LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Monday, April 17, 1972 2:30 p.m. [The Hous e met at 2:30 pm.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair.] head: PRESENTING PETITIONS MR. ASHTON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present the petitions of: Alfred Baum, Fred Drysdale, William Hoag, Donald Hawkes, and Brian Tink for

an Act to Incorporate the Grande Prairie Racing Association; The Historical Society of Alberta for

an Act to amend

an Act to Incorporate The Historical Society of Alberta; Sister Juliette Larose, Sister Ellen Brunt, Sister Rachel Maynard, and Sister Laura Murphy for

an Act to Incorporate the Sisters of Charity of Providence of Calgary; Les Soeurs de Charite de la Providence des Territoires du Nord Ouest for

an Act to amend An Ordinance to Incorporate Les Soeurs de Charite de la Provindence des Territoires du Nord Ouest; The Society of Industrial Accountants of Alberta for

an Act being The Society of Industrial Accountants of Alberta Act, 1972; Canadian Junior College for

an Act to amend

An Act to Incorporate Canadian Junior College; Thelma Thompson Baxter for

an Act to provide for an Extension of Time for Commencing an Action Beyond the Period Allowed by The Limitation of Actions Act; Ralph A. Siebring, Douglas Clarke, R. J. Barrett, J. C. Givens, Isaiah Melech, Peter Huising and Mrs. Greta Bennett for

an Act to incorporate The Institute of Accredited Public Accountants of Alberta. head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS MR. SCHMID: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce to you and through you to the hon. members of this Assembly the President of the Scandanavian Airlines System, Mr. Knut Hagrup. Scandinavian Airlines System is one of the largest in the world and they are the ones who pioneered the Polar Route to Europe. With them is Count Otto von Rosen who is also with the Scandanavian Airlines System. I would like them now to rise and be recognized by this Assembly. They are in the Speaker's gallery.

Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1749

30-2 ALBERTA HANSARD April 17th 1972 MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, today in the members' gallery and in the public gallery some 120 strong are enthusiastic members of the Parkview School Grade IX accompanied by their teacher Mrs. Brook, Mr. Scott, and Mrs. Hendrickson. I ask that they stand now and receive a welcome by the House. MR. DIACHUK: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to introduce a group of 57 students to you and through you to the Assembly from my constituency from the North Edmonton Christian School. They are Grade VII and VIII students accompanied by Mr.

Prinsen, and I wish that they would now rise and be recognized. head: FILING RETURNS AND TABLING REPORTS DR. HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, I wish to file two reports. One is that requested by the hon. Member for Little Bow, having to do with the personnel administration office and the number of people in each department; the second one, requested by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, having to do with the labour force for February. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Labour Force in Grande Cache MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the hon.

Minister of Industry and Commerce and say that over the weekend I received 150 letters from various places across the province concerning the Grande Cache operation, and paramount in this representation was the statement that instead of this creating jobs for Albertans, the companies involved are importing Japanese labourers. Is this so, Mr. Minister? MR. PEACOCK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer that question to the hon. Mr. Dowling, who is the Member for Edson, and Grande Cache falls in his constituency. MR. DOWLING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I am very much aware of the importing of Japanese labourers.

That was a policy that was established prior to the present government taking over. Since we have taken over the administration I have been in touch with the people of McIntyre Porcupine. In fact, a number of us went up to Grande Cache to discuss the entire matter with the principals of the company there. They indicated to us that they have established a training program for Albertans. They are attempting to hire as many Albertans as they can, but at the present time they can't meet all their requirements within the province. They are in Saskatchewan negotiating for some additions to the labour force.

But as for the continuing of the policy of importing Japanese, that was established prior to our taking over. We are trying to avoid this as much as possible, and employ Albertans where possible. MR. CLARK: May I ask a supplementary question to the hon. minister commenting. That question would be, approximately what percentage of Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1750

April 17th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 30-3 the work force would be people from Japan brought specifically over for this project? MR. DOWLING: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm not capable of answering that question. I'd be willing to answer it if the member would table it as a Return. I would also ask him if he would table the 150 letters which he received, for my information. What I would like to say is that I make as many trips to Grande Cache as possible and I'm under the impression that the percentage of Japanese that are on the labour force in Grande Cache is not that extensive.

There are some Koreans employed there, there are people from Poland, there are people from Nova Scotia and various parts of the world, but the percentage of foreign employees as opposed to Canadians is very small. MR. CLARK: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, and one more supplementary question. To the minister responsible, I would be pleased to table the letters once I get the approval of each of the 150 individuals who wrote them. MR. DOWLING: Mr.

Speaker, on that particular point, I wish the hon. member would, because I would like to take the time to write each one individually and explain the position that this government has taken regarding Grande Cache. We are very concerned about the employment there, and especially about employing Albertans. I have done everything I can to stimulate the course that was started up there for mining personnel. They are attempting to employ a number of the native people in the area as well, and I would like personally to answer all these letters that the member mentioned. MR. PURDY: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Labour in regard to Grande Cache. In a news

article on Friday, Lac La Ronge Mine in Saskatchewan is closing down and the news flash stated that 177 miners from this mine would be hired by McIntyre Porcupine. Is this correct? DR. HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, the facts with respect to the question are as follows: the mine in question is a copper mine. It isn't a coal mine, as the question might have inferred. The total staff at Lac La Ronge is 150. The people at Grande Cache are looking at 30. Twenty of them are hardrock miners and may be able to do underground mining at Grande Cache.

Ten are mechanics and electricians -- the kind of people who are very scarce to get, so the Grande Cache operation is looking at a total of 30. Let me take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to clarify the matter of the closing down of the mine in Saskatchewan. This will be done over a period of up to three months. I think the news release gave the impression that this was an immediate closing. This is not the case. This mine will be phased out and men will be attempted to be placed. While I am on my feet, if I could refer to the series of previous questions.

To the best of my knowledge there was a maximum number of people who would be brought in from Japan to work in the coal mine in Grande Cache. This was for reasons of the absence of the kind of help, like electricians, mechanics and people who had specific training to work with particular kinds of equipment, very Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1751

30-4 ALBERTA HANSARD April 17th 1972 heavy equipment, which is underground. This is to the best of my knowledge. In the trip to which the hon. Mr. Dowling refers, Mr. Murray, the manager of the mine, said to us that once this number of people come to Grande Cache, that will be the end of the agreement with respect to that particular clause, and no further people from Japan would be brought in. The training program is moving quite well. It can't handle more than 24 students at any one time because of the nature of the enterprise having to do with coal mining. We are very close to this.

It may be in the interests of the House, Mr. Speaker, to table the exact information with respect to how many miners are Canadian, how many from Alberta, how many from whatever place. Alberta Resources Railway MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question on this subject to the hon. Minister of Industry. On Friday you mentioned re-negotiating the Alberta Resources Railway Agreement with the CNR. What reduction in freight rates do you feel is necessary? I believe you mentioned a reduction of freight rates as one of the things you would be considering. MR. PEACOCK: Mr.

Speaker, while we are in negotiation in regard to the freight rates, I don't think it is in the best interests of the citizenry or this House to divulge what the negotiations are at this time. But, we have — and it is common knowledge -- dropped our rate on the Alberta Resources Railway from $1.50 to 50 cents. MR. NOTLEY: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that we must pick up the operating loss on the railroad to resources, do you not consider a reduction of freight rates to be an indirect subsidy to the company? MR. PEACOCK: Mr.

Speaker, while the question might be out of order, I would like to correct the hon. member in the fact that we do not pick up the operating expense of the railroad. We pick up the capital charges of the railroad. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lloydminster, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary Bow, and then the hon. Member for Hanna-Oyen, and the hon. Member for Drumheller. Hog Processing and Marketing MR. J. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I would like to direct to the hon. Minister of Agriculture.

I understand that members of the Hog Marketing Board and members from your department have left on a trip to Europe today. I would like to know, what is the purpose of this trip? Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1752

April 17th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 30-5 DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, certain members of the Hog Marketing Board, along with members from my department, are making a trip to Europe to look into a number of things. Firstly, to examine how particularly the Danish and the Italian market in pork is handled, in relation to continuity of supply problems, and particularly, how the European economic community handles that supply problem for export. These people, particularly Denmark, have had some experience in this, and we think that there might be some merit in that. As well as that, Mr.

