Alberta Hansard — 29 April 1987, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 21, Session 2)

19870429

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

April 29, 1987 ALBERTA HANSARD 895 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Wednesday, April 29, 1987 2:30 p.m. Date: 87/04/29 [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] PRAYERS MR. SPEAKER: Let us pray. We give thanks to God for the rich heritage of this province as found in our people. We pray that native-bom Albertans and those who have come from other places may continue to work together to pre serve and enlarge the precious heritage called Alberta. Amen. head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 33 Alberta Cultural Heritage Amendment Act, 1987 MR. ANDERSON: Mr.

Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill 33, the Alberta Cultural Heritage Amendment Act, 1987. This being a money Bill, Her Honour the Honourable The Lieu tenant Governor, having been informed of the contents of this Bill, recommends the same to the Assembly. The purpose of this Bill is to enhance Alberta's cultural heri tage through the establishment of the Alberta Multicultural Commission, the first in Canada. The Bill also proposes to entrench the concept of sharing our cultural heritage and of preserving heritage languages. [Leave granted; Bill 33 read a first time] MR. SPEAKER: Edmonton Kingsway.

Bill 264

An Act to Amend the Mortgage Brokers Regulation Act MR. McEACHERN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I beg leave to introduce for first reading Bill 264,

An Act to Amend the Mort gage Brokers Regulation Act. This Bill will simply strike out the clause in

section 2 of the Mortgage Brokers Regulation Act which exempts members of the Law Society of Alberta from the Act's provisions. [Leave granted; Bill 264 read a first time] Bill 214 Agricultural Refinance Agency Act MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill 214, the Agricultural Refinance Agency Act. The purpose of this Bill is the consolidation of existing agri cultural debt for individuals. This Bill, Mr.

Speaker, would help sincere young farmers whose only fault was that of being caught in an artificial inflationary land boom to stay on the farm and contribute to the health of Alberta. [Leave granted; Bill 214 read a first time] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to file three copies of a Liberal caucus discussion paper on constitutional reform enti tled Broadening the Agenda, which we released earlier today. MR. WEISS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table four copies of the annual report for the Alberta Sport Council, along with financial statements. MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I'm filing a response to Question 132, 1986. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased today to introduce to you and to members of the Assembly, five leaders of ethnocultural communities who are here on this day that we introduce the Multicultural Commission. They are Mrs. Faye Devries, president of the Dutch Canadian Club of Edmonton; Mr. Abdul Remtulla, president of the Ismailia Cultural Society; Mrs. Judith Goldsand, president of the Jewish Federation of Ed monton; Mr. Don Lee, chairman of the Edmonton Immigrant Services Association; and Mrs.

Dorothy Onuoha, who is vice- president of the Nigerian Association of Alberta. They're in the members' gallery, and I would ask them to all stand now and to receive the warm welcome and thanks of this Assembly for their contribution to Alberta. MR. ZARUSKY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce to you and through you to the rest of the Assembly, the president and four directors of the Smoky Lake Alfalfa Processors plant: Mr. George Kozub, Mr. Steve Kuzyk, Mr. Roy Mandzik, Mr. George Gelych, and Mr. Metro Topolnisky. Also, Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to introduce to you and through you, four constituents from the Andrew area: Mr. and Mrs. Walter Forst and their two daughters, Caroline and Connie. They are seated in the public and members' galleries. I'd ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of the House. MR. SPEAKER: Edmonton Beverly. MR. EWASIUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's a privilege and a pleasure for me today to introduce to you 33 grade 6 students from the Elizabeth Seton school, which is located in the con stituency of Edmonton Beverly. These students are accompa nied by two teachers, Miss Fezza and Mrs.

Goruk, and by one parent, Mrs. Scade. They are seated in both the public and members' galleries. I'd ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Legislature. MR. DROBOT: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce to you and members of this Assembly, 36 grade 6 stu dents from Glen Avon school in the St. Paul constituency. They are accompanied by one teacher, Mrs. Gloria Zukiwsky, and three parents, Mrs. Janice Zarowny, Mrs. Delores Girard, and Mrs. Joy Gordon. They are here to watch democracy in action. They are seated in the members' gallery. I would like them now

896 ALBERTA HANSARD April 29, 1987 to rise and receive the traditional welcome of this Assembly. MR. GIBEAULT: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased today to introduce to you and to members of the Assembly, 47 students in the grade 6 class at Satoo elementary school in the Edmonton Mill Woods constituency. I'm particularly pleased to introduce this group, because I visited this school a few days ago and had a chance to take on your role, Mr. Speaker, as we had a mock de bate on the issue of whether or not the government should introduce a new tax of 10 cents on chocolate bars.

They're ac companied today by three of their teachers: Mrs. Alice Hal- vorson, Mr. Roger Langevin, and a student teacher, Miss Mary Mayo. I'd like them to please rise in the public gallery and re ceive the warm welcome of the House. MR. SPEAKER: Edmonton Glengarry. MR. YOUNIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly, Mr. Randy Lawrence from the Hinton area, who's on the steer ing committee of the Coalition for Forest Spray Alternatives.

I would like him to rise in the public gallery and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Property Tax Reduction Program MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the first question to the Provincial Treasurer. On April 2 the cabinet quietly amended the property tax reduction regulations to confiscate the homeowner benefit from thousands of mobile-home owners and owners of modest homes. The minimum benefit, which had been relied upon by thousands of working people, has been eliminated, resulting in doubling and tripling of property taxes payable by many people.

Will the Treasurer advise the Assem bly why he neglected to mention this regressive tax in the budget? MR. CRAWFORD: We can answer that, Mr. Speaker. The average benefit was about $80. It's true that many people re ceived the benefit, but the maximum of $200 has averaged out to the lower figure for most people. I guess there would be some extreme cases where that would be of some difficulty for the people involved. But for a saving of about $7 million, we thought the average benefit was low enough so that most people could handle it. MR. MARTIN: That's debatable, Mr. Minister, but my ques tion.

Surely this is a budget item. The Treasurer doesn't seem to even be aware of it, at $7 million. My question is: why was that not part of the budget to begin with? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, it isn't a question of being aware or not of what was involved in the various elements of the budget. What it does reflect is the way in which this govern ment has formed its budget process, in that we accept the lead and the direction by the ministers who are involved. And in co operation with the environmental groups that they serve, they set the priorities accordingly.

We have to do that in the context of limited resources this year, and that is why in this case that was one of the items that had to be judiciously weighed and con sideration given for another option in terms of that expenditure program, and that's how it emerged. It isn't that we didn't know about it; it's just that you just found out about it from the member across the way now. And he has ample time, Mr.

Speaker, ample time to raise it during the debates on the budget, which are still ongoing as far as I know, and it would be a great chance for him to explore and develop his own alternatives as to how it could be handled. That's how it happens. I'm glad to give him a refreshing briefing as to how the process works on this side of the House. MR. MARTIN: Well, we love getting a briefing about how they do their budget; there's no doubt about this. This was done on April 2. A backdoor: is that the way the budget process works? That's interesting to know. Thanks for the refresher course.

But my question, to continue about the tax itself. The homeowner benefit under the property tax reduction plan previ ously guaranteed minimum benefits of $200 for persons under the age of 65, regardless of how modest a person's home was. The point about that is that people with lavish homes receive the full benefits. My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Will he explain why the cabinet now wants to continue giving the full benefit to the well-to-do, regardless of the cost, and take it away from those such as mobile-home owners whose homes are less expensive?

How does this government justify these double standards? MR. CRAWFORD: Well, Mr. Speaker, the plan is well known by all members, I'm sure. The basic benefit under the property tax reduction program is that the foundation plan levy is taken off. The calculation is that the foundation plan is deducted from $1,000, and any excess is given as a credit, in the first instance, on the tax statement. So all Albertans share in the property tax reduction. The $200 minimum benefit was preserved for seniors, and that is appropriate, given the wide range of pro grams for seniors. MR. MARTIN: Supplementary question, Mr.

Speaker. I've always admired the Minister of Municipal Affairs' ability to skate around the question. I've always admired that. But we want an answer to the question that I'm asking, not how it works. We know how it works, but the reality is that those who did not require the full benefit of the $200 grant for provincial taxes could apply the balance against municipal taxes. That's been taken away.

It's affecting a lot of people on modest in comes, and my question very specifically is: why is it always the people who have modest incomes that this government al ways goes after to overdo their deficit because of their mis management? Why didn't they do it with the people that could afford it, rather than this group? MR. CRAWFORD: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think I answered that too. The property tax reduction program applies to all homeowners, and the $200 benefit was a means of introducing an extra benefit under the program.

When the survey revealed that the average benefit was so low -- about $6.50 a month -- it was deemed that that could be handled by most people, and the adjustment was made to the budget, as the Treasurer said, to apply on other programs which appeared to have a high priority also. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, this supplementary is to the Treasurer, although the Minister of Municipal Affairs has done

April 29, 1987 ALBERTA HANSARD 897 an admirable job of defending the indefensible. We see a pat tern here when you look at this mobile-home tax, the question of farm fuel subsidies being cut, the question of rental credits being put away, extra fees being charged in public schools, user fees to the handicapped. It's a litany that points that this government is directed towards taxing the poor, towards trying to balance the budget on the backs of the poor.

Now, how can you justify this type of taxation when we have a lottery fund occupied by the hon. minister from Calgary that's sitting there with $52 mil lion, preening his feathers as he decides what to do with it, while you're sitting there taxing the poor of this province to budget, budget? MR. JOHNSTON: My colleague the minister responsible for lotteries probably would like at some point to correct the factual misinformation which has been put forward.

Let me deal only, on a more rational basis, with the questions raised by the Mem ber for Westlock-Sturgeon, where in fact he draws into some dispute the intentions of this government with respect to its fis cal plan to unload the costs on the backs of those who are less able to pay for the services from which they are now benefiting, which I think is a reasonable

interpretation of what he said, put ting aside the histrionics, the yelling, and the shouting and run ning about, which is typical of the member, Mr. Speaker. What this government has done, of course, Mr. Speaker, is very carefully craft this budget so that in fact there is a clear re cord of unloading the costs from those people who are less able to pay. I have reported in this House on numerous occasions, and I will take an opportunity again to outline very briefly, some of those which are relevant in that context. First of all, Mr.

Speaker, let me be very clear that the Alberta selective tax re duction has in fact taken from the tax rolls of Alberta an addi tional 250,000 Albertans who normally would pay taxes, who will now either be totally relieved or pay less taxes than ever. That comes to approximately 500,000 Albertans who will be taken from the tax rolls because we are determined not to put the cost on those people less able to pay. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, as all members here will recognize, this province has the lowest tax cost of any province in Canada.

Incorporate in that for just a second a very important element; that is to say that this province has no sales tax. When you talk about regressivity of taxation, one must look at sales tax. Be cause it's in fact the sales tax element that really is the one which impinges most on disposable income. This province that . . . [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. MR. JOHNSTON: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I get so excited when [inaudible] MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Oppo sition for the second main question. MR. MARTIN: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to designate my second question to the Member for St. Albert. Zeidler Forest Industries Ltd. MR. STRONG: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address my question to the Minister of Labour. It regards the . . . AN HON. MEMBER: Surprise, surprise. MR. STRONG: Surprise it is. It regards the 13-month-old on going labour dispute involving Zeidler forest products which still remains unresolved.

