December 4, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1375 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Thursday, December 4, 1975 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to i n t r o d u c e to you, and through you to the members of the Assembly, two members of the Olds Municipal Hospital Board, Mr. Neil Lea therdale and Mr. Wayne Notley. They're in your gallery, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask them to rise at this time and receive the recognition of the Assembly. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, it gives me pleasure to introduce two residents of the town of Vauxhall: Jim Lynn, the mayor of the town, and Ralph Ringdahl, who is on the Vauxhall recreation board. Today they are in the city meeting various government officials and ministers with regard to a recreation complex and the replacement of a complex that burned just a few weeks ago in their city. I would ask them to rise and be recognized by the Assembly. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce to you, and through you to the hon. members of the Legislature, a p r o m i n e n t citizen from the Rowley district, Mr.

Larry McKee, who is in the public gallery. Mr. McKee is very active in community hall associations and in farming activities in that area. I would ask Mr. McKee to rise and be recognized. DR. WARRACK: It's a great pleasure for me to introduce today 16 Grades 11 and 12 students in French 30 from 'Tro-Val' high school in Trochu. They came on difficult roads to be here today.

They're staying over in Edmonton after the Legislature, and then on tomorrow to an interesting weekend beginning at Legal, where they will meet and billet with French families in that area, try out their French, and play against them in volleyball. I'd like to ask the Legislature to welcome their teacher, Mr. Paul Gaboury, and these students, and join me in wishing them bienvenue. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, it gives me very great pleasure today to be able to i n t r o d u c e the national president of the National Farmers Union, Mr. Roy Atkinson, who is seated in your gallery. MR. MILLER: Mr.

Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce to you, and through you to the members of this Legislature, 38 Grade 7 students from the Lloydminster school. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Butcher, and Mr. Issac. I would ask that they stand and be recognized. MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to i n t r o d u c e to you and to members of this Assembly a very prominent member of the Taber town council and business community, Mrs. Helen Wentz. head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS DR . HORNER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table the annual report of the former Highways and Transport Department for 1974-75. MR.

LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table the return to Question No. 185. MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table the report of the Alberta Petroleum M a r k e t i n g Commission. MR. DOWLING: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table the response to Motion for a Return No. 196, ordered by the House. MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask for unanimous leave of the House once Motion No. 1 is called [under] Motions Other Than Government Motions, dealing with the cow-calf industry, to allow the House to debate that motion for the entire afternoon, rather than proceed with the routine order of business. MR.

CLARK: We'd be pleased to agree to that suggestion. We advised the Government House Leader about 1 o'clock this afternoon

1376 ALBERTA HANSARD December 4, 1975 that we planned to ask for that kind of agreement. So certainly we're pleased to do that. We're pleased the Attorney G e n e r a l is ahead of time once. [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: Does the proposal by the hon. Attorney General have the unanimous consent of the Assembly? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Business Interest of Minister MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my first question to the Attorney General.

It flows from an announcement in Red Deer with regard to a development the Attorney General is involved in, I believe a 9.23- acre hote1/business complex. I'd like to ask the Attorney General very frankly, does he see any conflict of interest between his position as Attorney General and his major involvement in this development in Red Deer? MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, I would never have embarked upon any course of conduct involving my private life if I felt there was any possible conflict of interest, and I did not do so here.

I should make it very clear that the proposal for Red Deer is an initiative taken by myself and an alderman from the city of Edmonton. We do not own any land in that city at all, in this area, nor do we have any proposals to develop any other area. We were simply approaching the city council to inquire as to whether it would be willing to accept our submission. In fact, the city council responded by approving not only our s u b m i s s i o n , but a second hotel as well. Now there is some doubt as to whether either, frankly, will proceed. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the . . . MR.

SPEAKER: I have grave misgivings c o n c e r n i n g this line of questioning. As the hon. Leader of the Opposition knows, q u e s t i o n s to ministers must be confined to their official duties as ministers. If there is any kind of question that any hon. member has about the private life of a minister, or whether there may be a c o n f l i c t of interest or something of that kind, any such allegation or implication would, of course, be quite serious. The member making it would have to take full responsibility for it, which might include some jeopardy to him.

Also, it would be more properly brought before the Assembly by way of a proper motion on notice to which the minister would then have an opportunity, in fairness, to prepare a position or reply. Lamb Processing Plant MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a second question, to the Minister of Agriculture. I'd like to ask if he or senior officials of the department had discussions with officials of the lamb processing plant at Innisfail prior to the removal of the general manager. MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I did not have any discussions with the board of directors of the co-op prior to that action. MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary to the minister. Did he ask any of his officials in the department to discuss the matter with the lamb processing co-op prior to the removal of the general manager? MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, for some months now, a number of officials from the D e p a r t m e n t of Agriculture have been working very closely with the board of directors as well as the management of the Lamb Processors' Co-op in Innisfail. I would not be aware of what all their discussions involved. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a further s u p p l e m e n t a r y to the minister.

In the course of those discussions with either the people at Innisfail or his own departmental o f f i c i a l s , would the minister be in a position to indicate whether the question of the removal of the general manager was a matter of discussion? MR. MOORE: No, Mr. Speaker, I'm not in a position to indicate whether that was d i s c u s s e d or not. MR. CLARK: One further supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the minister.

Has he had discussions with the Alberta Agricultural Development Corporation as to why it took the corporation such a long period of time to get the $300,000 advance from the its office in Camrose to the plant at Innisfail? MR. MOORE: As a matter of fact, Mr. S p e a k e r , having dealt directly with the chairman of the board of directors of the Ag. Development Corporation, my understanding is that the corporation, in view of the circumstances surrounding the loan a p p l i c a t i o n and so on, did act in an appropriate manner and dealt with the matter as quickly as possible. MR.

CLARK: One last supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the minister. Is it fair then to assume from what the minister says that he feels the Ag. Development corporation handled the request from the Innisfail plant properly? You're satisfied with the way it was handled? MR. MOORE: Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied with the manner in which the Ag. Development Corporation handled the loan request. There are, however, a number of other areas with respect to a grant from the Alberta-Canada nutritive processing

December 4, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1377 agreement and some other things that I'm not very happy or satisfied about with respect to the manner in which the plant has operated. MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary to the hon. minister. Has the federal grant for the lamb processing plant arrived yet? MR. MOORE: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speak- er, my understanding is that a federal grant has not yet arrived. Indeed, we're having difficulties as well in applying a grant to the Lamb Processors' Co-op from the Canada-Alberta nutritive processing agreement, which requires approval from the federal side as well.

Camrose Area Expansion MR. STROMBERG: Mr. Speaker, I was wonder- ing if the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources could explain the actions of the Energy Resources Conservation Board in its recommendation to Battle River Planning [Commission] at Wetaskiwin not to accept any more applications for future growth in Camrose and surrounding villages, such as Ferintosh and New Norway, because they are situated near or over sour gas fields. MR. GETTY: No, Mr. Speaker. MR. STROMBERG: Would the minister check into the rather strange actions of the ERC Board? MR. GETTY: Yes, Mr. Speaker. MR.

STROMBERG: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would he report back to the House? MR. GETTY: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Tar Sands Development MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the hon. Minister of Energy as well. It doesn't concern the rink on the stadium, Mr. Minister. I'd like the minister to advise the House, if he would, what the status is of the proposed $150 million Shell experiment- al plant in the Peace River oil sands near the town of Peace River. MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, the Shell proposal is one of 21 the Alberta Oil Sands Techno- logy and Research Authority has under con- sideration.

My discussions with the chair- man indicate that they will be assessing those 21 applications, then making a deci- sion as to which ones should be proceeded with, and in what manner. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a further supple- mentary question. Is the minister in a position to advise the Assembly as to the nature of the Shell proposal as it pertains to funding under the Oil Sands Technology and Research Authority? MR. GETTY: Not in complete detail, Mr.

Speaker, although if it has not been r e q u e s t e d by Shell that it be treated c o n f i d e n t i a l l y , I would be pleased to get the detailed information for the hon. member. My recollection of my discussion with the chairman of the Oil Sands Technology and Research Authority is that the 21 a p p l i c a t i o n s would involve something in the order of $750 million, and they would essentially be proposing a 50-50 split; but I'm not sure whether the details of the Shell one actually call for that kind of split. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a further s u p p l e m e n t a r y question to the hon. minister.

Can he report to the House when he a n t i c i p a t e s a response from the Authority as to these 21 particular proposals, and when they will be dealt with either by cabinet or subsequently in the Legislature? MR. GETTY: Well, Mr.

Speaker, with regard to the figures I just mentioned and the seriousness of the need for coming up with a successful method of developing the huge amount of the oil sands that cannot now be developed and produced through known methods, I would expect that the Oil Sands Technology and Research Authority will do everything possible to assist us with an evaluation and recommendations with these applications, but that they would have to take all the time necessary to feel c o n f i d e n t that they were assessing them correctly and making the right decision.

I can't imagine the time that will require, but I would certainly say it would be as quickly as they possibly can do it efficiently. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a further s u p p l e m e n t a r y q u e s t i o n . Will the process of assessing the applications, once completed, be referred to the cabinet for final approval, or will the authority have the option of making the funding decision on its own? While I'm on my feet, Mr. Speaker, is the government giving any consideration to increasing the funding available for the Oil Sands Technology and Research Authority? MR.

GETTY: That would depend on the requirements of the Authority, after it has had an opportunity to review these a p p l i c a t i o n s . The hon. member will recall, the applications were only received in total, I believe, during the last month. There even may have been notification of applications while the application itself was held up in the mail because of the strike. So it will depend on the technology authority's r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s to the government. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, one final s u p p l e m e n t a r y q u e s t i o n for clarification.

I take it from the minister's answer that the Oil Sands Technology and Research Authority will make recommendations, but it's finally the cabinet which will review and determine those recommendations. MR. GETTY: No, Mr. Speaker. I was r e f e r r i n g to the need for consideration of

1378 ALBERTA HANSARD December 4, 1975 additional funds. Matters having to do with research in the act which creates the Oil Sands Technology and Research Authority allow it to participate in research p r o j e c t s on its own initiative. MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary to the hon. minister. Do any of the applications involve nuclear blasting below the surface? MR. GETTY: I am advised, Mr. Speaker, one of them does involve nuclear fission. I'm not sure whether it would involve nuclear blasting, because I'm not really familiar with the technicalities of that proposal.

But because it was raised in the House by one of the hon. members, I obtained that information and advised him — I should have advised the whole House — that one of them does. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a final, final supplementary question. In his discussions with the chairman of the Authority, did the hon. minister relay the, I think, very valid opinion expressed by the now Minister of Housing that any development of fission in the oil sands would be, I believe the quote was, "utter madness"? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Sheer madness. MR. GETTY: The quote was "sheer madness", as I recall.

However, from my discussions with the chairman of the technology authority, Mr. Speaker, I think he was well aware of the views of the hon. Member for Edmonton Gold Bar. MR. TAYLOR: One further supplementary to the hon. minister. Did they not say Edison was exhibiting sheer madness when he invented the telephone? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, some people don't even want to put roofs on stadiums. [laughter] By-law Enforcement MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Solicitor General.