Speaker, the entire group has taken samples of products in relation to some of these surplus products that we have in Alberta at this time, for which we think there may be some market in the European Economic Community, and I refer specifically to potato granules and other prepared potato products. We hope there will be an opening in Europe in the near future for the sale of these products. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. Prior to the leaving of this delegation to Europe, was a brief or a study prepared of written material made by the group? DR.

HORNER: I just don't know what the import of the member's question is. Is he saying did we involve the people that had the excess product and the Potato Commission in relation to the market we feel might be there? If that is the question, the answer is yes, Mr. Speaker, and additional to that this is a follow-up of some contacts that other members of my department made when they were in Europe over the past two or three months in relation to possible markets in this area. MR. TAYLOR: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the hon. minister tell us how many members are included in the team? DR.

HORNER: There are three members of the Hog Board, the manager of the Hog Board and the director of Product Development in the department, Mr. Omar Broughton, who was previously a secretary in the Alberta Wheat Pool. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, another supplementary question to the minister. What has happened to the amount of export of pork to Japan in the last six months? DR. HORNER: What has happened? MR. CLARK: Has it increased? DR. HORNER: Well, additionally, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to announce that the Executive Council has approved grants to the Hog Marketing Board to set up our pilot project in relation to exporting hogs to Japan. This is a joint project between industry, the Hog Marketing Board and the government for a consistent export of hogs to the Japanese market. This totals 750 hogs a week alone in our own pilot project. Other private industry in relation to some of the other processing companies have developed and Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1753

30-6 ALBERTA HANSARD April 17th 1972 expanded the market for pork in the Far East, and in general then, in answer to the member’s question, there has been a substantial expansion on a continuing basis in relation to the hog market in the Far East. We are hopeful that with this approach, plus the approach of finding out how we can develop policies in relation to the problem of continuity of supply, we can not only get into the market in Japan, Korea and into the Far East generally, but we can stay there once we are there. MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Could the hon. minister tell us the reason why the committee is rather heavily loaded with those connected with the hog marketing? DR. HORNER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, because the idea and the contacts for the trip were developed by the Chairman of the Hog Marketing Board.

We were asked to help out and we were very pleased to do so, and at that time I asked them if we could send a member of the department with them so that we could take advantage of the information that they would receive and also expand our activities in these other areas because we were particularly concerned about trying to clear the warehouses in Southern Alberta of prepared or processed pototo product. National Air Photo Library MR. WILSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs.

Inasmuch as the Calgary branch of the National Air Photo Library contains 700,000 aerial photos used by industry and geologists, as well as foresters and agriculturists, and the federal government is planning to close the service June 1st, what steps have you taken to persuade Ottawa to continue this important service to the large geological and geophysical industry in Alberta? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I became aware of the matter today by noticing it in a daily newspaper. I have not taken any particular action at all; I certainly have not had the time to.

But I think it would be wise to look into the matter and to determine if there is going to be some other method of providing this service to the people who are using it to such a great extent, and if in fact there is none, we can provide some assistance to make sure that the federal government will come up with some alternative method, and I’ll certainly be happy to do that. MR. WILSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can we be assured then that the provincial government will do everything possible to preserve this service which is vital to the Alberta gas and oil industry? MR. GETTY: Well, Mr.

Speaker, as I just said, I am not sure whether this service is the thing that will finally be in existence; it may be that they have something even better in mind to take its place. In any event I can assure you that we will fulfill our responsibility to make sure that something will be there to do the job that this has been doing. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1754

April 17th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 30-7 MR. WILSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Are you aware that the Independent Petroleum Association, the Canadian Petroleum Association, the University of Calgary Geology Department, and members of the Alberta Society of Petroleum Geologists are all concerned about losing this facility? MR. GETTY: Well, Mr.

Speaker, normally it would seem to me that when there is that great a concern, and that great a use of something that it would not just unilaterally be removed, since the people in Ottawa have a concern to provide a service to the people of this country just like we do in this Legislature, and therefore I think it would be only wise to make sure that we know all the facts before we take off on a course of action. However, I gave the hon. member the assurances that we would protect the interests of the people of Alberta. MR. WILSON: A supplementary to the hon. Minister of Mines and Minerals, Mr. Speaker.

Is the provincial government prepared to purchase the prints from Ottawa and continue the service if the federal government is adamant about closing the Calgary Air Photo Library? MR. SPEAKER: This is a hypothetical question depending on whether the federal government is adequate; however it's up to the hon. minister to answer. MR. DICKIE: Mr. Speaker, I might say that certainly my colleague and I will review the situation to see what can be done to explore that, with a view to making some arrangements that would be mutually satisfactory to the parties concerned. Natural Gas Franchises MR. FRENCH: Mr.

Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Agriculture. Pending the completion of the study to make natural gas available to rural areas in Alberta, will the hon. minister advise if a moratorium has been placed on all current applications for franchises at the present time in rural Alberta? DR. HORNER: In fact that's true, Mr. Speaker, that any area that is interested in natural gas in the rural areas should be organizing on a county or municipal basis, but should be holding off signing any franchise agreements until such time as a policy is announced after the general feasibility study is made. MR.

FRENCH: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it not true that franchises must be approved by the department with respect to area? DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, maybe I didn't make it quite clear enough. We won't be approving any franchises for any areas until such time as the feasibility study is made. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1755

30-8 ALBERTA HANSARD April 17th 1972 Labour Force in Grande Cache (cont.) MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could direct a question to the hon. minister, Mr. Dowling. With reference to Grande Cache, are there qualified Albertans now available for the jobs held by the imported labour at Grande Cache? MR. DOWLING: Mr. Speaker, the people of the Grande Cache mine, McIntyre Porcupine, the manager, the president of the company, Mr. Richardson, and all of the officials of the mine know the policy of this government, that they are to employ Albertans so far as is possible.

When the situation reaches a point where they can no longer acquire properly trained Albertans and have to go beyond the borders of our province to meet the quotas of production , then they will do this. I understand they are negotiating, as the hon. Minister of Labour has indicated, with some people in Saskatchewan to have some 30 of these people move into the Grande Cache area. We are in the process, as I indicated, or the McIntyre people are in the process along with government, of training Albertans to fill the jobs that are required of the mine. And as far as possible the jobs are filled with Albertans. MR.

TAYLOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Are the two policies then not very parallel in that only jobs where there are Albertans or Canadians not qualified are presently being filled by imported labour? Would that be correct? DR. HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, if I may? Looking at Grande Cache or Grand Prairie or any of these places out of context of the total policy is I think what the hon. minister is suggesting - I agree with him. But there are two sides to this; first, where Canadian competence in particular areas is unavailable then, assuredly, it has to be supplied from elsewhere.

The other half is this, that when that competence becomes available through our training program, then people from other countries relinquish those positions by policy and understanding with this government and our people take over the jobs. This is with reference also to Grande Prairie as well as Grande Cache. We are looking, somewhat in retrospect, at how this began and how it works now. Looking to new enterprises, we hope and intend to work with private industry in such a way that we have most of the newly available positions filled with trained Canadians and Albertans when the plant goes on line.

In this connection, for example, working with the management of Syncrude and with the native associations of Alberta, and with this government, we are anticipating this kind of capability. It doesn’t come easily; there is a great deal of work to do, but it has begun, in advance, for the major projects to which we are looking forward. The ones we are working at from prior days work in those two ways. First the jobs are filled by Albertans if they are available; secondly, when they become available they replace the executive people and management people from elsewhere. Criminal Code - Attempted Suicide MR.

SORENSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Attorney General. In Canada, in 1968, 337 people were convicted on Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1756

April 17th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 30-9 suicide attempts, 24 were sent to prison and 15 were fined. Do you favour the removal of attempted suicide from the Criminal Code? MR. SPEAKER: This is a matter that is within Dominion jurisdiction. Does the hon. minister wish to comment in any event? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to discuss this with the hon. member but suggest we do it outside of the House because it is a matter within federal jurisdiction and there is nothing on which this House can legislate. Red Deer College MR. COOKSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the hon.