The minister appointed a disputes in quiry board on September 10, 1986, to review this dispute, and that board recommended a settlement to both parties that con tained no wage rollback for existing employees and some reduc tions for new hires. To the minister: does the minister support the recommenda tions of his deputy minister, Mr.

Clint Mellors, who on January 5, 1987, revised the findings of the disputes inquiry board and recommended to those employees that they take a $1.50 an hour wage rollback to make up for the Canadian softwood lumber tax of 15 percent that was imposed by his federal colleagues in Ottawa? DR. REID: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. I wasn't aware that the member was finished with his question. This situation is, Mr.

Speaker, as I've addressed several times in this Assembly on prior occasions and outside the As sembly, that we have here a dispute on an economic basis be tween the employees, as represented by their union, and the owners, as represented by the management group. The econom ics of that industry are surely a matter for that industry. We've had two attempts to find common ground: the disputes inquiry board, where indeed the union on behalf of the employees ac cepted the disputes inquiry board decision; the employer felt that they could not.

Subsequent to that, the employer did for mally suggest that there was a requirement for a further rollback in wages for the existing employees, in addition to a lower rate for any new hires. The subsequent efforts by my deputy were rejected by both sides, and as the Premier said yesterday, there appears to be quite a considerable difference of opinion and a distance between the two parties. MR. STRONG: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. It's obvious that economics were involved, because $1.50 wasn't enough.

Does the minister also support his deputy minister's proposal of January 12, since that buck and a half wasn't enough, for those employees to take a $2-an-hour wage rollback, again using for justification the 15 percent Canadian softwood lumber tax -- that they take that $2-an-hour wage rollback? DR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I think I just answered the question. In the attempts to find a middle ground, nobody has been suc cessful thus far. I will be meeting with Mr. Campbell. He's now back in the province. And again, as the Premier has said and I've said in the past, the chance of success is slight, but we will try.

MR. STRONG: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. It's obvious that a telephone call to a secretary isn't going to get the job done. So I suggest maybe you get in touch with Mr. Campbell to get it done. To the minister. Can the minister explain to Albertans why the concerns of an employer, who, incidentally, gives money to the Conservative Party -- supports them financially -- why that employer is given priority over the interests of 100 working Al bertans when it comes to that employer's concerns? Can the minister explain that to Albertans? DR. REID: Mr.

Speaker, the concerns of this government are fairness but also survival of the employer so that he can indeed continue to employ people. The economics of the individual

898 ALBERTA HANSARD April 29, 1987 operations in this province, the economics of industries in this province, are of vital interest to all of us in that if there is not compatibility with the provisions for other industrial members in other jurisdictions, then obviously the Alberta industry will not survive. My understanding is that the employer feels -- and I do not impugn any motives on the employer's part any more than I would on the part of the union -- that the rollback is required and the union are not willing to settle for the rollback. That's the difference of opinion that exists. MR.

STRONG: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. It's inter esting to note that economics have everything to do with the labour Act, and I thought a labour Act . . . AN HON. MEMBER: Question. MR. STRONG: . . . was for working people. Maybe you could remember that in the future.

To the minister: could the minister explain how Albertans can expect fairness from this government when it comes to labour legislation in this province, based on his obvious priorities and the Premier's comments yesterday -- just how Al bertans can expect fair labour legislation from this government when it's obvious they hold labour leaders and union members in absolute disdain? MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, this is a short supplementary, not time for debate. Hon. minister. DR. REID: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I can't answer the member's question without going at it with some length.

I think it has been stated quite clearly on many occasions by myself, by the Premier, by other members of this government. This gov ernment is interested in fair labour legislation. I doubt if any legislation that is introduced would satisfy the extremes at the end of the spectrum, either on the part of union leadership or on the part of some entrepreneurial business people. I am more realistic perhaps than the hon. Member for St. Albert in that regard.

If he would care to read thoroughly the final report of the Labour Legislation Review Committee, he will find there laid out extremely clearly what that committee recommended to the government. Those recommendations in many cases mirror the attitude of the government. It is crucial that attitudes in this province are the same as the interests of this government: fair ness and equity. We will address that on behalf of all Albertans.

I can assure the member that when he sees the legislation, if he cares to read it thoroughly he will see that that is the intent of the legislation, but it is also the intent to recognize commonality of interest between employer and employee. If we can get both sides to recognize that commonality of interest, we will have a different environment in this province, perhaps not one to the liking of the hon. member. MR. SPEAKER: Member for Westlock-Sturgeon, supple mentary question. MR. TAYLOR: Yes, a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Labour.

As he has seen by the questions and ac cusations going back and forth about political donations -- in order to make labour relations easier and better in the future, is the minister considering at all recommending in his report that all donations from either unions or corporations to political par ties be abolished? DR. REID: I think the hon. member is into another statute un der another minister, but he did address the role of government, Mr. Speaker. The role of government is to provide a fair and equitable environment for employees and employers to relate to each other.

If they choose to become organized -- and that's the prerogative of the employees -- then they do so and they live with a situation and the rules. The rules will be fair and equitable. The role of government is not to be a negotiator nor an arbitrator. That is between the employees and the employers, and I can assure the hon. member that will remain as a precept in the future. Forest Fire Fighting MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I'm just going back for a second. For the first time since I've been in the House, I got more hell from those over on my left than I did from the government when I asked the government.

I'm drying up their political support. Mr. Speaker, this is a question to the Minister of Forestry, Lands and Wildlife, and indications show that this may be a very dry summer and one that may threaten Alberta's forests because of the high fire danger. The fact that there have been almost a hundred fires already and many times more acreage involved than at the same time last year shows the potential for the bad forest fire season that may be unfolding. First question: despite the potential for a bad fire, the minis ter has reduced his budget for fire suppression by 42.8 percent.

In calculating his needs this year, was the minister willing to gamble with Alberta's forests on this being a wet summer? MR. SPARROW: Mr. Speaker, last year we spent about $14 million in fire fighting, and our presuppression units over the last three years and our readiness to address those fires has re- ally kept the costs down. The budget this year is equal to last year's budget of what we actually spent. We have had a very dry season to date, and I don't think your number is quite accu rate at 100, but it's getting near there.

There have been about 2,200 acres to date, and the cost has been kept under control by the rapid action of our forces. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. The budget may be the same, but the summer isn't the same. What is the contingency plan, then, if it continues at the present rate? Is the minister going to have any problem accessing or ensuring that he can keep up the fire fighting level that is now being used con tinued on through the whole summer? MR. SPARROW: We don't anticipate any problems throughout the summer.

Looking back over the years before we had the preparedness units out and working, fire costs were a lot greater in this province. In most areas we have a 15-minute response time. The key to fire fighting is getting there very rapidly and before it gets out of control. Our success ratio in the last three years has been proving that. MR. TAYLOR: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm still not getting the answer.

What I want to know from the minister is: when the budget that he's apportioned for putting out forest fires ends -- when it's finished, if it is finished, if the Lord does not do what he says; I know they usually do what Tories say, they say -- if the Lord does not do what he thinks and he needs more money,

April 29, 1987 ALBERTA HANSARD 899 how is he going to go about getting it? MR. SPARROW: Mr. Speaker, when and if that eventuality comes about, I'm sure that after going to church on Sunday, I'll go to cabinet on Wednesday and may get some assistance. MR. TAYLOR: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the minister. Would it not have been more sensible and more hon est with the House if he had asked for a maximum budget at the very outside, rather than this and then hope and pray that he can get through? MR. SPARROW: Mr. Speaker, we took our estimates up on Monday and had the opportunity to discuss them.

We very defi nitely feel that the budgeted amount is adequate, and if the even tuality happens that we do have a bad season, as years gone by have proven, special warrants are available. You've just added a new element, and I will continue to go to church every Sunday. MR. SPEAKER: Is this a supplementary? But not a hypotheti cal supplementary. Edmonton Glengarry. MR. YOUNIE: Not a hypothetical. No, not a hypothetical. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did bring this topic up during your estimates, and I'm just wondering: in view of the fact that it wasn't difficult to realize this was developing into a very dry spring, did the minister con sult with the minister of career development to access funds to train and hire students through his budget for fire suppression this season? MR. SPARROW: Each and every year, Mr. Speaker, we have alert crews trained throughout the province. Those crews come back to us on an annual basis throughout the province, and should the need arise for additional funding, I may be calling on my colleague.

You've now identified another bunch of funds that maybe I could use besides going to church. MR. SPEAKER: Member for Little Bow, followed by the Member for Edmonton Glengarry. Automobile Insurance Rates MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. A recent move by the On tario Liberal government to freeze car insurance premiums and regulate the profits earned by auto insurers raises concerns about the effect that this will have on some of our Alberta insurance rates.

The president of the Royal Insurance company of Canada has indicated, as a result of this government initiative, that little or none of the insurance industry profitability is coming from the auto insurance and certainly not from personal auto insur ance in Ontario. Could the minister indicate what research has been done with regards to this in Alberta and whether the minis ter is able to determine whether that move by Ontario will have an effect on auto insurance rates here in Alberta? MISS McCOY: Mr.

Speaker, we're quite flattered that Ontario is, at least in part, taking a leaf out of Alberta's history in introducing an Auto Insurance Board. In Alberta we have had such a board since something like 1971. Indeed, it was intro duced by the former Social Credit government, and it has worked very well since. It is a board that regulates and ap proves the auto insurance rates for that portion of the insurance that is mandatory in Alberta, and we think that this practice is one that is being viewed in other jurisdictions with some favour. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister, and it relates to my first question. Has the minister any indication that this move in Ontario, even though it's occur ring, will have some effect in Alberta? And will the policy that is in effect, in terms of our board, be able to handle that kind of a rate increase? MISS McCOY: Yes it will. The rates for automobile insurance in Ontario are almost double in the high-risk categories than they are in Alberta.

I might point out that the premiums that are charged in Alberta are rated and set according to the local market, and so the premium levels here have no direct connec tion with that which is charged in Ontario. The other point I think that the member is asking about is whether the profits of a company in one region of the country might impact on another region in the country, perhaps the im plication being that a company might try to offset their profit pictures by increasing their profit picture in Alberta.

I can as sure the member that the Auto Insurance Board is there to en sure that the premium rates charged in Alberta are based on good reason and actuarial standards and that that sort of ploy would be discouraged, if not prevented. MR. SPEAKER: Edmonton Belmont, supplementary. MR. SIGURDSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the minister: when will the minister tell the industry that it's time to stop dis criminating against male drivers that are under the age of 25 and offer them fair and equitable rates?

MISS McCOY: While that question is not quite germane to the leading questions on this subject, let me say that the Automobile Insurance Board is there to ensure that every classification of drivers, and the rates that are charged for every classification, properly reflect the claims experience and the loss experiences for that classification of driver and that the board has advised me that it has no present intention of doing what the member so slavishly follows other jurisdictions in suggesting. MR. SPEAKER: Member for Edmonton Glengarry, followed by the Member for Calgary Buffalo. Herbicide Applications MR.

YOUNIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For the minister of forestry. One year ago today in the Yellowhead riding during the election campaign the Premier made statements which led many to believe that he had promised a moratorium on herbicide spraying in forest areas and may explain why voters believe politicians will say almost anything to almost any group during an election. The moratorium that these people believed had been promised was only denied after the local MLA won a squeaker.

