Alberta Hansard — 15 June 1989, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 22, Session 1)

19890615

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

June 15, 1989 ALBERTA HANSARD 285 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Thursday, June 15, 1989 2:30 p.m. Date: 89/06/15 [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] PRAYERS MR. SPEAKER: Let us pray. Our Father, we thank You for Your abundant blessings to our province and ourselves. We ask You to ensure to us Your guidance and the will to follow it. Amen. head: Statement by the Speaker MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Yesterday some concerns were drawn to my attention with regard to the rule of anticipation. Specific references on anticipation can be found in Standing Order 23(e), which reads: A member will be called to order by Mr. Speaker if that member. . . (

e) anticipates, contrary to good parliamentary practice, any matter already on the Order Paper or on notice for consideration. And Beauchesne 513(1): In determining whether a discussion is out of order on the grounds of anticipation, the Speaker must have regard to the probability of the matter anticipated being brought before the House within a reasonable time. Furthermore, I draw to the attention of all members that on April 19, 1988, the Chair made a statement to the House con cerning the matter of anticipation with regard to motions or Bills which may be on the Order Paper.

In essence the Chair made the following ruling: questions can be developed and not ruled out of order if a Bill has been introduced in the Assembly. "Once the Bills reach second reading stage, then they're going to be ruled out of order in terms of question period." Questions developed after a Bill's introduction should not be detailed and should relate to the general policy rather than a clause-by-clause examination of the Bill. If this occurs in question period, these questions will be ruled out of order. Thank you, hon. members. head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS MR. McINNIS: Mr.

Speaker, it's my pleasure to introduce in your gallery today the Member of Parliament for Prince George-Bulkley Valley. Mr. Brian Gardiner is the federal New Democrat forestry critic. Prince George is a forestry riding. It shares a boundary with West Yellowhead and a common con cern. Mr. Gardiner's here to help the Official Opposition lobby for more federal money for forestry development in Alberta, in meetings we held this morning. head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 6 Securities Amendment Act MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill 6, Securities Amendment Act, 1989.

The purpose of this Bill is to provide additional protection for the interests of small investors. Major aspects of the legisla tion include additional controls to methods used in company takeover attempts, expanded definition of those restricted from trading with insider information, and significantly increased penalties for those who contravene the Act. [Leave granted; Bill 6 read a first time] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. ORMAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table with the House the 1988 annual report for the Alberta Oil Sands Tech nology and Research Authority. MS M. LAING: Mr.

Speaker, I wish to table guidelines and policy from income security programs for 1988 and 1984 for the information of the Premier and the hon. minister, who seemed to not know what I was talking about. MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, it's just a matter of a straight tabling. [interjection] That's for all members. Mr. Minister, please. MR. TRYNCHY: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to table with the Assembly four copies of the 1988 annual report of the Workers' Compensation Board. MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, under

section 4, subsection 3 of the Election Act I am pleased to table the report of the Chief Elec toral Officer on the 1988 general enumeration. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. ROSTAD: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to introduce to you and through you to the Assembly 28 grades 5 and 6 students from the Rosebrier community school, whose catchment area is shared with the hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Leduc. They are accompanied today by two teachers, Mrs. Jenell Pluim and Mrs. Pat Murray, together with parents Mrs. Switzer, Mrs. Cleland, Mrs. Hawthorn, Mr. Ingles, Mr. and Mrs. Monaghan, and Mrs. Reimer.

I'd ask that they rise -- they're in the members' gallery -- and receive the usual welcome of the Assembly. MR. CARDINAL: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce to you and through you to the Assembly a group of students from the school of Newbrook, 18 students along with their two teachers Wayne Croswell and Nicole Hickle, parent Danny Diachyshyn, and bus driver Herb Megley. They are seated in the members' gallery. I'd like them to rise at this time and get the usual warm welcome they get from this Assembly. MR. SPEAKER: Edmonton-Gold Bar.

286 ALBERTA HANSARD June 15, 1989 MRS. HEWES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of my col league the Member for Edmonton-Whitemud I'm pleased today to introduce to you and to members of the Assembly a class of 58 students from the Duggan elementary school. They're ac companied by teachers Mrs. Beech and Mr. Ostfield. They're seated in the public gallery, and I'd ask that they rise and re ceive the welcome of the Assembly. MR. SPEAKER: Redwater-Andrew. MR. ZARUSKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me pleas ure today to introduce to you and the rest of the Assembly 13 grades 5 and 6 students from the Waskatenau school in the heart of the Redwater-Andrew constituency. They're accompanied by teacher Miss Rhonda Nelson, parents Mrs. Emily Ollikka and Vivian Rondeau, and other guests Shelley Jackson and Bob Kul- chyski. They're seated in the members' gallery, and I ask that they rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. MR. SPEAKER: Member for Edmonton-Kingsway. MR. McEACHERN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's my pleasure today to introduce 12 members of an English as a Second Lan guage group from the Alberta vocational school. They're seated in the public gallery and are accompanied by their teacher Lorna Jamison. I would request that they stand and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Social Assistance Policy for Students MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, to the minister of social services. This government likes to give lip service to the family, lots of lip service, but some of their policies they just can't be trusted to bring in, because they actually move towards the opposite.

In fact, they may even lead to the breakdown of the family. I'm talking specifically of the example of a Calgary woman on wel fare who financed her education by taking student loans. Highly motivated, got her degree in two and a half years, but because she illegally took the student loans while she was on welfare, she ended up spending a year in jail. I think the punishment here far outweighs the crime. The point is that this woman was put into the welfare trap. Either you stay there or you try to upgrade yourself. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, they're getting nervous; I don't know.

My question to this minister. Why does the social services department have such a backward policy? Shouldn't they be trying to get people off welfare, precisely what this woman did? MR. OLDRING: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. leader as usual asks a number of questions. I would like to take the opportunity of talking about our family initiatives, but I want to respond to the questions he did raise. He's making reference to a specific case down in the city of Calgary. I want to begin by pointing out that this province has a tremendous program in place for funding students.

Our student programs are second to none in Canada, and we're proud of those programs. With them go some rules and some regulations and some requirements, and we expect all Albertans to adhere to those policies to ensure that the program can stay in place for all those students who do want to take advantage of it. We also, Mr. Speaker, in this province have a program for helping those who for circumstances beyond their control at times need our support to be able to provide them with those basic necessities of shelter and clothing and food.

Although I am somewhat sympathetic to this person's situation, I regret that she took advantage of both of these programs. It's the intent of this minister to ensure our programs are adhered to on a fair and equal basis and that they're accessible to all Albertans on a fair and equal basis, and we'll continue to do that. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, some policies; a woman tries to get out of welfare and she ends up in jail. That's the great poli cies that you're talking about? My question to the minister. They have short-term programs: filing.

But if a person wants to go to university, they can't go under this program or they end up in jail, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware that in the early '70s they did have a pro gram here where women or men could go to university and also stay on welfare? Why did they change it? MR. OLDRING: Well, again, Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would want to make one thing very clear. It wasn't this minister nor this government that sent this individual to jail; the judicial sys tem decided that. In terms of the policies of this government, Mr.

Speaker, I want to say that as the new minister responsible for Family and Social Services, it would be my intent to work with those Al bertans who find themselves on social assistance, to help them regain independence and find themselves meaningfully em ployed in society once again. And we'll continue to do that. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, talk is cheap; lip service is cheap. My question to this minister.

Is he then prepared to look at this narrow-minded, cruel policy and change it so that they actually encourage people to get off welfare, so people like this can go to university and will not end up jail in the future? Will he change this policy now? [An hon. member clapped] MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. No clapping. MR. MARTIN: This is a more important issue that that, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Chair entirely agrees, but the procedure of the House is also going to be adhered to. Thank you. Mr. Minister. MR. OLDRING: Mr.

Speaker, I would only want to conclude by saying that many individuals achieve removing themselves from welfare through the support and the initiatives of this government, without breaking the law. Many students place themselves through university through considerable sacrifice and effort, without breaking the laws. The policies of this min ister, Mr. Speaker, will continue to do everything we can within reason to support individuals on social assistance to become self-dependent and self-reliant and meaningfully employed in society once again.

We've done that in the past, we're going to put a greater emphasis on it in the future, and I would just invite

June 15, 1989 ALBERTA HANSARD 287 this leader opposite to watch the progress that will be made in this department. MR. MARTIN: You admit that it's been pretty bad. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to designate my second question to the Member for Edmonton-Avonmore. MR. SPEAKER: Edmonton-Avonmore. Social Assistance Policy MS M. LAING: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, today I have tabled for the information of the Premier and the Minister of Family and Social Services the social allowance policy from the minis ter's department about the employability of mothers with four- month-old infants.

On June 12 in this Assembly the minister asked for a specific instance of a mother of a four-month-old infant being required to seek paid employment. In view of the information tabled today, will the minister now admit that this has been department policy since at least 1984? MR. OLDRING: Mr. Speaker, again, this minister indicated earlier in question period that it is the intent of myself and this government to work with individuals in giving them every bit of assistance and support that we can, be it assistance with job searching, be it assistance with training, be it assistance with day care.

But it is our intent to reduce the caseloads we're see ing on social assistance in this province today, to work with these individuals and to help them become meaningfully em ployed and productive and back in society as quickly as we pos sibly can. MS M. LAING: Mr. Speaker, is the minister now contradicting the Premier's 1986 statement, and I quote: "We believe . . . the best quality child care comes at home and is the clear respon sibility" of the family. How does he square his present position and policy with that statement? MR. OLDRING: Mr. Speaker, the minister isn't contradicting that statement one bit.

MS M. LAING: Mr. Speaker, how then does the minister think that a mother in the paid labour force can at the same time be providing care for her child in the home herself? MR. OLDRING: Mr. Speaker, the Premier was talking about an ideal situation. I would also want to point out that this govern ment recognizes all the forms of family that exist in today's society. Again, both the hon. leader and the Member for Edmonton-Avonmore have talked about our lack of commit ment to the family. I just welcome the opportunity of talking about this government's commitment to the family. MR. McEACHERN: Talk's cheap. MR.

SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair is very much aware that talk is cheap, having had to listen to some things that transpire from time to time in terms of my own life. Perhaps you could keep quiet long enough so that the Chair could hear the minister. Thank you. MR. OLDRING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, because I do want to talk about some of the recent initiatives of this government as it relates to the family. We are determined to, first of all, build upon the good things that have been done through a unique pro gram called family and community social services.

It's a pro gram that was developed and evolved in this province and is accomplishing a lot of things . . . [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. minister. There doesn't seem to be much interest in what's going on here. Perhaps the Chair could now recognize the hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. Natural Gas Prices MR. DECORE: Mr. Speaker, one of the premises upon which the government looks to greatness for Alberta is the statement that deals with revenues.

The budget says that "most analysts expect natural gas prices to firm up and show substantial in creases over the next few years." But instead of going up, natu ral gas prices have been coming down. In April prices on sales by Western Gas Marketing hit a 12-year low. They fell 14 per cent from the March price and were down 15 percent the same month last year. In addition, statistics show that the United States replaced 80 percent of its natural gas production with new finds, despite low prices. My question to the Minister of Energy is this.