What p r o c e d u r e s are available to local m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , specifically towns, to enforce local by-laws not enforced by the RCMP, such as truck routes through the town, snow r e m o v a l , and a number of others? MR. FARRAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, the f u n c t i o n s of by-law enforcement officers are those allotted them by the local government authority. In my office we are prepared, in circumstances that warrant it, to swear them in as special constables to enforce provincial statutes such as The Highway Traffic Act and The Liquor Control Act. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, supplementary to the minister. Are grants or special cost-sharing arrangements between p r o v i n c i a l and municipal governments available to towns to share in the costs of that special constable? MR. FARRAN: Law enforcement grants for u r b a n centres over 1,500 in population were announced last spring. They are pretty substantial. They amounted to something like 50 per cent of the equivalent mounted police policing cost. Grants are not available to municipal districts and c o u n t i e s .

They have no policing costs, unlike the rest of Alberta, because they are policed by the RCMP at provincial cost. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a s u p p l e m e n t a r y to the minister for clarification. Is there no grant available to towns of, say, 1,000 population? MR. FARRAN: No, there is not, Mr. Speaker. As a town reaches a 1,500 level, there is a formula for some phase-in assistance. If you'd like to put the question on the Order Paper, I could give it to you. I haven't got it exactly at my fingertips. Civil Service Personnel Policy DR. BUCK: Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the Provincial Treasurer and arises out of Motion for a Return No. 133. In light of the fact that government statistics in this return indicate female members of the civil service receive at least $3,000 per year less than their male counterparts, I'd like to know what the provincial government is going to do about changing this inequity. MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, in his question, the hon. member implies an inequity with which I do not agree. The salary levels to which he refers have nothing to do with whether they are paid to men or women. They relate solely to the position.

I know the hon. member is interested in this area, Mr. Speaker, and I might take this opportunity to advise him that the government's policy is equal opportunity for both men and women. I appreciate it's not enough merely to have that policy. One needs to check to make sure it's being carried out. I recently did that by making an inquiry of the Public Service C o m m i s s i o n e r ' s office as to the number of a p p l i c a n t s and the number of successful a p p l i c a n t s for management positions within the provincial government. I learned — and I say this, Mr.

Speaker, with some h e s i t a t i o n — that on a percentage basis, women applicants were somewhat more successful than men. I say "with some hesitation" because that may be grounds for the men to complain. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton Highlands followed by the hon. Member for Bow Valley. AN HON. MEMBER: Wake up, Dave. MR. NOTLEY: Ah, there he is. AN HON. MEMBER: Late again.

December 4, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1379 Commonwealth Games Stadium MR. KING: Thank you. [interjections] S o m e o n e has just said that I'm late again. My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the Minister of Recreation, Parks and Wildlife. I would like to ask him if it is correct, on the basis of developments to this date, that the provincial government could reach a decision by December 23 respecting p o s s i b l e financial assistance to the city of Edmonton for covering the proposed city stadium. MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, I assume you are reading from an

article that was printed in one of the papers in the city. [laughter] AN HON. MEMBER: The other is the St. Albert Gazette. MR. ADAIR: I believe the key word is e n d e a v o r , subject to an agreement beinq reached by the Eskimo organization and the city of Edmonton. MR. KING: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. It is not then unqualifiedly certain that the provincial government could reach a d e c i s i o n by December 23? MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, I would say that if the broadest term of endeavor — we will make every effort, if we are approached before that date, to try to come up with an answer for them.

Again, the word endeavor means subject to concurrence between the organization applying and the city of Edmonton. DR. BUCK: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I presume the cabinet has had some discussion about this matter. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to know if any outside limits have been placed on the amount of money that would be available to the city of Edmonton or the Edmonton Eskimo Football Club. MR. ADAIR: As a matter of fact, to my knowledge there have not been any d i s c u s s i o n s with the cabinet.

Members of the Commonwealth Games committee have met with the Edmonton Eskimo organization, and they really just acquainted us with the proposal they were going to be making to the city. No dollars were discussed at any stage in that particular discussion we had with them. Contingent on that, of course, is concurrence being reached between the Edmonton Eskimo organization and the city of Edmonton. MR. NOTLEY: Supplementary question to the hon. minister.

In light of all the d i s c u s s i o n we've heard about living within guidelines and constraints, is the g o v e r n m e n t not of the view that such an e x p e n d i t u r e would be outside the terms of the guidelines on capital expenditures? AN HON. MEMBER: That's hypothetical. MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, the hypothetical part of that question is, as I said a moment ago, [that] no dollar figures were discussed, so I can't really comment. Farm Implement Amendment Act MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Agriculture.

Will Bill 63, The Farm Implement Amendment Act, 1975, be brought up for second reading in this fall session of the Legislature? MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, no. It is not our intention to proceed any further with Bill 63, but rather to let it die on the Order Paper. I expect to be introducing it again in the spring session of the Legislature. We've had a number of representations with regard to its contents, and I expect it may be possible we will be making some changes. Cheque Cashing MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, a very short explanation is necessary before I ask the question, which is directed to the hon.

Provincial Treasurer. A government employee tried to cash his October cheque in a Treasury Branch and was refused. He walked down the street to the Bank of Nova Scotia with the same identification; they cashed his cheque immediately. My question is, does the Treasury Branch know something about Alberta's cash position that the chartered banks don't know? [laughter] MR. LEITCH: Yes, but I'm sure it had no bearing on that incident. Canmore Mines DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Energy and Natural Resources.

Can he indicate to the L e g i s l a t u r e if he's had the opportunity to find out if there have been any negotiations between the provincial government and C a n m o r e Mines — the question I asked last week. MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I have found out that preliminary discussions are being c a r r i e d out, but they are between the D e p a r t m e n t of Environment and Canmore. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Environment. Can he indicate to the L e g i s l a t u r e if the Department of Environment or the government is contemplating buying C a n m o r e Mines? MR. RUSSELL: Mr.

Speaker, I think perhaps where the misunderstanding has occurred is that the Dillingham Corporation has offered some of its land for sale, and of course it's the parent corporation under which

1380 ALBERTA HANSARD December 4, 1975 Canmore Mines operates. The Department of Environment has been looking at the p o s s i b i l i t y of buying some of the land that has been offered for sale. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, can the hon. m i n i s t e r indicate if it is the mining facility the department is looking at, or is it surface rights, or the potential ski f a c i l i t i e s ? Can the minister indicate to us in what aspect they are dealing with the corporation? MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I’d have to give a qualified answer.

I don't believe the land contains any of the mining facilities as they now exist, nor any of the land that Dillingham has indicated it wants to keep for future development. Other than that broad definition I'd have to go back and look in the file to get the exact d e s c r i p t i o n . But I don't believe it includes those facilities. DR. BUCK: My final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Then can I assume, Mr. Speaker, that the minister is saying the provincial government is not contemplating buying C a n m o r e Mines? MR. RUSSELL: That's correct, Mr. Speaker.

The department is considering buying land that Dillingham deemed to be in excess of its needs for its mining activities up there. Because it's in the eastern slopes and in the Canmore corridor it seemed like a good idea to acquire it if we were able to negotiate a suitable price. Government Buildings — Security MR. TRYNCHY: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Solicitor General. It's the feeling of some farmers that dogs were used to help escort the farmers out of the Agriculture Building last Monday. Can the hon. minister advise if this is indeed the truth? MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, the circumstances were these.

My understanding is that s p e c i f i c instructions were issued that dogs were not to be used. However, policemen were to be used. They were short of men, and two of the available policemen happened to be dog-handlers. DR. BUCK: Happened to be? MR. FARRAN: Yes, they're policemen as well as dog-handlers. They're not handling dogs all the time. Their pets happened to be in the back of the car, which was parked some distance from the building. The dogs were never used. They were just left in the back of the car where they normally travel with these two policemen.

The policemen themselves, however, went into the building on their flat feet. Priority Employment Program MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Advanced Education and Manpower, with respect to the priority employment program. Mr. Speaker, I'm wondering if the minister could give some indication of how many positions may have been applied for to date, or whether he has any information on that yet. MR. SPEAKER: That is a question of some particularity which I think would ordinarily be on the Order Paper, especially if it were not of extreme urgency.

If the m i n i s t e r happens to have the answer and is able to answer briefly, perhaps we might proceed with it. MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, on the same s u b j e c t then. Could the minister indicate the provision for funds being set aside for the employment portion — and give some i n d i c a t i o n of the expected unemployment that may generate? DR. HOHOL: Mr.

Speaker, a million dollars has been set aside by the Executive Council for direct employment programs under the priority employment program for 1976-77, and half a million dollars has been a l l o c a t e d to training programs which include training, upgrading, and retraining. Depending on the circumstances with respect to the labor force statistics in the months to come, I have some understanding with the Executive Council that I can return with the evidence that we may or may not need additional resources for both the training and employment elements of the priority employment program.

Addressing myself, sir, to the first question: it is too early to say, but six departments of government, several Crown boards and agencies, in particular a u x i l i a r y hospitals, and other agencies are in the process of moving their applications through the procedure and approval p r o g r a m s . It will be some time, possibly six weeks, before we can make an initial e s t i m a t e of the number of people in direct employment programs and the anticipated number in the training programs beginning on January 1 . Advanced Education Legislation MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to direct my question to the Minister of Advanced Education and Manpower. Would he very briefly outline to the Assembly the present status of the adult education act. DR. HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, it would be very difficult to do it very briefly, but I shall try. It is this. On approximately August 15, the draft was sent out by the department to the various concerned i n s t i t u t i o n s and to anyone who asked for it, with the deadline set for December 1 . That deadline has passed, and a great number of submissions have been received and are

December 4, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1381 beinq read and summarized at the present time. Some groups have asked for the deadline to be extended, and I said we would of course read, study, and consider any submissions after that deadline. The results and conclusions of the submissions will be significant in terms of the nature of the work that will ensue following the review of those submissions, their recommendations, their criticisms. I might say as a proper part of the response, Mr.

Speaker, that I have met with practically every constituent group in advanced education whether they are colleges, universities, or provincially administered institutions -- within i n s t i t u t i o n s , and across them — personally to review their positions, requests, c r i t i c i s m s , and recommendations with respect to this particular draft legislation of the department. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Is it the minister's intention then to introduce this ill-conceived l e g i s l a t i o n in the spring session? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, order. DR. HOHOL: As all members know, Mr.

S p e a k e r , the list of intended legislation for any session is put together some months in advance. It's the intention at the present time that that be the case. In other words, the legislation with respect to this draft is on the list for the spring session. The final determination by myself, and the recommendations I might make thereafter to Executive Council, will depend in large measure on the extent and nature of r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s that are divergent or are s o m e w h a t consistent with the content and the intent of the draft legislation as it exists in its present form. MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, one further s u p p l e m e n t a r y to the minister. Once the l e g i s l a t i o n is introduced in the spring s e s s i o n , has he given any consideration to letting it sit on the Order Paper, and then be dealt with next fall? DR. HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, this anticipates the conclusions we may draw when a full and complete assessment is made of the s u b m i s s i o n s from the colleges, universities, i n t e r e s t e d g r o u p s , and individual Albertans. That's one of the options.

It's one of four, five, or half a dozen options open to us once we conclude our study of the submissions, and probably put together a minister's draft in contrast to the d e p a r t m e n t draft. So it is one indeed, but one of about half a dozen alternatives from which we can choose. MR. CLARK: One last supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Is it the intention of the m i n i s t e r to carry forward the reorganization of the department now being done in line with the act that was released earlier, or is it the minister's intention to stop the r e o r g a n i z a t i o n of the department till the Legislature has had a chance to debate the legislation? DR. HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, for the record, there has not been a major reorganization of the department, nor has there been an intent to reorganize the department in a major way.

