Alberta Hansard — 29 October 1984, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 20, Session 2)

19841029

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

October 29, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 1249 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Monday, October 29, 1984 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] MR. SPEAKER: Although an alternate arrangement following the tragic loss of our Leader of the Opposition should not be made with inappropriate haste, there are some matters which are of immediate concern because of the House being now in session. One of these is the custom of recognizing the Leader of the Opposition, or the leader's representative, for the first two questions in each question period.

Hon. members of the opposition have indicated that they wish me to deal with that matter. It would seem appropriate that that privilege should alternate for the time being. Hence, having recognized the hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood for the first two questions on Friday, I propose that today the hon. leader of the Independents be recognized for that purpose. There is a fairly recent provision in the Standing Orders of our parliament whereby this House gives the Leader of the Opposition the right to designate certain business of the House for preferred attention.

There are still other matters, such as the time limit for speeches. The hon. members of the opposition have indicated to me that these other special prerogatives of the Leader of the Opposition might be left in abeyance for the time being. The present situation and the reason this House has at present no Leader of the Opposition are, fortunately, without precedent. Hence, it seems reasonable that an adequate interval should elapse for the opposition members to prepare and make known their views regarding the unprecedented situation in which the House finds itself.

It has been indicated to me that that interval should extend to the end of this week. I hope that shortly thereafter at least a longer term solution may be found by this Chair, with the assistance of the members of the opposition. head: PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES MR. MUSGROVE: Mr. Speaker, a report by the Standing Committee on Law and Regulations.

On May 31 the Assembly passed a resolution instructing the Standing Committee on Law and Regulations to take under consideration, in general terms, the reports issued by the Institute of Law Research and Reform and report to the Assembly as to which reports of the institute the committee recommends be referred to it for detailed study.

Pursuant to those instructions, the committee recommends to the Assembly that the reports of the Institute of Law Research and Reform on the topics listed in the report be studied in detail by the committee. head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 69 Municipal Taxation Amendment Act, 1984 MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill No. 69, the Municipal Taxation Amendment Act, 1984. There are a number of provisions to this Bill which affect the principles by which property is assessed for property tax ation purposes in the province.

However, I would like to high light one of those; that is, the implementation of my recent announcement of the new policy on machinery and equipment assessment in this province, which responds to the government's white paper on industrial and science strategy for the years 1985 to 1900, and specifically to the request that property taxation and assessment not act as a disincentive to industry siting in the province.

With the amendments proposed in Bill 69, it is my expec tation that the changes will assist in decisions to be made by manufacturing and processing plants in establishing in the prov ince and also in expanding their investment, by virtue of machinery and equipment, in the province. [Leave granted; Bill 69 read a first time] Bill 74 Municipal District of Clearwater No. 99 Incorporation Act MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill No. 74, the Municipal District of Clearwater No. 99 Incor poration Act.

The purpose of this Bill is to allow the residents of Improve ment District No. 10 to become a municipal district and obtain full responsible government. [Leave granted; Bill 74 read a first time] Bill 76 Utilities Statutes Amendment Act, 1984 MR. McPHERSON: Mr. Speaker, I wish your leave to intro duce Bill No. 76, the Utilities Statutes Amendment Act.

The three objectives of this Act are: firstly, to restrict the provisions of certain sections of the Public Utilities Board Act and the Gas Utilities Act to "real" public utilities and gas utilities, as designated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council; secondly, to provide for retroactive approval of all transactions that occurred pursuant to those particular sections; and thirdly, to provide for the appointment of a vice-chairman and for the right of the chairman to designate any member to preside or to conduct any meeting of the board or division of the board. [Leave granted; Bill 76 read a first time] MR.

CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bills 74 and 76 be placed on the Order Paper under Government Bills and Orders. [Motion carried] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to file with the Legislature Library copies of the executive

summary and the technical report of the Twin Butte Soils and Water Evaluation Task Force. MR. WEISS: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to file copies of the Early School Leavers in Northern Alberta workshop, completed by the Northern Alberta Development Council. All delegates,

1250 ALBERTA HANSARD October 29, 1984 as well as the various government departments, have been supplied with copies. MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table the 1983-84 annual report of the Alberta Agricultural Development Corporation and the 16th annual report of the Alberta Hail and Crop Insurance Corporation for the year ended March 31, 1984. MR. BOGLE: Mr.

Speaker, as required by statute, I wish to table Sessional Paper No. 109, the Gas Alberta Operating Fund financial statements for the year ended March 31, 1984, and the supplemental report of the Gas Alberta Operating Fund for the year ended March 31, 1984. MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table four copies of the first annual report of the Advisory Committee on Heavy Oil and Oil Sands Development. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce to you, and through you to members of the Assembly, 45 people who are seated in the members' gallery this afternoon.

They are, particularly, 14 students from the Federal Republic of Germany who are visiting Edmonton as part of a student exchange that is sponsored by the Edmonton/West Germany Student Exchange Society. Other than the 14 guests from out of province and out of country, we have the students with whom they are staying during their visit, as well as supervisors, par ticularly Mr. Ron Evans, who is the president of the society, and Faye Gronemeyer. Thirteen of our visiting students are from the province of Hessen in West Germany, and one is from Nordrhein-Westfalen.

They are visiting Alberta for three months, attending school and learning as much as they can about the province during their visit. Their hosts, the Alberta students, will return to the Federal Republic of Germany in the spring of 1985 and study and learn about West Germany during the months of April, May, and June. I think it's always a special pleasure for us to have visitors from the Federal Republic of Germany.

They may wish to know that seated in this Assembly we have the first postwar immigrant to Canada who was successfully elected and appointed to a cabinet position in any of the legislatures or the House of Commons of Canada, the Hon. Horst A. Schmid, who is our Minister of International Trade. All of us would like to welcome the students from West Germany and their hosts. I ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. MR. SCHMID: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to introduce to you, and through you to members of this Assembly, 55 really fine and outstanding young students from Holyrood elementary school. To me the Holyrood school is one of the best we have in Alberta, for many reasons. Last year they had an outstanding arts exhibition; the year before, an exceptional science fair with exhibits in literally every room of the building. The school also has two immersion programs, one for French and one for Ukrainian. As well, I just found out that the father of one of the students is in this Assembly, namely the Hon. Dave King, Minister of Education.

Therefore I am delighted to be the MLA for Edmonton Avonmore, in which the school is located. I ask the students to rise in the public gallery and receive the welcome of this Assembly. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Child Welfare Review MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Social Services and Community Health. In the past four years at least four major studies have been done by the depart ment: the Catonio report of 1972; the Ombudsman's report of 1981; Cavanagh, 1982; and the Thomlison report, just com pleted.

Could the minister indicate whether further major stud ies in this area of child welfare are being contemplated by the department at this time? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, there is no consideration being given to any further studies at all. As the hon. member knows, we had the Cavanagh Board of Review report, which did a very thorough review of the child welfare system in Alberta. From 1980 to 1983, they had hearings across the province and received input from the public and made many recommend ations. I received that report in the fall of 1983, I believe in September.

We introduced Bill 35, dealing with child welfare, into the Legislature, and that Bill died on the Order Paper. Copies of that Bill as well as of the Cavanagh Board of Review report were sent out across the province, and we received an excellent response to that. The hon. member will recall that in the spring of this year we put in a new Bill. That Bill was passed and is expected to be proclaimed on July 1, 1985. In the meantime we are devel oping regulations and putting into place policies that will accompany the foundation that was laid by the legislation. That's an ongoing process now. MR.

SPEAKER: With respect to the hon. minister, I was won dering when we might get to the topic of further reports. We seem to have gotten away from the purport of the question. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. My area of concern is between now and July 1985. Could the minister indicate what steps are being taken immediately to meet some of the recommendations of those very serious reports? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that a lot of the recommendations of the Cavanagh Board of Review have been carried out.

That particular review was a review of the child welfare system going back to the early '70s. The concerns that were expressed relative to educational qual ifications of child welfare workers were addressed in the 1971- 72 time period, with a real initiative put forth in terms of upgrading the qualifications of child welfare workers. I have made the results public in the response to the recent Thomlison report. There are a number of other initiatives that have taken place in the last several years.

I consider the Thomlison report to be a supplement to the Cavanagh Board of Review report in the sense that the Cavanagh Board of Review dealt very broadly with the whole field of child welfare,

whereas the Thomlison report focussed on the case management, the handling of cases by the child welfare worker. There were a number of recom mendations made by Dr. Thomlison and, as was obvious in the response to that report, we have put some time lines on them. We intend to implement others on an ongoing basis between now and next July. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Could the minister indicate what steps have been taken to imple

October 29, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 1251 ment an annual review of the care given to all permanent wards? Is the minister taking immediate steps in that area? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, the recent report that we received made some recommendations in that regard. We have initiated action in terms of immediately reviewing all the permanent wardship cases in the northwest region, and in just a few days we will have criteria in place with regard to a full review of all permanent wardship cases throughout the entire province.

I don't recall any specific recommendations relating to an annual review; however, there were other recommendations with respect to how child welfare supervisors should be involved in handling cases for which they have responsibility as child welfare supervisors over the child welfare workers. Mr. Speaker, I could make a number of other comments on that topic, but I think that answers the hon. member's ques tion. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Could the minister indicate what steps have been taken to develop a wider range of alternate care facilities in the province?

Are steps being put in place to look at alternate care facilities as well? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, in terms of recommendations relative to the care of children who come to us as a result of apprehensions or otherwise, we are fully reviewing the whole area of foster homes in terms of youngsters being placed there — to give consideration to other kinds of living situations if they've been moved more than two or three times. The whole area is under review, and alternate care is one of those. I will very shortly meet with the Foster Parents Association to discuss these matters.

I have had meetings with the Metis Association of Alberta, as well as other Metis representatives. We are working on this particular matter. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Could the minister indicate what steps are being taken to develop a system of staff appraisal, based on actual casework performance of the staff in the department, relative to the cases we've discussed? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member referred to the response I released just a short time ago, I think he'd find a partial answer to that particular question.

There are annual staff appraisals in place right now in terms of all child welfare and social allowance workers in the system, and they have been in place for some time. One area we are giving close consideration to is an audit of child welfare files, on a spot-check basis, to see how they have been handled. We're now giving consideration to how that audit would be carried on, whether it would be an internal or an external audit. There is an elaborate child welfare appraisal system in place, and it has been in place for some time. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary ques tion in this area.

In terms of the questions I've asked, could the minister indicate when there will be a formal report to the Legislature on the review and study that the minister is doing and on the implementation of policy, programs, and staff requirements in the areas I've outlined? When will that be reported to the Legislature? Will we have a report this fall, or do we have to wait until next spring? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, I really don't know where the hon. member has been for the last two years.