Can the minister confirm that his department has ordered large quantities of hexazinone and other herbicides from Du Pont, and if so, can he explain the intended use of these products?

900 ALBERTA HANSARD April 29, 1987 MR. SPARROW: Mr. Speaker, I take exception to that

preamble. I don't think I want to stoop as low as my learned colleague from Edmonton Glengarry just did, but I should point out the facts to him. Yes, we have. Our department has been using herbicides; we are proceeding very cautiously. But I think for the value of all members we should put the problem into perspective. We've managed some 39 million acres of land since 1982. Since 1980 we've only had treatment on about 2,300 hectares. That's quite a very small portion of the province. Throughout Canada it's been used a lot more exten sively, and we are proceeding very slowly and cautiously.

We are using ground application only, and most of the projects we're going to be using that on are legitimate research projects. With reference to your comments on the Hinton area, look ing back I can only see about 12 hectares in 1985 in that area that were handled by the department. Maybe others did. I can remember during the election an application coming through. It was not sufficient. They were looking at spraying a quarter sec tion of land. The application was put in just during the election, and I wonder why we received it. MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary question. MR. YOUNIE: Thank you.

Will the minister ensure in that case that there will be no more experimental spraying until the research that he's just mentioned is completed, evaluation of it has been done, and it's been subjected to meaningful public hearings? MR. SPARROW: Mr. Speaker, on each and every application, I've said in the House before, we have local meetings to make people aware and give them an opportunity to show their con cerns. We inform the public at those meetings what we're in tending to do, and in all cases in the last three years we have had no major problems with the public in that area.

As I said earlier, these are ground applications and are very safe. There's a lot to be learned in the research we're doing. A good amount of local input comes into that through those public meetings, and we intend to proceed on that basis. MR. YOUNIE: Okay, we'll experiment with the whole province, I guess. For the minister. I'd like to look at a contradiction between what he said in the House; I'd like to establish it and have him explain the contradiction. He said: Ground application, as I said earlier, is the only method we're using.

But an ad placed by his department asked for tenders for the aerial spraying of nearly 1,450 acres in the Grande Prairie area. I'm wondering if the minister can inform us how many acres his department plans to spray or tender spraying of this year for any purpose with any chemical herbicide. MR. SPARROW: The number of acres that were approved last year -- there's quite a number that were incomplete that we'll follow through this year. To date this year no new applications have been made to the Minister of the Environment that have come through my office.

If you could give me some informa tion on the ad you're talking about -- it has not been brought to my attention, and there has been no approval go through me that I know of applicable to aerial spraying. MR. YOUNIE: It's Saturday, April 11. I'll make a copy avail able to the minister.

I'm wondering -- he mentioned the Minis ter of the Environment -- if the minister of forestry or the Pre mier for that matter still think as highly of the Coalition for For est Spray Alternatives as they did during the election campaign, or have they adopted the publicly expressed attitude of the Min ister of the Environment when he said on March 16: In many ways the most dangerous entity that can be found in a democracy -- the single issue interest group. MR. SPARROW: Mr. Speaker, I think hypothetical questions deserve no consideration whatsoever, so I'll step down. MR. KOWALSKI: Mr.

Speaker, I'd be just delighted to supple ment the response of my colleague the minister of forestry. Per haps I might read into the record an extract from a letter written by the Coalition for Forest Spray Alternatives to the Premier, and I quote: That Environment minister Mr. Ken Kowalski is now starting to put his department's guidelines for open houses in writing is a sign of progress . . . and on it goes. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to point out as well that in the last number of days I've had a very excellent oppor tunity to meet with the Environmental Network in the province of Alberta.

When asked by a representative for the Coalition for Forest Spray Alternatives what the government's policy was with respect to the issuance of forest respraying permits in the province of Alberta in 1987, I delivered the government's posi tion with respect to that and received a positive nod from the lady in the audience. Now, I simply don't know what it is that the Member for Edmonton Glengarry is yapping about today. MR. SPEAKER: Member for Clover Bar, followed by the Member for Westlock-Sturgeon. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the min ister of forestry.

Can the minister assure this Assembly that he feels that his department has done all studies necessary to make sure that there's no accumulation in the food chain from the spraying of herbicides in these selected areas? MR. SPARROW: I think my learned colleague the Minister of the Environment may want to supplement this. As we've said, these chemicals that we are using, farmers have been using throughout this province for many, many years, and we use the same products that are approved by the Department of Agricul ture for that spraying. They are very definitely safe, and we don't have any problem with it. MR.

KOWALSKI: Mr. Speaker, as I have been invited to sup plement the response of my learned colleague -- as I recall, the Member for Clover Bar wanted to know about the policy of the government with respect to aerial spraying and spraying in the province of Alberta -- I think that if you would permit, I would like to outline the government's policy, as this is a matter of sig- nificant public importance. It has now been raised in the Legis lature of the province of Alberta, Mr.

Speaker, and I would like to outline to all of the individuals in the province of Alberta, those who have access to Hansard and the like, our five-point policy with respect to forest respraying in Alberta. The procedure is as follows, Mr. Speaker. Number one. a preliminary review of all herbicide projects submitted to Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife will be conducted by the depart ments of the Environment and Forestry, Lands and Wildlife to

April 29, 1987 ALBERTA HANSARD 901 ensure that these projects are necessary and can be conducted without undue risk to the environment, or to our forestry, wildlife, and fisheries resources. Proponents will also be re quested . . . MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. minister. That's a very im portant number one. Perhaps some supplementaries will bring out the rest of it. Westlock-Sturgeon, please. MR. TAYLOR: Mr.

Speaker, through you, I'd like to inform the House, as a geologist, that they have witnessed probably the only place in time and history that you can find a volcano that erupts at least once a week over there. If I may direct . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Chair interrupted the min ister so we could get on with some more supplementary ques tions, and in the supplementary questions we don't need to go through this kind of dialogue. The Chair needs to point out to the hon. Member for Westlock-Sturgeon that one of his col leagues is waiting in the wings.

I have at least two others who would like to get into question period, and perhaps we could have now the succinct supplementary rapidly. MR. TAYLOR: Okay, Mr. Speaker. If you can assure me that only one minister will answer here, I think we'll move fast. I would like to ask this minister, the minister in charge of forestry development: is he aware that TransAlta uses chemi cals to kill vegetation underneath the power lines in the road allowances on Crown lands in this province far in excess of the amount of acres that he sprays each year, and what is he going to do about that? MR. SPARROW: Mr.

Speaker, the practice the hon. member just mentioned has been carrying on for many, many years. It's used by counties, towns, and MDs throughout this province. They are the same safe chemicals that were approved by the Liberal government in Ottawa for many years. I think we should allow the normal process to go ahead. And if he wants to save the public of Edmonton, he should stop his learned friend the mayor of this city from spraying mosquitoes, which is very much more detrimental to the health of Albertans. MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Calgary Buffalo, followed by the Member for Edmonton Centre if there is time.

Equal Access to Education MR. CHUMIR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Minister of Education. I'm somewhat unhappy with the tone of the minis ter's answer to my question yesterday with respect to the impact of user and other fees on equal access to the school system. In effect, we seem to be getting extra billing in our schools. She seemed to be more interested in the legalistic

interpretation of whether a school user fee comes within the definition of a tui tion fee rather than the fundamental question of whether access to schooling was being denied so that we're creating a two-class system of schooling. How is it that the minister can tell this House, as she did yesterday, that she does not accept the allega tion that there are differences between those who can pay and those who cannot, when she has not in fact reviewed the situ ation and obviously hasn't been listening to Calgarians on this matter recently? MRS. BETKOWSKI: Well, the hon.

Member for Calgary Buf falo is getting more sensitive with the passing days of this As sembly. He raised some important questions yesterday, which I indicated to him I would follow up on, and I will do so. But if he is suggesting that I not follow the statutes in this province, which suggest and which in fact confirm that school boards may not charge a tuition fee but may charge noninstructional fees, then perhaps he'd like to put that on the record. For the time being, I will follow what is in fact in statute, and that's what I am doing. MR.

SPEAKER: Supplementary question, which must be dif ferent from yesterday's questions. MR. CHUMIR: This is certainly different, and they have been different, Mr. Speaker. I might add that if the present system were adequate, we wouldn't be looking at a new School Act. The minister referred yesterday to provisions by school boards to allow for students who are unable to pay fees.

Can the minis ter tell this House whether she has reviewed and has hard infor mation and not just a hunch as to whether these mechanisms, which are in fact informal means tests applied by principals, are working fairly and not in a demeaning manner to parents and students? MRS. BETKOWSKI: Well, Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday in this House, there is no school board in this province of which I am aware that does not have in place a policy which will ad dress the inability of some students to pay a fee for noninstruc tional items.

If the member is aware of any of those, I as Minis ter of Education would want to know that. But on the second point, which I want to make very clear in this House, I happen to believe that the process of developing a system of education is one that isn't static, that we can always make improvements. It is in that vein that this province is look ing at and has consulted Albertans in an unprecedented way in developing a new School Act. I happen to think it's a very im portant piece of legislation, one which all Albertans are looking forward to.

It's not because, as the hon. member suggested, the system is all bad. It is simply a matter of saying that there can be improvements made, and that is what we are looking towards: a statute that will address the education system in the year 2000. MR. CHUMIR: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, the issue is provin cial responsibility, and yesterday the minister once again par roted her speech about local school board autonomy.

What I'm wondering about is whether the minister is denying any overall responsibility for the provincial government in education mat ters, and if the matter of equal access in our schools is not a mat ter of provincial concern, what the heck is? MRS. BETKOWSKI: Well, Mr. Speaker, the overall respon sibility for education in this province does rest with the province. But I think it's very important to note that I take very seriously the partnership role, given that overall responsibility of the province, with school trustees, with teachers, with parents, with students.

And it is in recognition of those roles that we are pursuing a new School Act. MR. CHUMIR: Will the minister undertake to this House that there will in fact be a thorough review of the school user-fee issue and that the question which will be asked is whether the

902 ALBERTA HANSARD April 29, 1987 user fees are affecting access to programs by lower income stu dents and not just, as she suggested yesterday, to determine whether the fee structure currently used fits within the definition of a tuition fee under the School Act? MR. SPEAKER: Hon. minister, the time for question period has expired. Do we have unanimous consent for this line of questioning to continue? All those in favour, please say aye. HON. MEMBERS: Aye. MR. SPEAKER: Opposed, please say no. Hon. minister. MRS. BETKOWSKI: Mr.

Speaker, I will follow up on any of the specific requests which the hon. member has made, and I've told him that privately, and I am telling it in this Assembly to him. However. I will not be questioning the authority of school boards to operate within the current legislative provisions, and if he is suggesting that, then I will not. I will, however, look at those tuition fees. If there are certain ones which he thinks are improper and shouldn't be levied by the Calgary school board, I would be very happy to follow up on those at his request. MS LAING: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Education.

I'm wondering if she has had school boards and school principals determine whether or not children and parents decide or choose to have children exempt from certain classes because of the user fees that are involved in those classes? MRS. BETKOWSKI: That's the same question that I was asked in the first instance, Mr. Speaker, and the answer is that school boards are not allowed to charge tuition fees in this province. A tuition fee means that the school board is preventing access to a basic education program, and that is not allowed because basic education is a universal system within our province.