There have been some a d j u s t m e n t s to the department's structure in terms of function, but none of them p a r t i c u l a r l y related to the intended or existing legislation, but were intended entirely in terms of the department's capability to meet its mandate in terms of its function with respect to advanced education and manpower. Alaska Highway MR. SHABEN: My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the Minister of Transportation.

I'd like to know if he is aware that the United States government intends to spend well over $100 million on highway construction to serve Alaska through the Yukon, and to connect with British Columbia. DR. HORNER: So far, Mr. Speaker, only through what I've also read in the press. As far as I'm aware, I think the matter is at the first stage in the legislative process in the Congress of the United States. MR. SHABEN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister comment as to what effect such action, if it proceeds, would have on Alberta's position as far as s e r v i n g the western Arctic is concerned? MR.

NOTLEY: Finish Highway 49. DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, a variety of roads reach the Arctic. Our priority is the Mackenzie Highway to service the w e s t e r n Arctic. We are, however, aware that improvements on the Alaska Highway will give additional benefits to Alberta s u p p l i e r s , and we have no concern with that. New Home Warranty MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might supplement an answer I gave yesterday in response to a question by the hon. Member for Drumheller with regard to house warranties.

The Alberta new home c e r t i f i c a t i o n program is in place through the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada. At the present time, about 98 per cent of the members of that o r g a n i z a t i o n participate in the program. In a d d i t i o n , several builders who are not members of HUDAC also participate. As a result, of the monthly production of houses, which at the present time is running about 1,000 homes per month, over 90 per cent are covered by the home warranty.

1382 ALBERTA HANSARD December 4, 1975 ORDERS OF THE DAY head: MOTIONS FOR RETURNS 209. Mr. Notley proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: A list of all cheques issued and/or accounts outstanding as a direct c o n s e q u e n c e of the European mission showing, in each case , the person or agency involved and the purpose for the payment. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move an amendment to this motion, in respect of which we've had consultation with the m e m b e r who moved the motion.

I move that Motion for a Return No. 109 be amended by striking out all the words after the word "showing” in the second line and substituting the following: A list of all cheques issued and/or outstanding to complete payment of accounts in total with respect to the Alberta m i s s i o n to Europe, naming the p e r s o n s or corporate entities to whom cheques were or will be made payable under general h e a d i n g s , such as transportation, hotel lodging, receptions, embassies, printing, c o m m u n i c a t i o n s , and administration. [Motion as amended carried] 211. Mr.

Notley proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: Names and addresses of all waterwell drillers that received journeyman certification between January 1 , 1975 and November 1 , 1975. [Motion carried] 212. Mr. Notley proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: A copy of all studies dealing with the development of new and existing townsites in the coal branch area southwest of Edson, particularly regarding the viability of the p r e s e n t Cadomin townsite. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Speaker, I request that Motion for a Return 212 stand. MR. SPEAKER: Is the request of the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs acceptable to the Assembly? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: The motion will stand. 213. Mr.

Notley proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: ( 1 ) An itemized list of all goods and services supplied to S u n b u r s t Ceramics Ltd., of L e t h b r i d g e by the Alberta Research Council as of 31 October, 1975, showing the cost of each item or its estimated market value; ( 2 ) a list of all grants, loans, or loan guarantees issued to S u n b u r s t Ceramics Ltd. by any other branch or agency of the Alberta government prior to 31 October, 1975; ( 3 ) a full account of the a r r a n g e m e n t s , if any, which have been made to recover the items listed in ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) above since S u n b u r s t Ceramics Ltd. has gone into receivership and/or declared bankruptcy. [Motion carried] MR.

DOWLING: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table a reply to Motion for a Return No. 213. 214. Mr. Taylor proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: ( 1 ) How many coal leases larger than one

section have been granted during ( a ) 1973, ( b ) 1974, ( c ) 1975 to October 31; ( 2 ) the names of the companies to whom these leases were granted; ( 3 ) the expiry date of each lease. [Motion carried] 215. Mr.

Notley proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: ( 1 ) A copy of all studies done by the department of manpower and labour and/or the Department of Advanced Education and Manpower on the use or potential for use in Alberta of temporary imported labor under an 11-42 category of visa or similar arrangement since January 1 , 1972; ( 2 ) a copy of all studies relating to the flow of immigrants into the province in terms of the demand for immigrant labor, the effect on wages in Alberta, and the supply of immigrant labor in relation to demand since January 1 , 1972.

DR. HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, I would request that Motion 215 stand. MR. SPEAKER: Is the request of the hon. minister acceptable to the Assembly?

December 4, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1383 HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: The motion will stand. head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 1. Mr. Notley proposed the following motion to the Assembly:

Be it resolved that, the Legislative Assembly urge the Government of Alberta to provide immediate direct assistance to the cow-calf industry in the form of cash grants of $100 per calf, up to a maximum of 75 head. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to move Motion No. 1 on the Order Paper. I would just advise hon. members that there is a slight typographical error in that at the end of "75 head" there should be "per producer". That's a fairly straightforward clarification, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: It would appear the suggestion made by the hon. member is a mere a m e n d m e n t in text, without really changing the substance of the motion. Is it acceptable to the Assembly? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. NOTLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the issue we have before us today is probably the single most i m p o r t a n t economic problem we have in an o t h e r w i s e relatively prosperous province. That being the case, I appreciate the fact that the government has agreed, and the official opposition as well, that we spend the entire afternoon quite properly debating this issue. Mr.

Speaker, there is really no doubt that for a number of years, both in the late 1960s and early 1970s, there was a concerted effort, not only by the present government but indeed by the former g o v e r n m e n t , not only in the Province of Alberta but for that matter throughout western Canada, to encourage younger people e s p e c i a l l y to get into the cattle business. Hon. members will recall that in the late '60s and early '70s grain prices had reached a very low level.

So we heard from government experts and people in the beef industry, the general consensus of opinion that the markets would remain strong, prices would remain relatively high, and that people should be encouraged to go into the cattle business. As a consequence, a broad array of loan programs was developed, as I say, not only in this province but in other provinces as well. Mr. Speaker, we now know, of course, that the price of cattle has dropped drastically. But I want to just cite, for the record, Mr. Speaker, a statement made on April 6, 1972, by the then Minister of Agriculture, Dr. Horner.

He says, and I quote page 2357 of Hansard, April 6, 1972: However, it is important that we do develop our industry, but that we don't develop it too fast so that we start a surplus situation and force prices to a drastically low level. A common-sense proposal, indeed. Then he goes on to say: I accept the responsibility, as the minister, to try and juggle this thing, and I guess that is part of the responsibility of the job. Well, Mr. Speaker, a very clear statement by the minister at that time that he accepts responsibility for programs and the effect of those programs on the people who take

part in them. Mr. Speaker, I hardly need spend much time talking about the present situation, because hon. members know the situation is really pretty desperate for producers in the province. Larger producers who have been in the business for many years are perhaps in a position where they can w i t h s t a n d the valleys, because they've had some of the peaks. But the younger people who got into the cattle business just as prices began to slide down are the people in most serious trouble at present. I could cite many examples, but perhaps just one or two for the purpose of the discussion today, Mr. Speaker.

A c o n s t i t u e n t of mine, a very active member of the Peace River Stock Growers Association, took two liner loads of cattle — some 55,000 pounds of beef — and came out with a net of $11,900, or approximately 22 cents a pound. Well, that's a rather good case, because there are many, many more serious problems than that. At auction marts a round the province, we have cases where cows are going for 10 or 12 cents a pound, calves often for less than that. So, Mr.

Speaker, it is undisputed that we have a very serious problem in the industry at the moment and, of course, the cow-calf o p e r a t o r is receiving the brunt of the problem. Even the highest grades of cattle, A-1 and A-2 slaughter steers, 42 to 44 cents a pound — that's substantially under the cost of production. But I think we have to keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, that very few of the cattle marketed are actually in that top category. So the vast majority of the cattle taken to market are in the lower price category, which is drastically below the cost of production.

There is no way, no matter how skilful the farmer may be, that you can long maintain a business if you are producing at less than it costs to produce whatever

article it is — cattle, oil, automobiles, or whatever the case may be. Now, Mr. Speaker, let's take a look at some of the proposals that have been a d v a n c e d to deal with the emergency s i t u a t i o n . The resolution we have before us today has been proposed by the National Farmers Union. It is not a long-term proposal. As a matter of fact, a little later in my remarks I want to go into some of the longer term proposals made by this particular organization. The National Farmers Union has suggested $100 a calf to a maximum of 75 calves per producer.

1384 ALBERTA HANSARD December 4, 1975 Shortly before the Legislature opened, a meeting was held in the Peace River country by the Peace River Stock Growers Association. While the meeting did not formally set policies for the organization, the members attended and proposed to the government a wintering bonus of $100 a cow to a maximum of 75 head. So we have both the formal or official proposal of the National Farmers Union, as well as an unofficial proposal advanced by the Peace River Stock Growers Association.

Now, I recognize that the Canadian Cattlemen’ s Association and the Western Stock Growers’ Association are not in favor of a program of direct cash grants. I can appreciate their right to take that p o s i t i o n . However, I don't agree with it. Now, Mr.

Speaker, the argument we have heard most often in the Province of Alberta about this issue, and for a while advanced quite persuasively by the Minister of A g r i c u l t u r e , was the simple proposition that it is better to have a federal stabilization plan, and that Alberta should not act unilaterally but should wait until the federal government has a plan in place. Well, I don't think anyone really argues the point, Mr. Speaker, that it would be better and more desirable to see leadership by the federal government in this area. But the issue is, what are we going to do in the interim?

Do we not have a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y as a provincial government to fill in the gap before the farmers find t h e m s e l v e s on the verge of bankruptcy? It's fine to say, wait for Ottawa, but how long are we going to wait? Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note in the September 19 edition of the Edmonton Journal, a headline saying Cow-Calf Plan Two Weeks Away. The writer, in his a r t i c l e , points out that Mr. Whelan is expected to make a statement on the cow- calf stabilization plan early in October. Well, early October came, and it passed.

In early October we had the federal a n n o u n c e m e n t of the wage and price freeze. It's pretty obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the whole concept of federal stabilization in this area became a victim of Ottawa's current battle against inflation, although I find it a little difficult to see the argument against government spending in an area where you have depressed pricing.

There may be some argument that government spending in a highly inflationary area can only increase the rate of inflation; but when you've got the depressed prices our cow-calf operators are receiving today, the suggestion that a stabilization plan is going to lead to inflation, in my view, is just absolute nonsense and bears no validity a t all from an economic standpoint. So I think that I have to express very strong disappointment that Ottawa has not seen fit to provide the leadership the people of Canada should expect. But having said that, Mr. Speaker, the question then arises, what do we do in the interim?

Well, quite clearly we have to ask ourselves, should the Legislative A s s e m b l y of Alberta not consider doing s o m e t h i n g itself? I believe very strongly that we should. In order to address ourselves to this question, Mr. Speaker, let's just take a moment and analyse what other p r o v i n c i a l governments are doing. I think it's important for us to recognize that other provinces are moving with schemes. Let's just take a look at these schemes.