Is he aware that these natural gas prices have hit new lows, longtime, substantial lows, and that there are some analysts who believe that this flatness or these lows will con tinue, thus eroding the . . . MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. We've had two questions. Minister of Energy. MR. ORMAN: Firstly, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is dead wrong. The United States did not replace 80 percent of its gas supplies last year. MR. DECORE: Perhaps the hon. minister didn't hear my ques tion. The reports are clear that gas prices have fallen.

What is his advice to his government, to his colleagues, when we're basing our financial revenue on this brittle foundation? What's his advice? What's his contingency plan? MR. ORMAN: Mr. Speaker, one of the things that the hon. member should know about natural gas: it's probably one of the most exciting fuels and most demanding fuels in North America.

As a matter of fact, in a discussion I had yesterday with the president of Western Gas Marketing, he told me that one single initiative -- that is, President Bush's announcement on eliminat ing SO emissions -- could result in a demand in the United States for an additional one trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That is double the natural gas that this province produces to the United States today. If the hon. member's information is dated, I can't help him with that, but if he follows Mr. Bush's an nouncement, he will see that the demand for natural gas is ex tremely exciting.

I should say, too, on this particular issue that I had the oppor tunity to meet with the chairman of the Power Authority of the State of New York, who's responsible for 30 percent of New York State's power. He told me that because of environmental pressures in his state he will be looking for an additional 20 bil

288 ALBERTA HANSARD June 15, 1989 lion to 25 billion cubic feet a year of natural gas. The demand is very high; it's moving very quickly. We're simply constricted by pipeline capacity. MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. MR. DECORE: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that the hon. Provincial Treasurer has started to increase his praying. What happens if we don't meet the projections? What happens if it isn't flat or substantial increases? What's your game plan to make sure that we don't continue rising in deficit? MR. ORMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I want to respond to that because I believe that has to do with our government's fiscal regime with regard to the oil and gas industry. My colleague the former Minister of Energy, Dr. Neil Webber, announced in October 1988 that we would be moving to a price-sensitive Alberta royalty tax credit program. That royalty tax credit program will be much more sensitive to lower prices and will have a leaner regime in higher prices. Right now it is not price sensitive. If he's asking our game plan, Mr. Speaker, that's the game plan, and it's highly supported in the industry today.

Environmental Impact Assessment Process MR. CARDINAL: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the hon. Minister of the Environment. As the minister is well aware, my constituency boasts the highest rate of welfare in the province of Alberta. Some of the communities within my con stituency face an unemployment rate of 60 to 80 percent. Some of my communities within the constituency are losing a high percentage of our population due to unemployment and poverty.

My question to the hon. minister is: the environmental assess ment process that's presently under way in relation to Alberta- Pacific industries -- can he assure this Assembly that this proc ess will be completed within the time lines so we can keep that industry in that constituency? MR. MARTIN: Have fun, Ralph. You should be able to handle this one. MR. KLEIN: I'll try, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is looking forward to hearing from the minister. MR. KLEIN: Mr.

Speaker, no, there are no assurances because there are a number of things that have been factored into the environmental impact assessment, including negotiations with the federal government relative to their possible involvement in this particular process. Providing we can reach some kind of agreement with respect to federal government involvement, we hope to have the review panel in place by next week. Within four to five weeks following that hopefully the public review process can begin. That is basically within the time frame. MR. CARDINAL: My question to the hon. minister.

Can he give me some indication as to what cumulative negative en vironmental effect these pulp mills will have in Alberta? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, we don't know at this particular time, and that is going to be part of the EIA process. There's been a lot of talk about concern for the cumulative effect of pulp mills on the Peace River and on the Athabasca River, and I'd like to read from some documents which contain guidelines for the EIA process. It's quite a lengthy document, but I'll read two paragraphs, if I can. One is under Monitoring. And these guidelines have been in place for a long time.

As far as I know, they are public documents, and they've been available for peo ple who want to research them if they would ever take the time to research them. But since they haven't, I'll read it for them: Where the density of development requires such as in the Athabasca River, and that's used as an example, individual Licences to Operate will stipulate the formation of larger cooperative industry programs to ensure that the poten tial cumulative effects of pulp mill development are monitored effectively. Under guidelines for Project Approvals, Permits and Licences . . . MR.

SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. minister. Perhaps we could have that for the final supplementary and read more quickly. Thank you. MR. CARDINAL: I direct the final question to the hon. minis ter of forestry. When the FMAs, or forest management agree ments, are signed, can he assure me that the local people in that constituency, including contractors and native people in north- em communities, will be included in the agreement as far as employment and other opportunities? MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr. Speaker, that's a major part of all our forest management agreements with all companies.

We want to make sure that all small operators are protected as well as the native groups, and in some cases on projects it's the Metis settlements. Also, we want to make absolutely sure that there's that opportunity, not just once but over the course of the life of the project, to have that input and that opportunity to participate.

Forest management agreements are umbrella agreements that spell out the area and the management of that area, but their an nual operating plans are open during the course of that year, and there's opportunity to change as circumstances change with re spect to that So I assure the hon. member there is that opportunity. MR. SPEAKER: Edmonton-Calder, followed by Calgary- Buffalo. Social Services Caseloads MS MJOLSNESS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are to the Minister of Family and Social Services.

We've heard over and over again how this government is supposedly commit ted to the family, and in the throne speech they made a promise to ensure that families remain strong. Child welfare workers play an extremely important role in strengthening the families in this province by intervening and supporting families that are in trouble. How can this government and this minister be trusted to support families when they expect social workers to provide a service to families in trouble with caseloads so high that some times it takes social workers three weeks to answer the calls? MR. OLDRING: Mr.

Speaker, the member opposite knows full

June 15, 1989 ALBERTA HANSARD 289 well that this government added an additional 50 social workers last year and that we're seeing their caseloads drop considerably as a result of that. We're also introducing other new initiatives including computerization, differential utilization of staff. I would want to say that we're working very closely with our caseworkers. We recognize the very important job that they are providing here in the province, and I think that through the co operation that is in existence between caseworkers and our management, we'll continue to work towards solutions.

MS MJOLSNESS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The fact re mains that the caseloads are far too high, and I would ask this minister: is he prepared to act immediately and hire further ad ditional social workers, who are badly needed? MR. OLDRING: Well, Mr. Speaker, again the members oppo site don't always use the imagination required to find the solu tions to some of these challenges. I've outlined some of the in itiatives that we're taking already.

But I think the real answer -- and it's encouraging for me to see that the numbers of individu als on social allowance are starting to go down, and that's as a result of the initiatives this government has taken as it relates to diversification: the 40,000 new jobs that were created in the province last year, the 25,000 new jobs that are being created in the province this year. I think, again, we are taking some initia tives, we are taking some steps, and we are reducing the caseloads. MS MJOLSNESS: Well, Mr. Speaker, it amounts to another broken promise.

The social workers themselves and child wel fare workers have indicated that caseloads are so heavy that eventually a tragedy will occur, and I would ask the minister this: is the minister saying, then, that it is acceptable to leave these children and these families in Alberta at risk in this way? MR. OLDRING: Mr. Speaker, as a government and as a depart ment we take every possible step we can to avoid any potential risk to children that need our support in this province, and we'll continue to do that. MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Calgary-Buffalo, followed by Grande Prairie. Teaching Standards Monitoring MR.

CHUMIR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Minister of Education. Mr. Lou Little taught in the Waldorf schools in Al berta for seven years despite numerous complaints to the boards of those schools. The Alberta Teachers' Association in a recent brief to the Minister of Education pointed out that private school regulations do little more than . . . condone a system of private schooling that enables the province to abdicate its responsibility for maintain ing a high standard of education.

The minister is now saying that it's the responsibility of parents to look after children in these schools, even though the province licenses and funds these schools. I'm wondering now whether the minister can tell us whether he's saying that he's completely satisfied with a system in which it took seven years to get rid of this teacher and that there are absolutely no improvements or changes required or possible in order to improve this system. Is he completely satisfied? MR. DINNING: Mr.

Speaker, I am satisfied that this gentleman's bad teaching practices were found out through a process that allowed for a parent or a member of the public or, in this case, a member of the social services department to lodge a complaint That complaint was acted upon immediately, an investigation was begun, and that teacher is no longer teaching in any of Alberta's schools. MR. CHUMIR: Only after seven years. Is the minister satisfied with a system that allowed the Wal dorf school to hire Mr. Little on the basis of phone calls to three references provided by Mr.

Little, without even making so much as an inquiry of the Edmonton public school board, which had recently reprimanded Mr. Little twice and had forced him to resign? MR. DINNING: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied that there is a process in place that gets to the root of a problem when a teacher is a bad teacher. What I am satisfied with with the Council on Alberta Teaching Standards is that they are helping us to take initiatives to not only identify those teachers that have a problem, but they're also helping us to identify excellent teachers in this province through an excellence in teaching awards program. MR.

CHUMIR: This minister is not prepared to do anything. I'm wondering whether the minister is prepared even to take the very simple step of requiring private schools to inform parents and their own teachers that they can complain to this Council on Alberta Teaching Standards when they have a problem. Is he prepared to even go that small, little step on this issue? MR. DINNING: Mr. Speaker, we have made that information fully available to all Albertans, and I will continue to make sure that that process is available and open and made known to all Albertans.

The fact is that the hon. member opposite and per haps his party oppose parents' making a choice about their chil dren's education. He opposes private schools. On this side, in this government, we support that choice; we support parents' choice. MR. SPEAKER: Grande Prairie, followed by Calgary- Mountain View. Community Recreation/Cultural Grants DR. ELLIOTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Recreation and Parks concerning changes in the funding formula for the community recreation/cultural grant program. The minister's department had an excellent program with clearly defined parameters.

Now municipal jurisdictions in the Grande Prairie constituency are receiving notices of changes, and I would like to know why these changes. DR. WEST: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Grande Prairie has really identified a very good program that we have. The community recreation/cultural grant system, or CRC program, is a program designed to aid volunteer community groups and municipalities in the provision of recreational and cultural ser vices, and it has some local initiative input to it.

It's a per capita based grant, some $240 million set out in 1985, ongoing till this date; $163 million has been delivered, and the $240 million will

290 ALBERTA HANSARD June 15, 1989 be delivered In answer to that question, during the development of our budget and fiscal management it was necessary to look at all programs on an ongoing basis, so a restructuring of the CRC grants took place in which the program will be extended from its conclusion date in 1990 to 1992-93. The commitment of $240 million is there still, and it will help to phase the program over a longer period of time, aiding the communities to better adjust in their management. DR. ELLIOTT: Mr.

Speaker, the concern is that many of these municipal jurisdictions have their budgets well under control now and they're well into their fiscal year. So why now, at this time, with respect to the municipal budget fiscal plans? DR. WEST: In the preparation for the budget that came down on June 8 the CRC restructuring took place, and for obvious reasons it was impossible at that time, before the budget came down, to inform the municipalities, but immediately upon the tabling of the budget, some 400 different communities, ad ministrators, and elected officials were informed of the program. DR. ELLIOTT: Mr.