What school boards are allowed to charge is a fee for noninstructional purposes. And as I've said, if the hon. members have specific questions with respect to the appropriateness of certain fees, I would be very happy and pleased to follow up on them for them. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: Might we revert briefly to Introduction of Special Guests? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: Member for Calgary North Hill. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS (reversion) MR. STEWART: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to introduce to you today and through you to the members of the Assembly, 42 grade 6 students from the Greenview elementary school in the beautiful constituency of Calgary North Hill. It's a particular pleasure because it is the first opportunity that I have had since becoming a member to welcome a class to the Legis lature from Calgary North Hill. I would like to introduce to you as well the four teachers that accompany them: Mr. Philipiew, the principal; Mr. Sproule, the assistant principal; Mr. Mogdan; and Mrs. Stevenson. As well, they are accompanied by four parents: Mrs. Wilson, Mrs.

Trummer, Mr. Brar, and Mrs. Spiel- man. They are seated in the members' gallery, and I would ask you to join with me in giving them a warm welcome to this Assembly. head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS MS BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise to request unanimous con sent of the members to deal with a motion which now appears on the Order Paper. It is my Motion 243. I believe I can argue the urgency of it, if the permission is granted. MR. SPEAKER: All members are aware that the motion in volved in the request is number 243.

It's under Standing Orders that the member would speak to the urgency and then the re quest for unanimous consent to debate. MS BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The matter of ur gency is actually bound up with the contents of the motion, from which it is quite clear that we're requesting the change of the membership of the Committee on Privileges and Elections for consideration of certain matters. The urgency factor is of course that the committee no doubt would like to proceed, and this is sue needs to be, I believe, dealt with prior to its proceeding. MR. SPEAKER: Request for unanimous consent.

All those in favour, please say aye. HON. MEMBERS: Aye. MR. SPEAKER: Opposed, please say no. Unanimous consent has been given. Speaking to the motion. 243. Moved by Ms Barrett:

Be it resolved that for that period during which the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, Standing Orders and Printing considers the matters referred to it by Government Motion 9, which was passed by this Assembly on April 15, 1987, the hon. Member for Edmonton Strathcona replace the hon. Member for Athabasca-Lac La Biche as a member of that committee. MS BARRETT: In moving the motion, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to point out that it's the view of the Official Opposition caucus that it would place the Member for Athabasca-Lac La Biche, who has been since last year a member of the Committee on Privi leges and Elections, into a potential conflict-of-interest situation given the matters referred to it by Government Motion 9, passed two weeks ago today.

Therefore, we request support for allow ing, for the consideration of those matters referred to it under that motion only, the change of membership going to the Mem ber for Edmonton Strathcona, and the Member for Athabasca- Lac La Biche would therefore not be a member for that period of time. MR. SPEAKER: Is there a call for the question? HON. MEMBERS: Question. [Motion carried]

April 29, 1987 ALBERTA HANSARD 903 head: COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY [Mr. Gogo in the Chair] MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. Hon. members, the Department of Agriculture estimates are brought to the committee today, designated by the Official Opposition. Department of Agriculture MR. CHAIRMAN: There are seven votes involved, commenc ing on page 229 of the estimates book, the authority for the pro grams beginning on page 32. Would the hon. Minister of Agriculture care to make some opening comments? The minister is the Hon. Peter Elzinga. Mr. Minister? MR. ELZINGA: Thank you very much, Mr.

Chairman. In view of the deep interest of all members of the Chamber, I won't add any more than what we added when our estimates were introduced. I should share with you that it's my hope to respond to all the questions put, and I look forward to a very interesting debate this afternoon. MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member for Vegreville. MR. FOX: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to thank the hon. minister for giving other members in the House a chance to address the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.

When we last had the opportunity to do this, I had so many things to say about the problems I see in his department and the way it's administered that I ran out of time, and I'm anxious to get back into it. I might remark at the outset that I make my comments not only on my behalf but on behalf of my colleague the MLA for Athabasca-Lac La Biche, who is this very moment traveling to a town in his constituency to meet with a group of farmers that are very concerned about the state of agriculture and want to try and develop some alternatives with him to react to those problems.

I'd like to get into a number of initiatives that the govern ment claims to have been taking or should have been taking, but the first concerns the review of the role and mandate of the ADC. As members know, this is something that we in the oppo sition advocated for a long time.

We felt that the Agricultural Development Corporation, established initially as a lender of last resort to help young farmers get started in agriculture, was long overdue for a thorough review, that it had become an insti tution that was quite unlike what had been imagined in the be ginning and instead of a friend of the farmers was now viewed and was becoming an obvious enemy of some farmers and needed to be reviewed.

It was with concern that I noted the panel chosen to conduct the review didn't contain a balanced input, that it was made up of MLAs from the government side and people appointed by the government. While I emphasized at that time that I didn't ques tion the integrity of anybody on the panel, I was concerned that if we wanted to have a thorough review of this institution that not only was going to be objective but was perceived as being objective, we needed to have balanced input. That unfortunately was not the case and the panel was struck.

Nevertheless, there were a number of very good hearings held all across the prov ince by the panel, a lot of input from farmers who either were losing their farms to the ADC or were concerned about the situ ation in general. At a meeting of the Heritage Savings Trust Fund committee last fall, my colleague for Athabasca-Lac La Biche recom mended to the two ministers of Agriculture that the ADC con sider a temporary moratorium on foreclosures, at least until the review of the role and mandate of the ADC was complete.

This unfortunately was not accepted as recommended, and I think it's unfortunate because in that period of time . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, hon. member. Order in the committee, please. The hon. member has the right to be heard. Vegreville. MR. FOX: I'll be heard all right, Mr. Chairman. They just don't like to hear what I have to say. But I thank you. Unfortunately, the ministers did not agree to our suggestion that a moratorium be placed on ADC foreclosures during the period of review.

In that time period the number of foreclosures, bankruptcies, and quitclaim actions that have come through the ADC has increased quite dramatically. I think it's really unfortunate, because a number of farmers that involved themselves in that process were lured by the promise of changes to this corporation. They were, in a sense, promised that there would be some meaningful changes in the lending practices of the ADC, and they hung on with that in mind. I received a call from a young farmer in my constituency only yesterday asking when the report is going to be tabled.

He's anxious to know whether or not there will be any substan tive changes in the ADC that would enable him to continue farming with confidence. He's faced with many decisions, many difficult decisions at this time as to whether or not he tries to put in a crop and make it through another year. And certainly he needs to know; he needs the security of knowing what is in that report. With that in mind, I asked the minister yesterday when that report might be tabled, and the answer was that it would be tabled when it's ready and it would be shared with everyone who is interested.

But I submit to the hon. minister that that's not good enough and that we need a commitment of a date. We need to know when he is going to be able to get that report untouched through his caucus and present it here so the farmers know what's coming. [interjection] If they have the assurance of the hon. Member for Stettler that there will be sub stantive changes that will help young farmers and their families stay on the land, then I'm encouraged by that. Other things have happened in the interim.

Just a couple of days ago the Farm Credit Corporation announced that they were lifting the moratorium on foreclosure actions in Alberta. While on the surface it appears like that might not involve very many farmers, I think it goes much deeper than that. It's not only the 50 to 100 farmers that are involved in active foreclosure actions through the FCC at the time of the moratorium being in place; it's the some 21 percent of farmers in Alberta who borrow through the FCC, whose accounts are in arrears and who, I sub mit, are going to be facing serious trouble this year.

I understand from the federal minister that he was holding this moratorium in place only until the federal Farm Debt Re view Board was up and working smoothly and the rural transi tion program was working. I submit that for this government to rely on the Farm Debt Review Board process or to put any faith in that as something that can cope with what will be a fairly massive exodus from rural Alberta is folly at the best. It's un

904 ALBERTA HANSARD April 29, 1987 fortunate, because I don't think that review process is meaning ful enough or strong enough to achieve the kind of results we need. If a lender is not willing to submit to the process or to agree to any of the recommendations made to it by the Farm Debt Review Board, they merely need to wait it out. They can go through a period of four consecutive 30-day stays of action, wait 120 days, and then do exactly what they were planning to do anyway.

So I think that with the number of cases that will be brought to the attention of the Farm Debt Review Board, it's going to prove woefully inadequate in terms of being able to deal with them. It's also come to my attention, Mr. Chairman, that while there have been some cases resolved through the Farm Debt Re view Board, very few involved the Agricultural Development Corporation. I would like the minister responsible to comment on that, tell us how many cases brought to the Farm Debt Re view Board that involved the ADC as the primary lender have been resolved in a way that benefits the farmer.

I'm not sure that too many of them have. I think we're seeing a trend right across Canada now to stronger family farm protection type legislation. It's not only the New Democratic government in Manitoba that's come for ward with some meaningful action in this regard with the pas sage of their Family Farm Protection Act, but the government of Saskatchewan has also taken some more meaningful action to try and address what I think is a very serious problem. And I might talk about that problem, the problem of an ever growing number of producers facing foreclosure, facing the loss of their farms.

I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, and the members here that this is not a normal situation. We're not dealing with a number of farmers who simply have made some bad manage ment decisions or had a few bad breaks and are falling by the wayside and therefore we shouldn't worry about them; we're dealing with a whole generation of producers whose only mis take is having started to farm at the wrong time. The young generation of farmers who hold the productive future of this province in their hands started to farm in the late '70s, when there was boundless enthusiasm in the industry.

They were told by the experts of the provincial and federal government that there was a never-ending need for food out there, the prices were going up, and the hungry world was beating at the Canadian farmers' doorstep for the food we would produce. In addition to that, they were urged to borrow more money than they wanted to borrow. And the ADC, I think, has to ac cept some responsibility in that regard.

Farmers would come to the ADC and say, for example, "I'd like to borrow $95,000 for this and that and the other thing, and establish a farm." The lending experts would say, "Well, my friend, that's not a viable economic unit. Why don't you borrow $200,000 and we'll get you going really well?" I know that hindsight is 20/20, Mr. Chairman, but what has happened is that a number of those farmers borrowed more money than they could.

In the late '70s and the early '80s the price of interest rates went sky-high, well in excess of 20 percent -- 24, 25 percent -- and a lot of these loans that looked like they were good and prudent at the time became suspect and eventually a burden around the necks of these young farmers trying to survive. It's on that basis that I'm not prepared to accept this govern ment's notion that we should stand by and let them fall by the wayside, that they signed on the dotted line and therefore have to accept responsibility.

I don't believe we should forgive any one their responsibilities, and the farmers have a responsibility in that regard, but it's a responsibility shared between the lend ing institutions, the governments, and the producers. We have to work together to try and find some meaningful resolve to this situation. I'd like to let the Assembly know that we'll be introducing our own edition, if you will, of the Family Farm Protection Act and hope it will receive more meaningful consideration from the Conservative members of this House than our Bill on debt ad justment did last year.

Because I think that although it's diffi cult to come to grips with, we have to confront it. People talk about how debt adjustment is an offensive thing, that it will alienate the banks, that we can't deal with it. We're practising debt adjustment every day, Mr. Chairman. The ADC practises it; the Farm Credit Corporation practises it. The banks of this country practise debt adjustment every day, because when they foreclose on the assets of a young farmer who owes, say, $200,000 or $300,000, turn around and sell that asset to another farmer for 40 cents on the dollar, they're practising active debt write-down.