In the Province of Quebec, a wintering subsidy was paid over the 1974-75 year according to the following schedule: 20-30 animal units, $45 a head; for animal units of 74 and over, that goes p r o g r e s s i v e l y down to $20 a head, but there is a further payment of 13 cents a pound when the animals are marketed. A substantially similar program is in place for 1975-76. Mr. Speaker, that is a program in place in the Province of Quebec. Let's take a look at Tory Ontario, a government which at present has to look for a little bit of assistance. As a matter of fact, it's rather intriguing, Mr.

Speaker, that they're looking to the official o p p o s i t i o n for assistance. That's an unhealthy position for the Leader of the Official Opposition to take in Ontario I might add. Nevertheless, that's his business. In any event, let's take a quick look at what plan Ontario has. I find that in practice they have a plan which works out to a cash grant of approximately $90 a calf. Well, that's Ontario. Let's go to the Province of Manitoba. The Province of Manitoba has a scheme which in practice — and I could go into the details — works out to a cash grant of $108 a calf for a maximum of 50 calves.

The Province of Saskatchewan does not have a formal cash program, but it does have interest-free loans, and it's my u n d e r s t a n d i n g that as a government they are now considering whether they should move into the area of cash grants. Hon. members will know from discussion that has taken place on occasion in this Legislature that the British Columbia g o v e r n m e n t has introduced an income assurance program which has been worked out between the beef producers of that province and the B.C. government. I find it rather i n t e r e s t i n g to look at the history of that program, Mr.

Speaker, because the Canadian Cattlemen's Association is so strongly opposed to any kind of government i n t e r f e r e n c e . They had a meeting last spring in Kamloops. The president of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association was there and a large number of the producers, some 300, were present. They were discussing whether the cattlemen in the Province of British Columbia should join in the assured income program. Well, there was quite a debate, and the arguments against joining in the program were advanced articulately, s t r o n g l y , and forceably by the president of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association.

But when the vote was taken, by a vote of a p p r o x i m a t e l y 200 to 100, by 2 to 1 the producers decided to opt into the assured income program on a voluntary basis. What I find interesting to learn, Mr. Speaker, is that something in the n e i g h b o u r h o o d of 90 per cent of these independent cattlemen have voluntarily opted into the B.C. program. As well they would, because when you look at the program, you find

December 4, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1385 there is a support price of approximately 35 cents a pound for calves, less one-third which the producer has to put up, and 19 cents for yearlings, less one-third which the producer has to put up. A rather good program, Mr. Speaker, in sharp contrast to actions in this province. Mr. Speaker, when you review the p r o v i n c e s in Canada that have substantial n u m b e r s of cattle, almost every province — certainly all the provinces of significance in the cattle business — has a program, except the Province of Alberta.

The best we can do is come up with a scheme of 7 per cent loans. That stands in contrast to the interest-free program in place last year. Mr. Speaker, let me just take a moment to examine the question, should we u n d e r t a k e unilateral action as a province. I remember listening on several occasions to the Minister of Agriculture saying in interviews that he didn't feel Alberta could take

part in this program because we produce approximately 40 per cent of the beef in this country and a large amount of it is shipped to other parts of the c o u n t r y . If we were to use Alberta taxpayers' money to subsidize the cow-calf operator, we would in effect be using Alberta money to subsidize other Canadians. There may be some logic to that a r g u m e n t , Mr. Speaker. But I suggest that it is far worse that our cattlemen in Alberta should have to pay the price of that subsidy. I suggest, too, Mr.

Speaker, there is an interesting contrast between the government's attitude to the cattle business on one hand, and its approach to the oil business on the other. If it is true, as the hon. Minister of Agriculture says, that we produce 40 per cent of the cattle — and it certainly is — then there should be no assistance to the oil i n d u s t r y , because we produce 85 per cent of the oil. If by helping the cattle industry we are subsidizing other Canadians, then h e l p i n g the oil industry is even more of a subsidy to other Canadians. But that didn't stop this government, Mr.

Speaker, from bringing in the ALPEP plan on December 11, 1974. That didn't stop the government from introducing a scheme which, in its various facets, will return between $500 and $600 million cash flow to the oil industry. The argument I'm making is clearly this: I think this government will have a lot of talking to do in order to answer to the farmers of the Province of Alberta.

If that kind of massive assistance can be made available to the oil industry when most of the oil is exported from the Province of Alberta, why is it not equally sound that some kind of assistance be made to c a t t l e m e n at this time, when they are in the most desperate economic circumstances? Mr. Speaker, we had discussion y e s t e r d a y in the Legislature about the impact of Alberta moving unilaterally on Bill C-50. I suggest that rather than causing d i f f i c u l t i e s , quite the reverse would be the case.

If we're going to extract the kind of commitment to a sensible stabilization plan that is required from Ottawa, we have to show provincial leadership. Let's look at some of the cost-sharing programs we have in place right now, whether it's the hospitalization scheme, m e d i c a r e , or what have you. These schemes have not originated by federal leadership. They have originated as a result of provincial initiative. Once the provinces have e s t a b l i s h e d these programs, Ottawa has followed through with cost-sharing.

I say to members of this Assembly that bringing in direct assistance in the short run is not going to act as a barrier to long-term stabilization. In my view, it will put the federal government clearly on the spot so it has to move on this issue. I say to you that if Alberta, along with Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia, says clearly, we want cost-sharing on stabilization, it will i n d e e d be a very reluctant federal government that will continue to procrastinate and postpone action.

So I say that Alberta's moving on this issue is not inconsistent with federal participation, but is indeed a very important prelude to achieving it. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make a few brief observations about the long term. I would be the first person to admit that the resolution I have placed on the Order Paper is no long-term solution. You know, no one in this Legislature would suggest that $100 a calf for 75 calves is going to solve all the problems of the beef industry. But, Mr.

Speaker, what we are looking at is a large number of younger farmers who are facing an emergency situation and need some interim help. Over the long run, s t a b i l i z a t i o n is obviously required. In October or November last year, the NFU had a demonstration in front of this Legislature and recommended four major points: the $100 per calf grant, a federal government emergency aid program buying up lower grades of cattle at prices no less than the 1973 average and using them for foreign aid, the stabilization program, and a national meat authority. I want to say a word or two about the last.

I know most members of this L e g i s l a t u r e would probably be opposed to the concept of a national meat authority, but I believe that if we're going to ensure an opportunity for the smaller producers in this country, we have to move toward orderly marketing in beef products. I know that may be an anathema to many of the long- established cattlemen in this province, but I make no apology for saying orderly m a r k e t i n g is a prerequisite in the cattle business, just as it is in any other type of agricultural production.

As a matter of fact, we had a debate that lasted several days in the 1974 session of the Legislature about the government's repeal of the coarse grains act in this province, and the impact I felt that move had on the position of the Wheat Board in orderly marketing of feed grain. Mr. Speaker, just as a matter of personal philosophy, I believe that orderly marketing is the only way we're going to be able to make a sensible stabilization scheme work so the smaller producers can stay in business. Now, Mr. Speaker, before I conclude my remarks I want to say a word or two about

1386 ALBERTA HANSARD December 4, 1975 the government's overreaction to the d e m o n s t r a t i o n of the last few days. Quite frankly, yesterday one would have thought the government had proclaimed the War M e a s u r e s Act, there were so many policemen in this building. [interjections] Oh, some of the members may not like to hear that, but the fact of the matter is that there were more security people than farmers here yesterday. I can't imagine what they were afraid of. It disturbs me, Mr. Speaker, when I read Hansard from yesterday — perhaps it was a slip of the tongue of the hon.

Minister of Government Services, but I just want to refer to Dr. Buck's question and the hon. minister's answer. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister. Has this been a direction from the hon. m i n i s t e r ' s office, and on what grounds were they asked to remove this from public property? Some hon. members interrupted, and then Dr. Buck said, "On what basis, Mr. S p e a k e r ? " The hon. minister replied: Mr. Speaker, the occupants, who are members of the NFU of A l b e r t a , are trespassing on g o v e r n m e n t property. "Trespassing on government property" well, Mr.

Speaker, technically that may be correct, but if there is any building in this province that belongs to all the people it is the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Alberta. AN HON. MEMBER: One would think so. MR. NOTLEY: I find it rather strange that we have this kind of overreaction on the part of the government to a very small number of people in a tent outside the door. No, Mr. Speaker, I suggest a better approach would be for the Premier to call a meeting of the cabinet and meet with the National Farmers Union.

It's not an u n r e a s o n a b l e proposition that groups in this province should be able to meet with the entire cabinet. The people in question have met on a number of occasions. I give the Minister of Agriculture credit for meeting with them. They have met him on a number of occasions to advance their ideas. He has made it clear, as he must, that he is only one member of the cabinet and that he has to convince his colleagues. That's a fair enough statement. But the corollary of that statement, Mr. Speaker, is that the group has the right to make its s u b m i s s i o n to the cabinet as a whole.

Somehow to suggest that this is unreasonable, Mr. Speaker, is just in my view an unreasonable view in itself. No, Mr. Speaker, the farmers in question have made the case for a meeting with the cabinet, and I would call upon the Premier of this province to set up that meeting at the earliest p o s s i b l e opportunity. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the r e s o l u t i o n I present to the Legislature today is an effort not to deal with a long-term solution but to try to rectify a s h o r t - t e r m , almost emergency situation, which developed as much as anything because people took the advice of government.

One of the most effective presentations at the meeting the other day in the Capilano hotel was a young farmer from Warburg, I believe, who just got up and explained what had happened to him. He had worked on the rigs to gather the initial capital to acquire some land, then he worked through the AEC. He did all the things he was supposed to do: he went to his district agriculturist and sought advice, he went to farm m a n a g e m e n t school. He did everything a prudent young man would do, and he got into cattle because that was the advice he received. Now he has a tough time dodging the sheriff. Well, Mr.

Speaker, I think governments have a responsibility at some point to the people we govern, not only for the s u c c e s s e s of policy but to help try to rectify the problems of policies that haven't worked out as well as they should. I say to the members of this Legislature that the proposal we have before us today is not the total answer by any means, but a small step towards at least rectifying some of the legitimate concerns and grievances of many people in this province. MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the o p p o r t u n i t y to take

part in this debate this afternoon to discuss some of our ideas, some of the things we've been doing with respect to the beef cattle industry, m a r k e t i n g and marketing development, and some of the problems in this industry today. I wanted to begin by talking about marketing and stabilization programs, and the kind of meetings and discussions we've been having with other provinces and indeed the federal government. However, Mr. Speaker, in view of some of the remarks by the hon.

Member for Spirit River-Fairview, when he was talking about things being done in other provinces, it might be a good idea if I spent a little bit of time talking about some 15 other things he didn't m e n t i o n that have been done in Canada with respect to the beef industry. All of those, Mr. Speaker, have occurred over the course of the last four years in the Province of Alberta. I think it would be a good idea to review the concern and i n t e r e s t shown since 1971 by my previous c o l l e a g u e , Dr. Horner, and this government with respect to the beef cattle industry. Mr.

Speaker, I have a total of those expenditures in at least 15 different p r o g r a m s during that time, and it's well in excess of $50 million. I might mention the first one, being the livestock water supply program, which has been in effect for the last three years and this year is being made available to farmers across the p r o v i n c e at a cost of more than $2.9 million. I might mention the Province of S a s k a t c h e w a n as well, as my honorable friend did.