Minister of Post secondary Education. In view of the inquiry at Red Deer Junior College and the serious effect it is having on the young people in the area in making a decision, how quickly can we get a report on this inquiry? MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken briefly with Dr. T. C. Byrne, the commissioner of the public inquiry, and I have reason to believe that I will have the commissioner's report in my hands no later than May 15th. I can assure the House, Mr.

Speaker, that we will attempt to assess that report and any recommendations he may make, and to act upon it in the quickest manner possible so as not to prejudice the desires of students in central Alberta who may wish to go to Red Deer College and who may feel uncertain about it, given the public inquiry. Medicare - Doctors' Incomes MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct this question to the hon. Minister Without Portfolio in charge of the Alberta Medicare Commission.

Did the Federal Department of Revenue supply the Alberta Health Care Commission with a document giving both the gross and net incomes of doctors by specialty in Alberta? MISS HUNLEY: Mr. Speaker, I don't have the answer to that but I would be prepared to make it a written return. If you put it on the Order Paper I will bring in a written reply. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly be prepared to do that. A supplementary though; it is my understanding that such a report was submitted to the Alberta Health Care Commission.

I am wondering if the hon. minister would be prepared to table that report before the estimates for the Department of Health and Social Development are considered by this Assembly? MISS HUNLEY: Mr. Speaker, I will also take a look at that if you will put that along with the first question, and give you a reply. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1757

30-10 ALBERTA HANSARD April 17th 1972 Steel Plant - Auctioneers' Regulations MR. WILSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Industry. Could you advise us, sir, when we could expect the tabling of the Acres Western Report on the steal plant and also the revised auctioneers' regulations? MR. PEACOCK: Mr. Speaker, I will table both of them this week. Penitentiary Training Program MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Labour. It's with regard to the return that was tabled today. In

section 2 it is indicated that the correction officers will be taking a rehabilitation course. My question is, Mr. Minister, has that course been initiated? DR. HOHOL: Yes, it has, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to be very clear on the relationship between the increment which was provided in the agreement for the penitentiary guards as it relates to the training program. The one is contingent on the other. This places that particular

section of the agreement in context. In other words we didn't sign a totally new agreement, nor was the agreement open to re-negotiation. MR. R. SPEAKER: As a matter of clarification, a supplementary question. The correction officers at this time have the 4.7% increase, though retroactive to January 1st, 1971? DR. HOHOL: Yes, that's right. Miners' Training Program MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the hon. Minister of Advanced Education.

Is the Department of Advanced Education continuing with the miners' training program which was started approximately a year ago in co-operation with McIntyre Porcupine and the Department of Advanced Education? MR. FOSTER: Well, Mr. Speaker, so far as I'm aware, we are, but I'm not 100% certain. I can check it. DR. HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I'd like to be definite in the information to the House. The answer is yes -- we are continuing with the miners' training program that has been initiated priorly. MR. CLARK: Supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Labour.

Have you been able to overcome the problems with the Federal Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1758

April 17th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 30-11 Manpower Department, so that, in fact, the McIntyre Porcupine company have much more flexibility in the types of people that they can bring into the program? DR. HOHOL: That is a sort of judgment question, Mr. Speaker. I think the most direct answer would be that we are trying and we haven't been that successful. It's a fairly rigid program, not only because of Canada Manpower, but because of the number of supervisory staff that can handle a particular number of trainees, and between the two, that makes the program fairly rigid.

The program is a good one, though we could see an additional program made up of parts of other programs, and we're discussing this with McIntyre Porcupine, with NAIT, and with Canada Manpower. Peace Counselling Centre MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this question to the hon. Minister of Health and Social Development. Several weeks ago, sir, I asked you a question with respect to a grant to the Peace Counselling Centre. At that time, if my memory serves me correctly, you said that you were taking it under advisement and were considering it.

Are you in a position today to report to the House on the application for this grant? MR. CRAWFORD: No, Mr. Speaker, I'm not. I'll take the matter up and report to the House during the week. Psychiatric Services in the Peace MR. NOTLEY: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. During that same question period, I asked a question relating to the concern of many residents in the Peace about the possibility of the visiting psychiatric service being cancelled out. Have you been in a position to examine this question and can you report on this as well to the Legislature? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr.

Speaker, I'd have to say that I didn't recall the hon. member in his question indicating that a further response was expected by him, further to the response that was made at that time, but once again I'll be glad to be up to date on that matter. My present understanding of the situation is that the service is not about to be cancelled, but I'll see if that is the case and try to verify it. Feed Grain Prices and Movement MR. STROMBERG: Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture.

Since Saskatchewan has passed a bill to set a floor price on feed grains, has Alberta given consideration to a floor price for feed grains marketed within the Prairie Provinces? DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, if I might just comment in this way, that the question of stabilizing off-board prices on feed grain can be handled in a number of different ways. One of the jobs that the Alberta Grain Commission will be doing will be looking at a variety of ways Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1759

30-12 ALBERTA HANSARD April 17th 1972 in which this stability can happen. Certainly Manitoba, and now Saskatchewan have suggested that the way to do this is by legally fixing a floor price. You get into a great deal of controversy then as to who regulates farmer to farmer sales, and this has caused some concern in those provinces. We have had some initial discussions with the ministers in both Manitoba and Saskatchewan in relation to how best this can be done.

It is our view, in the Province of Alberta, that if we can get away from that kind of arbitrary fixation of price, it would be better and the relationship between farmer and farmer would be much improved. So I have asked the Grain Commission to have a look at a variety of programs in which the same end might be achieved, with an additional end, that of getting the money into the farmers' pockets prior to the time of setting the price, which would be a much better way of doing things. We would hope, Mr.

Speaker, after some study of the variety of ways in which this can be done, that later on this spring we will be meeting with both the Ministers of Agriculture in Manitoba and Saskatchewan to evolve a common policy in relation to non-board grain. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. I wonder if the hon. minister would indicate if we are getting any closer to the free movement of feed grains across Canada. Secondly, possibly, are there any meetings planned towards this objective? DR.

HORNER: We are all awaiting the final outcome of the Grains Council's hearings and submissions that they requested late last year and early this year in January, in relation to the entire feed grain situation. The Grains group under Dr. Deevers in Winnipeg had set up a program and were to come forward with a report, which we are expecting at any time. This is one of the things that was on the agenda of the Provincial Ministers' of Agriculture Conference in Ottawa in November, and later on in February as well.

We didn't come to any decision in that regard as the ministers, because we were awaiting this report of Dr. Deevers' Grains Council. It seems to me that and I might add for the information of the House -- that we were asked as a province to make a submission to the Grains Council in this regard which we did, and a number of other groups of course did as well. They are on the group that is evaluating the proposals that have been put forward. Our representations were from the grain trade in Alberta, and we have had some preliminary discussions with these people as well.

I think though, that one of the things that will improve the availability of feed grain, or knock down the barriers of moving it across, is this question of pricing. If we can have a price and have some sort of monetary return to our farmers, whether it is on an adaptation of the commodity credit operation in the United States or otherwise, that we should be able to move forward in that area. One of the things that causes restrictions and regulations, of course, is the pile-up of grain in the west. If we can remove that, we will have taken one step towards a freer movement of grain. MR.

TAYLOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the hon. minister give us his views on whether there is a strong possibility of feed grains from Alberta meeting the competitive price, particularly in British Columbia through the use of trucks, and is there free movement of grain across Canada? Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1760

April 17th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 30-13 DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, might I say first to the hon. member that the minister doesn't mind giving his views on these things at all. I don't see any problem whatsoever in meeting competition in British Columbia if the boundaries were removed. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, we could meet the competition there by either rail or truck if the boundaries were removed and we had direct access to that market without the rather cumbersome method of going through the Canadian Wheat Board.