Speaker, my final supplemental. Does the department have any other programs that would assist these municipalities through this particular time concerning these kinds of activities? DR. WEST: The Department of Recreation and Parks, of course, is in the delivery of recreational services to many areas of our communities.

I think that at the present time, with this program going to 1992, they will be aided with other programs such as the Sport Council grants that come forward, those grants coming through the Recreation, Parks and Wildlife Foundation, and there is, of course, $100 million in the community facility enhancement program that is being delivered up until '92 to our communities that aids in the development of their facilities.

There are many, many other programs I could add to this -- such as the municipal recreation/tourism areas, cultural support for libraries and museums -- but I'm sure we can get into this dur ing the estimates of Recreation and Parks in more detail. MR. SPEAKER: Member for Calgary-Mountain View, fol lowed by Edmonton-Meadowlark, then Innisfail. Funding of World Blitz Chess Championship MR. HAWKESWORTH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The De partment of Tourism gave $100,000 in April and May of this year, I understand, to the Royal Bank of Canada in order to cover expenses of the organizers of a now-defunct chess tourna ment in Calgary. One of the people associated with the or ganizers of this event was the minister's brother. To the Minis ter of Tourism. Will he inform the House that he did attend a social function where he discussed the project with the proponents and that his brother was also in attendance? MR. SPARROW: Mr. Speaker, the

preamble of the member opposite is very definitely wrong. When the contract was signed back in October of last year, a payment was made shortly thereafter to Global Chess. A second payment was made on May 3 after much discussion with the city and the local sponsor, the Alberta Commercial Travelers. The two payments were that far apart; they were not made as the member stated. Very definitely, as I stated earlier, at no time, and as my deputy has clearly stated -- the inference to my brother being involved: he was not involved in any part or parcel of the process.

And yes, I do meet with my family, and at a social with many others around this project about Global Chess was talked about: how good it could be for the community of Calgary. So the answer to the last part of his question is yes. MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary. MR. HAWKESWORTH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. How does the minister then reconcile what seems to be an obvious con tradiction: that he was aware of his brother's involvement, and that statement that he referred to, made in this House last Thursday, that "at no time was [his] brother involved with refer ence to the grant or grant application"? MR.

SPARROW: He answered his own question, Mr. Speaker, when he was asking. Very definitely, the only involvement I had was one meeting when Global Chess came forward. I think that for the record, Mr. Speaker, we should put it on the record that the department entered into this project with due care and diligence and with sound strategic intentions for tourism in the province. Global Chess Group Inc. had success fully organized the 1988 chess festival in Saint John, New Brunswick. The economic benefits of that festival were esti mated at over $10 million to New Brunswick.

When the city of Calgary got involved with Global Chess in July of last year, they then approached us, in August. As I said earlier, after studying the project, our staff in early October entered into a contract -- not a grant, a contract -- to participate in the function. And by the way, Mr. Speaker, the social function I was in volved with that the member refers to was in December. MR. HAWKESWORTH: Mr. Speaker, is it the case that the minister was aware of his brother's involvement in this project when approvals of money and advances of money for this pro ject were made?

Was he aware of his brother's involvement when those advances were made? MR. SPARROW: Mr. Speaker, I'm still not aware that my brother was involved in anything to do with the tournament. Inferences have been made by others that he did introduce some people in Calgary, but to my knowledge my first discussion -- as I stated earlier, it was not until December of the year that I had any discussions with him. MR. SPEAKER: Edmonton-Meadowlark, followed by Innis fail, followed by Edmonton-Jasper Place. Environmental Impact Assessment Process (continued) MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

This government has consistently tried to rush megaproject develop ment without proper environmental impact assessment. Not only have they neglected environmental concerns but now, with the uncertainty created by federal government intervention, they have even placed business in an untenable, impossible predica ment. To the Minister of the Environment. Why did this gov ernment not anticipate federal concerns at the outset and nego

June 15, 1989 ALBERTA HANSARD 291 tiate a joint approach to the assessment of these projects which would have avoided the crisis which is occurring now? MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, had the hon. minister for Edmonton-Meadowlark taken the time to . . . AN HON. MEMBER: Member, not minister. MR. KLEIN: Member; I'm sorry. MR. MITCHELL: Well, somebody's got to do it, Ralph. AN HON. MEMBER: Hopefully he'll never be a minister. MR. KLEIN: An undeserved promotion for sure.

Had the hon. member taken the time to examine an agree ment that has been in place for the last three years and was to be re-signed on May 15, he would have seen that there was an agreement between the province and the federal government which clearly set out the parameters and guidelines for par ticipation by the federal government in provincial EIA processes.

Very basically, that agreement stipulated that if there were EIAs to be conducted in the province and those EIAs were submitted to the federal government and the federal government agreed with them, then the permits to construct and/or operate could be issued. That agreement was in place. As a result of the Rafferty-Alameda decision in Saskatchewan, the govern ment was prompted to take another look at the process. MR.

MITCHELL: Will the minister confirm that one of the reasons for federal intervention at this time is their perception of the need to assess the cumulative effects of pulp mill projects in the north, which Alberta's process has so sorely neglected? MR. KLEIN: Well, to answer the last part of the so-called ques tion first, the question of the cumulative impacts of pulp mills has been addressed. I alluded to it in answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Athabasca-Lac La Biche, and I would like to add to that answer now because I didn't get to the second part of my quote.

I thank the hon. member for giving me this opportunity. I quote from guidelines for Project Approvals, Per mits and Licences. It's very short, Mr. Speaker, very short In order to achieve environmental objectives such as the maxi mum reduction in [absorbable organic halides] and chlorinated organics of kraft mills, each mill may have its own environ mental protection standards. The standards . . . MR. FOX: Look, look; see Ralph read. What's it all about, Ralphie? MR. KLEIN: Just listen; pay careful attention, please, okay?

The standards will reflect the type of operation and best achievable technology at the time of permitting/licencing. The cumulative environmental impacts of other sources of was tewater are considered as part of the approval process . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order. AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order. There's quite an ac cumulation, thank you. Final supplementary question. MR.

MITCHELL: In light of that tirade, then, could the minis ter indicate why it is that federal officials have stated very ex plicitly that one of their concerns with our environmental impact assessment process is that it hasn't considered cumulative ef fects, and will he admit here and now that their intervention is a categorical indication of the inadequacy of our environmental impact assessment process? MR. KLEIN: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the federal government has not intervened. We are negotiating now with the federal government relative to their co-operative participation in the process.

Relative to their co-operative participation in the process. That, of course, relates to those areas of jurisdiction over which the federal government thinks it might have some control. We're willing to participate with the federal govern ment in the citizens' review process because we want to make sure that whatever evolves is done through a fair process and that if deficiencies are identified through this process, they will be addressed. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: Member for Innisfail, followed by Edmonton-Jasper Place. Forest Management Policies MR. SEVERTSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Coming from an area where there's no forest, there is still some concern in my riding with the number of pulp mills coming into production in the next little while, or proposed. The question I'd like to ask the minister of forestry is: what percentage would these projects be cutting down of our forestry industry? MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr. Speaker, it's a very small percent age of the total area. In a forest management agreement area, for example the Athabasca project, there would be less than 1 percent per year that would actually be cut. There are areas that will never ever be cut.

That is, there are parks; there are ecological reserves; there are sensitive wildlife habitats: a wide variety of those that will never be cut But less than 1 percent And over the course, when all of the projects are up, in full op eration -- all of the projects -- there will be the equivalent of about 150,000 acres a year. To draw some comparison, in 1981 we had one forest fire in Alberta that destroyed over a million acres in a 10-day period, so the amount that will be cut in any one year would be very small. MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary. MR. SEVERTSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

As there any plans for requirements for replacement of these trees? MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. Contrary to what has been suggested by the opposition, reforestation prac tices in Alberta are recognized not only in Canada but in North America certainly as being among the best in the world. We have a very stringent requirement to make sure that the refores tation practices that are practised in each of our areas are excel lent. In fact, I'm looking at the moment for ways to enhance and even improve that further to make Alberta standards without a doubt the best in the world.

292 ALBERTA HANSARD June 15, 1985 MR. SPEAKER: Final supplementary, Innisfail. MR. SEVERTSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think all members of this Assembly are aware of the greenhouse effect that's talked about so much lately. What effect will these projects have on the greenhouse effect? Are we contributing to this, as are some of the other countries? MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr. Speaker, no. In fact, it's the con trary.

We will help prevent the greenhouse effect, because it doesn't take much common sense to know that there is more oxygen generated, more carbon dioxide used, by a growing for est than there is by a mature forest. If you don't believe that, would you rather breathe with 40-year-old lungs or 120-year-old lungs? MR. SPEAKER: I'll settle for what I've got. Edmonton-Jasper Place, followed by Calgary-McKnight. Oldman River Dam MR. McINNIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Alberta govern ment applied for and received a federal permit to construct a dam on the Oldman River under the Navigable Waters Protec tion Act Today in court the government's lawyers showed up and announced that the Alberta government has unapplied for that permit, if you can believe that I wonder why the Minister of the Environment, who talked yesterday about co-operation and federal participation -- all nice words -- is engaging in such cheap legal manoeuvring today. MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I really haven't been briefed on that matter, and I will have to take it under notice.

If the hon. mem ber will give me some time, I'll try and get him an answer tomorrow. MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary. Not asking of a legal nature, though. MR. McINNIS: The minister is apparently not informed. He's apparently lost a power struggle within the government. I won der how he can remain a part of a government that puts the pro tection of its jurisdiction ahead of protecting the environment, through measures like this. MR. KLEIN: Again, Mr. Speaker, this involves a court action, apparently, that took place today. I don't have the details; I haven't been briefed on the matter.

I would be more than happy to take it under notice, and I would be more than happy to pro vide the hon. member with an answer. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, last weekend I couldn't be in the midst of 8,000 to 15,000 people soaking up the sunshine and listening to music because I was up in Prosperity, Alberta, talk ing to the real people with real problems. MR. McINNIS: You now have to be in favour of a pulp mill to be a real person in Alberta. I would like to ask the Minister of the Environment: if he's not going to be told what this government is doing on environ ment issues, will he resign in protest? MR.

KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I just got the job. I hope to keep it for some time, thank you. High School Science Curriculum MRS. GAGNON: Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the Minister of Education told this Assembly that his department is respond ing to concerns expressed about the proposed new high school science curriculum by producing a second draft program of studies in all of those courses. Yet in a letter dated April 5 to Alberta school boards the minister stated: I'm committed to the introduction of the new science curricu lum and don't intend to change the basic direction or structure of the program.

My question is: will the minister's review of the new science curriculum include a reconsideration of the structure of the program, or is he merely reviewing course content? MR. DINNING: Mr.

Speaker, I am committed on behalf of my colleagues in government to ensure that students get the very best education -- in this case, the very best scientific education -- so that our students will graduate in the years ahead with a better understanding of the basic scientific concepts as they exist today and an even better understanding of how those concepts are applied to issues that are global and issues that are very much relevant to Alberta today. MRS. GAGNON: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer my question about whether he would reconsider the entire structure. MR.