Not more than three months ago we passed a special warrant in cabinet to the extent of $1.8 million to assist in the development of the Veterinary Infectious Diseases Organization in the Province of Saskatchewan

December 4, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1387 wan. Mr. Speaker, the Government of Alberta made the largest contribution of any government in Canada to that particular facility located at the veterinary college in Saskatoon. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, over the last four years we p r o v i d e d more than a dozen beef cattle o r g a n i z a t i o n s in this province with some very extensive grants so that they might develop a marketing concept of their own, and move beef breeding cattle into many other c o u n t r i e s of the world.

Most recently we provided funds to the Alberta Cattle Commission to assist in developing markets in the western United States. We provided, as well, funds to the Alberta Cattle Commission which went to the formation of the Canada Beef Council — a council designed to try to remove some of the gap and some of the concern between producer and consumer, and to have a better understanding between those two groups. Two and a half years ago a provincial Meat Inspection Act was introduced into this Legislature. Some of the members of this Assembly and others might not know why. The reason, Mr.

Speaker, was that we wanted many of our small abattoirs across this province, which are slaughtering meat, to be able to come under a provincial meat inspection act, so they could upgrade their facilities and sell meat to many more people than they presently were. That’s necessary, Mr. Speaker, because one of the problems in the industry is that we need to narrow the gap between producer and c o n s u m e r . We need to be sure there are not too many people in there taking part of the producer’s income and pushing up prices to the consumer.

Surely it's pretty important to have 50 or 60 abattoirs in the Province of Alberta which can slaughter meat and sell it directly to the consumer. Mr. Speaker, from one end of Alberta to the other, they've been assisted by some direct loans from the Ag. Development Corporation. We were involved in building four veterinary clinics across this province at a cost of about $150,000 each. We have at least four different p r o g r a m s , Mr. Speaker, with respect to g r a z i n g reserve.

That's in addition to the kind of protection we've been able to apply to grazing land in Alberta, and the kind of protection we've been able to apply to grazing prices on grazing land in Alberta. There's a native range improvement p r o g r a m , introduced some two years ago, where interest is paid fully on some $4,000 used to clear native brush and to seed tame pasture. Last winter we spent a number of dollars, largely in northern Alberta, out of PEP funds, to clear land on community pastures and grazing reserves. The lands division, in addition to that, Mr.

S p e a k e r , has been involved in paying part of the costs of clearing and seeding on community pastures and grazing leases. Hon. members should be aware of what was spent in 1974 in the livestock facility program: over $5 million in grants directly to beef producers in this province. I am sure all of them are aware of the predator loss program instituted by this government, and the livestock disaster indemnity program.

I am sure they are aware that I had to pass another special warrant for something like $2 million this year to take care of the slightly more than $3 million spent on the summer farm e m p l o y m e n t program. Sixty-five per cent of those summer students were working on farms that have livestock on them. I think they are aware as well that through the Ag.

Development Corporation, as I pointed out in the Legislature some time ago, we've made some very extensive loans at low interest rates and guaranteed a lot of loans to beef producers: $2.5 million in specific guarantees, more than $23 million under our $50,000 guarantee program. I don't know of another province which has that kind of lending program. I've talked to people in other provinces who say that in difficult times such as this, they're forced to go to lending institutions and pay 14 or 15 per cent interest.

In addition to that, in 1975 we r e i n t r o d u c e d the cow-calf advance program — at 7 per cent, yes. But the important feature there is that some $47 million of credit would have been withdrawn from the industry had we not reintroduced that program — $47 million of credit that many individuals couldn't obtain without the government guarantee. I want to point out again, Mr. S p e a k e r , as I said last week and the week before in the Legislature, that we've instructed the Ag.

Development Corporation board of directors and staff to look at people having difficulties in the beef industry in a different manner than they might have before; to take some additional risk by way of direct loans, guaranteed loans, and by way of the extension of those loan r e p a y m e n t s , both principal and interest. Mr. Speaker, I'm pretty confident that a lot of individuals who are having some difficulty can be helped by the Agricultural Development Corporation, providing they have the management ability and the desire to carry on. Mr.

Speaker, having reviewed some of the things which have happened in Alberta over these past few years, I wanted to talk about what we've been doing in what is clearly a national and an international problem — one that certainly can't be resolved in total over the long term by the application of grants. I want to talk about the United States border. It was closed to the movement of beef some time ago. I discussed that matter with the federal Minister of Agriculture in April, and I discussed it with him a number of times over the course of the next several weeks.

The discussions arose out of a concern by the federal government that we needed to close another border to another product, and that was eggs. I said to the federal Minister of Agriculture I couldn't see how a province like Alberta, which is so dependent for its agricultural livelihood on export markets in other parts of Canada, United States, and across the world, could be involved in agreeing to unilaterally closed borders. I

1388 ALBERTA HANSARD December 4, 1975 didn’t agree to the closure of the border with respect to the movement of eggs into Canada from the United States until early August of this year when we had some assurances that the United States border was going to be open to the movement of beef. Mr. Speaker, members of this Assembly should think, and be aware and concerned about the kind of unilateral action that is sometimes taken in Canada with respect to border closures, and about the kind of effect that has on the agricultural i n d u s t r y in Alberta.

It's great if you’re from Ontario or Quebec where your agricultural production is less than the number of people you have to feed. But if we're going to have an industry in this province, if we're going to c o n t i n u e to produce far in excess of the number of people we have to feed, then we have to start thinking about trade, non- tariff barriers, and tariff barriers to other countries, and we have to do s o m e t h i n g about them. We've been doing that.

We've been talking to the Government of Canada in a variety of ways at meetings at the ministers' level and the official level, with regard to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. I wanted to talk about that for a little while. Many of you know the kind of meat coming here from Australia and other countries with which we don't trade in agricultural products. I think it's pretty sad that four or five years ago, when this country was last involved in GATT n e g o t i a t i o n s , we literally sold out the a g r i c u l t u r a l industry in return for industrial jobs in eastern Canada.

It's not very good when I read from the Canadian Dairy Commission and people i n t e r e s t e d in the dairy business that just last week the federal government has once again pulled the rug out from the dairy industry by allowing a doubling of cheese imports into Canada, the largest importation that's ever been allowed into this country, at a time when we actually have a surplus of manufactured milk.

It would be pretty nice if some of the people involved in demonstrations and that kind of thing would take the time to sit down with me and others, and talk about those kinds of things which could be of a long-term, positive benefit to our industry. I wanted to talk about stabilization. Mr. Speaker, I have met a number of times with the federal Minister of Agriculture to discuss stabilization in the cow-calf i n d u s t r y .

The representations we made, not after the fact, but before the fat cattle program was announced a few weeks ago, were to the effect that the fat cattle program as it applied last year, and the formula used with respect to arriving at a cost-of- production formula, did not take into account the price of raising a calf. R a t h e r it took into account what that calf or feeder was selling for in the market. We said, therefore, we think there should be a cow-calf stabilization program on a national basis.

We were the only province in Canada which took the time to supply figures to Ottawa with respect to what we thought the cost of production was, or which took the time to show to the Government of Canada how that plan would work. I think if efforts of other p r o v i n c e s and farm organizations had been u n i t i z e d in an effort to make a national s t a b i l i z a t i o n program come about, as the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview said, it would have come about. Mr.

Speaker, I want to repeat again that in an industry like beef, a national commodity, I don't think this country can continue to have 9 or 10 different plans that tend to shift production from one area to another, like the one in Manitoba where the farmer winds up working for the g o v e r n m e n t , and selling his cattle to it. F r a n k l y , I don't think farmers in this province would accept that kind of plan. I wanted to talk a little about market development. A $41 million sale of hogs to Japan was announced in this Legislature two weeks ago.

That's the positive kind of thing that our farmers and farm o r g a n i z a t i o n s in the beef business should be t h i n k i n g and talking about. It took us a while to develop it. But it's a very worth-while objective for anybody in the meat industry in Alberta, or elsewhere in western Canada, to be talking about and to be involved in that kind of thing. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to talk as well about the idea of a national meat a u t h o r i t y . For more than a year, we've had people coming to us from various areas and saying, we should have a national meat authority.

For more than a year we've had a federal commission, established at the request of ministers from western Canada, inquiring into the marketing of beef. Dr. Hu H a r r i e s from Edmonton, a member of that c o m m i s s i o n , tells me they expect the final report early in 1976. That commission was established to determine if, in fact, there are areas between producer and consumer where somebody is taking too much money.

It was established to try to determine if, in fact, there is need for a national marketing board, a meat authority, or some kind of different authority to control imports and exports of meat products from Canada. I don't know what is meant by a national meat authority. To this point, it's been a one-liner. I would like to think somebody could put a little meat on it, somebody interested in having a national meat authority. What does it pretend to do?

Would a national meat authority take over the functions of the Alberta Hog Producers' Marketing Board, which has shown leadership that hasn't been shown anywhere else in Canada in terms of marketing? Would a national meat authority be operated by the federal government without any reference to provinces or producers, as is the case now with the Canadian Egg M a r k e t i n g Agency? Or would a national meat authority allow producers to make some decisions? I'm not sure what it would do.

If, in fact, the concept of a national meat authority is to give decisions we make in marketing in Alberta and western Canada to the Government of Canada, the bureaucrats

December 4, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1389 in Ottawa, I don't think I want any part of it. Surely we have the kind of beef producers, the kind of people in Alberta, who are qualified to make those decisions. We don’t have to ask the Government of Canada to run all our business. Mr. Speaker, in closing I wanted to talk as well about the demonstrations c a r r i e d on by the National Farmers Union around this building and in the Agriculture Building during the last while. It became very apparent to me, Mr.

Speaker, that the leadership of the National Farmers Union has a very callous disregard for farmers in this province. It appears they're only interested in confrontation, and not consultation. Three times, Mr. Speaker, in the last two weeks — once on Friday, November 14, once on Friday, November 28, and once on Monday, December 1 — I've made an attempt to sit down with the leadership of that organization, with a representative group of people, to discuss the proposals they wanted to put forward and their recommended solutions.

On Friday, November 14, the answer was, we didn't come to talk about beef cattle problems, we came to talk about our banquet at our annual convention in Edmonton. Mr. Speaker, I can think of better things to talk about than a banquet, when we've got problems like we have in beef marketing and production in Alberta today. On November 28, with some notice, there was no show. Finally, on Monday, December 1, we did attend a meeting, together with a number of other ministers, Mr. Speaker. Once again, they said the instructions from the membership were, they were not allowed to talk about the problems. Mr.

Speaker, that evening, on Monday, December 1 , I attended at the Agriculture Building at the request of a number sitting there, and asked them to leave the b u i l d i n g . I again offered to talk about some of their problems. The following evening, on Tuesday, December 2, I attended at the 12th floor of the Agriculture Building and said, I'm here now, and I'm willing to sit down for however long it takes and discuss the problems in the beef industry. Well, Mr.

Speaker, yesterday I received a telegram wanting to know if I would come once again to a meeting -- not a meeting that's going to resolve anything with respect to how we approach the problems of farmers in this province, but a meeting designed to d e t e r m i n e whether I'd go back and ask if the entire cabinet of this government would attend a rally of 700 or 800 people somewhere. Mr.

Speaker, I don't intend to respond again to any calls for meetings of the National Farmers Union until the leadership of that organization can show that it has some concern about farmers in Alberta, that it wants to sit down with me and other members of cabinet and discuss in a rational sort of way how we will resolve those problems. Mr. Speaker, I think it's pretty sad the representation that has been made by the leadership of that organization shows such disregard for a lot of very r e s p e c t a b l e able, hard-working farmers in Alberta. I wanted to say, as well, Mr.

