Alberta Hansard — 20 May 1980, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 19, Session 2)

19800520

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

May 20, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 1039 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Tuesday, May 20, 1980 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS MR. D. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege this afternoon of introducing, through you, to members of this Assembly two individuals whom I and several other members of this House had an opportunity to meet in Quebec City at a conference just a month ago. They're seated in your gallery, Mr. Speaker. They are Erika and Andrew Scott.

I should mention that Erika Scott's father is the distinguished chief librarian of the Library of Par liament in Ottawa. They're travelling across the country, and we have the privilege of having them here with us this afternoon. I would like them both to rise and receive the welcome of this Assembly. head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 218

An Act to Amend The School Act (No. 2) MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill 218,

An Act to Amend The School Act (No. 2). The Bill establishes guidelines for the maintenance of teachers' personal files. [Leave granted; Bill 218 read a first time] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I wish to file with the Legislature Library a petition signed by 1,252 Edmon- tonians requesting that a higher priority be given to human resource programs in the province of Alberta. MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a response to Question No. 105. MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table the annual report of the Alberta Health Facilities Review Committee for the year 1979. MR.

SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the 1979 annual report of the Farmers' Advocate. MR. BORSTAD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to file with the Legislature Library a report, Health Needs in North ern Alberta, prepared for the Northern Alberta Devel opment Council; also the

summary report of proceedings of the Workshop on Health Needs, held in St. Paul in February 1980. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. KOWALSKI: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure and privilege today to introduce to you, and to all members of the Assembly, some 60 grade 6 students from a very fine school, Stehelin elementary in the town of Barrhead, in the constituency of Barrhead. The students represent two different classes. They're accompanied today by their teachers Mr. Marvin Sheets and Mr. Ken Graham, who also doubled as the school bus driver and custodian. The group is in the members gallery.

I would ask them to stand and receive the welcome of this Assembly. MR. PENGELLY: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to in troduce to you, and through you to the members of the Assembly, 35 grades 5 and 6 students from the village of Elnora in the constituency of Innisfail. They are accom panied by their principal Mr. Dick West; a teacher Miss Pam Klymyk; three supervising parents Mrs. Joyce Sil- bernagel, Mrs. Lynne Kadar, and Mrs. Joan James; and their bus driver Shirley Hughes. They are seated in the public gallery. I would ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of the House. MR. McCRAE: Mr.

Speaker, I also take some consider able pleasure today in introducing a gung-ho group of students, 23 in number, from the Van Home secondary school in beautiful downtown Calgary Foothills. They are grades 10 and 11 social studies students. They're accom panied by teachers Frank Dyck and David Bulmer. They're very, very interested in government; as a matter of fact, one of them handed me a letter today with what I thought were a number of very complex questions in it. I assured them that, with the assistance of the Minister of Education, I would get a prompt reply to them.

So part of my submission today is that the Minister of Education respond to me very promptly. Mr. Speaker, they're in the public gallery, and I would ask that they stand and be recognized. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Government Legislative Plans MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my question today to a number of ministers. It really takes an assessment — perhaps it's an appropriate day to ask this kind of question — of where we are with regard to the legislation in this session.

My question to the Government House Leader: is it the intention to introduce legislation during this spring ses sion dealing with professions and occupations? I refer basically to the legislation which was held over last fall. There was an intention at that time that the legislation would come in in this spring session. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, it may be that the intention at the time was that it be in the spring sitting. But I think the references that have been made recently are that it would be during the session, and that would allow for the fall.

It's not proposed that any of those items be introduced in the spring sitting. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Government House Leader. At what stage is the consultation between the government and various profes sions? I would perhaps use engineering as a profession the

1040 ALBERTA HANSARD May 20, 1980 Government House Leader may want to key on, as far as consultation between the government and the profession is concerned. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague the Minister of Advanced Education and Manpower could respond better to that. MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, I would perhaps refer that question to my colleague the hon. Minister of Housing and Public Works. MR. CHAMBERS: Mr. Speaker, there is ongoing dis cussion with the architects and engineers.

I'm hopeful that the areas of difficulty or concern exhibited in the past will be resolved over the summer, and that we'll be able to introduce legislation in those areas in the fall. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Solicitor General, who is responsible for operation of the Alberta Liquor Control Board. Is it the intention of the government to introduce changes to The Liquor Control Act during this spring session, then have those amendments sit over until the fall? MR. HARLE: No, Mr. Speaker. MR. R. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, to the same minister: is it the government's intention to bring in legislation at the fall session dealing with certain rumored changes as far as the operation of the Alberta Liquor Control Board is concerned? [interjection] MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, I hope to have it ready and introduced in the fall. MR. R. CLARK: A supplementary question to the minis ter, Mr. Speaker. When the hon. minister says "intro duced in the fall", is that a commitment, Mr.

Minister, that the legislation would be introduced, would sit over an intervening period of time, and would then be reintro duced and dealt with at the following spring session? What I'm trying to ascertain is: is there a plan for the government to introduce legislation with regard to The Liquor Control Act, then a period of some months before the legislation would be brought to a conclusion here in the Assembly? MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, that has not yet been decided. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question to the Government House Leader.

Is it the intention of the government to move through the depend ent adults legislation, introduced just last week — and rather substantive legislation — and finish it at this spring session? Or will that be held over to the fall session? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed important legislation. The present proposal is that it be dealt with in the spring sittings. MR. R. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, not to leave out the Minister of Labour, I'd like to ask him if the government has had an opportunity to reflect upon the concerns expressed by a large number of concerned individuals with regard to the individual's rights protection legisla tion. Is it the government's intention to hold that legisla tion over until the fall, or to put it through at this spring session? MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. leader. It's the intention to proceed this spring. Hopefully the debate will indicate the nature of the legislation and help clarify some of the concerns. Volcanic Ash MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Environment with regard to the volcanic ash in southern Alberta. What kind of tests and monitoring by the Department of Environment are being carried out with regard to that ash at the present time? MR. COOKSON: Mr. Speaker, at the present time we are doing some monitoring in southern Alberta with regard to volcanic ash. It might be of some interest to note that the acidic impact of the material is no more serious than, for example, unpolluted rain water. So it's not going to have an impact in that regard.

Secondly, there is some irritation because the particles are sharp. Therefore, anyone wearing contact lenses, for example, might have some irritation. Other than that, so far we just continue to monitor. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister. Does the Department of Environment co ordinate its works with the works of the American au thorities, such as those in the Pacific northwest? MR. COOKSON: Well, we're all having trouble trying to co-ordinate the volcano. [interjection] MR. KOZIAK: Get an emission control order. [laughter] MR.

COOKSON: I even have trouble walking on water. [laughter] Mr. Speaker, we do have dialogue with the Depart ment of Environment in the United States. I can't cite any specific correspondence in the last day or two, but we have been in communication with them. Water Management MR. MANDEVILLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is also to the hon. Minister of Environment. Has the minister had any recent meetings with any officials of the Eastern Irrigation District with regard to the rehabili tation of the Bassano dam? MR. COOKSON: Not recently, Mr. Speaker.

As the hon. member knows, we're still trying to come to an agreement with the federal government with regard to ownership. We're quite insistent that it belongs specifically in their bailiwick until such time as they have verified the owner ship, and it's their responsibility to upgrade the dam. MR. MANDEVILLE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, regarding the money allocated by the federal government several years ago for rehabilitation of the dam. Is that commitment still going to be held up? Will we still be able to get money from the federal government to repair the dam? MR. COOKSON: I would think so, Mr.

Speaker, but perhaps I could check on that. I don't see any lucrative

May 20, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 1041 source of funds coming from Ottawa at any time. In any correspondence I've had with them, I've almost had to put a stamp on the letter in order to get some corre spondence. [laughter] But I could pursue it. DR. BUCK: You pay your tax, Jack? MR. MANDEVILLE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, has the minister or the government given any consideration to coming up with an overall water policy? I'm thinking of water storage on some of our river basins, the Eyremore dam for example. MR. COOKSON: Mr.

Speaker, if the Member for Bow Valley would just contain his curiosity, perhaps within weeks I can make some announcement that will deal with the general problem, and alleviate everyone's concerns. MR. NOTLEY: The day after the Legislature rises. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister. The minister has indicated that an an nouncement and a decision will be made with regard to the Oldman. Will that decision be made in the same announcement you're talking about to the Member for Bow Valley, or prior to the end of this session? MR.

COOKSON: There are several interesting issues being dealt with in terms of that report, and I think probably it would be wise just to contain one's curiosity for several weeks yet. Utility Companies MR. NOTLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to direct this question to the hon. Minister of Utilities and Telephones. It concerns the announcement today of a bid by Calgary Power to buy up to 42 per cent of the outstanding stock in Canadian Utilities.

What assessment has the government of Alberta given to the possible purchase by Calgary Power of a substantial share of Alberta Power, in terms of undue concentration of ow nership of the power industry in one company's hands? MR. SHABEN: Mr. Speaker since being assigned re sponsibility for Utilities and Telephones, I've been con sidering many aspects of the utility industry, including the very complex area of electric utilities in the province.

With respect to the specific question as to the impact of a purchase of 42 per cent of CU shares by Calgary Power, before determining what impact that would have, the hon. member should realize that any acquisition of one utility by another has to be dealt with by the Public Utilities Board. So it would be premature to give an impression of what may or may not happen as a result of an acquisition that may take place. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister.

Have there been any discussions between Calgary Power and the Alberta government with respect to the possible purchase of CU stock by Calgary Power? Or will this matter be kept strictly at arm's length until such time as the Public Utilities Board renders a judgment? MR. SHABEN: The view of the government is that such an acquisition would be a business transaction. Through out the past several weeks I've been kept informed of the intentions of Calgary Power, and that is strictly in the nature of being kept informed of their intentions. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister.

With respect to the possible pur chase of Alberta Power by Calgary Power, what impact has this move had on the request for proposals on the Dunvegan dam, where the government indicated that they were making an opportunity available to various companies to bid on the dam proposal? Has there been any impact on that question by the moves that have been discussed subsequently? MR. SHABEN: Mr.

Speaker, first it should be clear that I believe the announcement this morning by Calgary Power was not an effort to acquire Alberta Power, but an effort by Calgary Power to acquire 42 per cent of Canadian Utilities, of which Alberta Power is a part. As far as any impact on the request for proposals, there has been none. As all members know, the government invited proposals, and we expect them to be in by the end of June. We will await the nature and number of proposals before making a decision. Dunvegan Dam MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister.

Is the minister in a position to advise the Assembly whether there have been any proposals to date on the Dunvegan dam? Will it be the position of the government that the end of June is the deadline, or has there been any suggestion that that deadline might be extended? MR. SHABEN: Mr. Speaker, we've had indications from companies that have advised us they are prepared to make application for development of the capacity at Dunvegan. We are not yet certain how many will be received. It would be premature to indicate whether it would be necessary to extend the deadline.