We would hope also to have some discussions with the Canadian Wheat Board about trying to streamline -- continue to operate through the Wheat Board — but streamline the operation insofar as British Columbia is concerned. I have been in touch with the Minister of Agriculture in British Columbia to initiate discussions in relation to the two provinces moving forward to initiate the barrier removals on the British Columbia market because it becomes important to their livestock industry, and it is important to our grains industry.

As a matter of fact, I think it is one of the areas in which we can expand the processing in rural Alberta by processing a complete feed for the British Columbia market. MR. TAYLOR: One more supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the hon. minister anticipate strong opposition from some sections of Ontario where they are now importing corn from the USA? DR. HORNER: This is one of the other sides of the problem in regard to the feed grains industry, the relationship of Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes, the question of the federal freight assistance that is put on there.

There is a line that becomes a price line as to when you're competitive with both Ontario corn and American corn with regard to the tariff that's also imposed. That price, at the moment, I think is $1 a bushel for corn, and in Ontario 65 cent barley meets that competition very nicely at the present time, particularly with the federal freight assistance. So the whole matter is very complicated because it involves a number of jurisdictions, including the American one insofar as exporting feed corn from the States is concerned.

On the other hand I don't think that the government of Ontario particularly would be concerned if we were able to develop a program between British Columbia and ourselves in feed grains. MR. STROMBERG: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Minister of Agriculture. Do you foresee any great movement of feed grain from Alberta to Saskatchewan with the free movement of interprovincial grain? It seems that over the years Saskatchewan does not move the feed grain in here. DR. HORNER: I think that basically what's happened in the last two or three years. In any case, Mr.

Speaker, Saskatchewan has moved from a substantial acreage of wheat to a substantial acreage of feed grains and as a result has come to a very major surplus position, because they didn't have the livestock industry that we have in Alberta, and so we, in fact, had a dumping of feed grain at prior sale prices by the producers in Saskatchewan.

We don't like to see that, not only because it interrupts the grain trade here, but because it also hurts those producers in Saskatchewan, and this is the basis of our talks with the ministers in Saskatchewan and Manitoba — that the prior sale of feed grain doesn't help anybody. And we're trying to work very hard to eliminate that particular thing so that the farmer will get a just return. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1761

30-14 ALBERTA HANSARD April 17th 1972 MR. NOTLEY: I have a supplementary question. Mr. Speaker. The minister mentioned in his initial response to the question from the hon. Member for Camrose that the Grains Commission was looking into this. In view of the decision made in Saskatchewan, can you give us any time as to when we might expect a report from the Grains Commission, and can you advise the Legislature as to what our policy might be? DR. HORNER: Well, I would imagine, Mr. Speaker, that it might be a number of months. As I said earlier in response to the hon.

Member for Drumheller, the Grains Council under Dr. Deevers in Winnipeg had underway from last fall this very intensive look at the whole question of feed grains policy right across Canada, and the committee that was set up included representations from the Maritimes, from Quebec, Ontario, and from the producing areas in western Canada. This is a very important report that we’re awaiting from the Grains' Council in Winnipeg. As soon as we get that report and our own Grain Commission has had an opportunity to study that and other matters related to it, we will hopefully come forward with a policy for Alberta.

On the other hand, that doesn't preclude us from going ahead with discussions with Manitoba and Saskatchewan as soon as time is available to discuss the matter of how we would operate jointly or at least in a complementary manner amongst the three provinces. Workmen's Compensation Board MR. WILSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Labour. Has the Chairman of the Workmen's Compensation Board resigned or given notice that he will be resigning? DR. HOHOL: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, the Chairman has not resigned. MR. WILSON: Mr.

Speaker, in that event, would the hon. minister like to take this opportunity to clarify widespread thinking as to the announcement by someone other than the government as to who was going to be the Chairman of the Workmen's Compensation Board? DR. HOHOL: I don't know. MR. SPEAKER: This is a fairly hypothetical field here, I would suggest to the House. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. Does the hon. minister intend to bring The Workmen's Compensation Act to the Legislature at this session? DR. HOHOL: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it will come sometime during the session, later in the period.

Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1762

April 17th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 30-15 MR. DIXON: A supplementary question to the hon. Premier on the same subject of compensation. The other day in the House, hon. Premier, you mentioned that the government was giving consideration to even raising the disability pension for those on fixed pensions to a higher rate than the one announced in the Throne Speech, and I inquire if you have arrived at any final decision on that? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, the answer is, we have not.

I do think it would be an appropriate opportunity when we reach that stage in the estimates for members on both sides of the House, to express their views. I have expressed mine, and would be interested in hearing views from all the hon. members as to where the emphasis should lie, and what areas of priorities we should give in terms of improvement of the disability pensions. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary Buffalo, followed by the hon. Member for Wainwright. MR. GHITTER: Mr.

Speaker, mine is not a supplementary question -- if the other hon. gentleman had a supplementary on that matter, as I believe is the case, I would be happy to sit down. MR. CLARK: I have a supplementary question, dealing with this matter of Workmen's Compensation. The hon. Minister of Labour said the chairman of the Compensation Board has not resigned. My question to the hon. Premier or to the hon. minister is, has the chairman of the Workmen's Compensation Board, Dr. Macleod, given any indication to the government that he plans to resign in the near future? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, I believe the answer to that is that the chairman has given the indication that he would like to retire from his present position in the fairly near future, but no specific date has been set. MR. RUSTE: I have a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Labour. He mentioned he would bring in The Workmen's Compensation Act at this session. Does he intend to carry it through at this session and pass it, or bring it in and then leave it for the fall session? DR. HOHOL: My intention is, Mr. Speaker, to conclude it during this session.

It has other benefits in addition to those indicated in the Throne Speech, and those will be examined when the Act is brought before the House, and when we examine the estimates. Agricultural Task Force MR. GHITTER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Agriculture. The question arises out of an

article in the Calgary Albertan on April 15, 1972, wherein a certain member of the party across the way made comments with respect to the agricultural task Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1763

30-16 ALBERTA HANSARD April 17th 1972 force, and was particularly critical of four urban members who are serving on this task force. My question to the hon. minister is, could he kindly explain for the record and for this Assembly, the reason why four urban members were appointed to the task force on agriculture? DR. HORNER: I’d be delighted to, Mr. Speaker, because one of the failures of the previous government in the whole field of agriculture was to be too narrow-minded and rigid and inflexible. MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. minister permit the hon. Member for Wetaskiwin- Leduc to state his point of order? MR.

HENDERSON: Does this House have to have inflicted upon us a partisan political question? It relates only to the affairs of the Conservative party. MR. GHITTER: As one of the urban members who was mentioned and has the honour to represent a number of constituents, all of whom are consumers and are very concerned over the agricultural policies of this province, this is not a political matter; this is a matter of great concern, and I would like, for the record, the hon. Minister of Agriculture to explain why urban members are on this task force. DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, the hon.

Member for Wetaskiwin-Leduc is raising spurious points of order again to try and detract from what I said initially, that one of the failures of the former government in the field of agriculture, was their narrow-mindedness -- MR. SPEAKER: I must say that the hon. minister, in answering a factual question, should answer with facts, rather than with innuendo or argument. DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, I was never more factual in my life.

One of my concerns in taking on the challenge that this department has given to me was to have a better understanding between our urban people, our consumers, and our primary producers in the field. I was really delighted after a little bit of arm-twisting, that I could get these urban members to serve on my agricultural task force. I think it is of particular importance, and I appreciate very much their willingness to give some of their very precious time to the problems we have in agriculture, and in an attempt to improve the relationship and the understanding between rural and urban Alberta. In my view, Mr.

Speaker, it is a step forward to have these people. We appreciate them very much and the contributions that they can make to agriculture in Alberta. MR. SPEAKER: Is this a supplementary? Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1764

April 17th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 30-17 MR. KOZIAK: No, I rise on the same point, Mr. Speaker. Not as a question, but as a point of privilege. I refer to the

article which appeared in the April 15th issue of The Albertan under the heading "Strom Raps Lougheed." On the second page of that issue the following quotation appears, Mr. Speaker. "Secondly, Socreds maintain such members of the task force as Edmonton housewife Catherine Chichak, Calgary lawyer Ron Ghitter, and Edmonton's MLAs Leslie Young and Julian Koziak have no qualifications whatsoever to serve on a task force on agriculture." AN HON. MEMBER: Shame! MR. KOZIAK: The

article goes on further, "You could take the knowledge these four have about agriculture, put it together and you wouldn't have enough knowledge to put on the head of a pin, said a Socred agriculture critic" -- anonymous, of course. Mr. Speaker, I refer you to Rule 113 of the Rules of this Assembly, under Beauchesne, page 102, and in particular where it states, "Libels upon members and aspersions upon them in relation to Parliament and interference of any kind with their official duties, are breaches of the privileges of the members." [ Interjections] MR.