SPEAKER: Hon. member, that's inappropriate. [interjec tions] Order please. It's inappropriate under Beauchesne to make a comment of such nature. But the time for question period has expired. Might we have unanimous consent to complete this series of questions? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: Opposed? Carried. Thank you. Hon. minister, on a supplementary -- or Member for Calgary-McKnight. We're trying to promote everybody. MRS. GAGNON: Thank you. Mr.

Speaker, will the Minister of Education give considera tion to a compromise alternative which would address the ma jority of concerns expressed by Alberta science teachers and allow Alberta students an option of taking either the general sci ence 10 course or the individualized special courses in grade 10, such as physics, chemistry, biology 10, rather than denying the students the option . . . MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Let's get with it. MR. DINNING: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's suggestion.

I am going to wait until we have received all of the suggestions as a result of the first draft of the curriculum that was distributed in January of this year. Once we have finished the review of those suggestions, a second draft will be dis tributed. As I said to the hon. members of the Assembly on Tuesday, we will continue to do it until we have it right. MR. SPEAKER: Final supplementary, Calgary-McKnight.

June 15, 1989 ALBERTA HANSARD 293 MRS. GAGNON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister indicate to this Assembly whether there is a subtle attempt to channel students away from specific science courses and into the general program of studies by awarding greater credit levels to the general science program? MR. DINNING: Well, Mr. Speaker, the only hidden agenda that I am aware of in this Assembly rests with the members of the Liberal Party; I'm not aware of one on our side. Our ap proach in this government is to ensure that students get the very best high school education.

In this case we're talking about science, and the better our students understand the basic scien tific concepts and a better understanding of the application of those scientific concepts, the better citizens they are going to be in their lives beyond high school. MR.

SPEAKER: The Chair would make a request of all hon. members in the House that rather than using acronyms in terms of questions and in answers, they'd be good enough, for the sake of all members in the House who might not be familiar with all of the letters of the alphabet that get fired out in certain se quences, and also for the benefit of the people that are listening to both the radio and the telecasting of the session -- for greater understanding of all persons involved, could we please have the full titles spelled out of the various programs? ORDERS OF THE DAY MR.

SPEAKER: Might we revert briefly to Introduction of Special Guests? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: Opposed? Carried. Thank you. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS (reversion) MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased today to introduce two school groups on behalf of my colleague the Premier. First of all I'll introduce a group from Halkirk school. There are 19 members in the party. The teacher is Andrew Billings, accom panied by parents Bermie Doan, Cindy Hazen, and Len Solick. I would ask that the members from Halkirk rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly.

The second group, also from the Premier's constituency, the Theresetta school in Castor. There are 16 members in the group: teacher Genevieve Blume, parents Duane Nichols, Mar guerite Nichols, Mike Bain, and 12 students. I would ask that they rise and on behalf of the Premier receive the warm wel come of the Assembly. MR. SPEAKER: Edmonton-Centre. REV. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to introduce 10 students from the Edmonton public schools adult basic upgrading program who are here visiting with us.

I hope they've enjoyed question period, and I look forward to meeting them with my colleague from Vegreville on the steps shortly. Would they please rise and receive the welcome of the members of the Assembly. head: WRITTEN QUESTIONS MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, I would move that the follow ing written questions stand and retain their places on the Order Paper. Mr. Speaker, by way of information I would advise that we are going to deal with some questions and motions for returns today, and the following should retain their places: 145, 146, 147, 148, 163, 164, 166, 167, 168, and 178. [Motion carried] 165. Mr.

McEachern asked the government the following question: As of the moment it so calculates, what is the govern ment's best estimate of the dollars it spent advertising its support for the Canada/United States free trade deal dur ing the federal election campaign period which con cluded November 21, 1988, including specifically (1) television station air-time charges, (2) radio station air-time charges, (3) print media advertising space charges, (4) private advertising consultants' charges, (5) charges back to Treasury from any and all govern ment departments related to public relations ef forts in this regard, (6) government in-house material charges related to paper supplies, typesetting, graphics productions, and printing, and (7) the mail costs related to sending print material to each household in Alberta?

MR. KOWALSKI: Mr. Speaker, the government will accept Question 165. 183. Mrs. Gagnon asked the government the following question: What grants have been approved through the community facility enhancement program from its inception up to June 1, 1989, including a complete listing of all grants indicating (1) the recipient of the grant, (2) the amount of assistance provided, (3) the nature of the project, and (4) the constituency in which the project is located? MR. KOWALSKI: Mr. Speaker, it is not the intention of the government to accept Question 183.

The matter will be dealt with in discussion with respect to Motion for a Return 176. Mo tion for a Return 176 was placed on the Order Paper prior to Question 183. head: MOTIONS FOR RETURNS MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, dealing with motions for returns, I would move that the following motions for returns stand and retain their places on the Order Paper: motions for returns 149 to 162 inclusive, and 169, 170, 171, 174, 177, 179, 180, 181, 182, and 184. MR. SPEAKER: Having heard the motion by the Government House Leader . . . [interjection] Order please. All those in

294 ALBERTA HANSARD June 15, 1989 favour, please say aye. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. MS BARRETT: This is a debatable motion, Mr. Speaker. [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: Oop, oop, oop. Goodness gracious. The Chair had not recognized anyone standing at that time, but that's fine. [interjections] There's a proper way of having this discus sion take place, hon. member. The Chair now recognizes that someone wishes to speak. Who might it be? Edmonton-Highlands. Thank you. MS BARRETT: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, I would, and the proper way for the discussion to take place is for me to be recognized when I stand up to debate a debatable motion. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. [interjections] The procedure in the House is still the same. When the member is recognized, perhaps the member would speak to the motion rather than en gaging in other extraneous comment Thank you. MS BARRETT: If I wasn't the one who initiated it, Mr. Speaker. In any event, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to object to the mo tion by the Government House Leader, and there are a number of imperative reasons at this point First of all, it's not clear that this House is going to sit for several months, during which time the government would ordinarily be given a fairly extensive pe riod of grace by the opposition when it comes to obtaining infor mation requested on the Order Paper. So one has to assume naturally -- the government is on record as saying that they're only going to introduce a few Bills. I don't know how long this sitting is going to last.

I speculate that the Government House Leader doesn't either. The point is this: if we are only in ses sion for another month or two and if there's no fall sitting of the Assembly, if we don't get this information, if we don't make our case for getting this information, then we won't get it until this time next year. In that instance, the information will arrive too late.

Now, I'd like to point out that the Member for Edmonton- Jasper Place has got 15 motions for returns on the Order Paper with respect to the proposed forestry projects, forestry manage ment agreements, leases, sales, and other dispositions of land, not to mention the construction of pulp mills, et cetera, proposed for this province, perhaps to commence as early as next month. I don't see, Mr. Speaker, without some indication from the Gov ernment House Leader as to whether or not they even intend to supply this information to the House, how we can sit here and say, "Oh, okay," week after week.

We've been through several Tuesdays and Thursdays already in the House in which the op position has said okay to the motion to let them stand and retain their places. Two days ago . . . MR. JOHNSTON: You said no. MS BARRETT: I was about to say that, Mr. Treasurer. Two days ago we finally started to indicate that we're not going to just sit and say okay, okay. We believe that we're extending enough of a grace period in what is presumed to be, probably accurately so, a relatively short sitting of this Assembly.

And if the Government House Leader is prepared to stand up and as sure the Assembly that if this information isn't delivered this summer, there will be a fall sitting of the Assembly, then we'd be more than pleased to extend that grace period for those mo tions for returns which don't have an urgent nature about them; in other words, if projects related to the information requested are not planned to go ahead in the immediate, as within the next six months, future. Mr. Speaker, now that takes care of the first 15.

Those are just the ones from the Member for Edmonton-Jasper Place, who may have additional comments on the requests for information or attempt to solicit an indication from either the minister or the Government House Leader as to whether or not it is the inten tion of the government to answer these questions in an ex peditious manner. Another one that concerns me very much, Mr.

Speaker, is that this government often claims points of order on a lot of matters, and I believe they have abused the rights of the Assem bly time and again last year and the year before when they re ferred to studies and information and so on and so forth that supported the government's opinion over whether or not the proposed free trade agreement was one that would be beneficial for Alberta. Now, we have no indication as to whether or not the government intends to even answer Motion for a Return 170 sponsored by the Member for Edmonton-Kingsway. Now, I think this is a pretty important issue.

My money, your money was used in what I believe to be a wrongful manner . . . [inter jection] -- I'm speaking to the urgency of getting this informa tion -- in a wrongful manner in my view in October, November of 1988. The House has not sat since last July. We haven't had an opportunity to find out precisely how the government plans to use taxpayers' dollars for their support of that free trade agreement signed by the Mulroney government after it was elected on November 21, 1988. Now, this request is really an old request. It's two years old, Mr. Speaker.

Since the free trade agreement was first uttered by any of the Conservatives' counterparts in Ottawa, we've been saying, "Cite your sources." It's a requirement of this Assembly that you do that when requested, and that is particularly true of any government minister. Several government ministers during the last two years refused to cite their information and have re fused categorically to table the information. I say, as a member of this Assembly and on behalf of the Official Opposition caucus, we have a right to that information. So what is the gov ernment's intention?

Are you ever going to reveal this informa tion, or are you simply going to tell us: 'Too bad. We spent half a million bucks of the taxpayers' dollars, and you don't ever get to find out why." I think this is an urgent public matter. In fact because of the escape clause in that free trade agreement, I think it's made even more important before we're too deeply entrenched -- and have the right to the information requested here. Is the government -- and I realize that the Government House Leader has the right to close debate on this matter.

I hope he will respond and tell us if it is the intention of the government to provide us with this in formation, and if not him, then perhaps another minister who feels responsible for the dissemination of that information. Now, I have looked at Motion for a Return 171, and I'm sure my colleague from Edmonton-Kingsway will want to specify why it is that that information should be forthcoming as soon as possible. There is one more, Mr. Speaker, that I'm interested in. I un

June 15, 1989 ALBERTA HANSARD 295 derstand, then, that motions 172, 173, and 175 will be satisfied by the government, if I'm not mistaken. I'm very glad to hear that information. MR. SPEAKER: They're not part of this motion. MS BARRETT: Pardon me? MR. SPEAKER: They're not part of this motion. MS BARRETT: No, they're not; that's right. MR. SPEAKER: So they're not going to be commented on with respect to this motion. MS BARRETT: No, I'm just specifying for clarity, Mr. Speaker. I'm not intending to talk about them in any detail.

Then I go back down to questions related to what we believe to be a very irregular financial arrangement between the govern ment of Alberta and two companies that were ultimately merged under its authority, North West Trust and Heritage Savings & Trust. Again I ask . . . [interjection] I can do that when I'm finished, Mr. Minister. What I want to know is: is it ever your intention to table this information? If it's not, then please specify. I mean, we have a right to know, Mr. Speaker -- and the minister can make funny faces all he wants -- but we have a right to know in this Assembly, all 83 of us.