At this stage we don't believe it would be necessary, but as I indicated earlier, I believe it's too soon to say whether it may be necessary. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister. Has the government any updated timetable in terms of the Dunvegan dam proposal? It has been suggested in some quarters that construction could start three years from the date of the completion of the bids. Is the minister in a position to be any more defini tive than that in the Assembly as to a possible timetable? MR. SHABEN: Mr. Speaker, no, it isn't possible to be more definitive.

Bearing in mind that the required capaci ty for Alberta is either committed or in place until the end of 1986; the fact that, along with Manitoba and Saskatchewan, the government is examining very closely the possibility of importing power from Manitoba; and also the applications which are before the ERCB: all of these would have to be fit into the Alberta requirements over the years ahead. Those decisions are yet to be made. Long Distance Telephone Rates MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr.

Speaker, my question to the Associate Minister of Telephones arises from statements in the Assembly by the hon. associate minister on April 21, at which time he expressed some concern about an

1042 ALBERTA HANSARD May 20, 1980 order issued by the Canadian Radio-television and Tele communications Commission to Alberta Government Telephones with respect to a long distance rate, and the concern that this constituted an attempt to control and regulate long distance rates in the country. My question to the minister is: has any decision been made by Alberta Government Telephones on the commencement of legal proceedings to attempt to thwart this move? DR. WEBBER: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, Alberta Government Telephones has sought legal opinion, and as a result of that opinion has taken action so that in the federal courts an attempt has been made to prohibit the CRTC from rendering a decision based upon the information supplied to the CRTC from Trans-Canada Telephone System and proprietary to AGT, and to have this information turned back to the telephone company. MR. ZAOZIRNY: A supplementary. Could the associate minister advise whether a court date has been set for hearing this matter? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, it's May 22. MR. ZAOZIRNY: A final supplementary.

Could the as sociate minister advise whether any other measures are being considered or any other action taken in an attempt to resolve this impasse? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, this action was decided to be a sort of initial action by Alberta Government Tele phones. However, as I mentioned in my responses some weeks ago, I did send a telegram to the federal minister indicating our displeasure with the CRTC's getting in volved in an area which we feel is within provincial juris diction.

In addition, Alberta Government Telephones has appealed to the Governor [General] in Council to have the order rescinded which the CRTC issued in the first place. Road Construction DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transportation. In light of the advanced road con struction program because of this year's dry spring, can the minister indicate if he will be requesting a special warrant or a supplementary budget at the spring sitting to further road construction in the province? MR. KROEGER: Mr.

Speaker, we're doing an ongoing review of the stage of our contracts as they're let, as well as monitoring the proposed completion times. I think it's a little early to make this kind of decision, so we're watching it very carefully. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, supplementary question. In this inventory-taking the minister is now proceeding with, can the minister indicate if crude for asphalt is available and plentiful? MR. KROEGER: Mr. Speaker, so far we haven't en countered any difficulty with supply. We are assured that we shouldn't. DR. BUCK: Mr.

Speaker, can the minister indicate if an inventory has been done by his department as to con struction equipment and personnel being adequate for the construction season? MR. KROEGER: Mr. Speaker, in discussing this kind of thing with the construction industry, they indicate they need about a year's lead time in order to purchase. Keeping in mind that the indicators were that we would be busy this year, I think they must have gone through that exercise, because they've indicated their equipment inventory is in good condition. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

Can the minister indicate what representations have been made by the Alberta road construction association as to the need for a three- to five-year budgeting program, so that the construction people can gear up more than one year at a time? MR. KROEGER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this has been sug gested by the industry. Keeping in mind, however, that we seem to be moving ahead very rapidly, as I've said once before in the House it's difficult to put a fence around the amounts needed, because we seem to be esca lating every year. I think the assurance is with the indus try that the work is going to be there. MR. R.

CLARK: Mr. Speaker, if I might pose a supple mentary question to the hon. minister. In responding to the second question from my colleague, the minister indi cated that the industry needed one year's lead time so that it would be able to have its inventory in place. What type of direction has the minister now given the industry for next year? MR. KROEGER: Mr. Speaker, I really haven't tried to give them any direction. In view of the fact that the budget was increased substantially this year, it would be difficult for me to indicate in any way what we can contemplate for 1981.

At the moment they're pretty busy trying to cope with the contracts that have been offered, keeping in mind that almost all of them are out at the present time. MR. R. CLARK: To the hon. minister. Mr. Minister, given the comment just made that the industry needs one year's lead time to have its situation projected ahead, what indication has the government at this time — either the minister or the Provincial Treasurer — given to the industry as far as next year is concerned? Should the industry expand next year? Should they sit tight? What kind of indication has the government given the industry? MR. KROEGER: Mr.

Speaker, I can't add very much to what I've said, unless the Provincial Treasurer is prepared to be optimistic and guess what the budget might look like for next year. I think, though, that the indicators are there very clear ly that there's going to be a very serious demand on the construction industry, that the government hasn't been reluctant to fund those things that appear to be necessary to do. I think we are in pretty good hands.

The people you were talking about, the construction people specifi cally, read the signs pretty well and haven't indicated to me that they have a specific worry for lack of informa tion. In the event that any knowledge comes to me that would help them, I'd be glad to go with them. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary ques tion. Can the minister indicate if he has given any as surance to the industry that there will be a different program for the rehabilitation portion as compared to the

May 20, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 1043 new road construction program? Is the minister willing to give a long-term commitment to the rehabilitation pro gram so that the construction industry can gear up for that? MR. KROEGER: Mr. Speaker, we try to keep a reason able balance between grading and rehabilitation, which generally consists of paving; the work divides into those two parts. We do try to keep a reasonable balance so that we don't shut down the grading and earth-moving

section in any given year because we overreact and go too much on the rehab side. However, we are actively assessing what is going to be necessary on the rehab side, keeping in mind that loads on existing roads are getting heavier all the time. While I can't guarantee the industry exactly the kinds of work we are going to be doing, nevertheless we do aim at keeping a balance. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, just one short supplementary.

In light of the fact that the minister has indicated, I believe either in estimates or publicly, that we are over $1 billion behind in our rehabilitation program, is the minis ter now not committing to the industry to look at picking that up over a five- or 10-year period? MR. KROEGER: Mr. Speaker, we do develop an ap proach within the department as to how best to cope with this kind of thing.

But I simply can't prejudge the Provin cial Treasurer's position when I go to him with a sales pitch and say, here's what I think we should do, keeping in mind that we have to be able to keep our funding in balance with the capability of the construction industry itself. Quebec Referendum MR. D. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Premier. It relates to the very important ques tion being answered today by the people of the province of Quebec. Could the hon. Premier indicate if he has had any recent conversations with Mr. Ryan? If so, has Mr.

Ryan made any observations with respect to the role Alberta has played in this referendum debate? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I believe the only communication I've had subsequent to discussion in the Legislature was some two weeks ago, when Mr. Ryan called me with respect to the referendum debate. We discussed the matter of my involvement. I believe I mentioned this publicly. He said to me that he did not believe there was any need to participate in the debate during the period of the referendum, but he did suggest to me that . . .

First of all, he expressed his confidence that the federalist forces would be successful in the referen dum tonight, but in addition, he felt it would be useful if I participated in subsequent discussion and communica tion in Quebec relative to change in the constitution. MR. D. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, supplementary question to the hon. Premier. Could the Premier indicate if he will consider favorably that request of Mr. Ryan's and stand ready to work within the province of Quebec with respect to the changes necessary in the constitution? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, it's difficult to answer that question today; perhaps I can answer it better tomorrow.

But I could say this: as the statements in the communique which was tabled in this Legislature reflect, the western premiers took the position that in the event of a "no" vote tonight, we would attempt to do everything we could to communicate a desire for constitutional change in Canada, reflecting on the view that both in the "yes" vote and the "no" vote there seems to be an overwhelming feeling by Quebeckers, which is shared by the people of Alberta, of a desire for change in the present arrangements in Confederation. If I can be help ful in that regard, I would certainly consider pursuing it. MR. D.

ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, just one further supplementary question for clarification. Is the Premier then indicating that the government, or the Premier in particular, would be willing to participate directly within the province of Quebec in helping to inform the citizens of that province of the Alberta government's position with respect to constitutional changes? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, the answer to that is tentatively yes, but I believe it would depend a great deal on some indication from the Prime Minister of Canada that he does not hold to the views of a high degree of centralization in our country which he expressed to the constitutional conferences in the fall of "78 and in Fe bruary of '79. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct two questions to the Premier with regard to the referendum today in Quebec.

First, is it the Premier's intention to make an official statement on behalf of the government of Alberta in the Legislature tomorrow afternoon, once the government has had an opportunity to assess the vote in Quebec today? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, it was our original intention to do it that way, but because of the timing of the results it is now our intention to make a public comment this evening, with the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs and myself.

But in tomorrow's question period we certainly would be quite prepared to respond further to any matter that the Leader of the Opposition or other members might like to raise, arising either generally or from any observations in comments I might make tonight. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Premier or the Government House Leader.

In light of the importance of the referendum in Quebec today — and this is somewhat speculative, depending on the results — is the government prepared, perhaps in co-operation with members on both sides of the House, to consider some resolution to come forward from the Assembly tomor row, allowing for some consultation after the results are in this evening, so that this Legislative Assembly would be able to speak as one voice to the people of Quebec? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, that's certainly a sug gestion we can consider.

As the hon. leader puts it, it's difficult because we're speculating on the result, and that would obviously have some bearing. The only point we would want to make in any resolution or any discussion of constitutional reform is that the people in western Canada feel very strongly about constitutional reform as well, and we don't want to be involved in a matter of constitutional discussion that is emanating only in the atmosphere of the debate within the province of Quebec. We think it's very important that this constitutional dis cussion reflect the views of the people in western Canada.

1044 ALBERTA HANSARD May 20, 1980 MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Premier — making it very clear that the proposi tion I put forward deals solely with the question of the referendum in Quebec today — as to the possibility tomorrow, coming from either the government side of the House or this side of the House, of some resolution dealing with the results, once again depending what those results are. But I'm looking solely at the results of the referendum in Quebec today, not the broader constitu tional issue. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, we certainly could take that under advisement and see how events transpire over the course of the next 24 hours. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: May the hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood revert to Introduction of Special Guests? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS (reversion) MRS. CHICHAK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It certainly gives me a great deal of pleasure today to introduce to you, and through you to members of the Assembly, another group from the Grant MacEwan college, Crom- dale campus. The group is the adult development group.

There are approximately 15 of them in the public gallery, accompanied by their teacher Mr. Don Whalen. I'd like them to rise and receive the welcome of the Assembly. CLERK: Government Designated Business; Committee of Supply. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, my understanding was that we would deal with Motions for Returns. Then I would ask all hon. members while we are in Assembly, rather than in committee, if it was their wish that we continue after the government's one hour of designated business. If hon. members indicate, as I believe they just have, Mr.