We have been giving reports to the Legislature on a regular basis, in terms of questions from the hon. member himself and from other members in this House. I will continue to provide responses to how the recommendations have been followed up, not only with regard to the more recent one but in particular the Cavan- agh Board of Review. If the hon. member would examine this carefully, I think he would find that the legislation we have now incorporates nearly all the recommendations of the Cavan- agh Board of Review. I indicated that we are in the process of developing regulations.

Those regulations are going to come under the scrutiny of external agencies and groups. If the hon. member would like to ask questions on a continuing basis, I'd be happy to provide him with any response he wants. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. What concerns me is the delay attitude in terms of what's going on here. We have a minister of unemployment saying that we accept 6 or 7 percent unemployment in this province. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question. MR. R.

SPEAKER: My question to the minister is: what per centage of tragic cases such as the Cardinal case is the minister willing to accept while this study and review is going on, without some immediate action being necessary in this Assem bly? DR. WEBBER: Again, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has either been asleep or not paying attention. I think the response has been very quick. I don't know of a report in the Legislature we've reacted to as quickly as the Cavanagh Board of Review report.

It was brought in in the fall of 1983, and less than a month and a half later we introduced legislation reflecting many of the recommendations of that report. Certainly the situation with Richard Cardinal was a tragic case, but I don't want the public or the hon. member to think that such a tragedy could never happen again. Even in what appear to be the best of families, tragedies occur. I don't know how the hon. member could expect that the government could be any better as a parent than the parents of our children in this province. There's no way we could guarantee that there won't be tragedies in the future.

That having been said, however, we are on the road and have made significant progress to developing what is, in my mind, one of the best child welfare systems in this country. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. In speak ing to caseworkers, they are finding that their load is becoming very, very heavy and, in many instances, almost unbearable.

In his discussions with his cabinet colleagues, who are now looking at the budget process, is the minister in a position to indicate to the Assembly that we're going to be able to assure these people who are in the field that there will be assistance for them, so the caseload per caseworker can be lowered? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, during the period 1981-82 there was a significant effort in getting a large number of child welfare workers into the system, which I believe significantly helped those in the system with their caseloads.

Also the Cavanagh Board of Review report indicated that if the government were to implement their recommendations, they thought there would be a resulting reduced caseload for child welfare workers in the province. If the member would recall, they also indicated that there could probably be some savings in terms of funding as a result of that. But they recommended that those funds be

1252 ALBERTA HANSARD October 29, 1984 used in a preventative way, so we could try as much as possible to prevent children from coming into our care. I don't know what else I could add other than that, Mr. Speaker. Administration of Justice MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my second question is to the Attorney General, with regard to the Irving report set out by the Canadian Bar Association.

I am wondering if the minister could indicate whether the government would be prepared at this time to call a public inquiry to investigate the matter of political interference in the department, in light of the fact that a number of the public are concerned; specifically, the Criminal Trial Lawyers' Association is concerned that, first of all, the report is inadequate and, secondly, the committee did not have the authority to actively investigate the department. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, the principal spokesman for the legal profession in Alberta is either the Law Society or the Alberta

section of the Canadian Bar Association. That is so in all the provinces in the same way. The Alberta

section of the Canadian Bar Association took under advisement the question of the requests being made of the government earlier this year for a public inquiry and con cluded that the matter could well be handled in quite another way. That was through the committee work that was done throughout the spring and that was reported to the Canadian Bar Association in September. They reported to me shortly thereafter. The result of the work that was done and the work that was presented to me by the Alberta

section of the Canadian Bar was a wide-ranging report of considerable merit, in my view, and one that made a number of recommendations and sugges tions. I think those are going to be of some considerable value in developing the future course of the administration of justice. The other question, of whether or not there might yet be an inquiry, was one that I do not think the committee wanted to have an involvement in. I can't speak for what their view might have been, but I think there's now a general view that that's a dead issue. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question to the Attorney General, on not considering a public inquiry. In terms of some of the questions not answered in the report, can the minister indicate the reasons the department must hear of cases involving government employees, notably those which would create public controversy? My understanding is that a memo to that effect went to various persons, and that was not covered in the report. Could the minister indicate why that procedure is still in place? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, earlier this year there was an amendment to that particular directive.

I should say to the hon. member that the way the matter is being reviewed is that all the observations and recommend ations made by the committee referred to are at the present time being examined by working groups within the department. Although the specific matter the hon. leader referred to is one that he said was not dealt with, my recollection is that the report dealt in a variety of ways with the question of directives on policy. Having done so, we are of course examining all their recommendations.

They included the observation that there were probably too many directives, and they were in too great detail. I think that's something that happens in government from time to time, Mr. Speaker. It seems to have happened there, and I accept that criticism when it's made in that way. Much of the study of the report that is being done at the present time — and the working groups within the department that are studying all the recommendations are dealing with that concern. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, could the hon. minister indi cate when there will be a report to the session with regard to progress on the report and the recommendations? MR. CRAWFORD: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think that's an impor tant question. I agree with the hon. member that addressing the matter should not be unnecessarily delayed.

At the same time, having gone through the process which was begun quite early this year and which the committee found took them until the early fall for their study, I think it's important that we have sufficient time to have the input of the people within the depart ment and in particular the new Deputy Attorney General, who just assumed office a matter of a month or so ago. Having said all that, Mr. Speaker, my feeling is that as we now approach the beginning of November, we would probably have a full set of conclusions by the end of the year.

As well, I am considering a further consultative process that would involve interests outside the department, one might say. I want to describe the process to the hon. member in this way: we now have the input and the recommendations; we are doing our own in-house examination. I think the Canadian Bar itself, one of the recommendations of which was that there be a continuing consultation committee, could well be involved in yet a further re-examination of what our conclusions would be. I think that's all a step-by-step proposal which, in the final analysis, will prove to be very useful.

My hope is that very early in the new year, if these other steps are also taken, we will have published an entire response to all the recommend ations. Construction Labour Relations MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my question to the Minister of Labour, and it has to do with Mr. Justice Stratton's ruling last week. My question is, has the minister assessed whether this decision now changes the traditional role of collective bargaining as we know it in the province? MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, on an assessment of that nature, I think it can be said that there does not appear to be that much of a change.

What we have is an

interpretation of a statute, an area that had not been tested before. It obviously is one of great controversy, and it is clearly a reversal of a Labour Relations Board decision. But I think it fair to say that the narrow issue had not been put in question before. That is the response directly to the question. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the Stratton decision and that small point he talked about, has the minister any plans in place to introduce remedial legislation which would make such a ruling legally impossible? MR. YOUNG: Mr.

Speaker, the situation of that particular decision is that it applies primarily to the construction industry. My commitment to that industry, to union leaders and con tractors as well as owners, has been that prior to introducing any legislative change, we would hope for their advice through the advisory council, which is just in the process of being completed. I do have a meeting with some union leaders later this week, and I imagine I'll shortly be meeting some construc tion leaders as well. But I would prefer to be able to stay with the undertaking given to them that if it were possible, we would

October 29, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 1253 await the recommendations of the tripartite committee which will shortly be formed in the manner recommended by the industry representations I have received. Perhaps I could add to my previous answer. Although I'm not certain this can be generalized over every situation, it appears that the bargaining will not be greatly affected by this decision, in that the parties had proceeded in a certain manner, and I do not think that will change greatly. At the bottom line for this round of bargaining, the difficulty is an economic sit uation of that industry.

It's not going to be resolved by court decisions or Labour Relations Board decisions but rather more directly, at the bargaining table between the parties concerned. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Recognizing that it is a technical point, as the minister said, the reality for at least some people is that they feel it has been changed.

Given that workers who strike may not unilaterally return to the job and enforce their terms and conditions of employment — so it seems to me there is an imbalance — is the minister prepared to do anything about this imbalance for the time being, until it goes to the Supreme Court? MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I think I've already alluded to the fact that the statute in question has been in place for about a dozen years, has remained unchanged for that period of time and has not been challenged on this point during all that time.

In my judgment, the challenge comes about now only because of economic circumstances and failure on the part of all the parties to be able to come to a collective agreement. The question raised is as to whether that is an imbalance that should be righted. I suppose that's a subjective issue, depending upon where one is in the bargaining framework. I do not think it would be possible to legislate or otherwise force an agreement upon the parties at this time. They must have and must accept the responsibility for coming to their own resolution. We continue to try to assist them, Mr.

Speaker, and I hope the advisory committee will be yet another forum in which positive approaches can be taken to the issues before the parties. There has been some progress made in one or two sectors in the industry, and it's not clear to me whether that will be a pattern which others in the industry may follow. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I suggest it's not subjective. The fact is that Mr. Stratton says they can lock out for a day and change the rules of the game. My supplementary question has to do with bridging.

Have the minister or his department looked at any legislation for the time being which would clarify and reaffirm the role of bridging clauses, so employees need not be subject to this type of arbi trary action? MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, when we come to bridging, that's a slightly different question. As a consequence of other court

interpretations, it is my understanding that bridging clauses are possible and valid. But it is the nature of those bridging clauses that they are valid and extend only to the point where either party can precipitate a conclusion to the bridging clause. Usu ally that conclusion is either by a strike or a lockout. That is the standard form of conclusion. To the degree that there is an apparent impossibility of the parties to come to an agreement in the short run and one wishes to force an action, then it can happen either by lockout or strike. At the moment we have had both in the construction industry this year.

MR. MARTIN: Recognizing that lockouts and strikes are part of collective bargaining, the point is that under a strike they could not come back and unilaterally change that particular agreement. My supplementary question to the minister. He said that in the construction industry, he sees it as a problem in this area because of the economic times. As a result of Mr. Justice Stratton's decision, is it possible that employers outside the construction industry could take advantage of this decision to avoid bargaining with their employees' union after an agree ment has terminated? MR.

SPEAKER: It would seem to me that the hon. member is asking for legal advice as to what the legal ramifications or implications of a decision of a court might be — asking the hon. minister to give a legal opinion in that regard. Perhaps it could be sought otherwise, or perhaps the question could be recast in the event that that's not the purport of it. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I wasn't asking for a legal opinion. This is in fact going on in the construction industry.

I'll phrase my question this way: has the minister received any indication that employers outside the construction industry will be taking measures based on the Stratton decision to avoid bargaining with their employees' union? MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I don't think I can respond that I have received any particular indication that that's going to go on outside the construction industry. I want to be very clear here that we have a variety of scenarios within the construction industry. We have had some short-term lockouts, and then opening of businesses to employees who wanted to come back at the terms established.

We have had strikes, and the employers again opening their businesses to employees who wished to work at the terms established. We have had other situations in the road construction industry, where in fact the relationship has endured now for some 18 months, I believe — it's over a year, in any event — without any collective agreement. That followed on a strike, which produced the unusual situation of most of the employees coming back to work. Outside the indus try, we've obviously had a situation in which there has been a disagreement, and the operations continue at full capacity.