Once again, I would like to ask, particularly because it is related to what we believe to be Ouija board economics in the Provincial Treasur er's budget of June 8, 1989, whether or not it is the govern ment's intention to ever table information with respect to Mo tion for a Return 182? We'd like to know if that money is ever to be forthcoming, and we'd sure like to have the documents that form and support the claim. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I believe that all members of the As sembly have a right to look at the

summary of complaints re ceived by the Alberta Health Facilities Review Committee dur ing 1988. If this government isn't being defensive about that particular review, then it should indicate -- it may be up to the Government House Leader in the instance of today -- if it's their plan to give us that information. Mr. Speaker, there's a fundamental issue here, and that is: how can members of all parts of this Assembly respond to the tabled annual reports that are coming in in streams and droves without certain information being presented to support the claims that are made in those specific annual reports?

Similarly, the Provincial Treasurer's budget of last week, or a number of other policies enacted behind closed doors of this government. MR. JOHNSTON: Are you running for the leadership of the NDP party federally? MS BARRETT: The hon. Treasurer doesn't understand that the ND Party is a . . . MR. SPEAKER: Both members, through the Chair. MS BARRETT: Oh, yes. Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer wanted to know something about the NDP "party," and I'd just like to re mind him that it is the New Democratic Party of Canada. MR.

SPEAKER: The Chair respectfully reminds both members that you're both out of order because they're not germane to the topic under discussion. MS BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but the Treasurer is good for a little bit of humour every once in a while. In any event, I now rest my case and ask for a commitment from the Government House Leader with respect to the argu ments I've made in requesting the information. I think we've given the government due time to make a commitment on this information. We don't want to impose undue constraints, but surely you can let us know if you plan to answer them. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Edmonton-Kingsway, followed by Edmonton- Jasper Place. MR. McEACHERN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to support my colleague in this debate about the need for some of this in formation. In fact, Mr. Speaker, some of the information we're asking for is based on some questions that I asked the Treasurer to do with public accounts of the 1986-87 fiscal year. He sug gested that I put them on the Order Paper so we could get an swers to them. Well, they're on the Order Paper, and I think we should have those answers. In fact, we are starting public ac counts next Wednesday.

Here we are into the 1987-88 public accounts, and he has not given me the information on my ques tions on the '86-87 public accounts. I just find that totally unac ceptable. The government is supposed to account for the dollars they spend in this province to the taxpayers of this province when they spend it, not years later, and that is what we see this government doing. Now, Mr. Speaker, some of those are questions rather than motions for returns. Nonetheless, it seems to me that the gov ernment of Alberta has an obligation to bring the taxpayers up to date.

We asked for that information; I put those questions on the Order Paper. I have even more questions yet from that same series of questions that I wanted to ask him on the 1986-87 pub lic accounts. Because the whole hearing process of public ac counts is inadequate to cover all departments, and because we can't get the Treasurer back again to get that information, he then says, "Put it on the Order Paper." We put it on the Order Paper, and then they stall us and stall us until the session is over.

I mean, last year I put some things on the Order Paper, and I didn't get the answers until the day the Assembly broke up, on July 6. That kind of accountability is not acceptable, and some of you new members in the Tory party should get on the backs of some of the cabinet ministers and tell them to start doing their jobs. MR. SPEAKER: Edmonton-Jasper Place. MR. McINNIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to limit my comments to the motions for returns dealing with the agree ments with the forest companies; in particular, Motion 150.

It seems to me the Minister of the Environment is desperately try ing to organize some type of public participation process over the future of the Alberta-Pacific project The Member for Athabasca-Lac La Biche had some questions about that today, as did the Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. Now, people in that area very clearly would like to know what it is the government agreed to before they can evaluate the proposal. Mr. Speaker, how can you evaluate a deal unless you

296 ALBERTA HANSARD June 15, 1989 know what the deal is? Sooner or later the government's going to have to come forward, I trust, and reveal the commitments that it has made to the forest companies and what commitments they may have made in return, but the difficulty is that the Min ister of the Environment is organizing a process with a very definite time frame. Sometime in August he hopes to have this deal wrapped up. The government will be issuing a permit to construct The Daishowa mill already has a permit to construct; they are applying for a permit to operate.

There are very sub stantial taxpayers' funds involved. How is it possible for tax payers and voters and people who live in the area to evaluate these proposals if the government won't reveal what it has agreed to on behalf of all us? Now, these particular motions, Mr. Speaker, were filed with the Clerk's office before the Assembly went into session on June 1. That was two weeks ago, according to my count. I sus pect that during that period of time, the government has come to a conclusion about whether or not it's prepared to let the people know what they've agreed to on behalf of the taxpayers.

I don't think people in government should forget that when they agree to things, they agree on behalf of somebody else. This isn't a private club or a private business that you're operat ing over there. This is all of us. This is the taxpayers. I really think that after two weeks it's no longer acceptable to say, "Well, we haven't decided yet whether we're prepared to make this information available or not," because what we're talking about are agreements which are forever in effect.

The culmina tion of the process in the government, as it's been outlined to me by the Minister of Forestry, Lands and Wildlife and to a lesser degree by the Minister of the Environment, who very seldom makes any information of any kind available, is a perpetual type of agreement, 20 years renewable. I think at some point we have to know: what is it that this government has agreed to? What have they gotten us in for? I really hoped that the government would at least come to a con clusion about what its position would be by this point in time. MR. SPEAKER: Government House Leader, summation. MR.

HORSMAN: That was a veritable whirlwind there, Mr. Speaker, earlier. The fact of the matter is that we have had an opportunity to deal with these motions and questions on four occasions -- this is the fourth occasion when this could have been done -- and we are trying to deal with some of them in an orderly way today. By way of information, I could advise the hon. members -- if they had asked me, I would have told them that it would be our proposal to deal with the motions relating to forest management agreements next Tuesday, and that will hopefully be done.

As to the specific issues related to others, obviously when motions come on the Order Paper some are worded well, others are very poorly drafted. Amendments have to be considered, and ministers have to take those under consideration. Questions have to be reviewed as to whether or not the information can, in fact, be ascertained. I won't deal with them individually, as the hon. House leader for the Official Opposition tried to do in some instances, but we will be doing our very best to supply the information requested and deal with the motions in an orderly way.

I don't think anything unreasonable in terms of the length of time has gone on, in terms of the fact that this is only the fourth occasion. We are going to deal with a number of matters today, and as I indicated, 14 or so will hopefully be dealt with next Tuesday afternoon with respect to the one set of questions leading to forest management agreements. Perhaps some others can be dealt with at the time either by accepting, rejecting, or by amendments which have been proposed a number of times. I must say. Mr.

Speaker, that often amendments have been dealt with by discussions between the respective minister and the questioner proposing the motion, so that the information which is available can be provided, and agreed amendments have often been arrived at. It will be our intention to try and seek that course of action to prevent the necessity of any lengthy debate relating to motions, and we're going to be reasonable with respect to trying to achieve those ends. So with that explanation, Mr.

Speaker, I trust that the umbrage which was mounted with such great enthusiasm today may be allayed somewhat as we deal with this matter on the next possible occasion, which would be Tuesday next. MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps hon. members would like to check off on their own scorecards here what the motion is. It has been moved by the Government House Leader that the following mo tions for returns stand and retain their places on the Order Paper: 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 169, 170, 171, 174, 177, 179, 180, 181, 182, 184. [Motion carried] 172. Mr.

Ewasiuk moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing, since 1983, an itemized ac count of how dollars assigned for social housing pro grams under the Alberta Mortgage and Housing Cor poration, AMHC, have been spent, including specifically (1) for each year, the amount allocated and the amount actually spent, (2) the specific projects which were funded by the AMHC under this program, (3) the number of housing units provided in each of these years for the inner city within Edmonton and Calgary, (4) the average cost per housing unit for all AMHC units under this program, and (5) the average cost per housing unit constructed or rehabilitated under this program within the inner city of each, Edmonton and Calgary.

MR. HORSMAN: It is acceptable; we will accept that particu lar motion. [Motion carried] 173. Mr. McEachern moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing a copy of the Kurt Salmon Associates report on the state and future of national and international fashion manufacturing in Alberta, commis sioned by the Department of Economic Development and Trade,, the public release of which was scheduled for December 1988. MR. HORSMAN: On behalf of my colleague the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, I can advise that we are pre pared to accept the motion.

But I do want to add a little reserva tion, because I am advised that the copy in question has, in fact,

June 15, 1989 ALBERTA HANSARD 297 been filed with the library of the Assembly, and therefore it is a matter of public record. The member may not have been able to find it, but that's my advice, that it's there. [Motion carried] 175. Mr. McEachern moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing a copy of the Woods Gordon report on the state and future of clothing and textiles manufacturing in Alberta, commissioned by the Depart ment of Career Development and Employment, the pub lic release of which was scheduled for December 1988. MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, we will not accept that mo tion for a return as it is a matter of public record. It has been on file with the department library since late last winter, in late 1988, and it has been made available to the Legislative Assem bly's library. I would also add that there is an appendix to that particular report that contains some information identifying par ticular companies and so on that were interviewed, so that is not a part of the public record. MR. SPEAKER: Member for Edmonton-Kingsway? Call for the question? MR.

McEACHERN: Well, if the minister is saying that the re port is available in the library, then I will go to the library and get it. I'm wondering what the appendix -- I didn't quite under stand from her comments whether the appendix is also available in the library or not. [interjection] Then why are you holding back the appendix, I guess, is the question I would like to ask. Has it got something in it that's so secret that you can't pass it out to members of this Assembly? It seems to me a reasonable request, that we should get it. MR. SPEAKER: Is the appendix available?

No, it's not available. [Motion lost] 176. On behalf of Mr. Sigurdson, Ms Barrett moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing, by constituency, the amount of money allocated and to which groups under the community facility enhance ment program since its commencement. MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Public Works, Supply and Services. MR. KOWALSKI: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. If there ever was a motion for a return on the Order Paper that is redundant, Motion for a Return 176 is such an example of a to tally redundant motion for a return.

All projects that have been approved under the community facility enhancement program -- a program that, put in perspective again, was announced by the Premier along with the current Minister of Education and myself in October of 1988 and set aside $100 million out of lottery funds over three years to improve family and community life. What we have done in terms of ensuring that the people of Al berta are aware of that program is that as projects are approved, news releases are issued. There's a public information docu ment associated with every project In addition to that, Mr.

Speaker, it would be my intent to make sure that every project is identified with a sign indicating that it is the province of Alberta's commitment to making com munity and family life better. There'll be a sign identified with each of the particular projects. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, plaques will be provided congratulating the worthy groups for their important involvement with respect to all of this. Mr. Speaker, this information is public.

I would point out, then, that on that basis I really question this business of fiscal irresponsibility coming forward when individuals would stand and put motions on the Order Paper requests for public informa tion that's already public; I would put it in the light, essentially, of the support mat's being requested by the ND Party, as an ex ample, in the Official Opposition Services, and the Liberal Party Services. If we take a look at me estimates being requested, we'll see that the Official Opposition Services are requesting a whopping 9.2 percent increase in their support, increased to some $855,410.