Speaker, that that is what they would like, I would ask the unanimous consent of the House to con tinue until 5:30 with government business. MR. SPEAKER: Does the Assembly agree with the request for unanimous leave by the hon. Government House Leader? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: MOTIONS FOR RETURNS 115. Mr. R.

Speaker moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: (1) the number of children that can be accommodated at the Branch-a-way Home; (2) the number of children that were accommodated at the home in each of 1977, 1978, and 1979; (3) the vacancy rate, by month, at the home in 1978 and 1979; (4) the total payments made by the province to the Branch-a-way Home, by month, for 1978 and 1979; (5) the amount presently paid by the province for each child at the home; (6) the rate paid by the province for empty beds at the home; (7) a description of the selection process used for ac commodation at the home. [Motion carried] 120.

Mr. R. Clark moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: (1) the total number of full-time salaried employees for each government department and for Alberta Gov ernment Telephones as at March 31, 1979; (2) the total number of full-time salaried employees for each government department and for Alberta Gov ernment Telephones as at March 31, 1980. [Motion carried] MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we should also indicate that when the House rises at 5:30 it could reconvene at 8 o'clock in Committee of Supply, if that is the stage we're at. MR.

SPEAKER: Does the Assembly agree that having gone into Committee of Supply, the House will stand adjourned until the Committee of Supply rises and reports? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: So ordered. head: GOVERNMENT DESIGNATED BUSINESS head: GOVERNMENT MOTIONS (Committee of Supply) [Mr. Appleby in the Chair] MR. CHAIRMAN: The Committee of Supply will please come to order. Department of Agriculture MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Red Deer. MR. MAGEE: On Wednesday, May 14, 1980, in the Agriculture estimates debate, I made an error.

I said that our federal government had just announced that the ini tial price for grains would be down 50 per cent per bushel. I meant to say 50 cents per bushel.* MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sure the hon. member's correc tion will be noted in Hansard. 1.1.1 — Financial Services MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Chairman, just before we complete this, I had raised several questions with respect to the consulting firm for the Foster committee. I wonder if the minister is in a position to bring us up to date on where that stands, or is it still being assessed? *See page 976, left column, paragraph 4

May 20, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 1045 MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Chairman, I believe the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview touched first of all on the basic decision as to judicial inquiry versus the inde pendent review. I guess we've discussed this at times before it was a decision; it wasn't ignored. We looked at every aspect of inquiries and reviews, and at that time felt an independent review would achieve the result, which was a mechanical system of carrying out marketing agreeable to all. That was the decision at that time, and of course that's why we have the independent review.

With regard to the question asked re consultants to the independent review, I still have received absolutely no requests for any sanction of any help either financially or for manpower to provide assistance to the independent review committee. The other comment, with regard to the pork producers, may need some refreshment. If I remember correctly, it's involved with the basic philosophy and tied to the announcement. To date, I've had no adverse comments indicating any severe hardship from the pork producers.

Indeed, they have accepted the $35 over and above feed costs as being a fair return, as a short-term, stop-loss program. Mr. Chairman, from memory, it seems there was a comment with regard to Safeway and Safeway's mark, I guess, on hog marketing within this province. Not having an answer at the time, I checked into it. Apparently, if Safeway were a factor it had to be in the past, because at the present time there appears to be an adequate system whereby the packers in this province have an opportunity to bid on the basic supply.

Of course, in many cases operating of the packaging in the city of Calgary gives some advantages both ways, that a supplier within the province — of course, the product goes beyond our bounds. So we feel there should be no great problem with regard to the actions of Safeway at the present time.

Agreed to: 1.1 — Departmental Services: 1.1.1 — Financial Services $939,412 1.1.2 — Personnel $392,483 1.1.3 — Communications $2,519,417 1.1.4 — Systems and Design $1,104,001 1.1.5 — Minister's Office $138,958 1.1.6 — Deputy Minister's Office $116,254 1.1.7 — Agriculture Library $215,431 1.1.8 — Director — Departmental Services $141,904 1.1.9 — Assistant Deputy Minister — Research and Operations $105,608 1.2 — Agricultural Assistance: 1.2.1 — Planning and Research Secretariat $550,250 1.2.2 — Agricultural Societies and Research $13,109,800 1.2.3 — Farmers' Advocate MR. BATIUK: Mr.

Chairman, I would just like to ex press a few comments on this particular vote. It seems that over the past while there has been an increasing request that an ombudsman be set for the rural munici palities in the province. We just got our annual report for the Farmers' Advocate, which I haven't had a chance to view. Nevertheless, looking at the accomplishments of the Farmers' Advocate over the past few years, I think it would be very wrong to start looking at expanding the role of the Ombudsman.

I think that if it's a real necessity to have a watchdog over the rural municipalities and the urban municipalities outside the two large cities, maybe the minister would be wise to look at the possibility of expanding the office of the Ombudsman. As I say, with the very small staff he has, when you look at all the accomplishments even in here, I think our rural munici palities especially would feel very deprived if this would not go this way. Those are the comments I wanted to make, Mr. Chairman. Agreed to: 1.2.3 — Farmers' Advocate $182,676 1.2.4 — Surface Rights MR. R. CLARK: Mr.

Chairman, just before we move on this one, could the minister indicate to the committee — if the minister has already, I'll check Hansard — what the government's plan for the next year is as far as surface rights are concerned? I seem to recall some discussion of the possibility of a legislative committee being set up to look at this whole question of surface rights. Is that . . . AN HON. MEMBER: Read your Votes and Proceedings. MR. R. CLARK: It's in Votes and Proceedings, is it? Okay, I shall read.

Agreed to: 1.2.4 — Surface Rights $790,488 Total Vote 1 — Departmental Support Services $20,306,682 2.1 — Program Support $949,613 2.2 — Irrigation $5,667,650 2.3 — Animal Products $7,129,630 2.4 — Animal Health $4,679,202 2.5 — Plant Products $16,081,268 Total Vote 2 — Production Assistance $34,507,363 3.1 — Program Support $765,339 3.2 — Marketing Services $5,181,501 3.3 — Economic Services $1,717,933 3.4 — International Marketing $1,271,464 Total Vote 3 — Marketing Assistance $8,936,237 Vote 4 — Rural Development Assistance MR. KOWALSKI: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair man.

A number of comments and some questions with respect to one aspect of Vote 4, dealing with the Agricul tural Development Corporation. As I recall, when ADC was originally set up in 1972, it had two major objectives. One was to provide financial assistance in order to maintain and establish family farms in Alberta. Second, the corporation's role was further defined by establishing it as a lender of last resort.

Over the years, I recall the Premier of Alberta and the former Deputy Premier and Minister of Agriculture indicating to the House that they thought that, as a guide, the Agricultural Development Corporation should function at approximately a 5 per cent loss per year in terms of its total lendings.

1046 ALBERTA HANSARD May 20, 1980 I note that a statement in the annual report of the Agricultural Development Corporation tabled for 1978- 79 indicates that for that fiscal year the dollar value of the arrears, compared to a total portfolio of $135 million, was something less than 3 per cent. That percentage loss concerns me. I'm not concerned that in fact there was a loss.

I think the inherent philosophy of the Agricultural Development Corporation, that it is to function as a lender of last resort, necessitates by the very definition of that phrase that ADC is to be innovative, risk-taking, and is to go out of its way to cater to and deal with a number of people who might be considered marginal in agriculture. Mr. Chairman, I'm concerned that perhaps that loss was not as large as it was originally intended to be.

While that may sound like a strange statement for one ordinari ly very concerned about fiscal responsibility, I'm very concerned that the mandate of ADC is perhaps not quite as aggressive as it might be. I really would like to know from the minister what discussions he might have had with the chairman of the Agricultural Development Cor poration in regard to that 3 per cent loss or arrears factor. The second area I'm very concerned about today is loan processing. I would like to read for the benefit of all members here today, and to you, Mr.

Chairman, and the Minister of Agriculture, three letters I received recently on the subject of loans processing by administrative offi cers within the Agricultural Development Corporation. I've selected these from a series I have received — and that I'm sure all members of this Assembly have also received — from farmers throughout this province, be cause I think they highlight and put forward some basic concerns. The first comes from a farmer in the Fort Assiniboine area: I applied for a debt consolidation loan through the [local] D.A. office about two months ago.

Today I contacted the D.A.'s office and was told my loan had not been looked at yet and it wouldn't be for at least six more weeks. I was told that the loans officer was greatly overworked especially since the latest changes were made to the A.D.C. Loans Program . . . My loan application was completed and delivered two months before the new changes and it still has six weeks to go before it is processed. What about the farmers who apply now? Our government took great pride in announcing the new changes and how these changes were going to ease some of the financial burden for some of the farmers.

The changes were welcomed . . . I feel [however] that your personal attention and intervention is needed in this matter. I feel you should help the train get on the right track. Find out the reasons loan applications are treated so listlessly by government employees . . . It could be the Loans Officers' Department [locally] is overworked and under staffed. I'm confident if this situation is not rectified soon the new Loans Program will eventually do more harm for our government than good.

A second letter received from a constituent of mine is a little longer: The Alberta Agricultural Development Corpora tion's new "Beginning Farmer Loan Program" has received much publicity. This program while it can be invaluable in encouraging further development of the agricultural industry has one serious shortcoming in its administration which promises to eliminate its effectiveness for any beginning farmer. This is espe cially true for a person beginning a farming enter prise completely on the strength of his own resources and who then most needs financial help.

The main problem appears to be a manpower shortage in the local Agricultural Development Cor poration office. Because the ADC loans officer. . . is severely backlogged in loan applications due to the apparent lack of . . . assistance for him . . . the minimum waiting period just to have a loan applica tion reviewed is over three months. This kind of time lapse while it may serve to discourage applicants who are not completely serious in their efforts to obtain financial assistance becomes ridiculous for any be ginning farmer who attempts to purchase land for his future farming enterprise.

There is no vendor of farmland who is willing to wait for more than three months while his land is tied up by an offer to purchase. This is only part of the time needed for a buyer to receive final word of . . . confirmation or rejection from ADC. It is obvious that anyone who is obligated to purchase farmland to begin a solid farm operation, even though on his own he may be able to acquire land, will not find this at all practical if further financial support from ADC is not assured.

In the same way a prospective farmer with the necessary [applications and] qualifications but with out a great deal of equity cannot begin to consider the purchase of land . . . even though his chance to eventually receive ADC assistance may be excellent. When real estate agents encourage vendors not to allow potential buyers more than three weeks to obtain financing a waiting period of over three months caused by an administrative difficulty cer tainly cancels a lot of the effectiveness [of this very positive] "Beginning Farmer Program" . . .

Until this waiting period is reduced to some sort of reasonable time there is no real "Beginning Farmers Program" It is important for ADC to maintain reasonable standards and from these a good reputation with respect to giving quick notification regarding financ ing for land purchases. Vendors of farms while they may prefer to sell their property as agricultural land, are often not prepared to wait indefinitely for a prospective farmer to receive word from ADC.