I think it's very difficult to generalize from the hon. mem ber's question, Mr. Speaker, and respond any more definitely than that. There are just a variety of different factors in every situation. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Recognizing that it is happening in the construction industry because of the economic conditions, as the minister alluded, my question is: if we follow this ruling, am I correct in that nothing in the labour Act indicates that people outside the construction industry could follow the same path as people in the construction industry? MR. YOUNG: Mr.

Speaker, I hesitate to give that legal opinion either, because the construction industry is in fact very unique. In this situation, there was the question of the involvement of registered employer organizations, which is unique to the con struction industry. That adds another particular facet to this question which wouldn't be found in other circumstances, other sectors of collective bargaining. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question to the Minister responsible for Personnel Administration, Mr. Speaker, if I can get his attention over there.

Could the minister indicate if the recent decision by Justice Stratton has any implications in terms

1254 ALBERTA HANSARD October 29, 1984 of bargaining with government employees? Has his department assessed this at all? MR. STEVENS: Mr. Speaker, the legislation is completely different. The public service comes under the Public Service Employee Relations Act, and that legislation provides for a contract to continue in full force and effect. Just as there is no ability for the employer to lock out, nor is there an ability for the employees to strike. Federal Court Ruling MR. SZWENDER: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Utilities and Telecommunications is with regard to the AGT/ ET telephone issue.

Could the minister indicate to the Assembly whether the Federal Court of Canada has made a ruling on the Alberta Government Telephones/Canadian National-Canadian Pacific interconnect case? MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, Madam Justice Reed of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, has ruled that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission does not have regulatory jurisdiction over Alberta Government Tele phones and will issue a writ of prohibition preventing the CRTC from hearing the application by CNCP Telecommunications for interconnection with AGT.

Although Madam Justice Reed found that AGT was not a local work or undertaking within the exclusive jurisdiction of the province, she did find that the CRTC did not have the jurisdiction to regulate AGT, as AGT is an agent in right of the Crown for the province of Alberta. DR. BUCK: Why didn't you just make that a ministerial announcement? Hunting Licences MR. MUSGROVE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Asso ciate Minister of Public Lands and Wildlife.

Considering that Alberta is interested in attracting tourism, why did the depart ment recently increase the licence fee for upland game birds so dramatically, in particular to nonresident hunters? MR. SPARROW: Mr. Speaker, the basic change, to increase fees, was primarily due to an additional fee for pheasants. I believe all the other fees were left as they were previously. We very definitely want to encourage tourism. If that increased fee is creating a hardship, we will review it. I'm sure no other province in Canada has a pheasant facility like the one we have, and that's primarily why we increased the fee.

MR. MUSGROVE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister also consider reviewing the fact that non resident licences become effective one week after resident licences are effective? MR. SPARROW: Mr. Speaker, that is a fact. Residents do gain one week on all nonresidents. We'll be reviewing all our fish and wildlife regulations with reference to the new Act, and that undoubtedly is considered when the regulations come for ward each year. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the Associate Minister of Public Lands and Wildlife.

Can the minister indicate what directives his department has given the county of Strath- cona as to what mechanism will be in place to reduce the overpopulation of deer in the county? Can the minister indicate what policy directives have gone from the department to that jurisdiction? MR. SPARROW: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Upon request from many residents and discussions with the county council, a special quota hunt has been approved for the Strathcona area. That hunt was designed looking primarily at the public-safety fea tures of the area, the landowners' rights, and the overall con cerns for the deer herds.

There has been an excessive number of accidents in the area, with cars hitting deer. Three five-day hunts will be allowed this fall. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate to the Assembly, and especially to the people affected, what limitation there will be as to the quality of hunters? As a point of expla nation, many people are concerned that this is sort of going to be an open season, and anybody who can carry a bottle of rum and a rifle is going to be able to hunt. The question I ask very seriously is, what limit will there be on the quality of hunter that will be in this heavily populated area?

What type of equip ment will they be restricted to? MR. SPARROW: Mr. Speaker, a lot of attention was given to this. Number one, the hunter will have to have a valid hunting certificate. He will have to receive permission from the specific landowner on whose land he wants to hunt. There's a restriction that no hunting will be allowed on parcels of fewer than 20 acres. The size of shot: shotguns no smaller than a .410 gauge, using slugs in all your shotgun shells, will be used.

So the quality of the hunt should be controlled, not only by the land owner, as to who he allows, but no rifles will be allowed; shotguns using slugs will be the prime method of hunting. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Has the minister or the department given any consideration to having just professional hunters, the same as culling the herd in Elk Island park? The people in that jurisdiction hire professional hunters to cull the herd. Has any consideration been given to this type of approach rather than the lottery type of approach, open to just any hunter? MR.

SPARROW: Consideration was given to that, and it was decided against using our officers, for instance, to reduce the herds. We thought this was definitely a hunting opportunity for many of the citizens in the area. I can assure the hon. member that we have a lot of good hunters who will respect the rules and regulations out there. The landowner can control who he allows on, because he has to give permission in writing prior to their getting a permit. DR. BUCK: Mr.

Speaker, can the minister indicate to the Assembly and to me what studies have been done as to what effect the restricted bow season had on the reduction of the deer herd in the area? Has that been effective or has it been a failure, and is the minister considering — well, I'll ask those two first, Mr. Speaker, and then go on to the other ones. MR. SPARROW: Mr. Speaker, bow hunting has been allowed throughout the province. The number of deer has been very rapidly increasing in the last several years, and the number of bow hunters hasn't been increasing at the same level.

We have never been able to maintain that area with just bow hunting, as bow hunters like to go after other types of animal besides deer. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Can the minister indicate at this time or at a future date if any studies

October 29, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 1255 have been done as to varying the season in this special area to see if they could get a larger harvest using bows and arrows? MR. SPARROW: I don't know of any specific study that was done. I can take that and check with the department. It may be very valid that an extension of the season would be a further asset. We will judge the existing hunt to see whether it main tains a cutback as planned. MR.

SPEAKER: Before calling Orders of the Day, perhaps I could draw attention briefly to a question and answer which got by the Chair a while ago concerning the contents or purport of a judgment out of the Federal Court of Canada. Of course that's not the kind of question that is designed for the question period, since judgments of courts are notably public informa tion. ORDERS OF THE DAY head: COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY [Mr. Appleby in the Chair] MR.

CHAIRMAN: Would the Committee of Supply please come to order? head: ALBERTA HERITAGE SAVINGS TRUST FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS DIVISION 1985-86 ESTIMATES OF PROPOSED INVESTMENTS Department of Agriculture 1 — Farming for the Future MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further questions or com ments regarding this section? MR. MARTIN: I wasn't here the other day. Perhaps some of this has been discussed, and I apologize if that is the case.

It has to do with Farming for the Future and a statement that was attributed to the minister — I don't have it here, but it was in the recent Journal; I don't want to put words in it — about the fact that Farming for the Future had been successful but the government was going to look more to private concerns. The impression left, at least in that particular article, was that there may even be a cutback by the government in terms of this research in future years.

I would like the minister basically to update us on what he was saying at that conference — if this is the case or if it was taken out of context — because it seems to indicate somewhat of a discrepancy from what the white paper is saying. I would appreciate it if he could update us on that. MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr. Chairman, as usual it was taken somewhat out of context. The concern raised the day Farming for the Future met was that they wanted more emphasis or some consideration for long-term research projects.

Farming for the Future was designed for short-term research projects, ones that would give a benefit to producers immediately and not 10 years down the road. A number of projects in Farming for the Future were transferred to the department because they had a longer term process. Farming for the Future is not a reduction at all; in fact it's one that is important to continue. The funding is certainly adequate to do the projects that have come in so far and been reviewed. So the concern that there would be a reduc tion in research by Alberta is not accurate at all. In fact it needs to be increased.

What we have to do is try to give our producers every break we can, and research certainly does that. There has been some reduction on the federal side. We want to see them get back in and do more in the research area. For example, they cut back positions in western Canada. We lob bied very strongly to see that those were replaced, because what happened was that we were funding projects they actually should have been funding. Mr. Chairman, the theme is that there is no reduction and that the high priority and emphasis on all research, including Farming for the Future, will continue.

Agreed to: Total Vote 1 — Farming for the Future $5,000,000 2 — Food Processing Development Centre MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions or comments on this vote? MR. MARTIN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to go into a couple of areas dealing with this. I'm sure the minister alluded to it, and again I apologize, but it seems to be a little behind

schedule in terms of being functional. My question has two parts: one, what is the cause of that and, secondly, is it making it more expensive when we finally finish the program? I don't know if it falls here or not, but one of the problems we're having — there are many reasons for it, and we've discussed them somewhat in this Legislature — is the meat packing plants here. I suppose they're outmoded and inefficient, and there's the whole subsidy thing. Are we looking at how we can do something in terms of our meat packing industry, which used to be a key industry and is less and less so?

As a result, Alberta is being hurt. MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr. Chairman, I gave a complete answer on that, and it's in Hansard of October 26. I could just highlight a couple of areas. Yes, there was a delay. The original contractor went into receivership and some changes had to be made, so there certainly was a delay in that. The figures still came in okay. The plant should be operational within a couple of weeks, with an official opening hopefully sometime in December. So I think the plant is doing all right.

With respect to the packing plant industry, one area in which I'm sure the Leduc food processing lab will be helpful, and has been already to a certain degree, is new packaging tech niques that have been used by a number of smaller processors. A number of new opportunities are out there to handle meat products. One of the areas of concern, particularly for the smaller packers, is being able to have bench scale studies they can do in a plant. I don't have the list with me, but I know there were some on the list that looked at using the lab to do work like that. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, to the minister.

In terms of the hog industry in the province, we are certainly having some difficulties at the present time. In terms of processing pork, I wonder whether there are some projects that will be worked on at the centre. Is that one of the areas the minister is looking at? It could certainly broaden our possibilities or diversify our economy if we could do some of those kinds of things. Are there some things in the works at the present time in that area?

1256 ALBERTA HANSARD October 29, 1984 MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr. Chairman, I believe there are. The ones I know of at the moment: one was ultrafiltration equipment for whey concentration; another one was a wiped film evapo rator that handles sugar solutions and areas like that; and there was one in specialized meat processing, which was a vacuum cooking cutter for meat products such as liver sausage. There has been a fair amount of work done in salad dressings and areas like that, but I don't know of one I have in front of me at the moment that is specific to the hog industry that is utilizing the plant.

I would be happy to check that and report to the hon. member. Agreed to: Total Vote 2 — Food Processing Development Centre $1,365,000 3 — Irrigation Rehabilitation and Expansion MR. MARTIN: It comes back to some of the questions that my colleague before me and I have raised from time to time. I guess it has to do with looking at the province as a whole and where we go with new agricultural land, which I think both the minister and I would agree is necessary. We've put a lot into irrigation. Of course the other aspect is the northern land; that comes to another question.