But they're giving the benefit of that write-down to the wrong person. Instead of finding the political resolve in some creative way to apply the benefit of that write-down to the farm family struggling to stay alive, we give the benefit of it to the established older farmer. It's a decision that we're going to have to confront and take a closer look at, because what we're faced with is a loss of a generation and a loss of hope in the ru ral communities.

Another policy initiative I'd like to discuss while I have time is the minister's penchant for the pay-the-producer pilot project, and it regards the disbursement of the Crow benefit. This is per haps a better opportunity for us to discuss that than question period, Mr. Chairman, and I'd like to bring it up, too, because I think it's a very important issue. The Crow benefit traditionally is a . . .

Since the federal Conservatives and Liberals conspired to change and get rid of the Crow rate in its original form, the Crow benefit is essentially a transportation subsidy designed to help our export grain producers be more competitive on the international market -- nothing more, nothing less. Now, there is a case to be made that the payment of that subsidy to export grain producers does cause some dislocation with feed grain users in the province of Alberta. It does cause some difficulties in terms of developing the livestock sector here, the feeding and eventual processing and export of meat products.

I accept that notion. But I think we need to take a careful look at what it means to change the current method of disbursement from a pay-the-railways concept to a pay-the-producer concept. In the first place, any subsidy at the federal level is a vul nerable thing. It's a politically vulnerable thing, Mr. Chairman, and I submit that if it was changed from a subsidy paid directly to the railways to one that's paid to the producers, it becomes more vulnerable and at some point could be lost in the future by grain producers. That's the first thing I worry about.

The second thing I worry about is that it has the very direct, immediate impact of lowering the value of grain on the prairies. Now, that may not be a problem in normal times, but there could not be a worse time for governments to actively seek to lower the initial value of grain on the prairies. When a farmer delivers barley to the elevator in Alberta, he's getting $60 a tonne for it. What this Conservative government is advocating is that he get $39 a tonne for it and hope that at some point in the future he'll get a cheque in terms of . . . Don't shake your head; that's the way it works.

In terms of the pay-the-producer benefit, he would get a cheque back at some point in the future for somewhat less than that $21 a tonne. It may be an idea with merit. In a task force I conducted

April 29, 1987 ALBERTA HANSARD 905 around the province, we certainly had some excellent input on this idea from the Alberta Cattle Commission, who lobbied us very strongly about the pay-the-producer concept. But I submit that it distorts the original concept of the Crow benefit, which is to make it easier for our export grain producers to be competi tive on the international market. As well, it lowers the value of grain initially at the worst possible time.

We have to take it into consideration along with the cuts in initial prices, the attempts by this government to increase the price of fuel which impacts more directly on grain producers, a whole series of initiatives that are undermining and eroding the ability of grain producers in the province of Alberta to survive. In terms of the hurt this creates -- and that's the word used, the "hurt" it creates -- within the livestock sector, I think we need to take a careful look at that too, Mr. Chairman.

When you can buy barley many places in the province at 95 cents to $1 a bushel and many livestock products are selling at near record prices, it's difficult to convince beleaguered grain producers that they are somehow hurting the livestock sector. It just doesn't make sense. Many livestock products, I might point out for the benefit of members here, even though it's philosophically offen sive to them, are under supply managed systems. Poultry products, eggs, dairy products all produce on a cost of produc tion plus a reasonable rate of return formula.

It doesn't matter to them how much their feed costs, because it's reflected in the price they receive. So they're not out there trying to undermine the incomes of grain producers. They recognize it's in their best interest to have the grain producers survive, and they're willing to pay that price. There is some argument to be made, too, that with the tripar tite stabilization plan that's in effect for slaughter cattle, the way averages are calculated the cost of feed is factored in there and the hurt that used to exist does not exist to quite the same de gree.

I point these out for the benefit of members opposite in the hope that it'll stimulate some more meaningful discussion on this issue. I say again that I recognize it's an important one. I should comment on the feed grain market adjustment pro gram the government had in place last year and this year. The minister can check the record as carefully as he wants but he won't find any place where I've criticized that program.

Even though I don't agree with the political intent of the program, I recognize that it was a very important and valuable injection of capital into the Alberta economy at a level that this party sup ports. You know, we believe that if you can give money to the people that'll spend it, put money in the hands of farmers and producers, it builds the economy. So we support the program in that regard.

It leads me to consideration of a recommendation made by the Leader of the Official Opposition here the other day that the Alberta government, faced with the current situation in the grain economy in Alberta, make some active commitments to help grain producers in the province. I'm not talking about programs initiated last year, 10 years ago, or whatever. I'm talking about new and meaningful commitments to help grain producers con front the problems that are before them now. Not only did the prices drop 20 percent last year and 20 percent this year, but some of the costs, their inputs, are going up.

I point out, as I did before, that fuel is going up some 34 to 43 percent for grain pro ducers this year. So it was on that basis that the Leader of the Official Opposi tion suggested that the government of Alberta seriously consider matching the federal funds flowing into Alberta through the spe cial Canadian grains program dollar for dollar. How much does that amount to, Mr. Chairman? That amounts to $260 million. Will it be something that interferes with the marketing or plan ning intentions of farmers? No.

I think we can do it in a market-neutral way by basing it on last year's production, work out the anomalies and the formula so it doesn't discriminate against the irrigation farmers in the south or some of the prob lems with farmers in the Peace River, and on that basis inject $260 million into the grain economy, which I submit would have tremendous beneficial effects for the Alberta economy overall. We can compare that to the way the government responds to difficulty in the oil industry. Mr. Chairman.

If the oil industry squawks, they get multibillion dollar programs announced at the drop of a hat, and it's usually money that goes to people at the top of the industry in the hopes that it may or may not be in vested in Alberta, may or may not benefit in terms of increased activity and generate economic strength in the province. You need to change the way you look at things, Mr. Minister, and support the Leader of the Official Opposition when he advocates the $260 million injection into the grain economy of the province.

And I think it's something that needs to be done right now because grain producers are up against it. They've never faced problems like they face today. We need to do something about that. I'd like to refer to another issue that was brought to my at tention, and it flows out of the economic crisis that farmers are facing. As the minister knows, there are a number of machinery dealerships around the province that are failing, that can't stay in business. Farmers aren't able to buy new machinery, and it's more and more difficult for these entrepreneurs in rural Alberta to stay in business.

In response to the decline in new equipment purchases, the manufacturers have jacked up the prices of parts that farmers need to buy to repair their machinery, and I think it's an unconscionable example of how large corporations con spire to take advantage of helpless victims, if you will. Farmers who can't afford to buy a new combine are forced to pay the some 200, 300, or 400 percent increase in the price of parts that the machinery companies demand.

I'd like to know if the min ister is aware of that, and if he is, what sort of thoughts he has about something that he might be able to do to address the problem. Another initiative I'd like to talk about -- the minister re ferred to it in the House again the other day -- is the issue of in centive rates.

As members opposite would be aware, some six grain companies in the western provinces, along with Canadian National Railway, applied to the Canadian Transport Commis sion for incentive rates at selected western points, some 47 points in the prairie provinces at which a minimum of 18 car spots could be loaded at one time. I attended the hearings that the Canadian Transport Commission held in Edmonton, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Official Opposition, and I opposed the introduction of those rates. You're dam right I opposed them, and I opposed them for good reasons.

Even though the rate initially applies to an elevator in Vegreville -- listen up, Vermilion-Viking; you'll learn something -- and an elevator in Viking. [interjection] I know that, and I recognize that. I have the foresight to think beyond. What's coming in the future, what are the implications of granting incentive rates? I'll tell you what it is. Mr. Chairman. It's the introduction of a widespread variable rate freight system for the transport of grain, which . . . MR. DOWNEY: It's a rationalization of the system.

906 ALBERTA HANSARD April 29, 1987 MR. FOX: A rationalization. If you call the destruction and the abandonment of rural communities all across Alberta rationalization, you can have it. hon. Member for Stettler. For the information of members, the rates on the transport of grain have historically varied. They've been distance related, and they've varied at a rate of half a cent per tonne mile. It's a very slight variation, and it has taken into consideration the dis tance from point of delivery to the eventual export point, and on that basis it's been reasonable.

To allow the railways to introduce a very artificial economic variance into this system, I submit, would have a very negative impact on the farm econ omy and rural life in general. What would it do? Well, let's look at the elevator in Vegreville. We've got a beautiful new United Grain Growers elevator there, a modern, efficient plant. It provides excellent service to farmers.

I submit on that basis alone, through the ba sis of competition, competing with the Pool and Cargill in town and providing good service, that they have the potential to gen erate increased traffic, provide farmers with enhanced delivery opportunities, and do a better job overall. But when the rail ways decide that they're going to give a $1.50-a-tonne break at that elevator, what does it do? Well, initially it gives all the farmers who normally deliver to that elevator a bit of a break, and on that basis, hey, it's a great idea.

It will also have the ef fect of enticing farmers who live some distance from that eleva tor to deliver there instead of to their neighbouring communities. For example, they might be induced to deliver to Vegreville in stead of Bruce, Holden, Mundare, Lavoy, Two Hills or Hairy Hill. So it would be perceived by some of those farmers as enough of a benefit to entice them to the larger centre in Vegreville. But then, Mr. Chairman, what happens? The elevators al ready struggling to survive in these smaller communities be come nonviable.

There aren't enough producers delivering to them to keep them operating, so eventually the elevator com pany is faced with the decision to close those elevators, and then the railway, which is their ultimate agenda, gets to abandon the branch line before the year 2000, which they committed them selves to. Then you've got all of those farmers in the outlying districts having to deliver their grain to the central delivery point, and everybody loses as a result, including the farmers who live close to the elevator and benefit initially. Because what you get is a situation of severe overcrowding.

You get more and more farmers traveling longer and longer distances to deliver to one central point. AN HON. MEMBER: It's making more money. MR. FOX: Making more money for whom? The system will be efficient for some, there's no doubt. If I were managing the rail way companies, I would like to see a system of two tracks across the northern part of the province and two tracks across the southern part of the province. It would be very efficient. I could pick up grain at three or four points along the way, load 50- or 100-car unit trains with the same grain. It would be a marvel of efficiency.

It would look good in the corporate brochures when I sent dividends out to my shareholders. But it wouldn't be very efficient for the farmers. How is a farmer up in St. Paul constituency going to feel when he's got to drive his grain 60 miles to get to one of these central elevators? How is a farmer down in the Sedgewick district going to feel when he's got to drive all the way up to Viking on Highway 14 there to deliver his grain? MR. HAWKESWORTH: Yes, but the province will collect more tax off the fuel he burns. MR. FOX: Well, it has impact on the province too, hon. mem ber.

It has impact on the municipalities who are obliged to maintain the roadways. But we have to look at the provincial agenda. The Conserva tive agenda here is very clear. I was at that hearing. A highly placed member of the Minister of Economic Development and Trade's staff was there, and he said very clearly that the closure of an elevator in a small community has very little impact on that community. I submit that's a disgraceful attitude and a very wrong attitude and one that I'd like to see this government go out and try and sell to the voters of rural Alberta, see how they feel about it.