They may choose for the sake of convenience to sell to someone who is able to obtain fast mortgage ap proval from a bank but likely will not use the land for agriculture. And a third arrived today from a local agricultural development committee. Again: . . . much concern was expressed about the great amount of loan activity in the area and subsequent loan processing back-up. There exists in this area a problem with the [Al berta Agricultural Development Corporation] lend ing policy — in specific regard to time of processing. Mr.

Chairman, I'm most concerned about the message that keeps coming through in these letters. To paraphrase that message, its simply something along these lines: you politicians have created a good policy and a good pro gram, but it is not reaching farmers because of internal ADC administrative problems. It is in the area of internal ADC administration with respect to loan application processing that I raise this particular concern today. Mr. Chairman, ADC is not doing the job that I as an

May 20, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 1047 elected representative expect from it. It's slow and it's tardy in reacting to current economic problems in agricul ture, particularly in the loan area. While there are several areas that might be raised, I simply want to concentrate on the one of loans processing. The question to the minister is: why is ADC so slow? If the answer is a lack of staff, then I'd like to suggest that the minister pass on to his deputy minister and to the chairman of the Agricul tural Development Corporation that several steps can be immediately implemented to remove this backlog of applications.

The first step is kind of obvious. They could cancel all leave or all holidays scheduled by senior ADC officials and loans officers for at least the next three months until the backlog of applications is cleared away. They could deal with Agriculture Canada, and second from that par ticular organization the local FCC loans officers. Third, they might check with the Alberta Opportunity Com pany. I see advertisements and statements in papers coming forth periodically from the Alberta Opportunity Company saying that the number of their loans is down.

There very well may be a few loans officers there who might be seconded to assist the Agricultural Development Corporation. A fourth item might be that for the next three or four months at least, senior internal administra tive people in Alberta Agriculture might be redirected from their normal day to day responsibilities to assist the Agricultural Development Corporation in its efforts to concentrate on removing the backlog. Fifth, ADC might hire on a contract basis a number of retired or semi- retired farmers who have served on local agricultural development committees over the years.

Sixth, we now have in our society a group of senior citizens with a world of experience in a variety of other areas, including bank ing and financial institutions, who might very well be prepared to devote some of their time to assisting the Agricultural Development Corporation in clearing up this backlog. A third area, Mr. Chairman . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: I wonder if I could apologize to the hon. member and ask the committee's permission to have the Minister responsible for Culture make an introduc tion of visitors. HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS (reversion) MRS. LeMESSURIER: Mr.

Chairman, I would like to introduce to you, and through you to members of this Assembly, 52 students from St. Joseph's school in White- court. They are here with their teachers Sue Melnyk and Terry Gerling, and their bus driver Norm Vandenhouten. They have come for a tour of the Legislature Building. I would ask them to rise and receive the welcome of the House. head: GOVERNMENT DESIGNATED BUSINESS head: GOVERNMENT MOTIONS (Committee of Supply) Department of Agriculture (continued) MR. KOWALSKI: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The last point I was getting to dealt with the board of directors of the Agricultural Development Corporation. In the past, in a variety of different capacities that I've had the good fortune to be associated with in the government of Alberta, I spent a considerable amount of time working with and dealing with the board of direc tors. I think they're fine people; they come from all parts of the province.

Unfortunately, they seem to have the one tendency today — not to be overly critical; I just point it out as an observation I have — that all too often they've concentrated their efforts in the boardrooms of the Agri cultural Development Corporation at its head office in Camrose. I'd like to recommend to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the minister that that board of directors start touring this province and talking to farmers in all parts of this province. I don't believe their board meetings have to be held in Camrose.

One of the things this government has done over the last number of years, of course, is build a variety of airports in and around Alberta. Communica tions systems are as excellent in this province as they are anywhere, and to me it's high time the board of directors got out of Camrose and started touring this province, started talking to farmers in all parts of the province. It's an extremely large province, and they may — may — get the current reaction from local farmers with respect to the area of activity they're involved in. An ivory tower approach is not necessary in 1980. It's back to the grass roots.

That's something that has to be instilled from the top and by the top in the Agricultural Development Corporation. On that point, Mr. Chairman, I'd say thank you. MR. BORSTAD: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the minis ter's recent announcement on the beginning farmer pro gram. I hope the field staff do not find reason to turn most of the applicants down. I have had a number of complaints from my constituents. They say that when they phone for a request for information on the program, they are almost turned down over the phone.

So I would agree with the Member for Barrhead, though this is probably a complete reversal of the problem he's having. We're eliminating them pretty fast. If this is the case, not many people will qualify in my area. Could the minister advise the Assembly if this is the policy of the board? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Chairman, with your permission I'll reverse the order, because it's easier to start backwards. To the Member for Grande Prairie: that is not the policy of the board.

The intention in announcing the program was to do exactly what it was meant to do; that is, provide young people with the opportunity to become involved in agriculture. If there is a problem in that particular office, I have a note and I'll certainly check into it. To reply to the questions of the hon. Member for

1048 ALBERTA HANSARD May 20, 1980 Barrhead with regard to ADC; first of all, the limited loss discussions in the annual report. Judging that ADC at that time of course was a lender of last resort, the losses that would have accrued would have been substantially larger than those indicated in the report itself. I suppose one should judge that report in two ways: first of all, the number of farmers it basically helped; secondly, to look at the position of those individual farmers with whom ADC as a lender of last resort were involved and had any dealings in the acquisition of land.

The escalating prices in farmland throughout the province — and of course, as a lender of last resort for the acquisition of land, made the collateral which ADC would hold until such payment were made — made it very, very difficult. If you were trying to set a target of losing or even remaining equal, for those who found it difficult and could not meet the repayment ability, the escalating cost of land through inflation made it difficult for ADC to lose any money in land itself.

So I suggest to you that the only aspect that really would be involved, tied directly with ADC and its losses, would have been at that time tied with agribusi ness in those areas of direct loans which were available. To the hon. Member for Barrhead and to all hon. members with regard to ADC and the loan processing activities: indeed unfortunately, I suppose, the timing of the announcement of the program itself made some pres sures upon a normal system, because many young people, in anticipation of some changes, had been waiting at that time.

Of course the announcement of the program itself, coming very close to spring planting, provided yet anoth er stress on the system as it pertains throughout this province. But that is not to say there are some indications that we have, first of all, an influx of applications that vary throughout the province. Some loans officers are receiv ing more work than others. Also, a few comments are filtering back that communication directly to the loans officer could perhaps be improved. I say to the hon.

Member for Barrhead, and indeed to all hon. members, that I'm as concerned as the individual in regard to seeing that the program itself is successful. In achieving that, if the backlog we've built up at the present time is causing some problems in the main office in Camrose or, indeed, continues to be a problem in the field, we're in the process at the present time of looking, first of all, at the work load, the individuals involved, as to whether we can provide some short-term, interim help that would carry them over the heavy period.

We're also looking at the opportunity of utilizing full-time for a period other members of Agriculture or those who have been involved with the Ag. Development Corporation on an ongoing base, which would perhaps catch up the backlog, if it is tied with the limited number of applica tions that can be handled in Camrose itself. If necessary, we're quite willing to look at bringing in individuals from the private sector, if it'll speed things up. If we can change the basic documentation to provide the basic information and do it in a much better way, that is being looked at at the present time.

If it requires the hiring, on a temporary basis, of some field staff to do the appraisals or to tie it with the industry or other aspects of people involved in agriculture, we'll certainly do that as well. So all the items that were mentioned are indeed under review at the present time.

I recognize that perhaps it is quite difficult when you have a sort of period of peace and quiet, and then announce a new program, which I'm sure has generated many, many applications, certainly more than the average, and indeed more than the new program will generate after it has the opportunity to run for a few months, particularly at this time of the year.

So I'm quite willing to look at all the suggestions that have been made — some of them were already being reviewed — and say to all hon. members that our goal, and indeed the goal of all members within their constituencies, is as stated: to provide that type of service to those who are interested in agriculture from the beginning farmer aspect, and to provide services of direct lending of last resort in the other two areas that ADC will provide to those already involved in agriculture. Mr. Chairman, some questions were asked.

The Mem ber for Bow Valley was interested if we have any people, involved on a full-time basis, who are looking at land use. The [answer] is, yes, we have one full-time person who represents Agriculture at all the basic hearings.

Any deci sions that are made in suggested new lines of communica tion, whether they be power lines, main transmission lines, to attend hearings where there are changes in basic pipelines applications, and to work with all government agencies; but mainly to make sure that agriculture, through the local individuals who are affected, has the opportunity to present the side of agriculture, because it's so important. Transmission lines in irrigation areas — any change in the pattern that hinders the operation not only slows down production but costs money.

So, indeed, we have one full-time individual doing nothing but going around looking after the basic interests of agriculture and helping in any way he can. Secondly, in regard to purple gas as tied with sod farms, the Provincial Treasurer will touch on that when his estimates come up. So if the hon. member will watch, he's been alerted that it's part of the question. The new ag. building, in a rough forecast, should be ready somewhere in 1983. Whatever renovations are done to the existing building, of course . . . No decision has been made as to its disposition and who should use it. Mr.

Chairman, with those few remarks, I think we've caught most of the questions. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, I might ask the minis ter four very quick questions with regard to ADC; with out any build-up, simply four questions about the an nouncement just made. Mr. Minister, why did it take about 11 months to get the changes in the ADC program started? During the session last spring, Mr. Minister, it was indicated that a very extensive review of the program was under way.

Number two, why didn't the staff know about the changes, so they could tell people about them as soon as they were announced rather than having to wait the best part of a week? Thirdly, why weren't the forms in shape? They're talk ing about redoing the forms now. It's going to be late. Fourthly, what are the problems between the staff and the board? Very frankly, there seems to be a communica tion problem there. MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Chairman, first of all, time. I guess it's very difficult to answer. The problems that exist in a total review and, I suppose, the suggested changes all take time.

Because the program is strictly an agricultural pro gram, the onus timewise certainly falls to Agriculture. But rest assured, Mr. Chairman, that as much time as possi ble was placed in the total review, in trying to arrive at a solution that would meet the terms of reference or the goal we set to achieve. If a time factor was involved —

May 20, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 1049 that it should have sooner — I guess that rests on my shoulders. I suggest to you that sometimes the wheels turn more slowly than one would like to see. Staff were aware of the program almost immediately; at least, Camrose was notified of the new program even before the announcement. Forms. It's not a matter of changing forms. It's my understanding that the forms that exist certainly meet all the requirements of the new program without any changes.

I mentioned that perhaps if the number of forms is the factor slowing up the applications at the present time, then I suggest that either we have too many or they're too cumbersome. The review of the form at the present time is not tied with the program. But if it is a problem timewise in getting the applications to Camrose, perhaps we should take a look at it. Fourth, the problems of communication: it's difficult, and at the time I feel that perhaps a better line of communication is needed between Camrose and the loans officers in the field.