Again, you'll forgive me if I forget the reason — I've asked this question before, but it slips my mind — but it's my understanding that 86 percent of irrigation costs are picked up by the government and 14 per cent . . . In northern areas where drainage is needed, I under stand it goes down to 75 percent picked up by the province. I ask for the reason because I think many northerners ask for it. Is there any contemplation of making it the same in both; in other words, moving up to 86 percent in the north? The other question I ask has to do more with the future.

We put emphasis on irrigated land, and nobody's denying that what's been done has been desirable. But I guess what we're looking at is the future in terms of cost benefits and all sorts of things — which is the best bang for the buck? When you put the emphasis on irrigated land, the system must be main tained in the future, and that is certainly a cost. Have we taken a serious look at more expansion of northern lands? I go back to what I believe Dr. Horner advocated at one time.

It's my understanding that there wouldn't be the maintenance costs, that there isn't the soil salinity in such land that there is in the south, and that the land is also cheaper in the Peace block. I wonder what consideration goes into where we go with our money in terms of making agricultural land more productive. What are the trade-offs, if you like, between pursuing more irrigation or looking at opening up more land in the north? I think it's an important fundamental question as we look at the future agricultural development of our province. MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr.

Chairman, the numbers are correct; it's 86/14 in the irrigated areas and 75/25 on drainage in the northern part. One of the areas considered under the new pro gram we're voting on today was, should the program be con tinued? If it were continued, what should the funding level be, what should the term of the funding be, and also what should the cost-shared formula be? It all had to be reviewed.

That review was undertaken, and after all consideration — I have to thank the Irrigation Projects Association in southern Alberta, because they had an excellent study done on the economic impact of irrigation development in Alberta, which outlined very clearly that the 86/14 formula was the correct one to continue with. With respect to drainage in the north, it is a far more complex issue than irrigation. It's much easier to take water somewhere than to try to take water away from somewhere. In the drainage area in the north, both the Department of the Environment and the Department of Agriculture are involved.

Agriculture is involved with respect to drainage on the farm. The Department of the Environment is involved if it leaves the farm. Anytime you move water, it has to be moved somewhere. I would encourage hon. members to look at the cost share for water resource management programs, known to most as position paper number five, under the Department of the Envi ronment. We're looking at the area of drainage, and in the longer term I think the Environment Council of Alberta's report on the expansion of agricultural land base will provide a public insight into that area and the actual needs of expansion.

There is some concern if we drastically expand our agricultural land base in northern Alberta. All sorts of numbers have been tossed out by everyone, but one of the problems with expansion is the erosion after you start working on that land. So I am watch ing closely for the Environment Council report, which we expect sometime after the first of the year and which will look into that area and give us a better idea of how we can work in the drainage area.

No doubt there is also some scope for irrigation in northern Alberta — I don't mean to preclude that — but the bigger problem in the north is moving water off land rather than moving water onto land. There are certainly pockets in northern Alberta where individuals are excited about the concept of having that water and being able to utilize irrigation. So that is part of an ongoing discussion and will certainly be a part of the Environment Council's study that we're watching for. MR. MARTIN: Just one follow-up on the minister's answer, Mr. Chairman.

I believe he said his study was done by the Irrigation Projects Association and that they came to the con clusion that 86 percent was a correct figure. My point to the minister, and something he might consider, is that there might be a vested interest there because you are the ones already doing it. It's hard to explain. I'm still not sure of the explanation when you talk to northern farmers. Why 75 percent? The fact that an irrigation association said that 86/14 is correct is not going to make much sense to them unless we can break it down in a little more definitive way than that.

I guess my question is: are there independent government studies about the financ ing, besides people who might be at least perceived to have a vested interest there? MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr. Chairman, that certainly is a good point. The study wasn't done by the Irrigation Projects Asso ciation; it was funded by them. It was done by Underwood McLellan, who tried to do an assessment. That wasn't the only report that was looked at to arrive at the decision to stay at 86/ 14. The 86/14 formula had been arrived at earlier.

What they took into consideration in the formula was, number one, what would be the benefit to the area? For example, there are a lot of communities that rely on the irrigation system for their domestic water supply; that was one. There are industrial users of water. There is a benefit to the region for that reason and also for recreation potential. They took all those numbers and came to a recognition that the figure was close to being what it should be. It could be 85/15, 80/20, or some other number, but it was close to that.

So in the consideration of all the studies that were done, it was recognized that 86/14 had been the figure used, and in our estimation there was no reason to change from that historical number. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a comment with regard to this vote. I support it wholeheartedly.

October 29, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 1257 I want to congratulate the minister for bringing the vote forward as well as convincing his colleagues in cabinet and caucus that the expenditure is very worth while for southern Alberta. As I travel through my own constituency, the constituency of the hon. Minister of Agriculture, the constituency of Cypress in southern Alberta, or Taber-Warner, I see the many benefits that have been brought forward by the rehabilitation of lands that were of no value, that were sloughs or alkali, and ditches that were unbearable to the farmer. It has been an excellent program.

New canals and new facilities are in place, and the underground piping is good for anywhere from 75 to maybe even 100 years because of the quality of the pipe that has been installed in the ground. We have a great heritage piece in southern Alberta from the expenditure in this manner through the capital works division of our Heritage Savings Trust Fund.

I would like to also express my appreciation — I'm sure on behalf of many irrigation farmers in southern Alberta — that the 86/14 formula was maintained and that the integrity of that formula is in place, not only because it's an equitable and fair way of sharing the cost but because farmers in southern Alberta are under pressure in the present economic circum stances. A significant increase in water rates — say $10, $12, or even $15 — under present conditions would be unbearable for many farmers. It would be most difficult for them to con tinue with that extra cost. So I have nothing but okays to the minister.

Bringing it forward and convincing all of us and his colleagues that it should be this way is certainly to his credit. I'm sure that when we sum up this program and see the expenditure of $150 million over the next five years, we will see many benefits to southern Alberta. We will certainly enhance and stabilize our food production and our market capa bility for soft wheat, which has really grown in the last few years because of irrigation. Our canola production in southern Alberta has increased because of our capability in irrigation.

I'm sure that will continue, and there will be new types of foods put on the market because of the irrigation. All of that brings revenue into Alberta and certainly stabilizes our econ omy. Mr. Chairman, I support this vote, and I certainly want to show my appreciation to the minister. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further questions or com ments? MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the support from the hon. Member for Little Bow on the whole area of irrigation, because it's tremendously important.

It's sometimes a misnomer to call it irrigation, because it's water management for southern Alberta for a wide variety of issues that I think are so important to our long-term future. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to answer a question that was asked by the hon. Member for Cardston last week. He asked me about engineering services for small irrigation districts. As I read Hansard, I noted that it was one of the questions I hadn't answered. There are five small irrigation districts in southern Alberta; namely, Aetna, Leavitt, Magrath, Mountain View, and Ross Creek.

In line with some fiscal restraint, we had to review the services offered by the department, including those to irrigation districts. With respect to the small districts, we plan on reducing our involvement to a level similar to the other districts. At the same time we want to encourage the small districts to develop their own capabilities, as other districts have done. I had some discussions with them on the irrigation tour. I know discussions are under way with the districts, and my information is that they're going well.

It's really hoped that those districts will pool their resources and share some of the costs of financial administration and engineering services. Our services will be phased out over time rather than abruptly removed. The hon. Member for Cardston's concern was that they would be removed abruptly, but they will be phased out. We'll continue the commitments we already have under way, but we will not be accepting new project areas as far as engi neering services are concerned.

I think it's important to note that under the formula, expenses incurred by districts, such as engineering services, are 86 per cent funded by the province and only 14 percent by the districts. I hope the small districts will look at the possibility of con solidation, in that one strong irrigation district may be more efficient and effective in those areas than five small districts. I'm not saying they should do this. It's something they have to consider and make their own decision on, but I hope that consideration will be given. Mr. Chairman, I think that answers all the questions. MR. R.

SPEAKER: In raising the point now, Mr. Chairman, the minister raises another question in my mind. It's with regard to the contracts on the various projects. There is some talk with regard to preferences given to (

a) Alberta contractors, (

b) local contractors, or leaving it out in the open market so the district and the farmers can get the best deal possible. I wonder if the minister could clarify whether under the new ground rules there is any intention by the government through the Irrigation Coun cil to apply any restrictions such as that. MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr. Chairman, it's the policy of our government not to have a provincial preference policy. Of course there are other provinces that do have that preference policy, but in these cases we take the Canadian approach rather than the strictly Alberta approach.

Wherever the contractor is from, if his bid is the lowest, that's the one that will do the work. There will be no direction whatsoever from my office to give preference to Alberta contractors. With respect to local work that's done, it's always given consideration, because there are local people in those communities. But on the major con tractors overall, there will be no provincial preference. MR. R. SPEAKER: In terms of local review of some of the rehabilitation projects, Mr.

Chairman, I understand that through the department, maybe through the Department of the Envi ronment, engineers review the project as it is in process and then give final approval before — I make an assumption here — the final payment from the Heritage Savings Trust Fund is forwarded. Is that type of process in place, someone to review the projects? I'm not sure this is necessary, but we are expend ing money from the Heritage Savings Trust Fund. What are some of those built-in controls?

I want to make it clear to the minister that I'm not recommending we have a fleet of inspec tors like the gas inspectors we had when we put in a lot of the gas lines in the province. But what does the Irrigation Council do to double-check? [Mr. Purdy in the Chair] MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr. Chairman, I have to be a little careful in my answer, because I'm trying to get up to speed. But the Irrigation Council has to approve all the projects, and of course they look at each one to make sure the work is being done properly before the dollars flow from the cost-share fund and from the provincial government.

Some internal work is also done within my department to review that. As I understand the process and as I've seen it operate, I believe there are at

1258 ALBERTA HANSARD October 29, 1984 least two checks on the system to make sure that not only is the work done properly but the allocation of dollars is also proper. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? HON. MEMBERS: Question. Agreed to: Total Vote 3 — Irrigation Rehabilitation and Expansion $30,000,000 Department of Recreation and Parks 1 — Kananaskis Country Recreation Development MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Has the minister any opening comments? The hon. Member for Highwood. MR. ALGER: Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to speak to the Minister of Parks and Recreation primarily with regard to the Kananaskis Country recreation development. Over the years the provincial government has expended many millions of dollars in that area, and I rise today to query the minister as to the advisability of all those expenditures. Now that we're closing in on the com pletion of many of the facilities in the area, maybe the minister could describe to me how many visitors have enjoyed the use of Kananaskis Country. What are the projected numbers in the future?

The project has involved a 36-hole golf course too, and I'd be interested to know how many golfers actually used and enjoyed the facilities. Is he satisfied with the operations of the pro shop, restaurant facilities, and parking area, and the behav iour and the hospitality of the employees there? In general, just how are the park and the golf course operating? I was fortunate enough to attend the official opening of the Mount Kidd campground on September 29, 1984. I would like him to describe to the Legislature some of the amenities people can expect when they camp there.