A former Minister of Agriculture of this govern- ment also said that elevators weren't as important to communi ties as skating rinks were. I'd like the grain producers of Al berta to know that that statement was made too. Other statements made by prominent Tory officials on this very issue are ones like: we would like to see the cost of rail transportation increase to the point that trucking grain becomes a viable economic alternative. What lunacy.

At a time when we're trying to reduce costs and make a system cost-efficient, they're advocating increasing rates artificially so that we can make truck traffic competitive. There's no doubt that there are instances where moving grain on rubber by trucks is more effi cient in the short haul than moving it on steel, but I think the system has in many ways rationalized -- to quote my hon. col league -- a little bit too much, and we need to step back and take a serious look at it.

The minister likes to refer to how many groups in the prov ince support some of these contentions: the incentive rate and the pay-the-producer concept. But the major farm organizations -- the one that represents grain producers -- don't feel the way the hon. minister does about it.

And I think it's really unfortu nate when you get a government that supposedly represents ru ral people going to hearings like that and acting like cheer leaders for the railways, enthusiastically endorsing a position which, when anybody who thinks about it for any length time, would have a negative impact on the economy of this province. I was proud to be there on behalf of the Official Opposition op posing that very bad idea. The Canadian Transport Commission, unfortunately, made the worst possible ruling, in my mind. They said that they would . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please.

The Chair is having a little bit of difficulty relating that to the votes before the House. Would the hon. member periodically come back to one of the votes before us, as opposed to a platform by the Official Opposition. MR. FOX: Well, I'm referring to actions by this government. They spend their money sending their officials to meetings to make representations supposedly on behalf of the people of Al berta, and I think the people of Alberta need to know just what they're actually doing. But I'll move along. I should have mentioned some things about this pay-the- producer concept that the minister likes to tout.

The minister has hired a former Tory, a former minister of the Crown, to act in a responsible way for a committee that's going to pursue this political agenda, that's going to somehow convince the federal government to agree to this pay-the-producer pilot project. I'd

April 29, 1987 ALBERTA HANSARD 907 like to ask the minister: on what basis does he do this? Is there not sufficient representation for Alberta with 61 Conservatives here? Is there not sufficient representation of the Conservative way of doing things with 20 federal MPs in Ottawa? Is that not enough? Do we need more? Do we have to commit more of taxpayers' money to pursuing this Tory political agenda? I note in one of the votes here, Mr. Chairman, one of the only things that has gone up in terms of expenditures for the Department of Agriculture is payments to MLAs.

Where last year they estimated payments of $4,104, they're estimating this year to spend $71,293 in payments to MLAs, and I'd like the minister to tell us all about that. Is that money that's going to be paid to Tory back-bench MLAs to sit on the Planche committee to go around pursuing the pay-the-producer pilot project? If so, he might tell us some other things about that committee as far as what their activities are going to be. Who are they going to talk to? Are there going to public hearings at which there'll be op portunity for input on both sides of this important issue?

Another thing I should address is the number of ministers of Agriculture. As much as I like both ministers and have found them co-operative and and easy to work with, I think it's a need less extravagance to have two ministers doing the job of one. I'd be hard pressed to choose between them, Mr. Chairman, but if push came to shove, I'd flip the coin. You might say, "Surely I can't be serious." But I'd say, "I am serious, and stop calling me Shirley". Another thing that needs to be taken note of here, Mr.

Chair man, is that the associate minister's office last year, for some reason unknown to me, was rewarded with an increase in expen ditures of 8.7 percent. The minister might take some time to explain to us what accounts for that increase. Now, if I could find the rest of my notes here, I'd like to ask the minister some questions about the beekeeping industry in the province.

I'm sure it's come to his attention that while the promise for beekeepers looked very bright last fall with projected high prices for honey, the industry has fallen on some very difficult times in the last few months, where prices for honey has dropped somewhere around 40 cents a pound for bulk honey in barrels. I just wonder if the minister has had any rep resentations brought to his attention on that issue. And if he has, is he doing anything that would help beekeepers in some way confront that, working with . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The time has expired. Hon. Member for Wainwright. MR.

FISCHER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member for Wainwright, just a mo ment please. The Chair neglected to introduce to the members of the House the Associate Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. Shirley Cripps. Would either minister care to make a response at this time before the Member for Wainwright speaks? Associ ate Minister of Agriculture. [interjection] MRS. CRIPPS: Surely you didn't forget me? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I do want to respond to some of the comments made by the hon. member as official ag ricultural expert on the opposition side.

I'd like to answer the last question that he asked first, and that is with regard to the associate minister's office. The associ ate minister's office last year was for 10 months of the year, and so the 8.7 percent increase is for the other two months. If you take a look at it and work it out on a yearly basis, there would have actually been a decrease in the office expenditures if it had been worked out over a 12-month period. AN HON. MEMBER: I thought it was for a long service award. MRS. CRIPPS: I haven't got another $100,000-a-year job, Mr. Member. I don't get those things. [interjection] That's right.

I agree with the member that it was time for a review of the role and mandate of ADC. I understand that he says it's now viewed as an enemy of the farmers, and in many cases that's true. There are people who are concerned with the lending and the financial difficulty they find themselves in because of over extension of their borrowings in the past. I want to refer the member to his own task force review, No. 17.

It says here: There was also broad agreement that governments, fi nancial institutions and producers share responsibility for the current crisis in agriculture and I assume you're talking about finance and that all three groups must work together . . . for the benefit of all Albertans. I concur with that, and I have to tell you that our own task force found exactly the same. I notice in reading your report that you also noted that there's no easy solution, and certainly the farm groups that you met and the farmers that you met did not all agree on the solutions.

We found the same thing, and it's very useful that you had that input from the public. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Would hon. members ad dress hon. members in the appropriate parliamentary fashion. MRS. CRIPPS: Sorry, Mr. Chairman. I apologize. MR. FOX: Did you like the report? MRS. CRIPPS: It's interesting, sir. With regard to the temporary moratorium on foreclosures while the review is being done, quite frankly there's a far better mechanism than a temporary moratorium, and that's trying to work through the problems.

The member said in his opening remarks that the lender needs to be willing to submit to the proc ess under the Farm Debt Review Board. Frankly, the farmers and the lenders need to be willing to look at all of the alterna tives under the process. I've talked to a number of the people who are on the Farm Debt Review Board, and in cases where a financially stressed operation is able to end up with a solution that benefits everyone, it's where there is flexibility not only on the side of the lenders but also on the side of the farmers.

I can give you some specific examples of that, but I don't believe that this is the place to do it. The member said in his opening remarks that the process should benefit the farmer. Mr. Chairman, there is more than one way of benefiting the person who is on the farm, and in some cases, if the farmer and the debt review board and the lender come to an agreement that the best benefit for the farmer is not to remain on the farm, then a debt moratorium would certainly not in that instance be of benefit to him. The other aspect of the debt moratorium is that it dries up lending from other sources.

And the one comment that the member made that I agree with and we do have to take some responsibility for is the ADC loaning for a viable economic unit in excess of what the borrower may have asked for at the outset.

908 ALBERTA HANSARD April 29, 1987 The member mentioned loans going to 24 percent. Mr. Chairman, I must remind the member that that was not ADC loans. You have to go back to the Liberal government in Ot tawa, abetted by the NDP, who allowed the interest rates to rise to 24 percent. I certainly will not take responsibility for that. In fact, the ADC loans did not jump; they remained at the 12 per cent that they'd been loaned at. Mr.

Chairman, a far better solution than a debt moratorium is a workout plan, and with ADC there are additional alternatives which are looked at in an effort to help out the clients who are in the dilemma of financial stress. They look at all aspects: refinancing arrears, postponing payments, total refinancing, ex tending operating credit through loan guarantees, reamortizing arrears, and co-operating with other lenders to develop a manageable financial package. We've also provided enterprise counseling services to assist people who are financially stressed.

Quite frankly, I think those services should be made available to people before they reach the situation of becoming very financially stressed, and I've in dicated that to the board of directors of ADC. MR. FOX: How much was that reduced by? MRS. CRIPPS: What reduced? MR. FOX: The enterprise counseling? MRS. CRIPPS: I also am concerned about the grain producers, and I recognize that some of the ADC loans who are dependent on grain are more developing serious situation, but the member must realize that they are also dependent on the livestock indus try as a major source of market for that grain.

You have to rec ognize that it's important that all of agriculture be healthy, not only the grain sector but the livestock sector. The member talked about grain producers having an assured level of benefit or assured income, and the member might look at the hail and crop insurance review, which in fact did recom mend a prairie grain revenue insurance proposal which we will be taking a look at over the coming months. It's not something that can be introduced -- if it were introduced -- on an immedi ate basis.

It's something that has to be worked out with the fed eral government and would depend on co-operation from 10 other governments to do it. I believe I've answered all of the questions that the member asked with regard to finance, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member for Wainwright, followed by Taber-Warner. MR. FISCHER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would like to commend both our ministers of Agriculture and the department on the good work they've been doing.

Times in agriculture are very tough right now, to say the least, and I can't help but remember the statement that came from my seatmate here in his throne speech. He said that times were tough in farming, but I'd rather be a farmer in Alberta than in any other province in Canada. I couldn't help but think of that statement as we went over the department budget here, and I guess I'd like to just refer you to a couple of items that we are very fortunate in. There has been a lot of discussion about the fuel price in crease and so on, but we do have lower fuel prices here in Al berta than any other province.

I would like to just give you a little bit of a rundown in the prices. My constituency neigh bours the Saskatchewan border, and the people in Saskatchewan have to pay 31 cents a litre for their fuel when we can buy ours -- we have in the past bought ours for roughly 10 cents, with the fuel war. Of course, I know that our government can't take very much credit for that. [interjection] But yes, there probably was a bootlegging possibility with fuel selling at 3 cents a few weeks ago. I also wanted to mention that we are fortunate too with the fertilizer rebate that we get.

Our fertilizer prices have come down in the last couple of years. They've come down nearly $100 a ton or $80, and we're kind of hoping to see that come down a little bit more in the next year or so. These are pretty important features when you go to put a crop in, and especially fuel is one of our major input costs. I think our farmers in this province should feel quite assured from our agriculture share of the budget. It shows that we are very much committed to the agriculture industry here.

I would like to say also that with the communication and working to gether with the federal government on some of the GATT agree ments, our trade arrangements and so on are very important to us, and I would like to ask our ministers to keep as careful a communication with our federal government on those particular issues as we possibly can, because any input that we can get into that is certainly very important to us. I would like to say a few words on some of the long-term, important things that we can do as a government here to help our agriculture industry.

And I know there are many things that are unfair right now in the short term, and they are worldwide things. Maybe we're going to have to wait out some of them. But I would like to see us with our new market development. I'd like to see us spending a little bit more money there. I see in vote 3.3 in the budget that we are increased 10.9 percent on our market development.

Now, I know it's kind of a confusion be tween who does the marketing, whether it be our federal govern ment or whether it be our provincial government, and I guess we have to realize that we're competing on a world market almost province by province. Even though it's going to cost more money, I believe we have to get out on the world market and sell. We're producing more than what we can sell, and that is where the blockade is holding us up.