Perhaps the suggestions and the review ongoing at the present time would give us the opportunity to bring the regional loans officers in who could communicate directly to their people in the field districtwise. So I'm as concerned as the hon. Leader of the Opposi tion with regard to clearing up, hopefully, no serious problems in the matter of communication because of dealing with individuals. Secondly, if the forms are not the problem, they apparently need no change. The avail ability of staff in this case — there are vacancies in some of the loans areas.

Certainly we'll do everything in our power to see that those vacancies are filled with compe tent people to carry out the program. Agreed to: 4.1 — Program Support $1,810,509 4.2 — Family Farm Services $20,345,819 4.3 — Advisory Services $5,800,035 4.4 — Community Services $7,126,750 Total Vote 4 — Rural Development Assistance $35,083,113 Department Total MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Chairman, before we go into the final vote, I understand the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, his counterparts, and federal counterparts all met to discuss the drought in western Canada.

Have they come up with any suggestions or changes other than what we've discussed in the estimates as far as taking an inventory on forage or feed in western Canada, or pumping water? Were any other areas discussed? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Chairman, it's my understanding departmental people met again on Friday with the west ern provinces. I haven't had the opportunity to sit down with them and go through the total review of items they discussed, other than the information on inventories.

Apparently we have looked at inventories on a much broader scale other than the ones mentioned that we usually take a look at, tied with our own provincial need, and that's the availability of existing hay left over from the winter, pending those that will continue to feed because of no grass.

They have gone much further than that, looking at the total inventories across western Canada from the point of view of coarse grains and feed in general that might have to be, if it were to continue, moved from one province to the other, if it were neces sary; first of all, trying to establish whether there are surpluses within western Canada that would give us the opportunity to have that sort of interprovincial move ment of feed.

So I would say, other than the information I have on a total inventory classification and the in-depth study there, nothing that I haven't already mentioned when we were discussing the estimates, although we'll certainly keep hon. members abreast of the information as it's available. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, to the minister with regard to the ECA report on the Oldman River and, as well, the studies on the Bow River and the future use of those two major water streams in the province.

Listening to the Minister of Environment, one of my concerns is that the input from Agriculture, which has the biggest stake as far as I'm concerned — we have a big stake in the future use of the water in those two specific rivers I mentioned — that potentially the Department of Envi ronment and environmentalists are determining the future use and structures that are put on those water streams. As farmers across the province of Alberta, we depend on the Minister of Agriculture to represent our point of view. Certainly it may have some biases, because we have cer tain vested interests.

In the operation of the minister, are those the points of view the minister takes and imposes very intensely upon the Minister of Environment, and debates the side of agriculture when the question is before . . . I believe a cabinet committee will determine, hopeful ly, the final outcome of the ECA report and the studies on the Bow River. It's my hope that Agriculture takes a very firm stand about our future needs and that we benefit. As I look at the ECA report — which is totally a compromise report, nothing else — the chairman, Dr.

Platt, attempted in the best way he could, in his normal fashion of displaying things, to compromise between ag riculture and environmentalists. I think it's time we had some leadership. As far as I'm concerned, the point of view must be made. The representation I make on behalf of people in agriculture in southern Alberta is that we must look at the needs of water in both the Bow River and the Oldman River for agricultural purposes. It isn't a time for compromise reports.

I would expect from my Minister of Agriculture here in the province of Alberta that that side of the question be placed very firmly with the Minister of Environment. It's becoming more urgent. I think you must urge even upon your colleague the Minister of Environment that the question must be answered. In the Assembly today I felt the answer to my question in question period was a put-off again; that it will come eventually, I must wait, and I must have patience. I'm just about getting fed up with that nonsense from the Minister of Environment.

We just shouldn't expect those kinds of answers or that kind of timetable, in his mind or in this Assembly's mind. I only want to impress on the Minister of Agriculture that I and the farmers of southern Alberta expect more from him. Particularly in relation to the weather we're having not only in southern Alberta but all across Canada, the question becomes even more urgent. I know that if we continue the way it is, the Lethbridge Northern Irrigation District will have a water shortage. When beets and row crops are in a very vulnerable time of the year, we're going to have to shut the water off.

We're in that kind of situation. Announcing the dam or dealing with the Oldman and the Bow River doesn't quite solve the

1050 ALBERTA HANSARD May 20, 1980 problem this year. Since I started raising the question last fall and since the ECA report, the Minister of Environment — and I don't know what other committees are having input — hasn't given the question top priority. We're going to slide into this summer, and in the answer to the question from the hon. Member for Bow Valley, it sounds like the Minister of Environment is sliding along with the ques tion. If we don't answer it until this fall, that means the first budgeting we can do for any type of program is in 1981-82, which is just about two years down the line.

I was expecting budgeting in this year's budget for that whole report down there. But it isn't in the estimates this year, which only leads to difficulties. We have a dry year this year; and who knows, we may even have one equally as bad next year. That's a lot of assumption, but we're not getting the item in place. Maybe we're just a small opposition of four or five people on this side of the House that doesn't issue any political threat, but I think the Minister of Environment must realize . . . I think you, Mr.

Minister, as the Minister of Agriculture — someone must become vocal not only in placing the issue at the desk of the Minister of Environment about the needs of the farmers, but as a leader in agriculture. We expect that from you, Mr. Minister. Through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister. What point of view is the minister taking at this point? On behalf of all those farmers in southern Alberta, can I expect a firm position, even public? It's nice to stand alone and maybe even differ from your government col leagues. We do need the voice at this point in time. MR. SCHMIDT: Mr.

Chairman, in reply to the hon. member, rather than pick a site or sites within southern Alberta and to pass comment on the particular area and what the solution should be, I would like to say this. As the Minister of Agriculture responsible for agriculture in the province, my responsibilities go deep. As an Albertan, my responsibilities to Canada could go deep. As a member of the North American continent, they go just as deep because we are now talking about . . . You men tioned the word "compromise".

I don't think we have that opportunity that we should be able to compromise agri cultural production, because if you look throughout the world at the responsibilities that indeed lie to North America in its capability in food production, and look at Canada and its capabilities — both past because abilities and capabilities have been shown by individuals in the agricultural field, what they can do — and look at the areas of production on which we have barely touched, our basic responsibilities go deep. Certainly as deep, because we're talking about basic survival, about agricul tural production.

I say to the hon. member, and indeed all hon. mem bers, that when you talk about water management it's a responsibility to see that agriculture is safeguarded, be cause water management, coupled with soil and heat, is the backbone of production. Agricultural potential and the opportunity to represent to see that that potential is achieved is my responsibility, and I intend to carry it out. I might say that when you're talking about water man agement, the Minister of Environment is not walking alone in that aspect as well.

From an agricultural point of view, it's quite easy to understand what water manage ment can mean to the future of this province, because not every other area throughout North America has, first of all, the availability of water and, secondly, the availability of land you can get that water to with the system that exists in southern Alberta. I think the funding that has been allocated on an annual basis in working with the areas on the upgrading is of most importance.

Indeed part of the storage systems, whether on-stream or off-stream, that has continued to date and will continue is an indication that we're certainly dedicated to the area in its ability to be able to meet that requirement, and accept our responsibilities. All hon. members can rest assured that water management has had and will have the agricultural input, because it has to be part of it. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, I want to make it very clear to the minister . . .

I guess partly I was being critical of the minister's actions, but the point I was attempting to make is that in the agricultural industry we support any kind of public statement the minister can make, any urging the minister can make with the Minister of Environment, who seems to be the key person to make the public announcement about the future of the Bow River and the Oldman River. We only ask that the minister clearly, and I would even say publicly, be very forceful about the minister's position. Mr.

Chairman, I know the minister is concerned about the future of agriculture, certainly the availability of water for agriculture in southern Alberta. I know the minister is concerned about that. I'm only impressing that we want that voice to be as public and as strong as possible at all times, so that we know we have a voice here in the Legislature and certainly in the cabinet of the government of Alberta. I personally know that the minis ter feels that way. I can only say that the money for rehabilitation, the money for assisting the districts, cer tainly has some good purpose.

But we're in a new era of decision-making with regard to water management in southern Alberta, and that's the question with regard to on-stream or off-stream storage and how it has to be made. Certainly the farmers in southern Alberta want on-stream storage. They want the capability of having the water resource available to them when they need it, not having any worry about that supply being there when they need it. I can only say, Mr. Chairman, that I urge that on the minister, and in the comments, which I felt were a little general, the minister has partly said that to me.

Agreed to: Department Total $98,833,395 MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Chairman, I move the vote be reported. [Motion carried] Executive Council MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe we held Vote 6 on Execu tive Council. The others were approved. Vote 6 — Natural Sciences and Engineering Research MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should make three or four opening comments. I appreciate the House holding the estimate. Mr. Chairman, I think I would like to see us accom plish four objectives from the course of the questions we asked in question period and from some commitments

May 20, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 1051 review aimed at assessing current research activities and establishing the direction for the further development of our activities. This operation, which involved a major effort by the staff of the Alberta Research Council, was carried out in consultation with government departments and with agencies, industry, and universities. It resulted in a long-range plan which was approved by the board of the Alberta Research Council last fall and subsequently endorsed by the government. This plan calls for major expansion of our activities in the next few years in a few key areas.

To ensure that the proper implementation of this long- range plan is carried out, the management of the council proceeded to examine and review the internal operation and proposed a new organization and management struc ture. This reorganization was approved by the board of the council at the end of 1979 and implemented early in 1980. Apart from a regrouping of the management of research activities along the major thrusts identified in the long-range plan, special attention was given to the general administration and support services. Firstly, Mr.

Chairman, I would like to deal with some aspects of our accounting operations. Formerly, for the information of the members of the committee, we were operating two accounting systems: one to account for funds for research activities financed from government appropriation, and the second to account for funds re ceived from contract work. Running two systems was deemed necessary to perform contract work within con tract deadlines. Continued growth in the contract work — in this year alone we will have 333 contracts to administer — increased the volume of work in the second system.

Inconsistencies between the two were creating dif ficulties in relating the two sets of accounts. One area of difficulty has involved the accounting for shared re sources such as administrative and technical support, the use of capital assets, and the sharing of staff hired on appropriations. Problems were created in the allocation of overhead costs and the ultimate determination of ac curate full-cost data related to specific projects. Last fall, Mr.

Chairman, the board of directors ap proved a proposal for consolidation of all accounting information in a single system of accounting which would emphasize a zero based budget approach to our account ing methods to give us better control over budgeting and accounting information. The firm of P. S. Ross and Partners was commissioned to assist council in the design and implementation of an interim project costing system which was to be implemented in the current fiscal year. The design of the system was completed last month, and the council is now using that design.

Significant features of the new accounting system include labor costing, in ternal transfer pricing for in-house services, allocation of overhead costs, cash receipts, revenue reporting, and asset control. During the present transitional period as we move from the old system of accounting to the new one, we are experiencing delays which inevitably occur whenever changes are made to accounting systems. With respect to the overpayment of accounts in the year ending March 31, 1980, alleged by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, I find it difficult to confirm his information.