The Liberal Party Services are asking for an increase of 39.9 percent. [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: Order. With due respect, hon. minister, per haps we could come back to the motion for a return. MR. KOWALSKI: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The point I was making is that this is a redundant motion. If in fact dollars are being provided to caucuses to do research, men those dollars should be spent doing research. Mr. Speaker, it will be the intent of the government to accept Motion for a Return 176.

I'll repeat that: it will be the intent of the government to accept Motion for a Return 176, but repeating again, Mr. Speaker, that it's redundant The information is public. And further to the filing, when I file the motion I also intend on filing with the motion the cost to the public purse of preparing the motion for a return.

That actual dollar figure will be identified with the motion for a return, and I think it would be only appropriate that when the estimates of these two opposi tion parties are being debated in this Assembly later, in fact their fiscal dollar figures should be reduced by the amount of dollars mat's now being asked to file this particular motion for a return. The government will accept the motion, Mr. Speaker. [Motion carried] 185. Rev.

Roberts moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: (1) a copy of the job description for director of public communications, Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife, (2) all documents relating to the removal of Mr. Donald McMann from that position, and (3) a copy of the position description for the job to which Mr. McMann has now been assigned at the head office of the Alberta Public Affairs Bureau, including a description of specific duties, the job tide, the position number, and a copy of the bu reau's organization chart on which Mr. McMann's position is clearly identified. MR.

SPEAKER: On behalf of the government, Motion 185. MR. KOWALSKI: Mr. Speaker, Motion for a Return 185 as on the Order Paper -- I would like to move an amendment to it, and

298 ALBERTA HANSARD June 15, 1989 I have sufficient copies that perhaps could be circulated to the members of the Assembly. MR. SPEAKER: Page, could you give it to Edmonton-Centre, please. Thank you. The minister, speaking to the amendment. MR. KOWALSKI: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. You'll note that the amendment that has been circulated would have added after the words of motion 185 where the current section (2) reads "all documents relating to the removal of Mr. Donald McMann from that position," the words "after seeking and ob taining the written permission of Mr.

McMann for the release of such documents." Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the amendment, I think it's ex tremely important that we have that clause in there, in the light of recent discussions with respect to pertinent files and cases and everything else. I'm sure all hon. members of the Assembly would see the merit of that amendment, Mr. Speaker. [Motion as amended carried] head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 203. Moved by Mr. McInnis:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly appoint a special select committee to consider, hold public hear ings, and make recommendations regarding regulations designating routes for hazardous cargo in rural areas, safety standards relating to the construction of con tainers for hazardous cargo, training and safety proce dures for operators who handle such cargo, and emer gency safety procedures for dangerous occurrences in volving the transport of hazardous cargo. MR. McINNIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and colleagues.

This has the potential to be a very great day for Alberta's environ ment, because we're not only dealing with a very positive initia tive on the subject of transportation of dangerous goods but you'll hear from me again this afternoon when my private mem ber's legislation on environmental impact assessments is up as well. The motion calls on this Assembly to appoint a special select committee to do some work. I'm suggesting that it's time the members of this Assembly, some of us anyway, rolled up our sleeves to deal with the problem of spills of toxic and hazardous materials throughout our province.

The motion calls simply for the committee to hold hearings and make recommendations on regulations regarding designating routes for hazardous cargo in rural areas of the province, for safety standards relating to the construction of containers and packaging for hazardous cargo, for training and safety procedures for operators who transport and handle hazardous cargo, and also emergency response and backup safety procedures for unanticipated spills or other dan gerous occurrences. By way of background, Mr.

Speaker, there have been a num ber of very high-profile spills in our province in the early part of this year. There was a major diesel spill in Calgary in the CPR yards which went undetected for some period of time; I believe that was in January. I'm sure every member here recalls the occurrence on March 31 of this year when a Byers Transport truck dumped 800 litres of sodium dichromate on highway 831 near Lamont. It caused the highway to be closed for a period of three weeks, Mr. Speaker, which was not only an inconvenience to the traveling public but it may very well have ruined the busi ness of one Mr.

Bob Rogers, who operated a convenience store and a service station along that particular route. It would be an inconvenience for any business to force closure for that period of time. That was a fairly significant occurrence and helped, I think, to draw to the public attention the problem of transporta tion and handling of hazardous cargo. [Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair] In my constituency, Edmonton-Jasper Place, we had a spill on Highway 16X on April 19. It involved a substance very similar to sodium dichromate; it was in fact chromic acid.

There was some hydrochloric acid, sulphuric acid, and a few other goodies in there as well, but chromic acid was the primary ingredient in that particular spill that caused closure of the high way for a period of time. Fortunately, in that instance a passing motorist saw the material leaking from the back of the truck, flagged the driver down, a report was issued fairly quickly after the occurrence took place, and Alberta Environment was on the scene within an hour. I arrived on the scene a couple of hours later, and they had the equipment there ready to commence the cleanup.

The only problem was that nobody was quite sure what the material was, so they had to send some samples off to a laboratory for analysis. It wasn't possible to determine from the documentation with the shipment what exactly was in the material, or at least there was a contradiction between the ship ping material and the label. So there was a delay while they had a sample sent off to the lab. Anyway, these particular incidents are part of a fairly major problem for Alberta, and the problem is best described this way.

In Alberta there are as many hazardous and dangerous chemi cals transported around as there are in the province of Ontario. The reason is that our economy is largely made up of petroleum and petrochemical industries which use some fairly hazardous chemicals, especially in the petrochemical industry, as part of their business operations. With present technology there's no way around that fact. The records show there were 220 spills recorded in 1986, 249 recorded in 1987, and 224 spills recorded in 1988. Now, in the first four months of this year we've had 104 spills, which suggests an increase.

If that rate were to con tinue in the balance of the year, it would be somewhere in ex cess of 300 such occurrences, which does appear to indicate an upswing in the number of occurrences. Now, I'm aware of the suggestion that's been made that be cause of the change in the law, because of improvements in the reporting requirement, we may in fact be only learning about more spills, that there have been spills in the past that went unreported and therefore the previous statistics are invalid. That could well be.

I have no way to evaluate that But I think when you have a level of spills of 109 over four months, that's a serious problem that has to be dealt with and has to be addressed. Whether it's up in a major way from previous years or the same is not as im portant as the fact that there's a lot of hazardous material which has been spilled on our highways and, to some degree, railway yards and other means of transportation, and that's a problem that has to be dealt with. Further to the background of this, Mr. Speaker, the Legisla

June 15, 1989 ALBERTA HANSARD 299 tive Assembly passed the Alberta Transportation of Dangerous Goods Control Act in 1986, which was intended to reform the law in this area and to help protect the public. This particular legislation was assented to in May of 1982. I would like to run through just a few brief provisions of this legislation to explain why it's an appropriate time to set up a select standing commit tee right now, Mr. Speaker. This is, by and large, very good legislation.

It's strong legis lation, and it provides authority in the hands of the minister and the government to deal with a serious public problem. There are provisions for exemptions from the provisions, but I just want to refer briefly to the powers of inspectors under this legislation. It is possible for inspectors, under the Transportation of Dan gerous Goods Control Act, to take for analysis samples of goods being transported in the province. But they also have very strong powers of enforcement.

It's possible for an inspector to seize any dangerous good if he believes there are reasonable grounds to think that there may be an escape or an emission. An inspector may remove the material to an appropriate place, and (

b) take other measures that are practicable to protect per sons and property. An officer can order the material be destroyed or otherwise dis posed of, if there is some degree of risk to the public. So there are very strong powers that are available under that Act. As I said, the minister does have the power to waive that, under special requirements. There are strong powers there in terms of the cleanup of dangerous materials.

It's possible for people acting under the authority of this Act to go ahead and hire a cleanup crew, to bring a cleanup crew out, clean up the situation and, in effect, send the bill to the company. I suppose there is some concern about how these people are selected. In fact, I've heard from some contractors who are active in this field that they feel that there are preferred lists, that people get called, and that there isn't necessarily an open system for invit ing people and contractors to come and help clean these things up.

The one thing, though, that I think is missing from this legis lation -- and I believe it's something that a committee such as this could address -- is that it's not against the law anywhere to spill or to pollute our environment. In fact, it's not against the law -- any law that I've been able to find in the province of Al berta -- to pollute the environment, which means, in effect, that citizens who are traveling on the highways or otherwise exposed to occurrences like this have no particular right in law to a clean environment I think that's a deficiency in our law.

Some peo ple will argue, well, it's not against the law to have an accident either. But if you made it an offence to spill dangerous materi als on the highway or other places where it could be a hazard to public health, I think that would put a greater onus on people operating in that area to make sure that it doesn't happen. Charges, I would remind members, were laid in the case of the Lamont incident. But the charges were only laid because the driver phoned the wrong phone number when he finally got to his destination.

He phoned the local Environment department number, which on a Friday morning was unattended. A mes sage was left on an answering machine, it wasn't discovered for some hours later, and then that, of course, delayed the cleanup. There were charges laid in respect of failure to report, but there were no charges laid about the actual occurrence, because it is not, in the province of Alberta, against the law to dump a haz ardous chemical on a highway or any other such place.

You're required to hang a sign on the side of the vehicle to indicate the general category of material that's contained, whether it's cor rosive, flammable, explosive -- we've all seen the red diamonds that indicate that, and there are certain requirements that I'll get into in a moment -- but it is not against the law to spill that ma terial on a public highway or in any other place. So that is, I think, the main deficiency of the legislation.

The legislation provides for the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations, as most legislation does, and I believe that the categories of concerns dealt with in the regulatory

section do cover all the concerns. For example, the Lieutenant Governor does have the power to (h) [prescribe] safety marks, safety requirements, and safety standards [in] general. . . which much of this resolution is about (

n) governing the route and time of travel of vehicles transporting dangerous goods on highways, which is again a concern of this motion. (

p) governing the reporting of any discharge, emission, or escape of dangerous goods. These powers exist in the legislation, Mr. Speaker. But what do we find when we look at the regulations? It's a very curious matter, and it's one that I've never run across before. This is

section 16(1) that I refer to, the regulation-making power. Rather than develop their own regulations, this provincial government has simply enacted a regulation to adopt federal regulations which cover similar categories holus-bolus. I would just like to read it. It's very, very brief. Alberta regulation 383/85 says -- and this is the important point; the federal regula tions are defined under the

Definitions section. [It] means the English version of Parts I to IX of the Transpor tation of Dangerous Goods Regulations . . . made [by the fed eral government] under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act (Canada). And

section 3 of that regulation says simply: The Federal Regulations are hereby adopted and shall be deemed to have full force and effect with respect to handling, offering for transport or transporting of dangerous goods in Alberta. So what we've done, Mr. Speaker, is simply adopted the federal regulations as the law in the province of Alberta. Now, my question is: well, why would we assume that fed eral regulations can solve all of Alberta's problems?

It seems to me this is a government that has in the past taken a strong posi tion that the province ought to be able to make laws in its own jurisdiction, regulations that are for the benefit of the people of Alberta, and it's a bit unusual to see the province adopting fed eral regulations holus-bolus. I would suggest that there is more to being the minister responsible for Public Safety Services than simply copying down these federal regulations. Actually, they're not even copied in the regulations; they're simply re ferred to. These are the federal regulations.