Another thing I would say with regard to Kananaskis is that it's becoming such a popular recreational area that I wonder if the minister could tell us what plans are in place with regard to offering more services to the public with respect to service stations, stores, and the like that may be constructed in the area. Does the minister intend to keep the highway running through Kananaskis Country open year-round? Are camping facilities available year-round? There have been several com plaints with regard to the road closure near the south end of Highway 40, which I guess will one day be known as Bighorn Highway.

It would be interesting to know whether the minister has that intention. What are the expenses involved and so forth? I'd like the minister to give us a brief update on the status of Mount Allan. I think that would be a really worthwhile piece of knowledge to hear today. Mr. Minister, have there been any recalculations of the total costs for the completion of Kanan askis Country? More importantly, have there been any unex pected costs that would have significantly affected the total expenditure of the project? I understand, Mr.

Chairman, that there is a group of citizens in Elkford, B.C. — I shouldn't have used the word "under stand"; I know blessed well there is a great group of citizens in Elkford, B.C., who are interested in constructing a road up the [Elk] River through the mountains to connect with the Kananaskis highway. Having had this lobby, if you like, put forward to some of us, it strikes me that they will be quite a long time actually rustling up the money for this project in the province of British Columbia.

But supposing they do get suc cessful with it, would the minister then — has our minister been approached about this project, and would the province consider constructing a road in the Alberta segment of the project, bearing in mind that it's a short little road? It requires only about six or eight miles in the Alberta section, while it takes around 47 or 50 miles in British Columbia. If I could get the answer to these queries, Mr. Chairman, I'd be quite tickled. MR. ALEXANDER: The hon. Member for Highwood stole a few of my arrows, but since it's in his constituency, he ought to have every right to do that.

The variations on the questions already asked would be primarily about the golf course. I'd like to ask the minister if he could emphasize and clear up a couple of things. One is that I think the public generally is accustomed to thinking of Kananaskis golf course as though it were "a" golf course. Much of the discussion I've seen in the media or heard from my constituents and other people who don't clearly under stand the project or haven't been there — they do not understand that there are in fact two golf courses and that they are world- class golf courses.

I wonder if it would be useful for the minister and others who are referring to Kananaskis golf courses par ticularly to make a point of stressing "courses" rather than "the golf course", not only for the reason that there are in fact two but that the amount of money required to build those golf courses over the period since 1978, when the budget was first cast, and '79, when the work first started, the total amount of money spent, plus or minus $11 million — to deliver those two golf courses at approximate cost in the '79 to '83 period of $5.5 million apiece was an accomplishment I don't think most people fully appreciate.

As a member of the committee which helped do the project, I add as a bit of background that the budget was cast in 1978 dollars and finished in 1983 in uninflated dollars. I think it's important to say that we did not have an inflation rider on the budget. The golf course architects who were chosen to do the job had excellent management of the local people, and 95 percent of that $11 million was paid directly to construction and service companies located in and around the Kananaskis area or in Alberta. I think that was a substantial accomplishment on the part of the architects and the departments involved.

I think it also needs to be stressed that the project, as is the habit in Alberta, was done in time and on budget in uninflated dollars. Secondly, I wonder if the minister could tell us of the reactions he's had so far to the success of the specific strategy to establish it as a world-class facility. In Alberta we've gotten into a habit of allowing those words to roll off our tongues as though they were so much hamburger. When you're talking about a world-class facility, you're talking about something specific. We tried to get a world-class facility in place.

I think there's some consensus that we may have done that without specifically saying to ourselves or identifying what it is we mean. Is there sufficient challenge? Has there been any feed back on the challenge of the golf courses? Are they sufficiently attractive to bring notice from the world golf community, which is one of the objectives? Is the quality of facilities, which was raised by the hon. member earlier, up to world class? Is the management that good? Does it have a uniqueness that sets it apart from other facilities that are similar in the minds of the users?

I guess one of the tests is: do people, not only Albertans but golfers everywhere, want to play there? And having been there once, do they want to come back? DR. BUCK: No, I'm not going back.

October 29, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 1259 MR. ALEXANDER: I guess the question to the minister is not so much how many golf balls you may have left lying in the the water. Only one? DR. BUCK: Just one. MR. ALEXANDER: Whether people are in fact expressing the desire to go back and do it again is in my view one of the real tests of a world-class facility. In terms of the specifics, I'd like to ask another question because of all the high-profile discussion that has swirled about the white sand.

Does the minister have any information that would indicate to the House whether or not the sand strategy, let me call it, has so far worked? The sand was chosen for its playability and its wind resistance. As members will know, Kananaskis Country is a very windy place at times, and wind loss from those traps could have been very substantial, any where between 15 and 25 percent per year. When you're paying $39 a yard for sand FOB to the site, it's important that it stays put. Does the minister know whether or not that strategy has actually worked? It would be measured partly by replacement.

It may be that those figures are not readily available, and I would understand if they're not. But if they are and he's had any word, I think it would be useful to know that. He might also be interested to know that other golf course operators around the province are seeking the source for the same sand. Perhaps he could comment on that if he has any further information. The other matter that received a certain amount of what I thought was — I have to be careful how I say this — almost laughable coverage in this House and elsewhere was the dress code.

I don't know whether the minister has noticed, as I have, the signs popping up all over the place: dress requested, min imum dress code, minimum dress requirements, whatever the case may be. Does the minister have any kind of feedback from the management as to what impact the dress code may have had on the people who came to the place over this past season? The hon. Member for Highwood previously asked for the numbers.

One of the points that is very important to me and that I'd like the minister's comment on is that when the government makes an investment in a facility on this scale, it may be important to look at it in terms of what the return on that investment might have been if, for example, it were a private-sector investment. If I as a member had had an oppor tunity to invest $11 million in two golf courses on this site, would I have done so, and on what basis would the economics have crunched a profit or a return on that investment?

I rec ognize that that's not necessarily calculable and can't be audited in a private-business sort of way. But if, for example, as was projected, there were somewhere between 40,000 and 60,000 rounds per year to be played at a fixed rate of $20 per round, and some funds were spent in the clubhouse and some in the pro shop and so on, the total income per annum from the golf course would make the investment into a viable one over a certain period of time.

I don't expect that the minister would necessarily have those calculations all done, but the House might be apprised of what number of people played there this year, what kind of income that generated to the management, and thus what the viability of the investment in those two facilities would be on a comparable private-sector basis. Mr. Chairman, my final point is that the matter of the golf course, as it was originally conceived, was that it would be built essentially for all Albertans. I think that concept has grad ually expanded to include those interested in playing it.

I won der if the minister might also give some thought, in combination with the Minister of Tourism and Small Business, to the idea that the golf course in itself would be an international attraction which could in fact have a very measurable impact on the tourism business in Alberta. From conversations I've heard within the community, the word is out. I think it's fair to say that the word is out on virtually a worldwide basis in terms of the golf community: this is a great place to play on, and some day I'm going to get there to play it.

I'm not sure how those things are done, but from what I've heard, it strikes me that there is a substantial asset added to the base of tourism in the province. Perhaps a comment or two might be made on that as well. Mr. Chairman, just before I sit down, I want to thank the minister for the input and the funds his department gave to an outstanding facility in my constituency, Fort Edmonton Park. Fort Edmonton is supported on a substantial basis by this government and this minister's department. I don't know how many people know that, but I want them to know it now.

I also invite any of you who have not seen the place to come down and visit it for two reasons: one, it's an outstanding facility and, secondly, due to the boundaries commission, it may also be about to disappear from my constituency. MR. KOWALSKI: Mr. Chairman, a couple of brief questions to the minister with respect to an urban project program, the current one at Waskasoo Park in Red Deer. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order please. I think the hon. member can carry that out under Vote 2 on the urban parks. We're on Vote 1 now, Kananaskis Country. MR. KOWALSKI: That's fine. MRS. FYFE: Mr.

Chairman, a few comments about Kanan askis. I had the pleasure and privilege of visiting Kananaskis this year for the first time as a tourist. I say to the minister that anyone who complains about Kananaskis simply hasn't been there. The reaction of constituents who visited Kananaskis and of those I talked to was one of absolute amazement that this park and recreation area has been developed within our province and that there is something for everyone. The facilities are certainly first-rate and first-class, and the variety of options available to those using this recreation area are just immense.

I would like to ask the minister a few questions about Kananaskis. One relates to the campgrounds. From my under standing on the visit, the management of the grounds has been contracted out to private operators who are managing it on whatever contract basis is in place. My question regards the quality control of the services, the cleanliness of the washroom facilities. What mechanism is in place to ensure that the man agement of these facilities is first-class, as is the development itself? There's no doubt that the trust fund has provided Alber tans with a great legacy in this area.

The development and the planning that has gone into it has resulted in first-class facilities, and I think it's essential that the management of these facilities continues to be first-rate. I just ask the question about the control that must be in place to ensure continuity. Secondly, I believe we should be doing more advertising, more communicating, about Kananaskis and the options and facilities that are available to the people of this province and to the tourist industry. I would be interested in knowing, as others have questioned, about the capacity of the facilities.

I realize that we're still in the neophyte stage of this recreation area and that each year the numbers will grow. I know that on certain weekends the facilities were used to capacity, but I'd be particularly interested in knowing what capacity was meas ured for this recreation season that has just passed.

1260 ALBERTA HANSARD October 29, 1984 The other area I would like to ask a question about relates to the services for the handicapped, the William Watson Lodge, which once again is a first-rate facility. When I drove around it this year for the second time, it seemed to me that there were vacancies. I think we could do an awful lot more in this area to communicate to people throughout our province, those that have a handicapped member, that this is a facility that's first- rate and has a nominal charge.

Maybe we can do it with each individual constituency, but I would like to see a form of communication extend across the province to ensure Albertans realize that it is for their use, that it's available. A last comment relates to the booking procedures. I think there has been a great improvement in booking on the course. I can't claim to be a first-rate golfer, but I did at least try the course and I was absolutely super-impressed. Unfortunately it's a little difficult for me and my hands were a little sore at the end of the day after all the swings I had to take. But it really is first-rate; it's fantastic.

The booking times on the course — constituents that had tried previously and were a bit frus trated by not being able to get on expressed appreciation of being able to utilize the course. Having made some adjustments in that procedure, it worked well. The other area of booking is in the campgrounds. I think this is a good move, and it has allowed people to plan their holidays. It may be a problem later on as people become more aware of this great area, but my comment on the booking of the campgrounds to date is that it seems to be working well.

I compliment the minister and all those that have worked and used their imaginations to develop Kananaskis as something that every Albertan, if they had visited and used it, would be very, very proud of. DR. BUCK: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make one or two com ments on this vote. First of all, I would like to say it is a fantastic golf course. When it matures, it will be one of the best golf courses in the world, and I make no equivocation about that. I've played a few of them from . . . AN HON. MEMBER: Better than yours? DR. BUCK: Better than mine, Stanley, because they're going to spend 10 times as much money.