Our audit for the year is not yet complete, so if there is an overpayment we have not yet found it. However, Mr. Chairman, anyone with the slightest knowledge of accounts payable procedures, invoicing procedures, and monthly statement procedures appreciates that there are times when human beings, being human, make errors. This is why we have from the hon. member Mr. Musgreave.

Those four commitments or objectives would simply be this: first of all, some kind of commitment from the member and from the council that from here on regular medical checkups will be provided for people who are working with poten tially dangerous materials. Secondly, the administrative procedures at the Research Council will be reorganized to retain administrative credibility. Thirdly, research in areas where there are potential health hazards will be recommenced only after adequate safeguards are in place. Fourthly, the hon. member will take seriously his respon sibilities reporting to the Assembly.

While I wasn't here the other evening, I noticed that the hon. member talked about meetings we were going to hold the next day. It seems to me rather encumbent upon the member to assume that responsibility for accountabil ity to the Assembly. So the four objectives from my point of view are: getting some kind of commitment that regu lar medical checkups are provided for people working in those dangerous areas; secondly, this question of ac countability; thirdly, the rearranging of the administrative procedures of the council.

And fourthly, the work that has been stopped until new facilities are in place — that we get a commitment that work will commence when those facilities are in place. [Mr. Purdy in the Chair] MR. MUSGREAVE: Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Research Council of Alberta, I would like to take this opportunity the committee has given me to review the questions raised in committee today and the other even ing. First of all, though, I'd like to point out that I think it's important that we clarify the role of the Research Council and its relation to the Legislature.

Under the Alberta research Act, as amended July 4, 1979, we have a 15-member council made up as follows: Dr. Forester, Dean of Graduate Studies, the University of Alberta; Dr. Cooper, vice-president, research, the Univer sity of Calgary; Dr. Bowman, chairman of AOSTRA; Mr. Brooker, president of Brooker Engineering; Dr. Evans of Sherritt Gordon Mines; Dr. Hardy of R.M. Hardy & Associates; Mr. John Nodwell, president of Canadian Foremost Ltd; Mr. Pike, a retired businessman from Wetaskiwin; Dr. Stanley, president of Stanley & Associates Engineering; Mr. Tottrup of Tottrup & Asso ciates of Edmonton; Mr.

Williams, president of Calgary Power Ltd; Dr. Cloutier, president of the Research Council of Alberta. In addition, there are two members of the Executive Council, the hon. Hugh Planche, Minis ter of Economic Development, and the hon. Jack Cook- son, Minister of Environment, and myself as chairman. As part of the new mandate to the Research Council, approval was given to block funding of the council.

This will give us our flexibility in making contracts with clients, provide for more accurate accounting of various research projects, and be more responsive in setting guidelines for recruitment and retention of staff. Mr. Chairman, as the chairman of the council, I see my role as helping to guide the activities to serve the needs of the people of Alberta and, of course, if I have the support of my board, developing and pursuing policies that will see the approval of our estimates. I see my role as an important

part in developing new scientific opportunities that will strengthen our province and improve the welfare and progress of the urban or rural life of the people of Alberta and our nation. In 1979, Mr. Chairman, we carried out an extensive

1052 ALBERTA HANSARD May 20, 1980 auditors — not only to ensure that funds are not stolen, but to ensure that proper accounting of goods, services, and salaries is carried out. With regard to the $90,000 that was overpaid in April, which the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, I think he misunderstood the information he was given. As a result of our revised accounting procedures, which I'll speak about in some detail later, we recovered $80,761 in April that related to our 1979 accounting year. He also ques tioned whether the University of Alberta would continue business and research relations with us.

After the hon. member said to check the accounts, we checked with the university and, to the best of our knowledge, they have never refused to deal with us. Still on the matter of accounts, the Member for Little Bow stated: We find that nine companies have decided to stop doing business with the Research Council because of non-payment or overpayment . . . In January and February of this year one Toronto based office supply company refused to do business except by C.O.D. because of slow payment. Two U.S. companies also requested C.O.D. payments earlier this year. Mr.

Chairman, I'm going to outline our corrective action. But the hon. Member for Little Bow also said, and again I quote Hansard of May 13: We find that a large sum of money has not been accounted for. Now obviously he must have garnered this information from someone who knows about the disappearance of public funds. Mr. Chairman, I ask: will he as a responsi ble member of this Assembly supply the name of the individual or individuals suspect?

We would like to have the police investigate this immediately, because we do not want any clouds of suspicion hanging over the heads of loyal employees who are handling money at the Alberta Research Council. Similarly, the Leader of the Opposition asked why Woods Gordon were engaged by the Alberta Research Council. The answer is quite simple. Mr. Chairman, Woods Gordon management consultants were commis sioned to propose a management pay policy system which would reflect the revised roles of the management group within the new organizational structure.

The revised pay structure is designed to be internally equitable and com petitive in the external market place. Still on the matter of accounting, Mr. Chairman, I'm now going back to the fiscal year ending March 31, 1979, and dealing with the questions raised by the Auditor General on accounting procedures for that period. I'd like to advise members of the committee of our actions after I received the letter from the Auditor's report, and my response to the Provincial Auditor on January 21, 1980.

First of all, dealing with fixed assets: we immediately hired an accounting firm early this year to establish fixed asset records. We have established a procedure to record and document asset acquisition and control in the future. This work was completed by March 31, 1980. With regard to our sponsor's account: all research management filed copies of research contracts with our accounting department. Legal responsibility was con firmed with sponsors before expenditures were made for proper budget control on all research projects. Periodic billing of sponsors was to be instituted.

These procedures were in place by March 31. With regard to discretionary funds: unexpended ba lances in sponsors' accounts and accumulated amounts of recoveries of overhead expenses were placed under the control of the council's board of directors late in 1979. All expenditures incurred under this account must now receive approval of the board. With regard to investments and patents: a list requested by the Auditor General of all council investments, spon soring organizations, and patents arising from research has been prepared.

A project control system which pro vides for recording expenditures relating to possible in vestment and future patents has been installed. With regard to our cash receipts: an expense account has been established, and receipts are recorded daily and deposits are made promptly. With regard to accounts receivable: we now have an aged trial balance of accounts receivable which have been prepared since November '79. These are reviewed month ly by the director of administration, who has the respon sibility to report regularly to the board on the financial condition of these accounts to the council.

On our cutoff procedures, all Alberta financial information system cu toff procedures have been established and documented prior to March 31. Now, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to deal with some ques tions relating to the health of our workers and the handling of hazardous materials. One of the questions raised was: is there an ongoing monitoring of hazardous materials and the way they are handled at the Alberta Research Council? Our professional staff are trained in the handling of any such substance, and they must ensure that all necessary precautions are taken.

Further, the Alberta Research Council uses the university's waste dis posal system in handling chemicals under our supervi sion. Various accumulated substances were removed in April of this year. A special committee of qualified staff reviews the handling and use of chemicals within the facil ities, to assure that chemicals are identified. Another question was: has the Alberta Research Coun cil asked for and received advice on handling waste of organic compounds? The answer is yes.

At a meeting of the Alberta Research Council, Alberta Labour, and the city fire departments on February 20 of this year, Occu pational Health and Safety officials were fully apprized of all our activities in the campus building and their possible hazards. The Alberta Research Council also uses the skill and expertise of the university waste management group and private companies, whenever doubt should arise as to the correct means of disposal.

Another question was: what steps does the Alberta Research Council have to deal with an extremely dan gerous situation, from the standpoint of handling a varie ty of chemicals and organic compounds? Any handling of chemicals can be dangerous. To that extent, numerous substances no longer needed for research were recently removed from the campus building prior to the much- needed renovation of that structure. Proposed renova tions are designed to bring the entire structure to a suit able and safe standard for our expanding research programs. Mr.

Chairman, the question was raised: where were hazardous materials being stored? Any waste or surplus materials which may have been present have been re moved by a private company that specializes and is capable in the disposal of such materials. Those chemicals still required by Alberta Research Council staff are being retained by our professional staff in chemical areas in our laboratories. On the matter of health hazards and resulting ill health, Mr.

Chairman, I'm concerned about the mistrust and fear raised by the suggestion that five employees of the Re search Council have died or suffer from cancer because of

May 20, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 1053 working conditions. As a former chairman of the Cancer Crusade for the city of Calgary, I am saddened that opposition members would cause such concern in our community by suggesting that we are not looking after the health of our employees. From my experience with the cancer organization, raising these kinds of doubts often causes more distress and ill health from worry, when what we should be doing is concerning ourselves with minimizing health hazards.

Within the limits of con fidentiality of medical and other records, we have estab lished that the cancers were of different natures and the work histories of the given employees were also of dif ferent natures. In conclusion on this item, Mr. Chairman, there is no correlation between their cancers and their work histories. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to deal now with the facilities at the Alberta Research Council. The council occupies space at 11 different locations in Edmonton, including the facil ity adjacent to the campus of the University of Alberta.

In mid-1979, a consultant's review of the space facilities required by the Alberta Research Council to meet gov ernment standards indicated a shortage of 133,000 square feet. In December 1979 the Executive Council approved a long-range plan for the Research Council, which calls for a doubling of staff by 1984-85. Early this year, and as announced in the Assembly, a 157-acre site to house the new facilities was approved by the government at a cost of approximately $13 million.

In my view, the approval of the long-range plan, the acquisition of the site, and the support of the planning for the new facilities emphasize the importance this government places on research. The confidence they have in the Alberta Research Council and its board of directors in carrying out their expanded role in developing research is well exhibited by their commitment of public funds. With regard to the campus building, after our site was acquired early this year, a letter from our president, Dr.

Cloutier, was sent to all staff at the campus building advising renovations and a curtailment of activities would be necessary. This letter stated first of all that Dr. E. A. Babcock would be in charge as the building manager; that discussions had been held with Housing and Public Works and Government Services advising some opera tions would be housed elsewhere. There would be staff movements of some activities to provide laboratories for selected programs; some activities would be curtailed while a complete chemical inventory of the building was being carried out.

One Alberta Research Council employ ee would be working with a radiation safety officer at the University of Alberta to ensure that movements of chemi cals throughout the building were carried out safely. There would be temporary inconvenience and crowding. All of this was to result in an improvement of working conditions, and the president hoped they could count on the staff's full co-operation. There has been no delay in starting reservations, as suggested by opposition members. It is the opposite.

Moving staff, changing functions of building use, making sure that the changes meet the building codes, that exhaust systems are designed and work properly, that adequate working space requires plans to be drawn by engineering and architectural experts to house an extra 400 people in the next five years, and providing proper space will mean spending a large sum of money on several locations, not just the campus building. We hope to secure the initial financial support and complete our moves of staff by late summer. Mr. Chairman, to go over this once again for the benefit of committee members.

Members of the Legisla ture will readily identify that with current cramped space, as identified on the '79 consultant's report, together with a doubling of research effort over the term of the long- range plan and before the new facilities are available for occupancy, one of the main problems facing the council was a provision of adequate facilities in the interim period. It will take some three years before the staff will start to move into their new permanent facilities. Having identified council's prime problem with respect to space, the following actions were taken.