They're quite ex tensive, I'll grant you that, but I would think there would be a little more to the administration of this particular Act, given the unique nature of the economy in Alberta and the type of occur rences there have been over the last several years, especially in the earlier part of this year. I would think there'd be a little bit more to it than simply saying: "Okay. Well, we adopt the fed eral regulation. Whatever they do, we do," and leave it at that There are approximately 500 pages of federal regulations.

I won't refer to them in any great detail except to focus in on the deficiencies in those regulations, which is what this motion and the process that's suggested by the motion are intended to deal

300 ALBERTA HANSARD June 15, 1989 with. One particular deficiency, and it's one that our legislative intern pointed out to me directly, is the definition of a "trained person." These regulations do require that hazardous materials are only handled by trained persons. A trained person is defined as someone who is trained in the aspects of handling, offering for transport or transport ing of dangerous goods related to his assigned duties (

a) when his employer (

i) is satisfied that [he] has received adequate train ing in aspects of the handling . . . That's the definition of a trained person. So you're a trained person under these federal regulations if your employer is satis fied that you're trained. It's one of the more lax

definitions of training and training standards that I've seen, especially in law and regulation. Persons who are transporting dangerous goods under these regulations don't even themselves have to be trained persons; they can be working under the supervision of a trained person. So what you can have is a person, likely a supervisor -- the person on the desk, let's say, in a trucking operation -- who's trained to the satisfaction of his employer.

He then supervises some drivers, and they're covered because they're working un der the supervision of a "trained person," and the basis of this is nothing more than the satisfaction of the employer, according to the federal regulation. It's not at all certain that everyone transporting those goods has sufficient expertise in how to handle those materials.

In fact, in some cases I would suggest that drivers of some of these vehicles aren't even aware what it is that's in the vehicle that they're driving, which puts them a long ways from being equipped to handle and take care of the transportation of those materials. That's a particular deficiency under the federal regulations, and we have, as I've said, Mr. Speaker, no Alberta regulations that supplement these federal regulations at all. To the items specifically enumerated in the motion, the first is the designation of routes on which dangerous goods may be transported.

Under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Control Act it is the responsibility of individual municipalities to determine what route the hazardous goods should travel through. The Act and regulations and the operation of the department, as described in the annual reports tabled in the Leg islative Assembly, are to assist municipalities in preparing such bylaws. The department is very helpful in that respect. They publish a model bylaw, and this is the look of it. It's -- I don't know how many pages. I would compare it to certain other documents, but I've been in trouble for that already, Mr.

Speaker, so I won't It's a very extensive document published by the department intended to guide municipalities in how they can draft a bylaw to control the transport of dangerous goods. Currently municipalities prepare these bylaws -- they don't have to consult with the Public Safety Services, although they may -- which must be reviewed and approved by the minister for Al berta Public Safety Services. At present the following municipalities have received bylaw approval: Beaumont, Blackfalds, Bonnyville, Calgary, Ed monton, Fort McMurray, Fort Saskatchewan, High River, Red Deer, St.

Albert, Spruce Grove, and Strathcona county. Those are the ones that have bylaws presently in place; that is, they have been approved by the minister responsible for Public Safety Services. Bylaws are under development or review for Airdrie, Brooks, Camrose, Eaglesham, Grande Prairie, Lethbridge, Medicine Hat, Okotoks, Olds, Stettler, Stony Plain, Sundre, Taber, Wainwright, and Whitecourt. And that's it, Mr. Speaker. The others are in limbo at this point in time.

I think one of the things to note about that particular list that I just read out is that the only county that has a dangerous goods control bylaw is the county of Strathcona, located immediately to the east of the city of Edmonton. None of the other counties has them or, for that matter, has them under development, ac cording to the information that we received from Public Safety Services.

So, outside of that area the only thing that exists is a kind of informal understanding or consensus, if you like, about what is the appropriate place for a driver to haul a load of hazardous materials, and there are some very well-traveled routes in the province in which no such bylaw exists. It would be quite a lengthy list to enumerate them. Rather like the motions for returns, it would have been quicker to name the ones that we deal with rather man the ones that we don't.

The criteria by which the Public Safety Services minister judges the appropriateness of bylaws, I submit, should be con tained within an information package being sent from the minis try. That's not there at the present. They give you a model of what they want, but they don't give you the criteria the minister uses to review them or to judge them. It's a fairly lengthy and complicated process as it presently exists. There's a further problem with the bylaw approach, and the problem was raised in this House by the Member for Taber- Warner the other day.

The prosecution of municipal bylaws is now becoming the responsibility of the municipalities them selves. In smaller municipalities, in particular, they of course have no staff who can prosecute under these bylaws. They have to go out and hire counsel at some fairly ferocious rate, no doubt, to engage in these prosecutions. So we put municipalities in the position of, in effect, enforcing a provincial Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Control Act, at their own expense.

Not only do they have to find out who may be transgressing their bylaw, if they get it through the depart ment and if the minister finally gets around to approving it, then they have to send inspectors or police out to try to find out who may be transporting dangerous goods outside of the prescribed area.

And if they do find the perpetrator under the bylaw, they then have to go to the expense of prosecuting from municipal funds, which is a hardship on some municipalities and, I sug gest, may make the enforcement of this particular legislation, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Control Act, less diligent than it would be if we were talking about a provincial enforcement process, which I believe there should be. I think it's very appropriate for the government to be consulting with municipalities. There should be a dialogue concerning a provin cial plan on which roads dangerous goods should go through.

One of the cases that brought this to my attention, Mr. Speaker, was the case of the Lily Lake highway. There's a sec ondary road that goes by the Alberta Wildlife Park. The county wants to push a secondary road across Lily Lake right next to the Wildlife Park. You draw a line on a map from the petrochemical industry in Fort Saskatchewan and the county of Strathcona up to the hazardous waste centre at Swan Hills, and it goes right through Lily Lake. They're very concerned that there's nothing to prevent hazardous materials going through there.

So, the designation of routes by which dangerous goods may be transported belongs to individual municipalities, and I submit that there is a risk involved in this that we can't afford at

June 15, 1989 ALBERTA HANSARD 301 this point in time. Let me give you another example. When 2,200 litres of gasoline was spilled near Innisfree on April 18, it occurred close enough to elementary and high schools for classes to be can celed that day. Innisfree is a municipality without a dangerous goods bylaw, and this spill might have involved more serious substances than gasoline. In fact, not only does Innisfree not have it, but the adjoining municipalities, Vermilion and Vegreville, don't have them either.

The risk is that if you don't have that kind of control bylaw in place, very hazardous materi als are being transported next to schools, hospitals, and other facilities where some very defenceless people are being placed at risk. A second concern of the motion is the lack of safety stand ards relating to containers. I mentioned the chromic acid spill on the Yellowhead Highway in my constituency. What appears to have happened there is the load shifted when the truck went over a bump, there was pressure put on one of these plastic con tainers, it cracked, and the stuff was all over the highway.

Now, I think it's unacceptable that we have some very cor rosive and highly toxic materials and there are no standards for what containers they can be contained in. By and large, manufacturers try to choose materials that are up to the job, but sometimes things are mixed and remixed; they don't always end up in the containers in which they were originally manufactured. I think if we develop packaging regulations in Alberta and not wait for the federal government to do that, we have a chance to develop an industry here around safe packaging.

I know there are many businesses who are working on that problem right now. In terms of reporting requirements, I believe there is some confusion in the minds of people in the industry about who they report to. I think it's getting better. I would like to see us have monitoring devices in certain hazardous materials -- that's not provided in the regulations -- so that a driver knows when mate rial is leaking. How about a secondary barrier, Mr. Speaker? I think, again, if we have regulations, we could develop technol ogy in our province.

We might have industries based on safe packaging, monitoring equipment, and I think there are jobs to be had in safely transporting these materials. [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] So I'm proposing in my motion, Mr. Speaker, that the As sembly get to work on this problem, that the Assembly develop some standards which will assist the government in performing the function that it has to perform under the Act which was passed by the Assembly. I think the bottom line is that it's sim ply not good enough to copy down the federal regulations.

Our people, our economy, are too important for that There are some prospects for businesses and jobs to be had and to be made out of improving safety standards in this area, and I really think the Members of the Legislative Assembly could very easily co operate to make that a reality, not only to make our highways safer and to make our people safer in relation to the hazardous chemicals that are going to be transported in our province but also to secure our economic future. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. KOWALSKI: Mr.

Speaker, Motion 203 is a very impor tant one and I think one that will be of interest to all of the citi zens of Alberta, and certainly to all of the Members of the Leg islative Assembly.

In looking at the motion, the motion asks for the appointment of a special select committee to consider, to hold public hear ings, and to make recommendations for specific areas -- as best I can understand it -- one, regarding regulations designating routes for hazardous cargo in rural areas; the second, to look at safety standards relating to the construction of containers for hazardous cargo; another item looking at training and safety procedures for operators who handle such cargo; and then lastly, a look at emergency safety procedures for dangerous good oc currences involving the transport of hazardous goods.

Mr. Speaker, it's an all-encompassing motion and one that certainly deserves the attention of the House. I think it's impor tant that . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please, hon. minister. The Chair hesitates to interrupt, but the time of 4:30 has arrived, and under Standing Order 8(3) we must now go to other business. head: PUBLIC BILLS AND ORDERS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Second Reading) Bill 202 Environmental Impact Assessment Act MR. McINNIS: I'm sure we won't have too many speaking requests from members of this Assembly, for a few days anyway, after this.

At a time when public opinion surveys are clearly showing that environmental concerns are the number one priority of citi zens in our province and elsewhere, the process currently used by this government to do environmental assessments is nothing short of disgraceful, Mr. Speaker. There are many, many things wrong with the current process. The fact is that we have no comprehensive legislation governing environmental assessments in this province. The process as it currently exists derives from one particular section, I believe it's

section 8, of the Land Sur face Conservation and Reclamation Act The fact is that we don't have legislation that spells out the context, the require ment, and the detail of how an environmental impact assessment is to be done. To begin with, the question of whether or not an environ mental impact assessment is done at all is left up to the Minister of the Environment. The minister can decide, on virtually any given project, whether he wants an environmental impact as sessment or he doesn't There's an exception to that, and that's energy developments, which are governed by separate legisla tion.

I think that's interesting, Mr. Speaker. If you've got an energy project in this province, you've got a right to have public hearings; you've got a right to have intervenor funding. For any other project you've got no right whatever. You don't even have a right to an environmental impact assessment But we've seen in the case of forestry development, $3.5 billion of projects, forest management agreements covering 200,000 square kilometres, virtually the whole of the green zone of the province, that there are no public hearings on any of those projects.

There is no environmental impact assessment in the forestry component of those projects. Instead we have a process that changes as often as the Minister of the Environment makes an appearance in this Legislative Assembly.