SPEAKER: Has the hon. member stated his point of privilege? MR. KOZIAK: That is my point of privilege -- libel perpetrated on the members, on the four members -- MR. TAYLOR: Which member made that statement? MR. KOZIAK: Who is your agriculture -- MR. SPEAKER: Has the hon. member completed stating his point of privilege? I am asking a question. Has the hon. member completed stating the point of privilege? MR. KOZIAK: I have only one question that I would ask to the Chair, or perhaps two questions.

The first is perhaps, who the Socred agriculture critic was who made the statement, and secondly, by what standards does he judge the knowledge of members of this House and their ability to serve on task forces? MR. SPEAKER: With regard to the identity of the anonymous source of the information, I know of no rule of this Assembly which requires that such sources be identified in the House.

With regard to the possibility that the statement made is a breach of the privilege of one of the members, I must repeat what was said here about two weeks ago, that anything which is said outside the House, which may be of a Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1765

30-18 ALBERTA HANSARD April 17th 1972 defamatory nature, is a matter for the courts and not a matter for this House. HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. DR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question? MR. SPEAKER: The time for the Question Period has just expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY head: MINISTERIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS Petroleum and Natural Gas Royalties MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, rising on Orders of the Day, the government has been preparing and intending to table for a number of weeks an important document that the hon.

Minister of Mines and Minerals would like to table, entitled "Review of Royalty Provisions Applicable to Leases of Petroleum and Natural Gas Owned by the Crown in Right of Alberta." Before tabling the document I would like to make a statement of explanation. First of all it should be made abundantly clear that this document being tabled by the Minister of Mines and Minerals is not the government's tentative position paper with regard to natural resource revenue. It is our hope that that document will be tabled in this House within a period of no more than 10 days.

This document deals with a specific item only, and of course, is required background to the other position paper. Mr. Speaker, a very serious misunderstanding apparently is developing in many parts of Alberta regarding the important question of possible increases by the Alberta government in royalty rates for oil and gas charged on current production.

It appears from various statements by organizations and the general public that have come to our attention in the last few weeks, that there exists the belief that the government is in a position to set merely by regulation a higher royalty rate for the majority of the producing wells in Alberta, and hence cause substantially increased funds to flow into the general revenues of the provincial government. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this is not the situation. It would certainly simplify matters if it were possible to do so. It is not.

Regrettably the former Social Credit government made, in our view, a very serious error in judgment many years ago, in 1948, when it unnecessarily agreed to insert in petroleum and natural gas leases a specific provision that the maximum royalty rate which would be payable by the producers under these leases would be limited to 16 2/3 per cent or 1/6 of gross production. The former government went even further. They enacted in 1949 sections in The Mines and Minerals Act which gave statutory confirmation to the maximum royalty provisions in the lease.

Even as late as 1962 when the royalties were last reviewed, the former government failed, in our view, to recognize that it was necessary to continue with the maximum royalty provisions, and that such a policy, again in our view, was not in the public interest. The former government clearly failed to give themselves any latitude on changing market conditions, which now Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1766

April 17th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 30-19 exist in North America and which have resulted in substantially increased levels of Alberta production and have created a significant improvement in the profit margins of major Alberta producers. The current sellers' market conditions, in all probability, will continue during the next decade and, in fact, both production and profits are likely to increase substantially. Mr. Speaker, these royalty restrictions were, of course, known to us on September 10, 1971.

We decided to enact at our first session in 1972 an amendment to The Mines and Minerals Act, so that all future Crown leases issued by the new Alberta government will not be subject to any maximum royalty restrictions. Mr. Speaker, the seriousness of this royalty restriction is that over 75% of Alberta's current crude oil production is now subject to, and is limited by the maximum royalty rate of 16 2/3 per cent or 1/6 under leases which contain the maximum limitation on royalties. Even by 1976 at least half of Alberta production of crude oil will still be caught under these maximum royalty limitations.

It will take as long as after 1980 before the situation can be reversed and the bulk of the production of crude oil be freed from maximum royalty restrictions. Mr.

Speaker, the serious consequence of this situation is that those groups or organizations preparing submissions to the government on this issue should be aware that any proposed higher royalty rates scheduled in excess of 16 2/3 per cent would only affect no more than a quarter of the existing production of crude oil in Alberta, and hence, the extent of increase of revenues to the province under such a proposal would be substantially less than if no maximum royalty restrictions had been established by the previous government. I well recognize, Mr.

Speaker, the gravity of this situation, but due to the reports of proposed submissions which have come to our attention recently we thought we should try to set the record straight and clarify the exact situation even in advance of our tentative position paper. This will give groups and organizations in Alberta an opportunity to perhaps reassess the basic thrust of their proposals on this major issue and perhaps come up with some feasible alternatives. Thank you. MR. DICKIE: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to table at this time this document entitled 'Review of Royalty Provisions Applicable to Leases of Petroleum and Natural Gas Owned by the Crown in Right of Alberta.' Mr. Speaker, our department has been working on this document for some weeks and it was a week ago last Friday that we authorized it to go to the press with the coloured maps that are a part of the document. We had decided to withhold tabling that document until we had copies of it available for all members of the Legislature and members of the media.

Today we have them and we have requested the Clerk to distribute copies of this document to all members. Mr. Speaker, the hon. members will observe when they examine this review that it sets out four types of leases involving petroleum and natural gas as of December 31st. It will show that there are some 33,608 leases in existence at that time, and that only 2, 609 are not subject to any maximum royalty restriction. Hon. members will also observe that 94% of the leases covering petroleum have maximum royalty restrictions, and that 55% of the leases covering natural gas have maximum royalty restrictions.

It will also be observed that the review sets forth that there are 158 oil fields in Alberta and that there are 234 gas fields. In the review we have set forth coloured maps of representative areas. Those maps will show the type of leases and the expiration dates of leases on the actual maps. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1767

30-20 ALBERTA HANSARD April 17th 1972 MR. STROM: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a few comments I want to say first of all I appreciate the point that the hon. Premier made, that this is not placing a tentative position of the government before us at this point in time. When he rose to begin speaking I rather got the impression that he was going to give us today, the government's tentative position. I have listened very, very carefully, Mr.

Speaker, to try and assess the reason for making the statement at this particular time and I have to confess that, at the moment, I am having considerable difficulty of assessing the main purpose in making the statement that was made today. I note, for example, that the hon. Premier went to considerable length to advise the House that some of these arrangements or agreements were drawn up back in 1948. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I am not debating the agreement that was drawn up. I have made a point in previous debates, and I think it is a very valid one, Mr.

Speaker, and that is that any time we are judging a particular decision, or any action taken by individuals at a certain point in time, I think it is most important that we recognize what the circumstances were at that point in time. And I suggest that never once, never once, Mr. Speaker, did I see any attempt by the hon. Premier to try and assess the circumstances that prevailed at that point in time. I suggest that if we want to go back in history let's go back a little further.

I happen to know of a certain city within this province that guaranteed one of its industries gas in perpetuity for a ridiculously low price, and I think there are a lot of people in this Assembly that are aware of it. I have never once, Mr. Speaker, suggested that the city fathers of that particular city, at that point in time, were wrong because I know what their intent was.

Their intent was to gain industry for that particular city and I suggest when we review the decisions of previous administrations, going back to the year 1948, that it is rather important that we also recognize that there was an objective -- a very clear objective at that point in time -- which was to try and gain for this province development in an industry that, up to that moment, had not really been doing very much. There had been considerable activity from time to time but certainly nothing to what it might have been.

