programmed and employed to move materials or tools through a programmed set of points. At present there are 2,000 different types of robots.

They can differ dramatically from other automatic machines with regard to their flexibility. They are very useful for production in the short runs that are very typical of the Canadian manu facturing economy. A robot of course is readily reprogramm able, has many functions, and can switch from one task to another in just a few moments. When one is faced with rising labour costs, obviously there comes a point when the cost of a robot makes it very attractive as compared to the ongoing labour costs involved with a person.

That of course is one of the great cares and concerns of the labour movement and also for manufacturers and owners themselves. Obviously most robots have been used in fairly mundane tasks such as manipulation, welding, or in spray painting with respect to machines. That also is a spin-off sociologically, from a health point of view, because the whole matter of one person being involved in spray painting parts of machines, farm machinery, trucks, or motor vehicles can indeed be a health hazard with respect to damage to the lungs. There have been some recent trends in industrial robots.

There has been a shift from pneumatic and hydraulic activation to electrical drive. So it is that the robots are becoming increas ingly programmable as they are hooked up to microprocessors and microcomputers. This also means they are able to be down sized, so they are much more mobile. The reliability of robots used to be 400 hours of uninterrupted performance. That has been increasing, and the goal now is about 1,500 to 2,000 hours. Obviously that means you can work a robot around the clock, which we are not able to do and which is not desirable to do with a person.

Robots are now being developed with a rudimentary sense of vision, so they have better recognition and orientation. They are even developing them with tactile sensing. The matter of robots is obviously upon us right now and has tremendous impact. Lasers were originally developed in about 1960. There have been tremendous developments there as well. So it is that their light ranges from invisible, ultraviolet, infrared, through all colours of the rainbow. One of the things about the laser is that it's a light beam which can be focussed.

Lasers are being used right now to transfer photographs and maps to printing plates. It's interesting that the Federal Bureau of Investigation have been able to work out a system with their lasers whereby, even 40 years later, the otherwise undetectable print left by a fugitive's fingertip can still be identified. The laser is a great measuring device. It has tremendous effects in terms of healing, especially in the area of surgery, which can be done in a very fine and calculated manner that also helps to promote healing. In picking up the magazine Farm

May 22, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 989 Light & Power, which comes to me because I'm a member of the Cypress Rural Electrification Association, I was interested to note that now they've even developed a laser-guided, com puter-controlled, solar-powered irrigation device. Mr. Speaker, with respect to this motion before us, I look forward to the debate and input from other hon. members in the Assembly.

I know the motion has broad-ranging ramifi cations, and I am certain that the members will be only too willing to share with me and other members of the Assembly their interest in this tremendous technology, this whole new challenge to all of us. MR. MUSGROVE: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree that we should continue to promote and develop high-technology indus tries in the province of Alberta. However, research and devel opment by themselves have few economic benefits. The results have to be put into practice or commercialized in order that society reap any significant benefits from them.

We must ensure that the adoption of new technology is not only encouraged but successfully balanced. High technology is fast becoming the world's leading export industry. Planning to become a full participant in this new industrial revolution. Alberta is building a sound base from which to operate. Alberta is working to diversify its economy and develop new industries. An important contribution to this end was the recently announced $200 mil lion Alberta heritage trust fund loan to establish a venture capital corporation that will offer incentives to high-risk and innovative business ventures. Mr.

Speaker, in the Bow Valley constituency, we have a high-technology industry called Global Thermalelectric. It has now ventured into the field of robots, and the managing director of Global Thermalelectric, Norman Arrison, is quite enthu siastic about spreading high technology all over Alberta. He has visited several communities, and his knowledge of high tech and enthusiasm are quite interesting.

He's quite interested in holding a meeting of some of his followers with the caucus committee on rural industrial development, to get the people of Alberta pulling together, as he quotes it, as far as the pro motion and development of high tech are concerned. Concerning robots, in 1954 a patent was awarded to G.C. Devol for a playback manipulator, which has become known as an industrial robot. The first commercially available robot was marketed in the U.S.A. in 1960.

There are various kinds of robots, and I can recall seeing robots taking bottles off belts and putting them in boxes in the glass factory in Redd iff in the late 1940s. They were not high-tech robots, but they were serving the same purpose. Worldwide, the United States robot market has grown from 21 million in 1977 to 60 million in 1979 and 90 million in 1980. It is expected to reach 700 million by 1985 and 2.2 billion by 1990. Japan leads the world, in terms of both robot manufacture and installations in industry. In 1980 alone, 12,000 robots were produced in Japan, up nearly 50 percent from 1979.

The annual growth rate is expected to remain at that level through the '80s. The cost of industrial robots is quite high, ranging from $7,500 to $150,000, but the payback periods are claimed to be from one to three years. Experts have predicted that a robot will produce the same output for $I.25 an hour as a human labourer will produce for $12 to $15 an hour. The computer's influence on jobs isn't restricted to manu facturing. Modern sawmills have computer-controlled saws. In the mines, computer terminals and robots are joining in the work force.