Speaker, that during the course of these last two weeks, I've talked with a good many members of locals of the National Farmers Union across Alberta. I intend to continue to do that. I've had literally dozens of them phoning me saying, they'd like to come in, or they'd like me to attend somewhere for some meaningful discussions. I want to say, as well, that during the last two weeks I have had discussions with the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, W e s t e r n Stock Growers' Association, and Unifarm.

Next week I'll be discussing at length with the Unifarm organization the kind of approaches we might make in a positive way to Ottawa and other provinces to try to resolve some of our difficulties. Mr. Speaker, the job of trying to create a good situation in marketing and beef production in this province, elsewhere in Canada, and around the world, is a difficult one.

But it's one we can win if we approach it on the basis of c o n s u l t a t i o n ; one we can win if we approach it on the basis of not forgetting about the long term, of not dealing only with the short term; one we can win if we talk about things like tariffs, General Agreement On Tariffs and Trade, stabilization, a better marketing system, and perhaps some input in the organizations we've been talking about, in terms of improving market development here in Alberta and elsewhere in Canada. I'd be pleased, Mr.

Speaker, if hon. members -- and I know there are many of them in the Legislature today -- would put forth some of their positive ideas about what can be done to improve the market position of beef producers in Alberta, and put them in such a way that we might have an opportunity to follow them up with some positive action that would help everyone in the industry, whether they are in northern or southern Alberta. Thank you very much. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take

part in this debate, I would like to say in fairness to the present Minister of A g r i c u l t u r e , I remember the first statement I ever made when the minister was appointed to his present portfolio. Somebody asked me, "What do you think about the a p p o i n t m e n t s to the Executive Council?" I said I agreed with some of them, others I didn't. I felt Mr. Moore was a man capable of doing the job. But I also said, "It's going to be quite obvious he's going to be the sacrificial lamb for some of the p o l i c i e s of the former Minister of A g r i c u l t u r e . " And right now, Mr.

Speaker, I would say the chickens are starting to come home to roost . . . AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on. DR. BUCK: . . . and I think the facts, as they unroll in the years to come, will bear that out. Mr. Speaker, we are elected to this Legislature to serve the people. And I would like to say, in fairness to the people who were at the meeting at the

1390 ALBERTA HANSARD December 4, 1975 Capilano Motor Inn, and in fairness to the National Farmers Union, that the people there were not only National Farmers Union members but farmers who are in a desperate situation. They are going broke. That's why they were there. I would like to say this, Mr. Speaker: if there were 40 members on the government side and 35 members on the opposition side, you can be sure that the minister and at least a half dozen cabinet ministers would have been there. But when you have an overwhelming majority, as we have in this Legislature, we can see the indifference.

We can see the callousness because we've got that kind of a great big, large hammer. [interjections] Mr. Speaker, this is a very, very plain to see. We hear from the hon. Member for Athabasca, always snipping and yipping, but we never hear him stand up in this L e g i s l a t u r e and say to this House and to the people of this province, I have a problem in my constituency with the cow-calf o p e r a t o r . And we haven't heard from the hon. Members for Drayton Valley, St.

Paul, Lac La Biche-McMurray, Bonnyville, Vermilion- Viking, Vegreville, Whitecourt, Redwater- Andrew, saying to the people of this p r o v i n c e and to the Executive Council, boys, we have to have a look at the situation because it's urgent. Mr. Speaker, just how much more urgent can it be when some of these people, who as a result of government direction have gone into this kind of business, are going broke? How the g o v e r n m e n t , which says it is there to serve the people, can show such indifference, I think is unpardonable, Mr. Speaker. AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear. DR. BUCK: I think it is unpardonable.

It's an affront to the people of this province. I think the Premier of this province is an excellent politician. I give him his dues. I think he's an excellent p o l i t i c i a n . I never thought he would miss an opportunity to sit down with fellow A l b e r t a n s and discuss mutual problems. I think the government had better have a look at its public relations role, because it has fouled it up in this. Now, Mr. Speaker, when the hon. m i n i s t e r says we have done so much, I will grant they have. But, Mr.

Speaker, a government which prides itself on forward- looking programs surely isn't going to come into this Legislature to tell us all the great things they've done in the past. We're not really concerned about the past. We're concerned about what is happening to these people right now. "Now" used to be a favorite word with this government, but they’ve forgotten it. Now means at the present. Right now, that's where the p r o b l e m is. [ interjections ] Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Member for Athabasca, I would like to say this: there was a serious problem in 1961 in the cow-calf business. But, Mr.

Speaker, the problem was not half as serious as it is now, because the cost of production has gone up almost threefold. How can anybody stay in business if it takes him $300 to raise a cow and he sells it for $100? There's just no way. The hon. Member for Spirit River- Fairview has covered some of the areas when we start talking about stabilization pro grams and so on, and the programs that are going on in the other provinces. In 1969, '70, and '71, we heard many times from the Deputy Premier, let's not blame it all on Ottawa. Let's not blame it on Ottawa. Let's show some initiative right here in this province.

We kept hearing that story time after time after time. Let's hear now what the now government's going to do. Let's not hear it blame Ottawa, because it's the Alberta farmers who are going broke, Mr. Speaker. It's not Ontario or B.C. farmers. It's Alberta farmers who are going broke. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe in subsidies per se.

But I do believe, because we indicated to the young farmer and to the man who is having trouble selling his grain, to go into beef, because we have initiated these programs using the experts we have hired and advised these people to go into beef, now they are going broke, we must show a responsibility and bail them out. If we can invest $1,000 million in the Syncrude project, surely, Mr. Speaker, we can use $25 million of the taxpayers' money to tide an industry over a very, very difficult time. I don't think that's asking too much, Mr. Speaker.

I don't think that's asking too much of the people of this province, to help out their fellow man in a situation such as this. At the same time, I have to give credit to the former Minister of Agriculture, when he tried to inform the consumer in this province and in Canada that we must return to the farmer a just return so that he can look at some long-term planning. If he has to pay 7 per cent for his money, then he has to get more than 7 per cent back so he can pay off this money.

I do compliment the former minister because he did take the stand, when the consumers were boycotting beef, to say to the consumer in Alberta, you're getting some of the best product in the world and you're getting it at a reasonable price. So it's not all bad. I don't knock the former minister for e v e r y t h i n g , because he did try. But when we reach the situation we're in now, then, Mr. Speaker, as the motion reads, it's an interim solution we must have. Mr. Speaker, I don't think the members on the government side really appreciate the seriousness of the matter.

It doesn't seem to be getting through that the problem is very, very urgent. We have to show compassion. We have to show understanding. Mr. Speaker, I'm just going to e n l i g h t e n the members, who don't seem to want to be enlightened, on exactly what is happening. In this letter which was addressed to the Minister of Agriculture in the middle of the summer, a young farmer explained his plight, in dollars and cents, as to what is happening. To the hon. members representing urban areas, who maybe don't know or don't care, I'd just like to give one or two pertinent points from this

December 4, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1391 letter. This farmer is speaking about his calf: It was sold on December 17 of ' 74 for $32 per hundred, g r o s s i n g $185.60. Now, six months later, on June 10, 1975, I sold the twin to this calf for $25 per hundred, grossing $172.50. He fed it for six months and lost $10. And he goes on, telling just what he has done. He says: I realize the government's in a difficult position. However, as can be seen here, the farmer is in a worse predicament. I w i n t e r e d these calves at a cost of over $1,200, excluding labor don't forget.

For doing this, I received an interest-free loan of $1,275 which now must be paid back out of my profits! Had I not taken your advice [saying to the minister] and sold all my calves in December of '74, I probably would have received $10 to $25 more per head, saved $1,200 in feed, et cetera, and not owed the government $1,275. That's the kind of program we have. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe in confrontation. I believe in consultation. But, Mr. Speaker, I happened to be in that orange tent Friday morning at a quarter to eleven, and I asked the members of the NFU, what correspondence have you had with the Premier?

They showed me a copy of a telex they had sent to the Premier, asking if they could meet with the Premier and E x e c u t i v e Council, and asking for two days' notice. I don't think this is u n r e a s o n a b l e . I don't think it's unreasonable for people who are elected by us, who are serving us, the taxpayer and the e l e c t o r a t e , to meet with them. I don't think that's unreasonable, Mr. Speaker. I think that's a normal function of government. That's a normal function of the p a r l i a m e n t a r y system, the democratic system. So I think we're playing little games here.

The minister can accuse the NFU of playing' games, and the NFU can accuse the minister and the government of playing games. But the point, Mr. Speaker, is that these two groups have to get together, and I think the government of this province owes it to the NFU and the concerned farmers to sit down, as an Executive C o u n c i l , and speak to the executive members of that organization. I think it's incumbent upon them. If the democratic process is going to work, I think the Executive C o u n c i l must do that. The other point, Mr.

Speaker, as the Member for Spirit River-Fairview said, is that I think we have to decide who this building belongs to. At one time I thought it belonged to the people of this province. I'm starting to have my doubts. Now, there has to be security, but at the same time are we going to have to require passes to get into this building? Is the man on the street going to have to ask a Member of the Legislature to be admitted to this building that belongs to the taxpayer, to serve the taxpayer? No, I think it is an overreaction. When the farmers demonstrated in 1970, I believe, they came to this Legislature.

The Premier of this province heard them in this Legislature building. Now, that doesn't mean we can solve all the problems. But I think it's incumbent that this b u i l d i n g belong to the people of this province. Mr. Speaker, I think it's most incumbent upon the Premier and this cabinet that they meet with these people, because the p r o b l e m s are urgent. I ask the hon. members of this Assembly to appreciate fully just how urgent that problem is. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. BATIUK: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure, for several reasons, to p a r t i c i p a t e in the debate on this resolution.

First, I think it is very timely, p a r t i c u l a r l y when over the last week the members of this Legislature had the chance to view the demonstrations by the National Farmers Union indicating its concern for the prices paid to producers, particularly the cow- calf program. It is also notable that some very important people reside in my constituency of Vegreville, and I think a number of them were the sole organizers of this d e m o n s t r a t i o n . The regional co-ordinator of the National Farmers Union lives just a few miles from my place.

We have lived t o g e t h e r , we grew up together, we have worked together. Our politics are not always the same, however. Another, I think, very prominent person who put a lot of work into the organization of this demonstration is also a farmer in my constituency, and if not the largest, very close to the largest farmer. There have been others, and I was particularly concerned to see one or two farmers who have not had a fence around their land for the last many years, so it's obvious that they do not yet have any cattle. They played an important

part in this demonstration. Mr. Speaker, as a rural MLA, I have lived my entire life on the farm. Some may know the conditions I have gone through, but I can honestly say that I don't believe there is a member in this Legislative Assembly -- including those in the gallery who had a harder economic life than I did during my younger days. I saw, not only once, how farmers had been fleeced or, if you want to use the word, "shafted", and I am very interested in what goes on.

I have always felt, and I still feel, that the prosperity of the farmers is going to have a good significance on the prosperity of the community, of the province, and of the nation as a whole. I know that the farmers are considered to be the best spenders of all, and if they are going to have the buck, everybody else will. I can never forget, as a young boy under the age of 10, in the very early '30s when there was a non-delivery strike. Wheat was selling at 18 cents per bushel, oats 7 [cents]. Beef was bringing in .5 cents per pound, pork was 1 cent.