I simply say that when we look at the oil and gas industry in this province that everybody recognizes that within the last two years we have a different ballgame. We are now in the happy position of being able to be much more selective in the ways and means that we will have this mineral development and also in the manner in which we will collect revenue from it. I suggest, Mr.

Speaker, that we should not spend too much time trying to lay blame on what has happened in the past, but let's look forward and see what changes have to be made within the context of the changing times, and let's make them according to the best judgment that we can make with the information that is available to us at this point in time. And I suggest that the government should view it in that light and bend every effort to making sure that the right decisions are made now, rather than spending time in trying to justify a particular problem that is facing them at this particular time. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, I think, having regard to the comments made by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, a comment of clarification is surely in order. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1768

April 17th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 30-21 Certainly as far as the question of whether it was or was not necessary to put on the maximum royalties is a proper place for debate and I'm going to welcome that debate, but, Mr. Speaker, it was suggested as to why we made this statement at this time. I think it was clear that we made the statement because many groups, from public reports that we have, and from groups that we have already received preliminary views from, have indicated very clearly that they were under a misconception about a very important point.

We wanted at the earliest possible time, concurrent with the members receiving this information, to make it clear that they should perhaps reassess some of the alternatives that they are considering, and that is the purpose for making the statement. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I would ask you to make a ruling with respect to whether or not I would have the right to respond to a statement such as this. As you know there is some uncertainty. The rules say that leaders of groups have the right to respond -- it's a little difficult to suggest that I'm a group -- but I cite the example, Mr.

Speaker, of the Province of Manitoba, where the Legislature in that province has extended the courtesy of being able to respond to ministerial statements, to the one Social Credit member who is also the leader of the Social Credit party in the Province of Manitoba. I would like your ruling on this as I think it's quite important that we clarify it and I have some observations that I'd like to make on this issue. MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if the House would agree, and the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview, that I might perhaps take this matter under consideration.

I thank him for having given me some notice that he might be bringing up the point. I would like to suggest for the consideration of hon. members, Citation No. 91 in Beauchesne which refers to the leaders of recognized groups. The prima facie appearance of that to me is that it must refer to recognized groups within the House since the application of the rules is not intended except inside the House.

It occurs to me that if the rule were applied otherwise, there are any number of members in the House here who are leaders of recognized groups, whether they be community leagues or boards of trade, or whatever they might be, and yet it would not seem in keeping with the rule that each of them should in effect turn a privilege of this kind which is now recognized by tradition into perhaps a period of debate.

And, as I say, I would like hon. members to consider this point so that we might in fairness and good faith deal with it, and also perhaps arrive at a conclusion with which we could comfortably carry on later on when the situation in the House might not be exactly as it is now, but when there might be more members who are in the unique position. MR. STROM: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that on an announcement made of this nature there is opportunity provided for remarks to be made.

I appreciate that as the Leader of the opposition that basically I would hope that I would be speaking for my party, and I would never suggest that I was speaking for the hon. Leader of the NDP party. I take it too of course that in this manner we are only making statements, and there would be no debate, and I would certainly be happy to agree to the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview having an opportunity of making a statement on behalf of his party. MR.

SPEAKER: In view of that, I wonder if we might, as I suggested, take the matter under consideration and within the next while, perhaps we could come to a conclusion on it or possibly the House would like to Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1769

30-22 ALBERTA HANSARD April 17th 1972 have the matter referred to the Committee which is already going to be dealing with the rules, if the motion which is on the Order Paper now results in an affirmative vote. Educational Testing and Examinations MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, on another matter, I wish to advise the House at this time that the Department of Education is developing a new testing program to monitor the quality of education across the province and provide information on the value received in education for tax dollars spent.

This new testing program as it is being developed, will replace the present Grade IX achievement battery exams at the end of this school year. The new program will measure the performance of students in certain skills on a representative sampling basis. By this means we hope to be able to tell whether education standards within the province in the years ahead are going up, down, or remaining steady.

In conclusion, members might wish to note that the phasing out of the old Grade IX examinations in June of this year, will eliminate a costly duplication of services and Alberta is the last province in Canada to use Departmental exams at the Grade IX level. head: COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, before moving the House into Committee, concerning the business of the House this evening, after completion this afternoon of Department of Environment estimates, we will move to estimates of the Department of Culture, Youth, and Recreation until 5:30.

Tonight at 8:00 we will deal with government Motion No. 1, on the Order Paper, concerning matters relating to legislative procedure to go to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. Following consideration of government Motion No. 1 on to second reading of bills, the notice of which, and particularly numbers of which, I gave to the other side of the House last Friday. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. House Leader a question. If a miracle happens and we finish Culture, Youth, and Recreation this afternoon, would we then continue with the next Department's estimates? MR. HYNDMAN: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, I believe we would, if that miracle did occur and any assistance on the other side to have the miracle occur would be looked at accordingly. Mr. Speaker, I would move that you now leave the Chair and the Assembly resolve itself into Committee of Supply to consider the estimates. [The motion was carried without debate or dissent.] [Mr. Speaker left the Chair.] *********************** Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1770

April 17th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 30-23 COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY [Mr. Diachuk in the Chair] Department of the Environment (cont.) Total Income Account MR. CHAIRMAN: The Committee of Supply will now come to order. Department of the Environment. We have now to take into consideration, and get agreement on the total sum which was the $5,014,440. Do we have agreement on that? MR. BARTON: No, Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions. Could the hon. Minister of the Environment clarify as to what work is being done in the Swan Valley now -- watershed? He promised me this on Friday. MR.

YURKO: I indicated at that time that the department had under consideration at this time, or actually under action, a study of the flooding of the Swan River. When this study is completed the decision will subsequently be made as to when some work in this area may in fact be done. At this point in time, we are studying it. MR. BARTON: Mr. Chairman, there are no funds being spent in the Swan Valley at all then? MR. YURKO: There are no funds I believe, Mr. Speaker, appropriated toward capital projects in the Swan River area to my knowledge at this point in time. MR.

BARTON: Is your department working in conjunction with the monies that are being spent by the oil companies up there? MR. YURKO: I didn't get your question again, Mr. Barton. MR. BARTON: Is your department working in conjunction with the oil companies that are doing some restoration up there — in conjunction, or is it with Lands and Forests? MR. YURKO: Well, is it administration of land? MR.

BARTON: In conjunction with some of the environmental problems in the hills, and I know that there are some funds; I was wondering if your department or whether it was Lands and Forests that I would ask some specific questions of. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1771

30-24 ALBERTA HANSARD April 17th 1972 MR. YURKO: Mr. Chairman, I'd have to take that question under advisement and investigate it for the hon. member. I thought he was referring initially to water, but he's now talking about general environmental matters. I'd have to take it under advisement and dig out the information for you. I'm prepared to do this if you wish. MR. BARTON: Is there any work being done on the watershed at Inverness, Moosehorn or anything like that? This is water -- tributaries. MR. YURKO: Oh, yes. Well, we are doing a series of studies.

I've indicated that as far as I can recollect, we weren't doing any capital works as a department. Now you're indicating, hon. member, that perhaps some oil companies are doing something in connection with the general environment and I indicated that I would look into this and find out and report. MR. BARTON: Thank you. MR. HENDERSON: In the course of the earlier discussion of the estimates I'd asked the minister about three or four questions.

I happened to be out of the House and I came in just as he raised them and commented that he wasn't prepared to answer them unless I restated the questions and so without -- MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready to restate the questions? MR. HENDERSON: Yes, and without getting into a lengthy debate on the subject, I wondered if the minister could very briefly state what he anticipates will be, or what is the government policy on three or four points.

I brought up the question of user charges for water, the second item was the question of whether the cost of engineering studies which are done for the local authorities relative to water management projects should not be included under the cost sharing arrangements instead of being 100% financed under the departmental appropriation. The third question I asked was what the government is looking to so far as the possibility of developing the hydro potential on the Peace River is concerned. Thank you. MR. YURKO: Mr.