302 ALBERTA HANSARD June 15, 1989 Just looking at some of the forest projects presently under way, in the case of Weldwood and Daishowa there was next to no public participation process, a few meetings sponsored by the company. [interjections] Well, I invite the members to take their place in the debate as I am, because without any question, they have a different view of it. Why is it, Mr. Speaker, that if you have an energy project, you have something closer to a proper environmental impact assessment, you have public hear ings, and you have intervenor funding? In forestry projects you don't.

Why is there that difference, hon. members? What passes for public participation in this province is, in effect, public relations exercises orchestrated by the companies proposing the developments themselves. This process is de signed so that companies can make a sales pitch for their pro jects to local communities. I went to the public participation process sponsored by Alberta-Pacific/Mitsubishi/Honshu cor porations. They presented an overhead projector presentation which was primarily economic in character.

It was basically designed to promote the idea that everyone in the community would become rich by supplying goods and services to the com pany, which is interesting and it certainly has its place. But I talked to people who've seen that same presentation six differ ent times from the company when they were looking for an swers to specific questions about environmental issues. This type of process is not a substitute for a proper environmental impact assessment which the legislation, Bill 202, provides.

For years I think many Albertans have been telling this gov ernment that its environmental assessment process is completely inadequate. Now the federal government is telling the provin cial government that their environmental impact assessment process is inadequate. I find it strange in the extreme that the Minister of the Environment comes here day after day and says: "There's no federal intervention. The federal government is merely looking after their interests. They're not involved in criticizing our process." I say baloney.

The federal environ mental review guidelines, which I have in front of me, say very clearly that the federal government cannot under law become involved if they are duplicating another process.

If the provin cial government had an environmental impact assessment proc ess which covered the bases, the federal government would be prohibited by law from conducting an environmental impact assessment The Minister of the Environment should know that In the case of the Rafferty-Alameda decision, which the min ister referred to today, the judge said, and I quote: I agree that unwarranted duplication should be avoided but it seems to me that a number of federal concerns were not dealt with by the provincial environment impact statement.

That's what caused the federal judge to lift the permit on the construction of the Rafferty-Alameda dam. I'll repeat that: . . . a number of federal concerns were not dealt with by the provincial environment impact statement He goes on to say, Mr. Speaker. As such, I do not think that applying the EARP Guidelines Order would result in unwarranted duplication but would fill in necessary information gaps. Mr. Speaker, that's what we're talking about, "information gaps." There are information gaps in the provincial process which are so big you could drive a pulp mill through them. What are some of these gaps, Mr.

Speaker? The gaps are in the area of the cumulative effect of seven projects -- whatever makes the government believe that you can look at a pulp mill in isolation from the river system it's a part of is beyond me -- and the lack of public hearings, meaningful public hearings, and it doesn't have to be something that ties people up in court forever. The environmental assessment review process guidelines have worked very well, and they have a set of guidelines on public hearings which are friendly to laypeople.

For example, all hearings of a panel shall be public hearings conducted in a nonjudicial, informal but structured manner. Nothing wrong with that. You don't have to be a lawyer; you don't have to have a lawyer to be involved in that. Witnesses before a panel may be questioned but may not be sworn or sub poenaed. There are public information sessions that go on be fore the hearings are held so that people have the information before them. I don't know what this government is afraid of that it doesn't want to have this kind of environmental impact assessment.

I tend to agree, after consultation with a lot of people, that it's appropriate to have the developer of a project prepare their own environmental impact statement. That's fair enough, Mr. Speaker. But then that document has to be subject to review not only by the environmental assessment authorities of the Depart ment of the Environment but also by the people who are af fected. Now, I'm sure the minister is well advised by technical advisers who are capable of spotting errors and omissions and contradictions, incorrect data, and they will do that from their perspective.

I'm sure the minister can go to those officials and have all his questions answered to his satisfaction. [Mr. Jonson in the Chair] That's basically what people in the community are asking for. They want a process that allows them to have their ques tions answered to their satisfaction. And it's not the same thing. Just because a minister of the Crown is satisfied that everything is rosy, it doesn't mean that people in the community are.

I say that because there are serious scientific and technical issues in volved with any one of these projects, the citizens in the com munities should have the right to hire their experts. They should have a right to have the technical information translated into English so they can understand it, so they can have people who know what they're talking about quiz the experts about how they arrived at the conclusion.

You get people who come to these hearings and say, "Well, you're not going to be gagged by sulphur fumes because there won't be a temperature inversion in this town more than one or two days a year." You know, not everybody can forecast the weather with that kind of accuracy, and sometimes experts are wrong. Sometimes people who have a lot of letters behind their name submit a report that they think their employer wants them to submit. Sometimes that happens, Mr. Minister; it really does in the real world.

There have been scientists along those lines until very re cently who denied that there's any problem with the ozone layer. Deny, deny, deny. Well, it's now a fact that we've got holes over the north and south poles in the ozone layer, and it's a fact that more people than ever before are dying of skin cancer as a result of it. But still, there were scientific people with de grees and experience and bona fides who were prepared to say everything is fine. And you get that sometimes in the environ mental impact assessment process.

So why not allow people in the community to have their experts look at the material so they can ask the right questions and have their questions answered to their satisfaction? It shouldn't just be the government that gets satisfied in these things. It's got to be the people at some level at some time or other. And that's provided for in this legisla

June 15, 1989 ALBERTA HANSARD 303 hon. A provision is made in this legislation to have the public hearing process conducted by the Environment Council of Alberta. I'd like to say a few words about why our party feels that the Environment Council of Alberta is the appropriate body to do these types of hearings. The ECA has a very long history of conducting fair and impartial public hearings which goes back several decades in our province.

They have a reputation for sci entific and technical excellence, they have a reputation for po litical neutrality, and I think those are the kinds of things an agency would want to bring to bear in holding public hearings. There has to be that level of trust in the community. You have to have people who can talk to all sides. I heard the minister today refer to the people who are rally ing in favour of quick approval of the Al-Pac mill as being real people, as if the rest of the people were in some sense unreal.

I think that tends to put him in the camp of endorsing their par ticular view of this project It's a dangerous thing for somebody in his position to be there. Now, he would probably allege that I have biases as well, and as humble as I am, I would probably admit that that's true. The Environment Council of Alberta doesn't carry that bias, and they don't have that particular problem. That's why I think they should be selected.

It's also why I think the minister should be very careful about who he chooses to be the new chief executive of the Environment Coun cil of Alberta, because whatever else he does, he doesn't want to destroy the neutrality and the credibility of that organization which has been built over a couple of decades and which is very well deserved.

The proposal in this legislation is that the Environment Council of Alberta be the ones to conduct the hearings, and they would ultimately produce a report which would address the con cerns of the local people, address the scientific and technical issues, and make a recommendation to the government. Now, the government ultimately has the responsibility to decide these things; there's no question about that The government is elected by the people. If they make incorrect decisions, some times they have long-term consequences, but at least they can be thrown out and hopefully one day soon they will.

But I think the government should not be afraid to have all the issues on the table when they make that decision. All we're asking is that the Environment Council be allowed to hold hearings on major projects, that they be allowed to have the issues clarified in a structured, semiformal type of environment where questions can be answered, where notes can be compared, where things are on the record, and then come to a conclusion one way or the other.

That, presumably, would result in a recommendation to the government, and it's up to the government from that point to decide whether or not they wish to proceed with the project. They still have the right to make that choice. But at least all the issues would be on the table; there would be clear understanding of what the environmental impact of the project is. Now, why is it so important that we have a clear understand ing of what the environmental impacts of projects are? It's be cause oftentimes environmental problems with projects don't occur and don't become apparent until many years later.

Very seldom do you see a company come along and say, "We'd like to invest some money here, we're going to create some jobs, but we're going to ruin your environment, we're going to ruin your health, and we're going to make your lives miserable." Has anybody ever heard that from a project proponent? I don't think so, and I don't think you ever would.

They make promises that sort of omit that In fact, they tend to promise that the environ mental impact is either negligible or benign, or often you hear the argument that it's going to actually improve on the environ ment I believe it's only engineers and Tories who think that Mother Nature can be improved upon. I think Mother Nature can be worked with, things can be done, but it's seldom that the engineer comes along who's got a better idea. [interjection] AN HON. MEMBER: You woke up Red Deer. MR. McEACHERN: Go back to sleep. MR. McINNIS: Sorry to disturb you.

So what we have to look to in our province is: what are the consequences of development? I think there's a pretty good ex ample, a fairly recent one, in our province that makes the point perhaps as well as any other. In the community of Drayton Val ley there's a project called Pelican Spruce Mills. Pelican Spruce Mills manufactures oriented strandboard and some lumber prod ucts as well. Now, they have a mill built on land which was owned by the municipality of Drayton Valley.

It was land they were induced to buy by the Alberta Housing Corporation under one of these housing development scams which litter the province.

The developer came along and the municipality sug gested, "We'll go on this land because we haven't got anything else to do with it We've got this big loan from the provincial government and don't know how we're going to pay it so let's put the mill on the Alberta Housing Corporation development." They had some discussion about it, and sure enough, the developer came to the town council and said, "Well, this is go ing to be a great development and you've got to have it right here in town; it's going to make the economy prosper," and so on and so forth.

Well, the mill was built and it turns out to make a long story short Mr. Speaker, that it spews a lot of ash, soot and, in some cases, sawdust up in the air, which settles down on top of everybody in the community. You know, kids can't keep clean; people who have breathing difficulties suffer much more than they did previously. There are quite a few health complications and problems that result from the fact that this mill spews a certain amount of ash and soot and sawdust all over the community. Now, I think it makes sense, Mr.

Speaker, that the prosperity of a community would be just as much there if that mill were 10 kilometres out of town than if it's right in town. If it was spew ing ash and soot and sawdust, it wouldn't be on top of a town; it would be on top of some land where the impact would not be so great It's a fairly elementary and simple example. But the en vironmental impact assessment process, such as it exists in the province, was not able to identify that ash and soot and sawdust were going to fall on the people from this mill.

If it had, it would have been a relatively simple matter to move the mill 10 clicks out of town where it wouldn't have that problem. Why would the government be afraid of a process that would spot a problem like that and allow the thing to be moved? But when you have that sort of thing, it has a way of illuminating issues quite clearly. I was interested in some of the discussion at Grassland over the Alberta-Pacific mill, where the company documents point out. . . They were discussing the question of site selection: why is the site near the community of Prosperity?

Some of the people who lived in Prosperity wanted to know, "Why us? Why are you putting it by us?" The company said, "Well, that allows

304 ALBERTA HANSARD June 15, 1989 us to get away from the town of Athabasca." And somebody said, "If it's so important to you to get away from the town of Athabasca, does this mean that this thing would have an en vironmental impact on the vicinity nearby?" The company, in my opinion anyway, didn't have a very good answer for that question, why it's so important to move the mill away from town when it's not going to have any environmental impact anyway. You know, questions like that deserve to be probed in some depth.

If a company feels it's important to move the plant some distance out of town, there must be some reasons for it What are those reasons? What do they relate to? What will the impacts of those things be on people who are there? It was also pointed out at the meeting in Grassland that the environmental impact statement prepared by the company

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19890615
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L22 S1 19890615 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	b2642e67ad8e50a173fe793d6424459717f30f3c

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