For a number of days, my father used to go out in the mornings to the intersection to picket.

1392 ALBERTA HANSARD December 4, 1975 But after only a few days he came back, and he said, "Well, the strike is over." It was very uncomfortable when he told us, "Well, the reason for it was that the police have come, and they've taken this person, and they've taken this person. There is evidence that the strike was organized by the Communist Party." As I grew up, I had watched the things go on. Today I would like particularly to commend the Member for Spirit River- Fairview.

It’s not always that I agree with him, or not too often that I may commend him, but I do commend him for bringing in this very important resolution. What really surprises me was on the opening day of the Legislature, when the Premier brought in the government motion: "Moved by ... Mr. Lougheed that this Assembly approve in general the operations of the Government since the adjournment of the spring [sitting]." I checked through Hansard the other day and found the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview not once mentioned the price of beef, or the c o n c e r n s for beef.

There was everything else, and I wondered whether he already has seen the light over the last short while. H o w e v e r , if it's so, I commend him; and if he's doing it on this particular day to make political hay, well, I don't go along with it. I would also like to commend the hon. Member for Clover Bar for the interest shown in his address. I'm very glad to see that the member of a party which ruled this province for 36 years, and met defeat, finally had to recognize the pleas and the needs of the farmer.

When I think back to 1970, when their government was in office, this same farm organization came to the Legislature. They were miles away from the Legislature when there were already dogs [there]. Today be says that the Premier met them. One of my constituents had to break through the crowd at the door to get into the Legislature Building. However, if it took this much time, I can still go along. I hope that people learn — I do. It takes a long time. Sometimes it takes more, sometimes less.

What really encouraged me to run as a member of the Legislative Assembly was during 1965, while serving on the local government, I was one of almost 2,000 people who sat in the Jubilee Auditorium and listened to a former premier of this province bluntly tell us that within 10 years 85 per cent of the population of this province would be in the two metropolitan cities. I wondered, is this right, is it possible? When I saw what happened through the next five years, I can honestly say that, had that government stayed another five years until today, its objective would have been gained.

We saw how farm b u i l d i n g s were barred up, how people were moving out, forced to leave the farm. That is what committed me, with pressure from people, to seek the political area in a party that committed itself in 1971 to help preserve the family farm. Everything is not as good as I'd like to see. However, this has changed. The population has stabilized, and already I see a reverse trend in my constituency. Mr.

Speaker, I honestly feel that since our commitment was to preserve the family farm — I know there are a lot of farmers throughout the province, there are some in my constituency, who are suffering, p a r t i c u l a r l y those dependent on the beef i n d u s t r y . I would again urge the hon. minister to give help to these people who definitely need it. Whether it should be an open policy and [whether] persons who may be just short of that $7,500 to their $1 million would qualify is a different story. I feel that if there is a subsidy, every Albertan is going to pay for that subsidy.

If people definitely don't need it, I don't think they are entitled to it. It's very good to listen to the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview as he says so many dollars for Syncrude, nothing for the farmers. Mr. Speaker, over the last four years, the things that have been done, the assistance to the farmers of this area — I believe that no government in this province which has ever given such a s s i s t a n c e , and no government in any other province. The Minister of Agriculture just a n n o u n c e d a number of the programs. He didn't mention all of them.

There were some programs and assistance to farmers in my constituency that the people may not be aware of. Despite beef prices being poor, we've had a reasonably good harvest, maybe better than we've had for many years. Dairy products are bringing a reasonable return, poultry prices and their profits are not too bad. There has been an increase in the initial payment of wheat. This all helps those who are depressed by the low beef prices. When 80 per cent of our beef producers are mixed farmers, it shows that maybe not everyone is suffering. Here again, I feel assistance should be given to those who need it.

But of the other programs that have been given to the people of this province, and which people in the Vegreville c o n s t i t u e n c y have gained from is the tax reduction on the resident home-owners. I was on that task force which worked this out. Farmers do not pay taxes on their homes. However, this was extended so they could have it on their land, which in dollars and cents brought a great relief to farmers. The 8 cents farm fuel allowance brings this p r o v i n c e of ours the lowest cost in farm fuel.

Flooded-land assistance in the constituency of Vegreville when the Vermilion river spilt its banks in 1973 -- there have been reports and records back to 1908 that this river has been [doing this] from time to time, yet there was no assistance. Nothing was done. The former Minister of Agriculture and the former Minister of Environment saw fit to appropriate $54,000 for the number of farmers who were affected. Our former Minister of Environment saw what happened last year, and budgeted $1.7 million to control the Vermilion river. There have already been numerous works done to control it.

The disaster service assistance: one of the farmers in my constituency, through

December 4, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1393 no fault of his own, lost a good portion of his herd by toxic algae. Never before was there assistance for that. The former Minister of Agriculture saw that this man was helped, and he is farming today and expanding. Otherwise, I'm sure that he would have been off the farm. What about unharvested grain? All the money that was borrowed — and I know many made use of it, but I know there were some who abused it. They even told me they took that money — it was available interest free — they'd invest it in the bank and they'd make themselves $600 to $700.

But wherever there is a good program, there is abuse. So it all has its way. Now the cattle incentive program has been criticized today, Mr. Speaker. I think and I know that this program was not intended for the people who didn't need it. It was first announced for the people on the grey weeded soil. At that time, the quota on grain was 5 bushels per acre, and these people were desperate for money. They were selling their feed oats at 25 cents a bushel. Trucks came in from the Lethbridge area taking 800 to 1,000 bushels at a time at 25 cents.

That was when the Minister of Agriculture felt that if they had some assistance, they could put that feed through the cattle and they would be able to do well. I might say that the following year some who took advantage of it were able to sell next year's calves and receive up to $350 for them. Nobody said that maybe it was too much. He bought those heifers a year ago for only $300. But this program must have been well a p p r e c i a t e d , because I had people from my c o n s t i t u e n c y and others say, why is it restricted to the grey wooded soil? We want it, and then it was done. More was given.

Nobody forced anybody to take a loan. As I say those who took it and used it are still on the farms today. What about the water system for cattle? Many took advantage of it, even for their homes. I put water into my own farmyard not too long ago, but there was no a s s i s t a n c e . I had to pay every cent of it. What about the farm facility program up to $2,000 that the hon. minister mentioned? Very many farmers took advantage, otherwise they would have to put up these facilities on their own. I think this was fine assistance. There was also the feed and grain assistance, and it is still continuing.

Assistance for natural gas to farmers of $116 million plus — for years and years the gas was being sold to all parts of this country, yet people walking over it had to haul coal. They had to burn wood. With this assistance the people of Alberta are finally going to have the opportunity of using clean fuel. What about the $300 grant to every farmer who bought haying equipment in 1972? There was an allocation of $15,000 to each municipality. With extended flat rate calling — we can phone our neighbors today without a d d i t i o n a l cost. Before, it was long distance.

There was $80 million for that, totally for the rural areas. It's very good to listen to the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview ask, why doesn't Alberta do what other provinces do? Well, when you look at British Columbia, it produces only 4 per cent of the beef in Canada, not enough to feed the people of British Columbia. It was all right for the Premier of British Columbia to announce a subsidy or assistance to the beef p r o d u c e r s . However, I think it was mentioned before that Alberta produces 80 per cent of the beef.

Any subsidy to that would be a subsidy to those people receiving the meat through export. I think this province for far too long has been subsidizing all of Canada in other ways, particularly through the oil. This announcement the Premier of B r i t i s h Columbia made to give assistance to the beef producers is much the same as if the Premier of Alberta would announce a subsidy to the apple growers of Alberta. Regardless of how things go, I wonder how many members in the Legislature would like to see everything in Alberta as it is in British Columbia. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, no! MR. BATIUK: Mr.

Speaker, this d e m o n s t r a t i o n we've been viewing for the last few days — and this is an opinion of my own — I feel there was reason to a great extent for a demonstration. I have seen demonstrations here before I was a member of this Legislature. I've seen them this year. But for some reason I have even felt embarrassed, as a member of the L e g i s l a t u r e representing a rural area and, from time to time, standing up in this L e g i s l a t u r e trying to defend the rural people, to see what assistance they have. I was sort of disappointed that it had to be in this fashion.

Just recently there was a six weeks' postal strike. I never saw on the television that the police had to be called or anything, and there were 22,000 of them involved for over six weeks. I think the farmers' organization that was here, which has many members I really respect, could have been done in a d i f f e r e n t way. The minister announced how many times he tried to sit down and discuss things. I still believe in Shakespeare's philosophy that the pen is mightier than the sword. I sure would not want to see militancy. Mr.

Speaker, as I mentioned before, as I started to farm I felt there were other segments of society that were organized well. Because of this, they were going ahead. I looked for the day when the farmers would be organized properly, and the first chance I had I became a member of the Alberta Farmers' Union. Later, as it disbanded, there was Unifarm — I joined that. Later on, the National Farmers Union was organized — I joined that. Because, through my experience in local government, I have seen there is a need for o r g a n i z a t i o n s provincially and federally.

I was a member of the Alberta School Trustees' Association, and I saw the need for a Canadian school trustees' association. It was the same with other areas. I stayed as

1394 ALBERTA HANSARD December 4, 1975 a member, Mr. Speaker. I did drop out, and here again politics set in, and that was the only reason. Despite what I am going to say, this is my way of looking at it. As I have mentioned, there are many members of Unifarm, of the National Farmers Union, members whom I represent. I've had the pleasure of representing them over 4 years, and 20 [years] previous in local governments. However, I obtained a document in 1972 which clearly made my decision that I could no longer remain a member of the National Farmers Union.

However, I put this d o c u m e n t away in security, hoping that I would never have to look at it again. But when I saw what was going on over this past weekend and this weekend, I thought it would be really interesting for the people in this Legislature, in the gallery, to see exactly what goes on. I am not going to condemn anybody. They are good people, and so, sometime down the road, years from today, they won't say, gee, how I was maybe taken advantage of. I have a photostat copy of a letter, signed by Don Currie, national organizer of the Communist Party of Canada. Mr.

S p e a k e r , I think the information is very valid, and at this time I am going to read that letter so the members may acquaint themselves. The letter is on a letterhead. C o m m u n i s t Party of Canada and

Partie Communis tique Canadienne — if that's the way you pronounce it — I never was too good in French. If it had been in Ukrainian, I would have been able to read it. However: 24 Cecil Street, Toronto 130, Canada. This is [addressed] "To all provincial secretaries": Recent events related to the farm situation across Canada makes it imperative that the Communist Party of Canada must now give direction to organized farmers.

Wheat sales and c o m m o d i t y demands across this c o u n t r y in recent months have again satisfied the majority of f a r m e r s and all our past efforts to have a militant farm force appears to be deteriorating. The marches on Parliament in Saskatchewan and Alberta are prime examples how a disgruntled farmer can be led to the point of civil disobedience without too much difficulty. It is my fear that we may not again be able to reach the height of discontentment in the farm c o m m u n i t y that was so evident in Regina during the past year or so.

The National Farmers Union, which we helped in founding, is now the greatest force that we have at hand. Our influence in this union is only due to the hard work of the farm comrades who have been able to discreetly work behind the scenes. Persons such as the President, Roy Atkinson, and the Vice- President, Walter Miller, are dedicated socialists and it is therefore very easy to influence them with our progressive aims and objectives. We must be c a u t i o u s not to move too swiftly as we cannot afford to jeopardize what has already been a c c o m p l i s h e d .