Chairman, in connection with user charges for water, I indicated that we had a pretty major program of investigation in this area. We are examining what is being done in several other jurisdictions and we are examining and tallying the use of water for various purposes in Alberta. For example, the oil industry, the amount in connection with irrigation, the amount of industrial use in connection with the cities and the towns, and so forth. This information is all being put together in a report which I hope to be able to table in this House before too many months go by.

This report will also make a recommendation to government in relation to this matter. I would like to say, as I indicated in the last several days during which time we discussed our estimates, that if we are to be successful in managing our water basins, in managing our water streams, we must devise and determine some method for raising funds Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1772

April 17th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 30-25 in this area. It is very difficult, in the nature of priorities, to indicate that a capital works project for managing water should have higher priority than, for example, mental health or some other area of concern to government.

So I feel quite strongly in this area, if we are to be successful in managing our waters on a long term basis, in providing some of the structures that are needed on our various rivers, in providing funds for flood control in some of the areas that it is needed, in providing funds for river bank stabilization, in providing funds for lake stabilization and lake rehabilitation, that some manner of raising money must be instigated directly related to this type of endeavour. The only method that I can see before us at this particular time, is the instigation of a water use fee program.

As I indicated, we are investigating every aspect of this, and we hope to have a report on this matter before government just as early as we possibly can. In connection with cost of engineering studies, we have debated this fairly extensively, as to whether or not this should be part of the cost-sharing formula between different levels of government. Generally, we have arrived at the conclusion that, in fact, they are costs which should be included in the formula. But, we do, however, recognize, Mr. Chairman, there can and will be some exceptions.

These exceptions may be for a variety of reasons, and I don't hope to get into these exceptions at this time. I think generally, in our discussions and examination of policy thus far, we have concluded the major engineering costs of studies should, in fact, be included in the cost-sharing formula.

In connection with the hydro-potential of the Peace River, it must be recognized that in light of the policy we have established -- I have reiterated this policy on a number of occasions -- where we, in every instance, would try to lead a project by some ten years, where we would try to determine the various ramifications of any major project well in advance of the actual program or actual project, so that all the various factors can be accounted for. I have indicated in the past, and I indicate again, that in some of these major programs we have to look ahead some ten years.

I recognize we have some basic work to do in the Peace River. We consider it necessary and vital to undertake first of all, some major environmental impact studies in connection with the damming of the Slave and the damming of the Peace. We hope to have perhaps some of these studies undertaken this year. I might also say in that connection, that the task force investigating the Peace-Athabasca delta has actually, I believe, gone out for quotations regarding a study in this respect; a study regarding the environmental impact of damming the Slave River.

We, of course, as I indicated earlier, expect to also study this area of concern as the number one priority. The second priority would be to extend this study to include a study of all the possible hydro sites. Several studies have been made in this area. Calgary Power has made some studies; the Division of Water Resources had examined several possible sites. But there is need in this area, for an in-depth analysis on just what the potential of the Peace and the Slave is, with respect to hydro-electric potential. A study in this area is, of course, also necessary with respect to the Athabasca study.

But this would be our second line of concern. In speaking to a resolution earlier, I indicated that there was need to study this area in a number of areas. The real question before us is whether or not, in fact, the development of the hydro- potential of our northern flowing rivers should be done on a private enterprise basis, or on a shared public-private basis, or on a public basis. The question involved here is extensive, and the need for studies in this area is required to indicate the direction the government might take in the future.

Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1773

30-26 ALBERTA HANSARD April 17th 1972 The whole area of hydro-electric potential as against fossil power production and whether or not hydro-electric potential should, in fact, be publicly or privately run is one that has to be studied, in my estimation, at this particular time, and must in fact, be resolved before we can even speak about tapping the hydro potential of the Peace River, the Slave River and the Athabasca River.

It must also be recognized that in a number of instances as I have talked earlier to quite a degree, the establishment of water use priorities is an extremely important matter, and in some of our hydro installations, the day is not far off, where in fact the water will have to be managed with respect to consideration being given to other uses rather than hydro even though the initial projects were established and built for hydro-electric purposes. I think that perhaps that might be enough of a general nature at this time. Maybe the member wants some specifics -- MR. CHAIRMAN: I wonder if Mr.

Henderson could finish. MR. HENDERSON: I just wanted to make one comment, one supplemental question, Mr. Chairman. Well, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say that I am somewhat disappointed that the government is not placing a higher priority on the Peace hydro potential. I had hoped that with the government’s decentralization policy this proposal might prove more attractive and deserve a higher priority. The earlier studies of the hydro potential on the Peace indicated it was not economical because they were talking about bringing the power from the north country to Edmonton.

Of course, when you talk about using the power locally, the economics change somewhat dramatically. The fourth point I wanted to bring up relates to the question of engineering studies. Has the minister arrived at any conclusions so far as reducing the amount of funds, just as a general policy, that are available for studies on demand by local authorities? There is a tremendous backlog that have been done now in the past, because the department is financing the full cost of it.

This relates to your comments I realize, about consideration being given to some participation in these costs, but has there been any change in policy in the interim to reduce the allocation for this type of work? MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you speak into your microphone, please? MR. HENDERSON: I will move over towards the microphone. I am still amazed that these astronauts are going to the moon and back and we are having trouble communicating in here. Maybe the problem has something to do with the speaker and the listener and vice - versa.

I was wondering if, in view of the fact that there is a tremendous backlog within the department of studies that have been carried out for local authorities for drainage purposes, etc., which is adequate I am sure to keep a capital works program going for 10 years — the law of diminishing returns, it seemed to me, has set in for some of those areas and I was wondering if the minister was thinking of a bit of change of direction so far as priorities and allocation of money for such studies over the next few years is concerned -- that is, slowing up the infusion of public funds for such studies because a lot of it is going to be engineering for the sake of engineering.

Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1774

April 17th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 30-27 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, fine, Mr. Farran. We will put his question and then you can wrap up both of them, Mr. Minister. MR. FARRAN: Well, mine is very similar, it is on a local authority level. And I wondered, under the various planning authorities and the recommendations of flood control consultants, water resource consultants, the exact boundaries of a flood plain have assumed urgent significance. Is the department in these many studies attempting to define flood plains for these purposes?

It is particularly significant so far as the Elbow and Bow Rivers and Fish Creek in Calgary are concerned and I think the urgency is great in any developing urban area. And of course, it hitches in with the studies of the possibility of new dams higher up on the Elbow for flood control purposes, and hydro-electric purposes. MR. YURKO: With respect to what the hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Leduc said, I certainly agreed that we have a massive backlog of studies in connection with management of water resources in Alberta.

However, first of all with respect to a policy matter I don't believe that we are necessarily going to charge this backlog of studies into the cost-sharing program in the future. We are only going to apply a cost-sharing program of what's to be done in the future. I do want to suggest, though, that there are several reasons, even though we have a large backlog of studies. First of all I would like to suggest that we felt that it was time to enter a phase of capital works construction, rather than study, at the earliest opportunity.

Nevertheless we recognize that this year we had to devote ourselves basically to a study of policy direction, the formulation of policy, the Alberta management plan, development on a river basin basis, an examination of the possible integration of The Canada Water Act, also the finalization of our program in connection with irrigation rehabilitation, and again a program in connection with water supply for the various towns, and a program of sewage disposal facilities for various towns; so we felt very strongly that we had a year or so of intensive study. Now what about the future?

We do have a fairly extensive, very competent, and very capable engineering staff put together in Water Resources. There is no intention on my part or the government's part to, in any way, do away with this competence that we have. You can't say that we've studied all that there is to be studied, by any stretch of the imagination. Conditions change very radically and very rapidly as urban communities grow, as in fact the whole topography in Alberta is changed and the run-off conditions are changed very drastically.

We are, of course, getting into the area of management of land surrounding water bodies as against just management of the water bodies themselves. We recognize that in northern Alberta, as northern Alberta is developing, there is going to be a major need for additional engineering studies and we hope to continue maintaining an advanced backlog of studies so that implementation can follow.

However, I do want to suggest that if we are sucessful in the area of establishing funds for major capital works in this area that more and more of the engineering potential that the department has will be switched from studying to the area of capital works construction. And I think in this regard I just want to assure the House that there is no intention on our part to in any wav diminish the engineering capacity that we have.