I believe that as a govern ment we should maybe encourage our private sector to get out and sell more, and we might have to do that with incentives, but I'd like to see a major thrust in that. One of the other areas that I think we have to address, and I don't know whether it's happening as fast as I would like to see it happen, is the removal of barriers between our borders. I know that our whole free trade issue is opening up a lot of un- faimess between borders and a lot of tariffs, barriers between provinces.

If our free trade issue does nothing else but show us all of those things in Canada that we are doing wrong and maybe help us remove some of those, then I think the whole free trade issue will be a success for us here. I guess that other barriers that are bothering us -- and I don't know whether it's a barrier or not, but we are very restrictive when we have our Canadian Wheat Board handling all of our grain. It seems to me, as a producer, that I have to have more flexibility in where I can sell my grain.

I know that we have to go on a quota system to be fair, but we also, in order to cut costs, have to be able to load producer cars, and we have to have the quota in order to be able to load them. We have to be able to use the futures market to protect ourselves, and we cannot do

April 29, 1987 ALBERTA HANSARD 909 that as long as we're going to restrict ourselves so closely with some of the regulations that come into our Canadian Wheat Board Act. I think possibly there could be some adjustments that would free us a little bit more so that that could happen. I know it's also a federal issue, but I would like to see us work together on that particular issue and possibly work together with Saskatchewan and Manitoba to try and work this out.

Also, in removing these barriers, a number of years ago we did have a few meetings with Saskatchewan and Montana to try and make things a little bit easier for us as producers. And I guess because of the expenses and so on we quit that. But I felt there was a lot of benefit to it, and I really believe that maybe we have to do it in a little different kind of a way or try and do it cheaper, but I think it should be done because there is a lot of unfairness crossing the borders and it's costly. Another thing is our chemical licensing.

Also, this is a fed eral issue, and I guess that we have to work together with them as much as we can. But the patent protection that our chemical companies get is restricting the price from coming down, and that's one expense that a farmer has to get down some way or another. Because of the protection that those companies are get ting, I think there's a fair bit of room, and I know that the fed eral government has been working hard with that one. I would like to also see our crop insurance program put to gether as a Canadian program and not as a provincial program.

Otherwise, you're going to have another small subsidy to offset some fairnesses. I do know that we have been working on that together, and it's important that it go together as western Canada anyway, as a group, and not on its own. Other than that, the establishment of our co-ordinating agency of agriculture research in this province is a very impor tant step for what our industry will be in the future. Our Alberta farmers have always been on the leading edge of technology and have used our technology to its maximum benefit.

We will re tain our comparative advantage and standing as the world's best farmers with the continued and well co-ordinated research ef forts there. That's extremely important to us. I know these are all very long-term remedies or fixes for our industry, but we have to look into that and far more so than our immediate future. I would just like to say one thing about our incentive rates, and they come back into my restrictions and barriers again. Some of the things in the incentive rates that we talk about now and that we don't want are long-term, cost-efficient benefits.

They'll be long-term, cost-efficient benefits to our producers. They will also be long term and cost efficient to the railways. Some of it might hurt a little bit when we're changing, but I think we have to realize that there are many expenses now for the elevator companies that are going to force part of this transi tion. Certainly the trucks are getting bigger. Every elevator has to put in a scale now long enough for the big grain trucks. It's very costly. The capital costs are labour-intensive, and certainly the cost of labour is not going to be going down.

There are a number of things like that that are definitely going to force us to be more efficient with that, and I don't see any other direction for us to go with that. With that, I'd just like to say to our ministers: thanks for the support you've given us. You're going a good job. Keep it up. MR. CHAIRMAN: Taber-Warner, followed by Cardston. MR. BOGLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The temptation to respond to a number of the points raised by the Member for Vegreville is indeed great, because he covered a wide variety of areas that truly cause one to wonder.

The two that come to mind immediately are the variable freight rates concern he has, notwithstanding the fact that one of the communities identified to benefit, where the farmer would receive a direct benefit, is in his own constituency, Vegreville. The other is the Crow benefit going to the farmer. The hon. member, and I'm paraphrasing, made reference to a fear of the unknown, a fear of what else might come. That's one of the reasons that there is concern by both variable freight rates and the Crow benefit.

It must be interesting to live in a world where you believe it's safer to sit in the closet with the light turned out and in the dark rather than come out and take some chances when you look at the challenges that our farmers face from the pressure from both the European Common Market and the U.S., to sit back and pretend that in some way if we hide in the closet in the dark the world will go by and we'll be all right. But I'm not going to respond to those things, Mr. Chairman, because that's the role of our ministers, and they'll get into that in due course, I'm sure. Now that I have the attention of the hon.

Member for Vegreville, I'm pleased that two weeks ago the Minister of Ag riculture declared that we would have Soil Conservation Week, and that's indeed an important matter for the province of Al berta. With between 3 million and 4.5 million of our productive acres affected to some degree by salinity, wind or water erosion, solonetzic soils, to mention but a few, it is critically important that we focus in as a government on ways to help our producers combat these challenges. And my specific question, Mr.

Chair man, to the minister is: what measures is the government taking to tackle this serious problem in terms of applied practical re search and rehabilitation? Turning to another front, on Thursday, April 16, I was pleased to be joined in Taber by my colleagues the MLAs for Cypress-Redcliff and Bow Valley, along with our Minister of Agriculture and our Associate Minister of Agriculture, for the signing of the sugar beet tripartite agreement between the fed eral government, the sugar beet producers in Alberta, and our selves. This was indeed an historic occasion.

It follows the ex ample set with the red meat tripartite agreement signed by the two levels of government and our red meat producers. Mr. Chairman, my specific question is: what other initiatives is the government of Alberta actively working on with commodity groups and the federal government in terms of the establishment of tripartite agreements? I'm thinking specifically of our pulse growers, and the bean producers quickly come to mind.

I know there are initiatives being taken in Ontario with the white bean growers, and I wanted to know what initiatives are being con templated here that would continue to respect the principle that it's not going to be mandatory, it will be a voluntary program accessible to the producers. It's not a payout; it's an insurance scheme, and it's intended to be market neutral. My final question, Mr. Chairman, is with regards to the pos sible privatization of Alberta Terminals Ltd.

I think all Al bertans can be particularly proud of the actions taken by our government in 1979 when, through funding from the govern ment, Alberta Terminals Ltd. was created to purchase the Canadian government elevators in Lethbridge, Calgary, and Ed monton. It's interesting to note that the crops and the commodi ties handled by those elevators vary somewhat. The Lethbridge elevator concentrates on specialty crops, soft wheat, winter wheat, board grains, and feed grains. The Calgary elevator, on the other hand, concentrates on the storing of malting barley, canola, board grains, and feed grains;

whereas the Edmonton facility concentrates on canola, milling oats, and trans-shipment

910 ALBERTA HANSARD April 29, 1987 of feed grain south. In October of 1985 a new thrust was taken by ATL when they began their track-side, grain-loading facilities in the High Level area. Mr. Chairman, my specific question to the minister is: with this excellent inland terminal system that's been devel oped and that has matured since 1979, what safeguards does the minister have to ensure that if ATL is privatized -- and I cer tainly agree with that in principle -- what steps will be taken to safeguard that the control of ATL will not pass on to the hands of one of the existing grain companies?

Would we be looking at a scheme similar to Alberta Energy Company, where the num ber of shares that can be held by any one individual or corpora tion would be limited to 1 or 1.5 percent of the total shares? I'd like to conclude my remarks, Mr. Chairman, by again going back to something the Member for Vegreville said, when there was actually some condemnation for the fact that this gov ernment has two ministers of Agriculture. And that astounds me, coming from a rural member. First of all, in a dollar sense, there isn't a province in Canada that's made the commitment to agriculture that this government has.

It's there, and I'd wel come a debate in this Assembly on a comparison. I'd welcome the hon. member wanting to bring forward what the socialist government in Manitoba puts forward. We can't even get the government of Manitoba to support its sugar beet growers, let alone support agriculture in general.

But in addition to the financial support we've given, we have, through the hon. members for Drayton Valley and Sher wood Park -- our Associate Minister of Agriculture and our Minister of Agriculture -- two Albertans who are traveling across this province, who are meeting with individual producers and commodity groups and other farm organizations, who are gathering input and ideas so they can bring those ideas back, share them with our agriculture caucus committee, with our full caucus, and with our cabinet and carry forward in meeting the challenges that face our producers today.

And I can't think of a better way or a more positive way of showing this government's commitment to agriculture. MR. CHAIRMAN: Cardston, followed by Bow Valley. MR. ADY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd just like to compli ment the ministers that we have working in agriculture, specifi cally for the effort they've made to make themselves available throughout the province. I've had the privilege of having the Minister of Agriculture in my constituency, and I know that it was appreciated. And I also know something of the itinerary of the associate minister and the places that she's been to speak publicly.

I think this is an important thing to take place, in view of our present agricultural problems, so that the ministers can get a firsthand view of what people are really dealing with out there. I'd just like to make a comment relative to the one made by the member of the opposition relative to a moratorium on farm debt. In my experience in the farming industry over the years, credit has always been an important thing to farmers. They've relied on it forever, and I suppose they always will. Even in the good years farmers have used credit.

And if we would like to curtail that credit, all we need to do is put a moratorium on farm debt for as little as 60 or 90 days. I guarantee you that it will scare every granter of credit off into the woods for years to come if we do that, because immediately they see the danger of their funds being frozen by some autocratic government who just decides one day that they're not to be repaid and that some one can keep their money. It just doesn't make economic sense for anyone to lend into an industry which may have their funds legislated away from them. I just could never ever support such a move as that.

I do have some concerns that I'd like to bring forward from my constituency. One of them has to do with the increased cost of fuel, even though our farmers are still protected to the point of 7 cents a litre over and above the general public for their farm fuel input costs and there is a provision where they'll be able to put their crops in this year with the lower price. If they plan well, they can pretty well store enough, in most cases, to take their crop off. So 1987 is not the big concern, in my mind at least.

I think the vast majority of the farmers can protect them selves by the fact that the price increase does not come into ef fect till June 1. However, the question I have for the minister is: would he be putting forth some effort to petition the government to restore the 5-cent increase in the next budget year if our farm picture has not improved?

Now, I know that our farmers are prepared to carry their share of the budget problems and the budget deficit, but all I ask is that the minister bear this in mind and perhaps take another look at it when it comes time to make up his estimates for the coming year and petition the Treasurer to restore that additional 5 cents we're putting on the price of fuel on June 1 to farmers. The other thing I would like to speak to is that soil conserva tion falls under the mandate of the Minister of Agriculture. And we just had Soil Conservation Week proclaimed a few days ago.

In my constituency I have a severe soil erosion problem. It takes place on the Blood Reserve, and it's brought about per haps in part by some mistakes that were made years ago in some land being brought under cultivation that perhaps shouldn't, but not entirely to that. There is a vast tract of land that will blow when the wind blows hard on that reservation, and they're los ing four and five inches of their topsoil, which will take genera tions to restore. The Blood Band has had a study brought forward and very adequately completed to bear out what an irrigation system would do to control this soil erosion.

My question to the minis ter is: will he give support to this proposed irrigation project on the east end of the Blood Reserve, which is imperative if they're not to lose as much as 25,000 acres of their reserve? They can't replace the topsoil; they're not going to be able to replace the land. It's imperative to their welfare that something be done to protect that, bearing in mind that the federal government has a responsibility to come on side and lead out in this project. However, it has to be a project that's done jointly with the provincial government, with the Blood Band.