Computerized laser scanners have been introduced in some large supermarkets as a way to boost efficiency at the checkout counter. Robotics may prove the greatest threat to the labour force. With the huge robot population, Japan can make a car in about 57 man-hours, compared to 100 man-hours in North America. North American auto manufacturers can't afford not to follow this Japanese example. But the technical avalanche hasn't led to high unemployment in Japan, because Japan has been able to continue to increase its share of the world market in any manufactured products.

Concern about the effects of computer technology on jobs and working conditions has become wide spread amongst labour and political organizations. Concerns arise not only about the disappearance of jobs as a result of technological change but also about shifts in the job market. However, one truism of automation of any type is that the number of indirect or service workers does not decline in pro portion to the decline in direct employees, as those working on the production line. Employee training did not go unnoticed at the recent western premiers' conference in Kelowna, British Columbia.

Com munique #3, Economic Growth and Development, contains the following excerpts: The Premiers discussed the critical importance of skills and knowledge in the economic era now emerging. They stressed that all levels of government must cooperate with business and labour to provide Canadians with educational and training opportunities relevant to the job market of the future.

The Premiers noted that emphasis should be placed on retraining workers affected by technological change, on improving apprenticeship training and on redi recting university priorities to encourage courses more consistent with needs of the economy. They indicated that special priority should be given to training programs related to international trade. The Premiers directed their ministers responsible for manpower to jointly develop mechanisms for greater coop eration and coordination in this area. Mr.

Speaker, we're into the technological age, and whether we of our age group understand it, I think we have to continue to promote this kind of development. So I suggest that every body pass this motion. Thank you very much. MR. WOO: Mr. Speaker, as all hon. members know, we have had a number of debates on related motions and Bills that have been presented to the Assembly over the past few years. Cer tainly more have come to this floor in the last two years, because of increasing awareness of the role of technology in the pro vincial scheme of our economic future and certainly the indus trial future of Canada.

We have debated a number of subjects in the broad areas of science and technology, research and development, biotechnology, micro-electronics, and micro computers. These are all areas we see as part of the so-called high-tech age of the '80s. From a national perspective, we know that Canada is about four to six years behind the United States, Europe, and Japan in using micro-electronics and computers to increase produc tivity in manufacturing.

Insofar as some of our more advanced companies are concerned, I think there is an absolutely clear recognition that productivity through the use of computers and robotics technology is the key to intemational competitiveness. I believe all governments now share this view, although perhaps in varying degrees. With the exception of Saskatchewan, New foundland, and Prince Edward Island, there are now techno logical or micro-electronics centres in all the provinces.

Government commitments to funding such centres range from too little to just less than adequate — for example, from the federal government commitment of $10 million over five years.

990 ALBERTA HANSARD May 22, 1984 which translates into $200,000 for each centre it supports, to the Ontario government commitment totalling $200 million provincially over five years to its own centres. With the question of funding, I think there are two schools of thought. On the one hand, if we are to give substance to this motion and all others of a similar nature that have been presented to this Legislature, then certainly the view must be interpreted that all our present funding formulas are less than adequate.

This would be particularly true of those funded proj ects which have a significant and direct relationship or appli cation to our provincial economic concerns. On the other hand, if the perception is such that through the investment of the public dollar we are funding scientific or technological projects that seem out of place or whose applications are doubtful, or projects that reflect a political priority as opposed to practical or pragmatic realities, then one might be led to the conclusion that regardless of the quantity of dollars involved, those dollars would be misdirected. Mr.

Speaker, I am of the opinion that the debate as to what should and shouldn't be done will continue for some time to come. There are those who argue on the side of natural advan tage, and there are those who argue on the side of creating totally new industries apart from the aspects of natural advan tages. With all due respect to my colleagues in this House who have argued on both sides of the fence, I happen to come down on both sides concurrently. The point I'm trying to make, Mr.

Speaker, is that caught between all this rhetoric are our scientific and research community and certainly our small- and medium- sized businesses and industries in this province, particularly those dedicated manufacturers and industries that have made considerable and significant forward movement in terms of engineering design and fabrication and practical applications in the use of technological innovations in industry.

Of particular concern to me, if I am to read my hon. col league's motion correctly, are those small- and medium-sized manufacturers who have staked a claim in the high-tech industry in this province. Many of these firms are involved in the devel opment and manufacture of technological instrumentation that has application to our economic interests. It is my view that in the short and medium term, these firms must expand their efforts beyond those concerns of a provincial nature if they are to survive or expand from an economic standpoint.

The present domestic market, based upon natural advantage, can only absorb so much technological innovation unless we seriously begin to diversify our industrial and economic base, in which event our present firms will not only provide the base for a high-tech industry itself but will contribute to the creation of totally new industries. This means more jobs.

I have confidence in the demonstrated ability and expertise of our scientific and research and development community in this province and in the management ability of those Albertans who have established their companies in the field of computers and technological instrumentation. If we look at our provincial economy, Mr. Speaker, we will find it is primarily resource based — oil and gas, petrochemicals, agriculture, forestry, and mining. I believe the potential for operational enhancement and increased productivity through the use of technological and computer innovation is tremendous.

I know that many of the companies involved in these industries are already using tech nological instrumentation, and some of the new projects that are not yet off the drawing boards are incorporating still newer innovations as an integral part of their plants and operations. The ar

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19840522
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L20 S2 19840522 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	7d85724010a60174aee3040bee39f64d30ad28ff

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