Effective January 1, 1980, an individual at the Research Council was identi fied by the board of directors to take charge of facilities development. Following a study of the current facilities, it was determined that three facets of the space problem need resolution in order to provide adequate facilities to carry out the council's obligation over the next few years. First of all, this meant reconstruction of the campus building to increase laboratory space through better utili zation of that space. It meant leasing office space for a consolidation of purely office activities.

It meant leasing suitable warehouse space for a central stores materials testing laboratory and a high-pressure laboratory. With respect to the campus building, in order to maximize the utilization of that facility, a major upgrad ing will be undertaken, including the removal of hazar dous substances, surplus solvents, and the disposal of inadequate fume hoods. Following this action, the utiliza tion of the building was determined as suitable for purely laboratory and office activities.

Because the present pilot plan of the campus building was to be converted to new uses, certain projects more suited to the pilot plan facili ties were temporarily closed down and are in the process of being relocated to a new high-pressure facility at a site yet to be determined. Some of the laboratories are over 20 years old. It was found they did not meet current safety standards. Activities in these laboratories have been shut down until these standards are met.

While it is true that the upgrading operation identified and removed certain hazardous chemicals to safe storage and/or dis posal areas, this operation had to be carried out in preparation for the reconstruction. Another question raised, Mr. Chairman, was that some members suggested we could not obtain insurance. Here are the facts on insurance. After consultation with Alber ta Housing and Public Works, insurance risk manage ment of Alberta Treasury requested consultants of Reed Shaw Stenhouse to evaluate our facilities.

After a cursory review of the facilities, the risk evaluation consultant group from Reed Shaw Stenhouse concurred with the Alberta Research Council's internal evaluation of the campus building. In reviewing the situation at the campus building and our action plan to deal with renovations, the insurance and risk management group of Treasury agreed and felt they would not be involved further unless re quested by the Alberta Research Council and Alberta Housing and Public Works to act as a resource in the renovations.

Treasury informed us at the Alberta Re search Council and Housing and Public Works that they would not be contacting the insurers as an uncontrollable and unaddressable risk was not identified. Therefore my understanding is that our buildings are insured under our group policy. Dealing with the matter of the health of our employees, first let's look at the technical people. About one-third of our staff, or 140 people, work in chemical laboratories and pilot plants where chemicals are used. Whether this constitutes working under exposure to toxic chemicals is

1054 ALBERTA HANSARD May 20, 1980 debatable, as toxicity depends on concentration and length of exposure. We would be very concerned if any staff were exposed to toxic chemicals under hazardous conditions. We have much better measuring devices than heretofore, and we are better informed. Also more re search is available that tells us of the hazards. Many of you remember watches that glowed in the dark, and playing with liquid mercury in your science labs. These are both considered hazardous activities today. Only two of our staff have complained about what they thought were work-related health problems.

They were referred to the diagnostic health referral unit of the personnel administration office. Medical doctors could not identify any medical problem relating to their work. Some members questioned what ongoing medical ex aminations of our employees are carried out. This is not normal government practice. However, to emphasize again our expanding knowledge of the chemicals around us, a benign substance such as carbon tet., once a very common dry-cleaning agent, can have a long-term, seri ous effect on users of the product.

The matter of ongoing, routine medical checks will be discussed at the next full meeting of the board of the Research Council. As for safety, we have always maintained an active safety effort. Our policy, adopted by our board on March 21 this year, is as follows. MR. R. CLARK: I apologize to the hon. member. Would it be possible for the hon. member to repeat what he indicated he would be taking to the board on this medical question? MR. MUSGREAVE: I thought the hon. Leader of the Opposition missed that.

The matter of ongoing, routine medical checks will be discussed at the next meeting of the full board of the Research Council. As for safety, we have always maintained an active safety effort. Our policy, adopted by the board on March 21 this year, is as follows. First of all, safety ranks equally with research. The goal is the prevention of accidents. Council will take the necessary measures to provide safe working conditions and ensure safe working practices. Those members with supervisory responsibility are ac countable for the safety of the employees in their unit.

Each employee must accept his safety responsibilities and work and act safely at all times. Mr. Chairman, I'd now like to read the introduction to our safety program distributed to our employees: The Alberta Research Council accepts that the frequency and severity of accidents and injuries can and must be reduced. The booklet describes the implementation of a co-ordinated occupational health and safety program for the Research Council, in keeping with the Council's policy on safety.

This program covers all matters that may have an effect on the occupational health and safety of Re search Council employees during the performance of their duties, and in no way limits any employee's rights under any legislation or legal agreement. All standards and applicable regulations made under the authority of The Occupational Health and Safety Act and other protective legislation are mini mum requirements of this program. Furthermore, additional standards will be set by the Council whenever it is deemed appropriate.

A key element of this program is the establishment of safety committees and will be formed from both management and employee representatives. These committees will deal directly with the specific safety problems of each work area in order to ensure that all concerns are reported to those supervisors and managers who have the responsibility to correct un safe acts and conditions. Every effort is to be made to provide employees with basic information about the Safety Program, and specialized training will be available as required. Mr.

Chairman, to summarize the Research Council's safety effort, the primary objective of our program review was to establish shortfalls in safety at our facilities and rectify the concerns. We are continuing our safety com mittees at the campus building, at Clover Bar, at Campus Tower, and at Penhold. We are continuing the emergency unit at the campus building. This consists of a six- member group controlled by mobile communication to respond to an emergency situation. We are developing an emergency unit for our Clover Bar facility. We are devel oping an approved safety policy ranking safety with re search.

We are developing a safety program which fami liarizes both staff and management of their safety respon sibility with council. We are developing a comprehensive training program covering areas of chemical safety handling and control; first aid; emergency survival for field crews; cardiopul monary resuscitation; confined space entry, where some of our employees have to go in tunnels, sewers, or cells of this kind, so they'll be aware of the problems in these kinds of areas where there may be noxious gases or explosives.

We are developing environmental monitoring for employees at our facilities and an educational training program which is consistent with specific needs; for example, back safety, accident prevention, fork lift safety, chemical spills, and emergency evacuation procedures. Our safety program is parallel to that of the Alberta government safety program of 1977, with which our co ordinator liaised with Personnel Administration of the Alberta government.

The Alberta Research Council is one of the leaders in agencies and boards in appointing a full-time safety co-ordinator, establishing a safety de partment, and developing a comprehensive safety pro gram and policy. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I'd like to say that many things are now happening at the Research Council. We're moving ahead with the implementation of our long-range plan. We're going through a reorganization that will allow us to manage our challenging growth. We are planning new major facilities that will consolidate most of our activities in one central location. Finally, Mr.

Chair man, it is developing into one of the major, leading research organizations in this country. I'm confident that members of this committee, as well as the people of this province whom they represent, will give the Research Council the support it needs to carry out its mission. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, in responding to the comments from the hon. member, I think I would like to say four things. First of all, to the chairman of the Research Council, I take it the chairman is prepared to recommend to the board that there be some system of ongoing medical checkups, that that kind of policy is started.

If we can get that kind of commitment from the chairman, certainly it seems to me that would go some distance toward taking the first step needed. I would like a very specific response to that. I can appreciate the hon. member feeling that we may not have raised this matter the way the hon. member would have liked us to. But in the course of hearing

May 20, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 1055 about the report of the committee talking about the health and safety conditions at the Research Council, if my counting was accurate, we heard at least six times the statement "we are developing" with regard to this area, with regard to monitoring. At least six times reference was made to that in this whole question of health and safety.

The second point I'd like to make to the hon. member — and whether the hon. member will agree to this is of course entirely up to him — is that I would hope that in the future we would get some kind of report such as we have today as far as the Research Council is concerned. We were being asked to approve some $11.5 million without ever — and I could be mistaken; certainly very easily so — having a report in any detail to this commit tee at all from whoever is responsible for the Research Council.

I would suspect that if members go back and check Hansard, we'll find this is the first time in the last 10 years that we've had any kind of detailed report as far as acts in the Research Council are concerned. Now I could stand corrected, but that's certainly my recollection. The second point is: I would hope the hon. gentleman would establish this kind of practice of accounting to the Assembly prior to asking for the approval of the $11.5 million.

The third point I want to raise is centred on this question of how it was that from the standpoint of space, of handling the chemicals — and the hon. member in his remarks indicated, Mr. Chairman, that there'd been a build-up over a long period as far as toxic materials, chemicals and so on — how it was that this particular situation developed. If I could be very candid about it, are we looking at . . .

In fact I had a letter from one of the members of the board of the Research Council sug gesting to me that I should never have raised the matter in the House; that really the Research Council has an important role to play in Alberta. That's true. Then this individual went on to point out that the Research Council was not in very good shape in 1971 when the present government came to office. And that could certainly be the case. But I would ask the hon. gentleman rather candidly: how long have we had this rather rudderless organization, if I can put it that way?

I'm very pleased that now the government is giving the thing some form, but we heard about the need of getting space all across the city, the question of removal of the chemicals, the need to get accommodations in shape, and then the question of administration organization. I couldn't help but sit here and write down in my notes, how long has this been building up so we are now at the stage where, according to the hon. member, a number of changes are going to be made? Mr.

Chairman, to the hon. member who is accountable for the Research Council, I take it that the administrative organization, the work being done by Woods Gordon and the other firm — that some of those recommenda tions have been implemented and that has resulted in the $80,000 the member referred to as money which was reclaimed, if I might use that term, as far as the last month or two are concerned. The last question I'd put to the hon. gentleman on this occasion — and I don't like to get involved in personal ities — is that I'd be very interested in knowing the present status of Mr.

Eastman who, I understand, is the man in charge of administration over at the council. What's his situation? MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to last Tuesday's debate with regard to the matter at hand. The matter we were discussing at that point was the concept of member accountability. We've had earlier dis cussions, as we said then, about ministerial accountabili ty. Our discussion and focus at that point in time was member accountability. I was a little concerned when the member rose in his position today and was going to say, I want to explain the operation of the Research Council.

I thought at that point the member was going to say, I'm not totally responsible for the Research Council, nor am I responsible to report everything to this Assembly or be accountable to this Assembly for what goes on in the Research Council. The member didn't completely answer that question. I feel that the report given today showed a kind of accountability, and we appreciate that. The other evening when we raised questions with regard to specifics, the member didn't know of those specifics because the meeting was going to be the day after, or on Wednesday after last Tuesday.

We didn't feel that that was very accountable, so we raised some questions with regard to sums of money and employees and things that needed investigating. The hon. member today reported that a large sum of money — I think there was indication that some $90,000 was of concern to begin with. Some $80,000 is now accounted for, but there is still $8,000, $10,000 there. Now that's a fair sum of money that still needs to be reported on, and maybe the hon. member could mention a few details with regard to that. But, Mr.