All I'm asking is that the minister make a commitment to work with the Depart ment of Environment and put this thing on the tracks so that the Blood Band can have a project down there that will save their topsoil. Thank you. MR. MUSGROVE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer some congratulations to the two ministers of Agriculture on their ef forts in coming forth with this budget. I must say that I was one of the people that strongly supported and recommended that there be two ministers of Agriculture.

Agriculture is such an important industry in Alberta that I felt one person in that portfolio was overwhelmed with the problems in Alberta. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to make some comments about vote 2.2 in the budget. In fact, I am referring to the farm feed stabi

April 29, 1987 ALBERTA HANSARD 911 lization program and how it affected Alberta. It's unfortunate that it has to be reduced this year from the former $21 a tonne to $13 a tonne, because it was a good program. And because of budget restraints we have to look at the reduction. It was very successful in that it proved that there is a distortion in the value-added processing of western grains in the fact that it kept 150,000 head of feeder cattle being fed in Alberta that normally would have gone to other places in Canada and into the U.S.

That not only proves that it was good for the value-added proc essing industry but it did feed up approximately 150,000 tonnes of feed grain in Alberta that would probably still be in the bins, adding to the glut of feed grain that Alberta farmers have on hand. There is a misconcept that it reduced the price of feed grain. Now, our experts that have studied -- and I mean on both sides of the issue -- tell us that it doesn't matter whether the price of a bushel of barley is 50 cents a bushel or $5 a bushel, that distor tion is still there. So it has not had any effect on the price of feed grain.

This was a normal fluctuation in the price of feed grain. It just so happened that when the $21 a tonne came into effect there was a decrease in the price of feed grain. What surprises me is that our hon. Member for Vegreville stated that he is in agreement with the Alberta feed grain stabi- lization program, but the NDP and the Liberal Party are com pletely against the method of payment to the producer. I don't understand that because, as I said, the Crow offset program has proven successful.

Now, if we were to pay the producer, that would take away the need for our farm feed stabilization pro gram and save the province of Alberta $44 million in this cur rent year, and it solves the same problem. Now, the hon. Member for Vegreville mentioned that they're afraid of what might happen if we were to pay the producer, and what I don't understand is why the opposition parties don't lis ten to the facts. The facts are that there would be a bit of dilu- tion in the amount of money paid to export grain producers.

That is very minimal compared to the distortion that our value- added processing as a matter of fact, I believe that the dilution amounts to about 20 percent,

whereas the distortion amounts to about 80 percent. So to the people in Alberta there's a substan tial benefit for us paying the producer. Now, I think a bit of history on the Crow rate might be of benefit. Actually, the Crow rate was established back in the 1800s when the railroads in Alberta were built, and it was very effective when there was no value-added processing in Alberta. As time went on, the railroads didn't refuse to move but they cut down on the amount of export grain they were moving because they said they were losing money at it.

So the federal govern ment have decided to pay up to $638 million a year in lieu of the Crow rate. Now, times have changed considerably since the 1890s, and now western Canada is not necessarily an exporter of cereal grains but does have value-added industry. The unfair competition took place because eastern feedlots or processors of our cereal grain had an unfair advantage over western proces sors because of the Crow rate, so in order to keep value-added processing in Alberta, we have to change to pay the producer. Those are the facts.

The 80 percent distortion that takes place is a fact, and so why our opposition members will not agree to the method of payment being to pay the producer I don't understand. The other part of it is that if they pay the producer, then we could go into variable rates for grain because the farmer then would have the Crow rate benefit in his pocket and he could go out and shop for the best freight rates for shipping his grain to tidewater. That would allow him to look at ways of reducing the transportation costs, because then he would pay the full transportation cost.

So he could look at any type of reduction that he could get in the transportation cost. Now, I have a pamphlet here called Straight Talk about Grain Transportation. That outlines very well what would hap pen if we were to go into variable rates, and that would certainly enhance the pay-the-producer method of payment for grain transportation. Mr. Chairman, those were just some of the facts that I wanted to bring out about method of payment. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Leader of the Liberal Party, followed by Lacombe. MR. TAYLOR: Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman.

I will try to be as brief as my friend and former neighbour from the south, from Bow Valley. I just wanted to hit a few points very lightly and then talk about two major issues that I see bothering farming. One of the major issues I'll be talking about is the question of chemicals and the system we work up for aid to the farmers. The first issue I wanted to touch on very quickly.

I think there's no question that one of the things that maybe has been lost in the shuffle of a Triple E Senate or the case of Quebec and the Constitution is the way our first ministers and maybe the government over there are not taking the initiative they should -- and if not that, maybe the other Tory Premier in Saskatchewan -- in putting together some sort of a GATT type of agreement between the provinces. I think Alberta would stand to gain in agricultural trade if we could put some heat on and put together an organization.

I'll admit that it would probably be like GATT in the early stages; it wouldn't have any particular teeth to be able to fine anyone. But I think it would be able to draw the public attention to what provinces were undermining interprovincial trade. Interprovincial trade, particularly in agri cultural products, I think is good, and we have to go at it in a lot different way than we have. We can somehow or other get down to talking about free trade with the U.S., but we can't seem to work out a mechanism of free trade between ourselves.

Secondly -- this is a very quick point -- I think many of our beginning farmers in Alberta that took the money at 6 percent are now being faced with a jump in the interest rates, and I would ask that the associate and principal ministers of Agricul ture look at the idea of maybe phasing it in.

I know that it's a free society and they didn't have to borrow so much, but when you're young and impetuous and have a banker that's got an itchy palm and is trying to get the money out and the grass is green and your wife is beautiful and the newest child has just come back with a good report card, it was awful easy to borrow too much money, especially when it was at 6 percent. You'll remember that at one time that market was 18, 20 percent. So it's a little bit like being turned loose in King Midas's gold shed. Some took on too much money.

I think, though, there's no particular advantage being served to Albertans if we are tough on them now, and maybe the grada- tional raise from 6 percent back up to the higher rate -- I believe it was going to be 12 -- maybe it could be accomplished at 1 or 2 percent a year. I believe it's now 3 percent. It's a 3 percent increase. I think you've limited it to a 3 percent increase; they go from six to nine. And what I'm getting at is that I think it should be maybe done only about 1 percent to 2 percent a year. I was just thinking that maybe us grey-haired people -- surely

912 ALBERTA HANSARD April 29, 1987 we're being a little bit too tough in saying that if they borrowed too much, they've got to jump to nine whether they like it or not. However. I throw that on your bench. The Crow rate. It's a nice thing.

I hear everybody saying, "Well, we're going to pay it to the farmer." The farmer sud denly gets a vision that maybe tomorrow morning, if he contin ues to be nice to his wife and he continues to keep his blue and orange membership card paid up, all of a sudden there will be a lump sum payment coming out from Ottawa to him -- only him -- and there he will have $100,000 or $150,000. But I'd like to hear the people over there tell me just how that's going to be paid. Who will get it? The barley growers, wheat growers? Sure, that sounds like it. How about a carrot seed grower? How about a market gardener?

Who is going to get the money? Is it going to come in a lump sum? Or is it going to be like Kath leen, mavourneen, and maybe even for years and maybe forever? In other words, is it going to take a couple gener ations? Three generations? I'd like to see some specifics from these people that say, "Let's pay it to the farmer." This idea of dangling some sort of a gift in the air, that if you continue to vote Tory and indeed Mr. Planche is successful in doing his lobbying, somehow or another there's going to be a bag under your tree come Easter or Christmas -- I think we'd like to get right down.

What do you mean when you say, "Pay the farmer?" Cash? A chit? Down the road? With the land? What happens if he sells out 24 hours later? Let's get down and spell it out. All right, the next thing: raising hay. I know that around Alberta there are a lot of people that raise hay. I know that over there you've failed to make hay for the 20 years you've been in power. Nevertheless there are people that raise hay for a living, and they are being unfairly discriminated against by having the already cheap grain production get another cash bonus [inaudible].

So here we have grain that's being brought in, in some cases from Saskatchewan and Manitoba, to a producer in Alberta getting the subsidy from the Alberta government -- and I know the minister doesn't call it "subsidy." I forget; he has some fancy word. But it's cash. It's cash you put in the thing. They get a subsidy for using this grain that's coming in from another province, and where there's hay, local hay, it's sup posed to get by with no subsidy. Actually, a free enterpriser, somebody that these people over there would usually treat with a great deal of admiration. Here a hay producer gets told: "No. no.

We can't do anything for you. We can subsidize the guy that's using barley, we can give cash payments to bring in grain from Saskatchewan, but no, you, the local hay grower, you're supposed to be tough. You can survive that." The very fact that the depressed grain market plus the subsidy depressed your hay market out of sight doesn't matter. [Mr. Musgreave in the Chair] Next, a very short and quick one.

I've had instances -- and this again I think goes back to the associate minister -- where the people that run Alberta Hail and Crop Insurance are trying to collect past dues from farmers that have gone through bankruptcy proceedings.

I think that's not only inhumane, I think it's illegal if they went to it, but they shouldn't have to go for lawyers, and I would like to hear the minister's comment whether it is indeed a policy of any agricultural department in the Alberta government, whether it is hail insurance or anything else, to go after a farmer after he or she has declared bankruptcy and they have started up again; in other words, try to collect a debt. Because bankruptcy means that they've gone through enough tough times as it is, and it means that their slate is clean.

No department of government should go back and try to collect a debt that was incurred before they went bankrupt. Now, let's talk about two major items that bother me a lot, and I think it's been gone over. I know you're going to hear this from me, and you're going to hear it ad nauseam; that is, the negative income tax system or a method of giving aid to the farmers. I had a tremendous boost in the last short while. Yes terday I received a telex from Khartoum in the Sudan, from whoever is in charge of the United Nations development pro gram in agriculture there, a Mr. Allan Chambers.

I don't know him; maybe some of you people know him. I think he's been associated with Alberta at one time, a professor. He brings for ward the fact that he was very interested in hearing that our green paper had come out and the point that it was divorcing income support programs from price support programs. He points out that he'd just come in from Australia where Australia is trying, for their agricultural industry, to divorce the income support programs from the price support programs.

This, I submit, we have mixed up here in agriculture, particu larly a Conservative government, which is really surprising, be cause at the heart of modem day conservatism, the high priest of conservatism, Mr. Freidman, talks about support to the in dividual, not into price support programs, not controlling the market.

Because if you're going to move to a free market, one of the few ways you are going to be able to move towards that free market is to ensure the income of the individual, not through price support systems, but to direct -- just as we've done already in the industrial sector, where we have unemploy ment insurance, welfare, and various other things for an indus trial worker. We don't tell the industrial worker, "You go down and sole half a dozen shoes" or "You go down and sweep some streets." As a matter of fact, when we talk about the industrial worker even having to work on welfare, we go ape.

We con sider it absolutely inhumane. But we say to the farmer: "Oh, you've got to work for your money. You've got to raise so many bushels of barley. We don't give a damn if the world is flooding in it or you're drowning in it, you've got to raise so much more." In other words, the income support idea has not invaded the agriculture sector yet. It's being put in in Australia; some of the Third World countries are looking at it very serio

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19870429
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L21 S2 19870429 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	9091778cdc2e59ef1ac2181b82c88a075608a302

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