I'll get around to that. I'd like to say it is a great golf course. I can see a few problems down the road. Knowing the little bit I do about golf courses, I'll be very surprised if the tees stand up, using that type of grass. But if we have to returf them for another million dollars, what's that? No big deal. When we start a project of this magnitude, and we're going to design 18 holes and an appropriate clubhouse but then sud denly we change it to 36 holes — the day we were there, the clubhouse couldn't handle the people there.

When the Cadillac Conservatives built their Cadillac golf courses and their Cad illac facilities, maybe they should have given a little bit more thought to the facilities. The day we were there, the facilities were overcrowded. I'm not sure if any modifications were made to the clubhouse. If there weren't, somebody should be repri manded for a clubhouse designed for 18 holes now servicing 36. This I would like to know.

When we look at the golf course in hindsight, and hindsight is always a lot easier than foresight, possibly we might have looked at making one golf course the championship one that it is and the other one a family golf course. I know my learned friend from Edmonton Whitemud will say, you can play off the front tees. That's true. I don't know if that would make that much of a difference. My hon. friend from Edmonton Whitemud, I only lost one golf ball in two days.

So I must have been keeping the thing in play, which is pretty good, because I hear that they retrieve 3,000 golf balls a week, which is quite a record in itself. It is going to be a fantastic golf course when it matures. It's well laid out. When you look at it as a recreation facility — I now know people who make the circuit playing Jasper, Banff, Kananaskis, and back around the loop. I think the Min ister of Tourism and Small Business also has to take advantage of this.

People have discovered that this is a nice little loop, a little circuit, and the Department of Tourism and Small Business should certainly be promoting some type of package thing pro moting a tour such as that. I have concerns now that there are no accommodations available except for Canmore and Banff. What will happen to the business sector in Canmore and Banff when the facilities start moving further east into Kananaskis Country? For the people who want to golf for two or three days and are now going to Canmore and Banff, what effect will that have on the businesses in those two communities?

One thing I want to tell my learned friend from Edmonton Whitemud is that there is nothing simpler than a four-by-four white post, pounded in the ground so you can't miss it, that says "150 yards". We asked one of the caretakers where the 150-yard markers were. He said, can't you see that little thing over there? First of all, they planted trees. That just blows my mind. You're looking for trees among the trees to find out where the 150-yard marker is. They had a piece of one-by-two white stake driven in the ground; that's the 150-yard marker.

When they spend $10.5 million, surely they can put in some four-by-fours made of cedar that will stay there forever, hon. member Keith. That is the universal language — 150 yards to the middle of the green. Maybe they can rustle up a few dollars in this appropriation to put appropriate 150-yard markers out on the golf course. It speeds up play, Mr. Minister. That's why they put them in there. To the person who's never seen the golf course and never played it before, that's the universal sign — 150 yards from here into the centre of the green. That's something I'm sure can be rectified in a couple of days.

I want to pay a sincere compliment to the management and the fellows in the pro shop. They are professionals. They are doing an excellent job. They are very accommodating. I was just skulking around a little bit to make sure they were serving the public, and they were. They were doing a good job; they were accommodating to walk-on golfers. One fellow happened to be an American who heard about the golf course and came from Calgary, and Brian, Wayne, or one of the boys said: "Sir, you just hang on; I'm sure we can accommodate you. It will probably be within 20 minutes". And they did.

The only thing is, they sent him out with three young hotshots and the fellow didn't hit the ball too well. That was a bit trying for the gentle man, but he did get to play the golf course. So the fellows in the pro shop are certainly to be complimented. Mr. Chairman, to the minister, it's our responsibility to make sure that the taxpayers' money is not squandered. That's our responsibility. With what I know about golf courses, I know I probably could have saved the taxpayer about $2 million. But that's the way it is under our tendering system.

If we build a house for ourselves, we go to the contractor and say: "Look, we've got $85,000. Build me a house for $85,000". Using the public tendering system, you say, "Build me a house". Then we take the low tender, so the house probably ends up being $170,000 if we're using that system. I know this is always a problem when you're going to the public tendering system. You're sort of stuck with a bill that's a little bit higher than if you went to the private sector. I guess the taxpayer will forget about that over the years.

October 29, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 1261 It is a great golf course, and I think it's got great potential for being a tourist attraction to the province. I guess the major criticism I could make of the golf course is that it is really pretty difficult. It's not a hacker's golf course. Many people who like to hit the ball and not worry — hon. Horst, don't you know what a hacker is? A hacker is a person like you who doesn't know what a hacker means. He hits the ball about 25 times and he says, "Gee, that was a tough hole". So hack, hack, hack. That's what that means.

The question that the Member for Edmonton Whitemud asked about the white sand — my good friend the Minister for Tourism and Small Business and the MLA for Peace River says I can get enough sand from Peace River to be able to afford two holes. I'm hoping that my friends in the breakfast club down in the Legislature can chip in, and we'll have two sand traps on number nine hole in Fort-In-View golf course in Fort Saskatchewan with white sand in them, Keith. It is a good golf course, and it's got some great potential. Mr. Chairman, I wish to say I support the facility.

However, I worry when the government starts impinging more and more upon the private sector. What is going to happen in Fortress when we put the ski facilities in? Are we going to wipe those people right off? What's going to happen to the businesspeople in Canmore and Banff when we go ahead with Fortress and some of these facilities? It's pretty difficult to compete with your competitor when he's got hundreds of millions of dollars in the bank against your limited amount of capital. These are things that we have to look at when we have government involved in competing with the private sector.

I say that sin cerely to the minister. But on the whole, I'm pleased to support the vote. MR. SZWENDER: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to add a few comments to those already made with respect to the estimates. I will make a few comments again on Kananaskis park and Kananaskis Country, more specifically a few observations I've made that can be regarded as improvements in what is otherwise a magnificent, world-class park. I wasn't here a little bit earlier when the Member for Edmonton Whitemud talked about golf. Certainly he's much more of an expert than me.

I hope the minister and his depart ment have considered some kind of heritage trust fund inter national cup golf tournament that would rate as one of the chief attractors of the best golfers in the world to that facility, so we can give it more exposure and certainly make it more visible to people throughout the world as the park and the golf course that it really is; that is, one of the top in the world. One very specific observation I'd like to point out to the minister — and I know I've made a number over the course of the year in memos.

I must say that the minister has been very astute in following up on those. But I guess we all have to work together to make the park a more viable and attractive proposition to Albertans and people from outside the park. This is with respect to the entrance to Kananaskis Provincial Park. Certainly we know Kananaskis Country is made up of three provincial parks, but I'm talking about the entrance to the Kananaskis Provincial Park, which is at the end of the highway into Kananaskis Country. The turnoff into the park is really a 90-degree turn towards the right, and it is not marked very clearly at all.

If a person isn't paying attention and isn't reading the small print, the signs leading to that entrance may lead him to believe that he's just going into a particular campground. There is reference made to particular lakes and trails but not that they are entering Kananaskis Provincial Park. It's just not clearly marked. What is even more misleading is that there are a couple of posts or barriers past the entrance, which a person looking ahead would observe as the gates themselves.

Those are really bar riers, which come down during the winter months, to prevent people from going on the trunk road that goes through the mountains and on to Coleman. I know of one incident when an out-of-province visitor went about 50 kilometres before the pavement ended and he found himself on nothing more than gravel. He had completely missed the turn because of the poor marking. I hope the minister would take that into consideration in helping advertise, promote, and make that beautiful park more readily accessible. MR. NELSON: Mr.

Chairman, I have a couple of comments and questions I'd like to pursue with the minister. First of all, I think we all recognize that Kananaskis is probably one of the finest developments that has taken place in the province for many years. Those people who have experienced it have cer tainly enjoyed it. There are always the nitpicky little complaints that you get, which I'm not going to address here today. I think they are just that: much of it is nitpicky. I was into the park two or three times this summer, and I guess a couple of things concerned me.

It's too bad the Asso ciate Minister of Public Lands and Wildlife isn't here. First of all, it concerned me that equestrian trail rides, et cetera, were going on whilst the hunting season was in place. I certainly wouldn't want to consider riding a horse when there are hunters around, especially when probably one or two may be irre sponsible. I know that the majority of hunters are responsible and take every care necessary to protect domestic animals and human life, but as in any other form of activity, there are those who are irresponsible.

I think it's detrimental to people who wish to go out and participate in an equestrian or trail ride activity whilst these hunters are in the same area. I'm sure we all recognize that a horse's head might be a prime target, and I wouldn't like that to be the horse that's under me. We had the opportunity of visiting and going through the park, in particular William Watson Lodge. I think the devel opment there for our handicapped friends is outstanding. We were given a very informative tour by a handicapped person, a blind gentleman by the name of Mr. Watson.

I guess the one thing I'd like to suggest and maybe examine is the lodges that are there presently. Apparently you can hear noise or discus sions through the walls, due to lack of sound abatement. Bas ically I'd like to ask the minister what expansion plans are being considered, especially in the near future, and what we can do in addition to attract more of our handicapped friends or senior citizens to the lodges, because it's a tremendous part of the activity there.

The other comment I'd like to make is: has the minister considered requesting funding for the development of the Pow- derface road, considering that a couple of additional sites could be made available for our tourists or campers along that road way? With the number of people using the park, it seems to me that additional facilities would be of prime concern in the near future as well as in the long term. Those are the basic comments I have, Mr. Chairman. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Chairman, I will be brief.

I too was part of the heritage committee that went on the tour — a very interesting tour, obviously a very beautiful part of Alberta. I think we've held the debate about whether or not it was done for the best bang for the buck, and we can argue about golf courses and the rest of it. But the fact is that it's there, and it's now up to all of us to encourage Albertans to use it.

1262 ALBERTA HANSARD October 29, 1984 My question ties into this, Mr. Chairman. I hope I'm not ruled out of order. We hear various rumours about the possi bility, if you like, of Kananaskis north or that some similar thoughts are going into a development in the northern part of the province. It's probably just rumour; I don't know. If there are some thoughts there, perhaps the minister could update us. If it isn't, I'm sure he will tell us. If it is, what are the plans at this particular time? [interjection] I didn't say whether or not I was supporting it. I'm just asking the question whether it is going on.

Thank you. [interjection] I'll wait and see what the minister has to say. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Would the hon. minister like to respond? MR. TRYNCHY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A lot of good questions, and hopefully I'll be able to respond to them. Before I start to respond, I want to say that I'm so pleased Kananaskis had a visit from the heritage fund chairman and a number of members of the heritage fund committee, which included the hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood and the late hon. Grant Notley. Mr. Chairman, in responding to the questions of hon. mem bers, I'd like to take them as they were put.