Chairman, the question I'd like the member to make very clear to us is that being chairman of the Research Council, being a member of this Legislative Assembly, means that the member is accountable for what goes on and answerable in this Assembly. If the answer to that question is yes, then I'm satisfied, and we can proceed with other questions. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Chairman, just very briefly. I was one of the members last week who argued that we should delay the estimates until we had some answers, and I must confess that I thought the answers the member gave today were comprehensive.

Some other questions have been raised and no doubt there may still be in the remaining time we are spending on the estimates, but what we received this afternoon was the kind of compre hensive report that frankly should have been available last week. We were being asked to accept, in a hasty way, $11.5 million of public expenditures, with an assertion by the member responsible to this Assembly that the meeting was going to be tomorrow. I appreciate the fact that the hon.

Government House Leader recognized that this committee's moving on the estimates last week would have been injudicious, and "injudicious" is the kindest way I could put it. Today we got the kind of comprehen sive report that, if it had been received last week, no doubt would have meant that the estimates would have gone through as would normally have been the case. But, Mr. Chairman, I think the Member for Little Bow makes an appropriate point; that is, the question of member accountability.

As far as I am concerned, with out getting into the discussions we've held before on ministerial accountability, this Legislature must be given a full and complete report and must be in a position where we have the questions that are raised in the committee answered before we as a committee grant supply. I would just simply say to the member, who maybe got

1056 ALBERTA HANSARD May 20, 1980 caught in what was a delay in passing the estimates, that when it comes to this member or any minister, when we get into situations in the future where quite frankly the meeting is going to be the day after we deal with the estimates, I think this committee has to balk and dig in its heels and make sure we get the answers. We got the answers to a large extent today, at least to my satisfac tion, and I appreciate those answers.

It's just that I hope that next year when we deal with the estimates, we'll have the kind of comprehensive report prepared by the mem ber, with the ability to answer the questions so that we don't need to go through this process again. MR. MUSGREAVE: Mr. Chairman, to deal with the first point raised by the Leader of the Opposition, one of the difficulties I have . . . I'd like to deal with your question and the question raised by the members for Spirit River-Fairview and Little Bow. I don't quarrel that a cabinet minister certainly has to be responsible to this committee for his estimates.

The point I have tried to make, and why I detailed who the board members are, is that while I know I have a responsibility to this commit tee and to the House, on the other hand I am working with a board made up of 15 people, of which I am only one member, and I have two cabinet ministers with me. Granted, if they don't do what we want them to do, we have the power to get rid of them. But in the interim we do have to deal with these people. So I don't quarrel with the request for information. But I would point out two things which are perhaps humorous.

The other night, when you asked for a delay in Vote 6, which I was quite happy to do, you passed Energy Resources Conservation, $11,320,000, and it took just long enough to say "agreed". Now I know how the system works; this is my fifth year. I must confess I've never heard questions raised about the Alberta Research Council. I came with as much information as I could. You asked me questions for which I didn't have detailed information, and I wasn't prepared to give it until I had an opportunity to get it. It was not a matter of stalling; it just takes time to dig out some of this material.

With regard to the medical inspections, I am recom mending to our board that this matter be reviewed. I want the board to tell me why we shouldn't do it. My position is that we should do it, but we've got to listen to our medical people. We've got to know what it will cost, what kinds of results we can get from it, and what kind of program they recommend. But I want the board to con sider that proposal. I can't tell the board, you've got to do this or else I'll resign. I have to work with my board.

I'm saying that at the next meeting of the full board — and I've already instructed the president — that matter has to be on the agenda. MR. R. CLARK: Don't worry about the cost. MR. MUSGREAVE: I would like to point out one other little thing with regard to the Research Council. In fair ness to the Leader of the Opposition, he told me he was going to ask me questions on the Research Council. I said: you know, I've sat here for 10 weeks; now you're going to ask me a question when I'm not going to be here. But he delayed.

What I would like to point out to him — I believe he said last summer, when my appoint ment was made, that perhaps now we were getting a breath of fresh air at the Research Council. Let's hope it is, because there is a lot to be done. As far as the $90,000 is concerned, I think the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview said there's $10,000 missing. I'm saying it wasn't $90,000. I think the figure was $80,700; I haven't got the specific amount here. We don't have a figure of $90,000 that we can identify; we're saying we do have one that's $80,000. Okay? As far as I know, Dr.

Eastman is still our manager for administration. When you asked me that question, I immediately got a little concerned. I see him in the gal lery, and I hope he's still on the board with us. He's responsible for our accounting functions, personnel, safe ty, building administration: many of these areas of responsibility. To deal again with accountability, I think I have perhaps answered the question of the Member for Little Bow. I don't quarrel with that concept at all.

If you felt that I wasn't responding the way you asked the other night, perhaps I was going on your performance of the last four years, when the Research Council went through fairly fast. I had a lot of material here, but I didn't know the number of people dealing with hazardous chemicals, and I didn't know that any of our staff had cancer. I didn't have all the answers to all the questions. Agreed to: Vote 6 — Natural Sciences and Engineering Research $11,561,000 Department Total $64,174,722 MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Chairman, I move the vote be reported. [Motion carried] Treasury Agreed to.

Vote 1 — Departmental Support Services: 1.0.1 — Provincial Treasurer's Office $124,070 1.0.2. — Deputy Provincial Treasurer's Office $406,900 1.0.3 — Legal Services $102,700 1.0.4 — Administrative Support $929,100 Total Vote 1 — Departmental Support Services $1,562,770 Vote 2 — Statistical Services $1,600,200 MR. PAHL: Mr. Chairman, with respect to Vote 2, I'd like to . . . MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The vote's already been voted on. MR. PAHL: I know, but you didn't recognize me. Short of throwing something at you, Mr. Chairman, I guess I'll have to . . . AN HON. MEMBER: This corner of the room has that difficulty. MR.

PAHL: With your indulgence, I want to compli ment the Provincial Treasurer on his commitment to increase the effort on the co-ordination of land-related information systems within the province. This was pointed out in last year's estimates. I see it even war ranted a paragraph in the throne speech. On behalf of backbenchers . . .

May 20, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 1057 AN HON. MEMBER: Upper benchers. MR. PAHL: . . . upper benchers who are concerned with this thing, although it's not a high-profile item, I believe it's very important to the management of our province, and I want to compliment the Provincial Treasurer direct ly on the initiative taken in this vote. Vote 3 — Revenue Collection and Rebates MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, lest the Provincial Treasurer think no one's interested, I think we should stop someplace and ask what research Treasury is doing in the area of long- and medium-term expenditure projec tions.

I'm thinking in terms of 5 to 10 years, but there's nothing magic about the 5- to 10-year frame of mind. And what research is Treasury doing in the area of long- and medium-term revenue planning? I'd be very sur prised, and very bitterly disappointed, if the Treasury people haven't done some projections as to long-term revenue, based on the present production of oil and natural gas in the province, moving to 85 per cent of the world price and perhaps some fallback positions. I would certainly want to be assured that some of that kind of work is going on.

I would also be very interested in knowing what projec tions the province has for accumulated surplus — the size of it now and, once again, the projections for the foresee able future — because that rather becomes part of the overall question of financial management in the province. Certainly I see the Treasury Department having that kind of responsibility. Whether it's done inside, with the Treasury people, or whether it's contracted out to some firm, fair ball; but I'd like assurance that the work's being done and, secondly, some indication of the projections. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Chairman, I can certainly assure the hon. opposition leader that work is being done in both those areas. I guess one can best say that scenarios are being developed, consonant with good financial man agement. I might add that it's very difficult, with the province of Alberta growing as it is, to be able to predict with any precision the rate of revenue or the rate of expenditure in the years ahead. I think the public ac counts every year indicate a fair variance as to the amount of surplus or deficit that can be predicted.

That's partly because we are unable to predict the exact rate of growth of the province, because of its rate of growth. However, we are certainly running off projections as to possible amounts of revenue that would accrue under various scenarios over varied numbers of years. As the years move ahead, of course, it becomes even more diffi cult. I think most would agree that 10 years ago any projections with respect to revenue or expenditure in 1980 would probably have been wide off the mark. But those projections are certainly taking place.

As I said in the budget, any projections, particularly of revenues, have to be based on the realization that the future looks basically sound. But that is only provided that the province is dealt with in a fair way by the federal government in the months ahead. So the situation is varying; it is fluid; it is somewhat volatile. When looking, for example, at future surpluses and projections of accu mulated surpluses, I think there's no definitive way those can be pinned down either, because the province's economy is still vulnerable.

Over the past two or three years we have had the benefit of being able to use surpluses, firstly for the municipal debt reduction pro gram, and more particularly this year, to begin the partial funding of pensions and the retirement of hospital debentures. Those things are possible when there is a surplus. It's not possible to predict how long those surpluses will be enjoyed.

It's quite clear that at some time, probably in the '90s, revenues from conventional crude oil will drop, and at that time there's going to have to be a reference and a taking by the Treasurer of the day, first of the surpluses, then of the income of the heritage fund, and then its capital. So we enjoy these at the moment. Predictions are being made and they'll be carefully invested in the meantime. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, to the Provincial Treasurer. The Provincial Treasurer said that sometime in the '90s there may well be this turnover.

I'm not sure whether one should refer to them as the most liberal or the most conservative projections, but whichever way one looks at it, I take it that the best feel the government has today as a result of its projections is that sometime in the '90s we'll get to a turnover point. Mr.

Treasurer, I inter pret that turnover point to mean that that would be a time when our revenue from resources would not enable us to meet the day to day financial commitments of the province, and at that time there would be a decision made as to potentially using interest from the heritage fund to offset the General Revenue Fund of the province. So if that's the case and my

interpretation is correct, we're looking at at least 10, and perhaps between a 10- and 20-year period, to use the government's own projections, as when interests will continue to go back into the fund. Is that an accurate assessment, Mr. Treasurer? [Mr. Appleby in the Chair] MR. HYNDMAN: Not really, Mr. Chairman. My state ment was based essentially on one of the government's key revenue sources for the General Revenue Fund and the heritage fund, and that is crude oil production. It's no secret.

As we all know, it's dropping from 1.1 million barrels a day now, to something in the order of 300,000 in the early '90s. Of course the revenues from crude oil are far higher than they ever will be from synthetic oil. Who knows when the day will be reached or when the lines will cross? For example, we don't know the extent to which there will be secondary recovery of conventional crude, massive, limited, or what; we don't know whether big new oil fields will be found. So there are a great many uncertainties.

Every time an operating cost is built into the budget, though, we have to look carefully at what the expenditure down the road will be. Agreed to: Total Vote 3 — Revenue Collection and Rebates $32,586,200 Total Vote 4 — Financial Management, Planning and Central Services $19,746,600 Total Vote 5 — Public Debt Service $21,645,300 Vote 6 — Public Service Pension Administration DR. BUCK: One question to the Provincial Treasurer, Mr. Chairman.

I'd just like to know if the government's planning changes to The Public Service Pension Act which will require higher contributions to be paid by the people contributing to the plan. I'd like to know if the

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19800520
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L19 S2 19800520 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	92568c25837d95196a04b841639ccf2f27eb2c02

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