However, at the same time, we must be prepared to exploit the current farm unrest as every well planned step is [another] step towards our goal. The Convention of the National Farmers Union which will be held in Winnipeg during early December, will again afford us [the] opportunity to manipulate some of the more p r o m i n e n t and progressive minded delegates. However, it is imperative that we do not make the same mistake as before and openly pass out literature and Tribune issues. This can only cause the press to label the Convention and our efforts could conceivably be set back for obvious reasons.

We have enough able comrades that can influence the Convention and will, t h e r e f o r e , rely on them to present our program. It is also the responsibility of every trade union comrade to help develop a good rapport between the Labor Councils and the National Farmers Union. The strength of unity, which can develop as a result of Labor endorsing the National Farmers Union, will build [such] a strong labor force that the g o v e r n m e n t could no longer ignore the farm element . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The hon. m e m b e r has been reading at some considerable length from this letter.

Perhaps the hon. member might indicate what he is attempting to show, and how it may be relevant to the continuation of the debate. MR. BATIUK: Mr. Speaker, as I had . . . [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. BATIUK: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned at the beginning, I was reading this letter for information. There are two more p a r a g r a p h s . If it is the wish of this House to hear the remaining part of it, I will be willing to read on. I still have a few minutes to go on. If this is the wish of the House, I will be glad to continue. HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. BATIUK: May I continue, Mr.

Speaker: At this time I wish to commend all comrades for their dedicated efforts thus far in furthering our cause with

December 4, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1395 respect to the building of the National Farmers Union. The efforts of Comrades Bill Ross in Winnipeg; Fred Schofield in Regina, and Bill Tuomi in E d m o n t o n serves as a reminder as to what can be done. Schofield was the driving force in the S a s k a t c h e w a n Farmers Union and now has many friends in the National Farmers Union, which, I am c o n f i d e n t , can only enhance our position in that province.

In view of their past achievements, these comrades will a u t h o r i t a t i v e l y act as our spokesmen and will be available for speaking engagements across Western Canada. We will also use our influence in the Canadian Labour Congress in an attempt to obtain its endorsement of the National Farmers Union as the only voice of the Canadian farmer. It is not anticipated that we will receive any real opposition as we do have several friends in the Congress. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the related provincial groups act only for the monopolist agri-business farmer.

T h e r e f o r e , Labour Farmer unity will be attractive to many and can win new agricultural policies such as collective bargaining, etc. Through the conscious militant efforts of all c o m r a d e s , our ultimate goal will eventually be attained. Another area that has not yet been fully exploited is that of the student movement, which is an extremely important field. There are many progressive minded students at both the high school and university level, which includes many farm s t u d e n t s .

If better organized, they could be a valuable asset not only with respect to the building of our Party but for our struggle for control of the National Farmers Union. MR. SPEAKER; Order please. Has the hon. member just about finished? Notwithstanding the indulgence of the House, there would be some doubt as to whether some student union or movement should be brought into this resolution. MR. BATIUK: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is in conclusion: However, this is something that I will discuss in detail during my next tour of the w e s t e r n provinces. In the m e a n t i m e , keep up the good work.

Comradely yours, Don Currie Mr. Speaker, if this is the wish of the House, it would be a pleasure for me to table two copies in case members want to . . . HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. BATIUK: Mr. Speaker, when I gave this report, it was not the intention to hurt anyone, but I feel that, to some extent, I was misled. There are very many members of farm groups and so forth that it's been a pleasure to work with, and in no way can I see that anything should be done to harm them. However, I thought this would be for information.

Furthermore, I again appeal to our Minister of Agriculture and our government seriously to give assistance to those beef producers who are in dire need. Since we were committed to preserving the family farm and spending many millions of dollars to assist farmers, I would [not] like to see any farmer leave the farm now just because of this crisis. So, once again, it would be a real pleasure to see these individuals helped. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. NOTLEY: I wonder if the hon. member would entertain a question. [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR.

NOTLEY: Is the hon. member not aware that the document he tabled today has been circulated in the thousands and has been discredited many years ago? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, order. MR. BATIUK: Mr. Speaker, regardless whether it's been circulated, I have . . . MR. NOTLEY: It’s been discredited. MR. BATIUK: . . . only one copy of it and there are many others, I'm sure, who haven't seen it. [inter jections] And there's a signature on that letter, so I think it's very important. AN HON. MEMBER: Give it to a comrade. MR. BUTLER: Mr.

Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise this afternoon to speak to a very important industry, which is very near and dear to my heart. Maybe I should say dear to my heart and near to my pocketbook. It's very near to the p o c k e t b o o k s of a great many of my constituents. At the outset, I would like to pass on a number of congratulations that have been phoned to me. Concerned people have said to me, "Do you think the minister is going to bend?" I said, "No, I'm sure he's not." They said, "Well, give him our c o n g r a t u l a t i o n s . " These are true cattlemen.

They have no other income except cattle. One chap who phoned particularly i m p r e s s e d me. He is a young man who started with borrowed money. He is in exactly the same position as a lot of these young people. He is a good young cattleman. He

1396 ALBERTA HANSARD December 4, 1975 got along the way a few years, bought some wrong heifers — he imported them from somewhere. He came down with Bang's [ d i s e a s e ] , lost his entire herd, and had to start over again. He is in the process of starting again now. He said, "Nobody needs money worse than I do, but I don't want that kind of money." That's the kind of young person we need in the cattle b u s i n e s s . I congratulate them for it. That's the kind of men and the kind of spirit that built the cattle business in Alberta to the business that it is today.

I started in the cattle business, and I don't mean to brag or be boastful. I started in 1951 with borrowed money. Everybody knows what happened in the winter of '51 and the spring of '52. After I bought feed all winter, the cattle weren't worth half what I paid for them with borrowed money in the fall before. It was four years before I could possibly have sold everything I owned and paid off my debts. Since that time, things have come along and the cattle business has been good to me. But I think there are many areas we should look at in the cattle business.

Through serving with Western Stock Growers, Canadian Cattlemen and Unifarm, I've been interested in the cattle business all my life. It has been my life. I've travelled the length and breadth of this province, and there are many areas we could be interested in. One of those is the inequity of freight rates throughout the length and breadth of this Canada of ours. Built the way it is, I think freight rates are the one thing we can look at very substantially. I've done a little homework on the freight rate for cattle from west to east. From 1974 to 1975, a single-deck load went up 57.2 per cent in one year.

I think that's pretty serious. I'm aware that our minister knows that, and I congratulate him for it. He is looking into it pretty seriously. A double-deck load from Calgary to Toronto went up 115 per cent in one year. That is another of our freight rate inequities. Our dressed beef in a 42,000-pound car went up 36.3 per cent. In a 60,000-pound car, it went up 36.5 per cent. The freight rate on grain from Calgary to Montreal went up 30.8 per cent. I think these increases are unwarranted. I think the railroad should be reprimanded for that. I don't think those increases are needed at all.

I'd like to get back to the consumption of beef. When the government said, the consumption of beef is going to be increased, it was not that far wrong. It made a few wrong judgments. Where the judgment went wrong, every country all over the world did the same thing, and the supply increased quicker than the consumption. It is relatively interesting to note that the consumption of beef is tied very, very closely to the disposable income. From 1965, we consumed about 83.6 pounds of beef per capita. In 1975, because the year is not over yet, the unofficial estimate is 100 pounds. That's a significant increase.

The only time it dropped back, or did not increase, was in 1970, when there were fewer cows killed, when a lot of cows were going back to breeding herds. This was when cattlemen were bringing in their breeding herds, and other people were t a k i n g them back to get more calves from them. The heifer kill was the same. The heifer kill was down considerably in those two years. In 1969, we killed 626,000 cows; in 1970, we only killed 579,000. The heifer kill in 1969 was 650,000; in 1970, it was only 568,000. So you can see what happened there.

The price of beef rose to the point where the increase in the retail cost of beef was slightly more than the increase in the disposable income, so the consumption dropped back. The same thing happened again in 1973. In 1972, 92.5 pounds of beef were consumed. When the high point came through in 1973, there were only 91.8. Once again, the increase in the cost of retail beef exceeded the increase in the disposable income, so they backed away from the counter once again.

I haven't got the figures, but this year the retail cost of beef is considerably below the disposable income, so there is going to be a large consumption of beef. Cattle are being killed now in great n u m b e r s . The tonnage of beef is not up much, because cattle are going in lighter. Until June this year, the cow numbers were still up. It looked like about a 2 per cent increase in the cows in 1975. But since then, there has been quite a kill-off of cows and heifers. It now looks [as if] the total cow herd will be down about 3 per cent by January 1. I don't think we're in any kind of trouble.

As far as consumers are conc e r n e d , you hear people say, you know if we don't protect these cows there is going to be a great kill and we'll be short of cows. There is no evidence of that yet. If we're only down 3 per cent, that's still a good deal above what we were a few years ago. Since 1970, the cow herd has been i n c r e a s i n g . In 1970 it increased 6.5 per cent, in '71 it increased 10.6 per cent, in '72 it increased 4.6 per cent, in '73, 7.1 per cent, in '74, 7.9 per cent. Now, if we are down 3 per cent below '74, as far as consumers are concerned, I don't think we're in big trouble.

Quite a few cows have been going to the States. Since August 11, about 85,500 head of live cattle have gone across the line. Most of those have been cows. A lot of cows have been kept on ranches. Go back to 1970. A lot of cows at that point should have gone to the can. They were bought and taken back for r e p r o d u c t i o n . I think if the [matter] had been left alone, this would have been all right. But this cow-calf loan wasn't entirely wrong. Anybody who took it properly, used it properly, and stayed with their cows may be in some trouble.

But most of them at least got one good calf crop away at a good price, which certainly lowered the price of their cows. I don't buy that the government is entirely to blame for getting these people into the cattle market, because some

December 4, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1397 l e g i t i m a t e operations have developed out of it. At the time, I didn't agree with up to $6,000 loan, or the loan that was put out last fall interest free. But I still say that anybody who took that loan and handled it properly, kept their calves over if they had the feed — if they didn't have the feed, they shouldn't have kept them over — and if they had the grass to put them on — if they didn't have the grass, they shouldn't have kept them over either — but anybody who took that loan and handled it properly made out all right with it. They had to make out all right.

Now with all these statistics I've given you, I am sure that the cattle business is on its way out. I think it will come out of this dilemma. There's nothing new about hardships in the cattle business. Anybody who's put his lifetime in it has gone through hardships. There's nothing new about hardships in any b u s i n e s s . Any man, whether he's a machine dealer, a grocery store operator . . . DR. PAPROSKI: Or a doctor. MR. BUTLER: Or a doctor. I don't know about them. AN HON. MEMBER: How about dentists? AN HON. MEMBER: You've got to draw the line somewhere. MR.

BUTLER: Yeah, you've got to draw the line somewhere. But anybody who stays with a business is going to come out. There have to be hardships in business. This kind of separates the men from the boys. AN HON. MEMBER: We've got the boys here. AN HON. MEMBER: You bet. MR. BUTLER: I was going to mention s o m e t h i n g about the GATT agreements in the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. I've gone through that route, but that's been talked about. The minister is certainly homing in properly on that one. Under stabilization, there's only one type of stabilization that really works.

Whether we like it or not, as cattlemen we're catering to a bunch of housewives. She's the woman who