The question was asked if we have a figure on the number of visitors we had to Kananaskis in the summer of 1984. I do have that figure. We had some 305,000 campers and some 1,660,000-odd day-users, for a total of approximately 2 million visitors to Kananaskis Country. The increase over the same period last year is 25 percent in campers and about 85 percent in day-users, which amounted to an increase of about 75 percent more visitors to Kananaskis in '84 than '83. So by that information, Kanan askis . . . DR. BUCK: Mr. Chairman, to the minister.

Just for interest's sake, is there any way they can differentiate if those were in- province or out-of-province? MR. TRYNCHY: I've tried to get the information to the hon. Member for Clover Bar on how many come from outside the province. I hope we'll have that from the visitors' centres next year or some time this winter, but we don't have a percentage. At one time I understood there were about 10 percent from outside Alberta, but whether that has gone up or down, I don't know.

The next question was the number using the golf course — a number of questions raised by both the Member for Highwood and the Member for Edmonton Whitemud. The Member for Edmonton Whitemud raised a number of important questions. He's so right in saying that we have two 18-hole golf courses, and throughout Alberta we're only responding to a golf course in Kananaskis. Some people have suggested to me: why do you spend that much money on one golf course, which is nine holes such as we have in my local town? We've got to get that message across that there are 36 holes, and it's not just one golf course.

According to my recent visit with the manager of the company that runs it, 55,000 rounds of golf were played in Kananaskis this last summer. In regard to the operation of the pro shop and the resting facilities, we have to agree that the pro shop and the facilities are too small. In answer to the Member for Clover Bar, that clubhouse was designed after we knew there were 36 holes. Unfortunately, I guess nobody thought we'd have the kind of traffic we have. It was designed for 36 holes, but you're right: they weren't looking far enough ahead, and we're going to have to do something about it.

Whether we do it within the next year or so — I think management is talking about providing a tournament house and a starter house off-site and moving some of these things out so we can really give better service. But you're so right in suggesting that the service has just been tremendous. I might say that I've had about three concerns raised by citizens who were not happy with Kananaskis Country. Those are the only ones that have crossed my desk. Three concerns throughout the whole year — I think we're batting pretty dam good.

So I want to say again, along with members of the House, that we can take our hats off to Norm Kimball and group for doing a really good job for this province. With regard to the second question — I'll just take these as they come along — with regard to William Watson Lodge, somebody mentioned that we might have more advertising. In the last year, from January to August 1984, we provided 6,944 bed-nights: 5,858 were disabled or handicapped and 1,086 were by senior citizens.

The percentage of the lodge occupied through that period: in January, 77 percent; in February, 86 percent; in March, 91 percent; in April, 86 percent; in May, 95 percent; and since then it's been fully occupied at 100 percent. So when somebody asks the question, will we be thinking about expanding William Watson Lodge, I guess we have to suggest to members that in time I think we'll be pres sured into doing that because it is a facility that's so well used and well regarded for the handicapped and for senior citizens.

The next question was with regard to Mount Kidd Recre ational Vehicle Park and what we can expect in that area. I might say that it's operated by the private sector — two fam ilies, Philip and Barry James. They operated Allan Beach Resort in Stony Plain. They provide 2,027 campsites, some of which are full hookups with water, power, and sewage. There are tot lots, tennis courts, fire pits, a trailer dump station, and a picnic area. In addition to that, we have a camper centre with seven campground washrooms.

I was asked what plans we have in store for more service stations, stores, and the like to be constructed in the area. At this time, I might suggest that we're going to rely extensively on what we can provide in the alpine village site on Ribbon Creek. My understanding is that when the Ribbon Creek devel opment is totally complete it will have some of those facilities such as stores and other things. I might add that there is a shopping complex within the recreational vehicle park at Mount Kidd and also at our service station at Fortress Junction.

I was asked if we intend to keep Highway 40 open, running through Kananaskis Country toward Longview. That will be a decision of Alberta Transportation with regard to the dollars and the wildlife problems we might cause by keeping it open. I understand that the total cost of keeping that road open during the winter could be as high as $250,000. I'm not sure whether we're prepared to do that. When I say "we", I mean Alberta Transportation. It's been discussed; we're reviewing the matter. We might have to have it open the year of the Olympics.

We also have to have a good look with regard to what detrimental effect it will have, if any, on the wildlife in that area. I was asked if I could give a brief update on the status of Mount Allan. I just want to say that it's not within the Kan anaskis budget. But I want to recommend to all members — I guess I've never had much praise for the media over the number of years I've been here, but if the

article of October 26, 1984, by Don Braid is an example of what the media now think about Mount Allan, it would be well for everybody to read it. If one of the pages would come forward, I'd like to have enough copies made to pass around.

October 29, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 1263 DR. BUCK: I read that, and I didn't get that

interpretation. MR. TRYNCHY: With regard to Mount Allan, I think I'll leave that up to the Minister of Tourism and Small Business. But they've turned around from the negative reports they've had in the past. I understand that the runs are cut now. They're tremendous. My understanding is that it could be one of the better ski hills in Canada. Some say it's as good as Lake Louise or better, and that's pretty dam good. There was another question with regard to whether we had some unexpected costs with regard to Kananaskis Country. I can say without any question that we have not.

If the member would look at the November 6, 1981, Hansard, where I out lined the construction and the progress we were making in Kananaskis in some detail, that would answer that question. I might say that this is probably our last year for asking for financial support. I think we'll have Kananaskis just about completed. Barring some unforeseen circumstances such as the expansion of William Watson Lodge or something else that might come forward, we're probably just about completed. The question was asked in regard to a road from British Columbia into Kananaskis Country. We've had that request.

We will not entertain that at this time. I don't know if we'd ever entertain it. We have some difficulty in regard to wildlife in the area and also in regard to where it comes out and just what kind of effect it will have on the environment in that area. Getting back to the golf course, I want to say that the Member for Edmonton Whitemud raised some good points. He's right on when he says that the job was done within budget. It was. It was jobs for Albertans. Right now they tell me there are some 400 people working in Kananaskis Country, all Alber tans. There are some 70 people working on the golf course.

I think it's just tremendous that we have that kind of facility for the people of this province. It is a world-class facility, and I guess the challenges are many. As a matter of fact, I've talked to a number of people. The last time I was there, I walked out to the 18th hole and talked to some people from the United States. I never told them who I was. I just asked them how they were doing, how it looked, what they thought of it. The response I got was, "It's just too terrific; there's too much scenery here for me to play golf; it's too great; it's unbeliev able" — those kinds of things.

I said, "Well, that's fine. Are you going to come back?" They said, "By all means." It's something we have to come back to. We talked about advertising. With the visitations and the amount of golf that's being played, I would hate to have us advertise to have visitors come in at the expense of local Albertan. So you've got me there; I'm probably on the side of our people, the Albertans. I think word-of-mouth is the way to advertise. [Mr. Appleby in the Chair] With regard to management of the golf course, we're so pleased that we have the type of people we have. We're going to meet with Mr.

Kimball and his group sometime this winter in Edmonton. I want a report to me or to members of this Assembly. We'll go over and see where they're at and if we can improve on what they're doing. I might say that it's a unique project, a unique way of operating. Somebody asked about the return on investment. My infor mation is that we are now in the process of receiving returns on the golf course. As you all know, I mentioned last year that once the gross revenue was above $2.5 million the government would receive 5 percent on the total gross revenue.

I understand they've reached the 5 percent and over, so there is a return to the province. I would not have expected this to happen so quickly, in our first full year of operation. The Member for Edmonton Belmont raised the question of an international cup tournament, and I intend to raise that in my discussions this winter. I think it's a good idea, and we might have something done to that effect.

But I want to see one thing happen, and I will insist that it does — that we have every golf course in Alberta invited to Kananaskis so they can bring three or four or five players down there and sell the thing when they get back home. There was a favourable response to it by Norm Kimball and group. So when the people from Barrhead or Peace River or wherever go there, they can come back and say: we've been there; let's sell it. With regard to the sign for the markers, I will send Hansard to the people involved, management and other people, so they can take that as notice and probably do something about it.

The sign to Kananaskis Provincial Park has been noted as being too difficult and not well marked. I too will raise that concern with Mr. Ed Marshall and see if we can respond to that. I was asked the question, how do we keep our recreational vehicle campground neat? We have people who inspect these places. Even though it's run by the private sector, there are certain rules and regulations they follow. It's my information that they're doing a tremendous job, people are happy, and it's going the way we think it should. I was asked to do more advertising for Kananaskis. I've responded to that.

At this time I don't think I'm prepared to do it. We have a tremendous facility. It's unfortunate that we probably have to keep it to ourselves, but we can accommodate only so many people. If we do any more advertising, we might be doing it to the detriment of our own people. The Member for Calgary McCall raised concerns about trail rides during hunting season. I wasn't aware of that but will certainly raise it with Mr.

Marshall and with the Associate Minister of Public Lands and Wildlife to see if we can get some co-ordination into the system so we don't have any acci dents that we might anticipate if this continues. I expressed my thoughts on expanding William Watson Lodge. It looks like we might have to do that. With regard to roads, there is some $8.7 million in the budget for roads. I don't have the breakdown. Whether or not Powderface is included will be based on the priorities. The roads that are needed the most will be taken care of the quickest. There was some talk about a dress code in Kananaskis Country.

It's amazing that I haven't had one concern this year at all. I had two concerns last year, but it wasn't because they were refused entry onto the golf course. To my knowledge, not one person was refused entry to golf on Kananaskis golf course since it started last year. So those people who were saying there was a dress code that was detrimental to the people of Alberta — that's just pure nonsense. I have to agree that maybe it should have been a family golf course or maybe 18 holes. But it's a tremendous golf course. It's a tough one, but I guess you can expect that when you have a world-class facil ity.

If the hon. Member for Clover Bar only lost one ball in the 10 rounds of golf he played, that's pretty darn good. One more thought was overnight lodging. Again, I can suggest that that will take place when we have a development at Ribbon Creek. I'm not anticipating any other facilities within Kananaskis Country within my budget, so we would have to go with that. Mr. Chairman, I believe those are all the questions except the one by the Member for Edmonton Norwood. He suggested that he would like to hear from me whether we'll have a Kan anaskis north. I would like to respond in this way: when I have

1264 ALBERTA HANSARD October 29, 1984 a request from him, in writing, to think about it, I'll get back to him and tell him where we're at. MR. ALEXANDER: Mr. Chairman, I don't really want to prolong this unnecessarily, but the minister might have addressed one or two other matters raised. One, in the matter of the clubhouse and its overcrowded condition, I think there's no doubt that that's the case.

But I want to add one other element; that is, after the plans for the clubhouse had been approved as a golf clubhouse, the project then became the Kananaskis Country family recreation centre, and the sign was posted on the road: open to the public. Anyone who goes there now will observe busloads of people coming in to have lunch because of the superb reputation of the dining room of serving the best bang for the buck. I'm sure you're aware that you can't get a better hamburger anywhere in the country.

So just to perhaps add to what the minister already said, I think he took too much blame on himself for what was a subsequent event, and there's no question that there's a lack of capacity now. But that raises the other point I'd like to ask. Is there a request for, room for, and support for an expanded facility in order to take care of both the golf traffic and the public traffic now using the facility? Obviously it was hard to plan for that at the very beginning, and that's a subsequent event.

There is now a large, temporary inflated barbecue facility on the prem ises, which has eliminated part of the practice fairway, and that can't be allowed to continue forever. But perhaps there's some way to replace the facility there at the moment. I wonder if the minister would consider it appropriate, as I would, to invite the hon. Member for Clover Bar to submit his putative budget on how he might have saved $2 million. Having sat on the budget committee, I would dearly love to see that budget, and I think that challenge ought to be accepted.

I guess the other point is the question of a hacker's golf course — to put it in more polite terms, a family golf course. The south golf course was in fact built with that in mind. While it is still challenging. I have yet to see or hear from a golfer of any level of skill — from scratch handicappers and profes sionals all the way to beginners — who didn't come off the golf course and express a great deal of satisfaction, even being thrilled with it and expressing the intention to come back. So I think this is something the minister might want to respond to, both in his response here and in continuing response.

This facility is one which everybody has enjoyed playing, and that includes what has been referred to here as hackers. In terms of the financial aspect, one other element the min ister didn't address, partly because I didn't make clear what I was getting at in the first place, had to do with the investment side. The minister noted that 55,000 rounds were played there in 1984. I think it's worth observing that those rounds were played at a green-fee cost of $20 a round, despite the com petition in the immediate area of $24 or $25 a round.

There is no question that on the open market, under private ownership, $25 to $30 would be the green-fee round that could be com manded from a golf course of this quality. So as a matter of public policy, the green fee is limited to less than competitive facilities around it. According to my calculations, 55,000 rounds at $20 apiece could have produced a green-fee revenue of $1.1 million. If the green fees had been allowed to rise to the level of the nearest golf course, say Banff at $24 a round this year, that would have crunched out to $1.3 million.

Thus there's a $200,000 policy saving to the green-fee payers at Kananaskis Country Golf Course. I don't really believe we ought to let it slip by into silence without making the point. In spite of that cap placed on the green fees as a matter of policy in agreement with management, they still had the kind of season that allowed them to reach the threshold level of making a profit, where a percentage accrued to the province and cut in, in the first full year of operation. That in itself is a testimony to the acceptance of Albertans and others of the quality of this facility.

Quite frankly, that performance is not only outstanding but so far beyond the expectations of anybody who was involved that I thought it was worth noting. MR. TRYNCHY: Mr. Chairman, could I just respond to this? I think it's so important that I want to do it before we forget about it. I wish I had put it in the same tone as the hon. Member for Edmonton Whitemud. It's true that when we developed Kananaskis Country, we never intended to make a profit. So the things that were done there were done for the benefit of Albertans. He was so right in making that point.

I guess I should have mentioned that when we developed the clubhouse, we really didn't anticipate the amount of traffic in family skiing that we have during the winter months. That too provides some overcrowding at times. So we will have to look at the expansion of the clubhouse in time, because we've made it truly a family centre, both winter and summer. With regard to the family part of the golf course — the so- called hackers; I won't use that term — I've talked to some people from my constituency who golf. Maybe the word we should use is "duffers". They were very pleased.

They had nothing but glowing reports about the area, their golf. Even though they hit the ball a few more times than the ordinary person, such as my friend from Clover Bar, they enjoyed it. So the comment of the Member for Edmonton Whitemud is right on. Hopefully we'll all remember that it is a project for Albertans. Even though we control the fees, as he mentioned, management has found a way to get to the magic figure of covering all their costs, and there will be a return to the government in this regard. MR. MARTIN: A couple of remarks, Mr. Chairman. I've said that we've had the golf course debate many times.

The only difference is the private marketplace. It is a very beautiful course; nobody can deny it. But the fact is that it wasn't built by private enterprise; it was built by the government. I think that's the argument that people still question. No matter how many times the government says it, they — and I would have thought hon. members, private enterprisers — question the priority of government, that government should be involved in golf courses. That's the argument that will be made again and again from time to time, I'm sure. I was rather interested in the other remark of the minister.

I didn't realize I was quite so important to the minister that before government policy was decided they'd call on me and want my written brief on it and then they'd go ahead. Knowing that is of such paramount importance before any legislation is passed, I will be glad to do that. I know there hasn't been an announcement. I will word my question to the minister this way: has his department been assessing the possibility of some sort of development similar to Kananaskis in another part of the province? MR.

GOGO: I want to restrict my remarks to Kananaskis, but before I do, as a member of the select committee on the Heritage Savings Trust fund, I want to tell the minister how pleased I was that he had his staff to the committee during the summer months. I found such an excellent presentation on the progress at both Kananaskis and Mount Allan a rare treat.

October 29, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 1265 I want to comment on the golf course, though. The Member for Edmonton Norwood objects, in principle obviously, to government owning and running golf courses. I'd be interested if that's applicable to Victoria Park and Riverside golf courses in Edmonton, which are owned by the city of Edmonton. Is he saying that he objects in principle to government — and that obviously includes Edmonton city — owning golf courses? I am a little intrigued at his comment. Perhaps I can put that question to him outside the House.

Minister, I went to Kananaskis early in the summer; I think it was June. I read with some degree of pleasure the plaque put there by our premier when he opened it. The opening words say that this Kananaskis Country was created for Albertans and their visitors. I'm most encouraged to hear you say that we will not go on a massive advertising campaign across America, in the name of privatization or any other "tization", trying to bring people to Alberta. I think that's wrong.

As to the highway coming in from B.C., I would have great difficulty, on the one hand, supporting that — and I respect the Member for High- wood — and at the same time being one of the major opponents of Highway 22 coming up. I do want to mention, though, the lodge or restaurant or whatever it is. I've got a confession to make. When I visited in June and had an excellent steak sandwich, I was very impressed. The price was reasonable, and at that time I felt very strongly: if you want to golf at Kananaskis, stay out of the restaurant and let us tourists use it.

I did not think there was any room there to accommodate golfers. However, as of mid-July, my wife got me golfing. Now I've had a change of view, and I'm inclined to think that it should be exclusively used for those who golf. The final comment: I have some discomfort with the views of the Member for Edmonton Whitemud quoting what an excel lent buy it is at $20 because surrounding areas are $24 or whatever. I see no relationship whatsoever. If you've got to base green fees on costs, so be it, but let's not get into the hassle of charging Albertans again. The fact is that their money provided that golf course.

Let's keep those green fees at a reasonable level so most Albertans can utilize the golf course. MR. TRYNCHY: In regard to the comments by the Member for Edmonton Norwood, Mr. Chairman, the only reason I raise the issue of his responding to me in regard to Kananaskis north is that every time we do something he likes to take credit for it, so I thought I might as well give him the credit to start with. I have to take issue with his comments in regard to government removing the private sector. That's not the case at all. It's not the only place where we have developed a golf course.

I can mention two others: Cypress provincial park and Gooseberry provincial park. I note a number of ski hills devel oped within provincial parks, such as Cold Lake and Cypress again. So we do this, but we turn it over to the private sector. A good example is the Strathcona Science Park, which is right here in Edmonton. We developed it from the heritage fund, because the private sector wouldn't do it, and turned it over to the private sector. But when you take a total provincial park such as Kananaskis Country, we always dwell on the golf course. It's only a small part of what's there.

It's $10 million out of the $180 million or $200 million. We should also look at William Watson Lodge, the 3,000-plus campsites, fishing ponds for the handicapped, the equestrian, hiking, and bicycle trails. Let's not just say to Albertans: don't go to Kananaskis Country; it's just a golf course. That's completely wrong. We're doing a number of things there, and we owe it to our people to do it. We've done it, and I'm pretty darn proud of it. I'm sure all Albertans are too. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question to the minister.

I didn't know that the government and free enterprise and all sorts of things were such sore points with people. I made the comment that at this time I didn't think it was the appropriate place. If you recall, I also said that it's there. I as an Albertan encourage people to use it. There's no use complaining about Kananaskis after the point. It's there, and we'll use it. But the thing I was trying to get to mainly is, was there any assessment? The minister keeps avoiding it, I don't know whether delib erately or not. Is there any assessment about any other devel opment? MR. TRYNCHY: I'm sorry, Mr.

Chairman; I had it written down. The hon. member will recall that I've said a number of times, inside and outside the House, that it's my view that we should have a Kananaskis two, a Kananaskis three. I think it's a tremendous thing to develop for Albertans. So yes, we are assessing the situation. Just when we will develop Kananaskis two or three is down the road. Agreed to: Total Vote 1 — Kananaskis Country Recreation Development $18,148,000 2 — Urban Parks MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions or comments? MR. KOWALSKI: Mr.

Chairman, the last hour and a half has essentially dealt with golf course related matters. In my enthu siasm to get involved in this discussion with respect to golf courses, I got up and was ruled out of order. Basically I want to deal with it in connection with an urban park — Waskasoo Park in Red Deer. There seems to be some misunderstanding, and I ask the minister to clarify today whether or not the urban parks project dealing with Waskasoo Park in Red Deer will in fact have a golf course funded under the Alberta Heritage Sav ings Trust Fund.

It's my understanding that Waskasoo Park is administered locally, within the confines of the municipality of Red Deer. There is a policy and management committee that reports directly to the Red Deer city council. In recent weeks there's been some public discussion with respect to the role played by certain civic officials in the city of Red Deer in undertaking a trip to a certain part of the United States to investigate golf courses in that area. It's really that one clari fication that I ask from the minister at this point in time.

What is the role of the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund and his department with respect to Waskasoo Park and the potential of a golf course being developed as part of that facility? MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Red Deer. MR. McPHERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's interesting to be asked to participate in this debate after the comments of the Member for Barrhead. I don't want to answer for the min ister, but I was going to raise that very subject and some others.

I guess one might say it's my annual opportunity to do a little bragging about the enormous contribution and the enormous efforts that are being made for what really is a jewel within Red Deer; that is, Waskasoo Park. With regard to the plan for the golf course within the Was kasoo Park in the river valley in the city of Red Deer, Mr. Chairman, I would like to mention that the Member for Barr

1266 ALBERTA HANSARD October 29, 1984 head and other members should know that there is indeed a management committee and a policy committee. Ultimately the decisions with respect to facilities that will be available in the Waskasoo Park are made by the city council. There were exten sive public meetings throughout the initial stages of the planning for Waskasoo Park. The subject was raised of course; there were numerous public meetings that expressed an interest in developing a municipal golf course or a golf course within the park. There was ample opportunity for all interested people to develop input to that.

Furthermore, the policy committee made its recommendation to the city council. City council determined that a golf course within the park would be an appropriate use. It might be stated, though, that a golf course within the Was kasoo Park

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19841029
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L20 S2 19841029 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	9865e32f40cdce3994a5dd509422fd3349a4fb07

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