However, I do want to suggest that perhaps its role and its function will be broadened extensively in areas that haven't been touched on to the same degree in the past as they will be in the future and this will be in connection with lake shore management, stream management and river bank stablization and so forth. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1775

30-28 ALBERTA HANSARD April 17th 1972 In connection with establishing accurately a flood plain and establishing regulations with respect to a flood plain I would like to suggest to the hon. Member for Calgary North Hill that this is an area of real concern to us and an area to which we are paying very close attention and it is also an area which is related to management of, not only the water body itself, but the area beyond the water body.

In connection with the Bighorn Dam, one of the first things that our department has done is declare a water reservation around this reservoir so that in fact we've really recognized an area that's influential to the adequate management of that water body. Now I recognize that, in cases where rivers flow through major urban areas, this is a real area of concern because it affects property values and all we wish to suggest is that we are studying this area.

We'll offer guidance, to a large degree, to the local authorities in certain areas, and in the cost-sharing formula on projects that have to be undertaken, by Calgary for instance, the provincial contribution will be extremely important, and I simply wish to suggest at this time that we are considering a cost-sharing formula which would certainly help the local authorities in managing and overcoming some of the major problems that they encounter.

But this would be based on whether or not a fund for doing these kind of projects has been established, because as I suggest again, it's very difficult to get too much priority when you come before Cabinet and indicate that you have a major project to do on a river basin here, as against somebody wanting money for mental health, and I am the first fellow to recognize this. MR. FARRAN: Supplementary, Mr. Chairman, and I would point out -- and I am sure the hon.

Member for Calgary Bow will support the view since his area is directly affected -- the exact designation of the boundaries of a flood plain involve thousands if not millions of dollars in property value in a city. At the moment there are two schools of thought on the local authority level that there should be a total prohibition against any building in the one-in-45-year flood plain and partial prohibition in the one-in-a-100-year flood plain.

This covers a large part of the city of Calgary but if either policy is to be pursued with any sense of justice, somebody has to define what is the boundary of the flood plain. Now the Department of Transport has done it on a federal level for decibel contours around the airport in such a manner that the thing can be administered -- they have drawn lines on a map -- but there is an urgent need for the drawing of a just and fair line for the limit of a flood plain in the river courses through Calgary. MR. YURKO: I just want to suggest that I sympathize with the hon. member's concern and certainly the hon.

Member for Calgary Bow talked to me privately and indicated these major concerns also. I do want to suggest though, depending on how these flood plains are identified and the type of restrictions that are placed in connection with habitation of these flood plains and building on them, that we have, in fact, here an area where simply millions of dollars are involved and we just can't afford to make a snappy, hasty decision in some of these areas.

We do have to suggest that we are very encouraged that some of the local authorities have developed sufficient muscle, or "forward think," if you want to call it that, to recognize it as a problem and, in fact, begin to take some action. I do recognize that some of the action that is being taken is not necessarily something that is attractive to all people but I do believe, on the long-term basis, the action that is being taken will be found to be action based to a large degree on projective thinking and some wisdom tossed in with it.

Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1776

April 17th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 30-29 MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. minister, in keeping with the question that my colleague Mr. Henderson asked at the conclusion of the questions on the Department of Agriculture, where in the estimates of the Department of the Environment is money located for any member of the Legislature other than the hon. minister's use? MR. YURKO: There are no funds in the Department of the Environment for task forces of any sort. MR. CLARK: Mr.

Chairman, so that there is no misunderstanding then, come the Public Accounts in two year's time which will account for the expenditures for this year -- there will be no funds from the Department of the Environment which we would find having been allocated to any member of this Assembly other than those for the operation of your office? MR. YURKO: Mr. Chairman, at this particular point in time these estimates contain no funds for members of the Legislative Assembly other than the minister. MR. D. HILLER: Mr.

Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. minister while he is considering water control, if he will take into consideration the north branch of the Belly River which runs into the Oldman River. If you can do a study on that I would be happy to go there at my own expense to point out -- as I tried to explain in my talk -- that this gap, as they call it, is so narrow that I am sure a cattleliner or a large truck couldn't go through it.

It just seems like a natural for a dam and there is plenty of area of natural reservoir on the other side of the range to carry water, if a dam in taking care of the Three River study, as has been mentioned by Mr. Drain as well as Mr. Buckwell, last year, and myself is impossible at this time. Such a dam would require millions of dollars, and I'm sure it would take much less just to control each river at a time. Mr.

Bailey, as I've mentioned, is familiar with the whole setup and he said it was because of a fault they discounted the site years ago, but now because of the success in handling that type of a fault with the Bighorn Dam, he was quite sure that they could seal it off now. What we need on the Oldman River are controls to prevent flooding like happened this spring.

Perhaps our Taber Provincial Park is ruined for years, we don't know yet; buildings turned over, smashed up, and the silt that is laying over the whole area, I'm sure the grass is all gone, the pumping system — everything was lost practically in this flood that came down the river. If we had controls, I'm sure we could avoid this damage and terrific expense in the future. I'd like the hon. minister to say that he would look into it. MR. YURKO: Mr.

Chairman, we look into every water difficulty in the province and this is one of the reasons I indicated that we would maintain our engineering potential because many of these factors change. Engineering technology changes quite readily and quite rapidly and a few years ago, I'm sure, not very many engineers would have told you that the Bighorn Dam was possible. But techniques have changed and knowledge has changed, and I feel very certain that what we thought was impossible ten years ago in connection with water management will be possible in years to come.

So I want to just Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1777

30-30 ALBERTA HANSARD April 17th 1972 indicate that it is my intention to maintain the engineering capability of the Water Resources Division. I feel very strongly that it will be needed at all times -- that there never will come a time when we won't need the potential that we now have, or these resources that we now have and if anything, we will probably be increasing them. It's difficult for me to suggest to the hon. member that this matter might have priority X, Y, or Z. It's something that we have to fit into our priority set of scales.

I said earlier that this year we considered the Paddle River as one of high priority because we had incurred, or there had incurred, a loss of something like $700 thousand to the people in that area in connection with the last flood, so we felt this was an area of high priority. Next year the priority will be something else and depending on the amount of funds we have available, we may have a number of projects under active implementation at the same time. MR. TAYLOR: Mr.

Chairman, what I have to say is applicable largely to my own constituency, but I think, by the same token, applicable elsewhere in the province. I refer to the erosion of the banks along our rivers and creeks. Every year many property owners are losing more and more of their land, particularly where there is alluvial soil, and the water rises high, takes out a considerable amount of the land and now it's amounting to many acres from the land of some people.

The policy that had been followed for some time generally by the previous government was that where a road or a public structure was involved, that public money would be spent to arrest the erosion, either through rock fill or some other means. Consequently, as the files of the Department of Highways will show, we were able to arrest the erosion in many places in the province, because a road would be, directly or indirectly, in danger of being washed away. This is little consolation to the people who own land where there is no road who are seeing it gradually eaten away by water and the force of water.

For some time I have felt that some type of policy is required to protect this waste and loss of land. I realize it's a difficult problem, it's a widespread problem, and it's a problem that is not going to be easily solved. But because the problem is gigantic in nature, I believe, is no reason why we shouldn't try to find solutions and effect solutions where they can be effected. In many cases a small amount of rock fill, or in some cases a short diversion of the stream, is all that is necessary to save a great deal of land that is privately owned from being washed away into the rivers and into the creeks.

My point in raising this is that I would hope this would secure the attention of the hon. minister and his department and that the policy would be continued of arresting this erosion where it can be done at a small amount of public cost through the erection of a dam or through raising the land slightly where there is no bank, or by rock fills where rock is available. The people are concerned about losing much of their own land and it is becoming an increasingly serious problem.

I know there is no easy answer, but I would hope that the hon. minister would expend some monies this year where the work can be done that will give satisfaction, that will save land without enormous expenditures of public money. I would like to have a comment of the hon. minister on this erosion problem. MR. HARLE: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might add another matter and perhaps the hon. minister could handle both at the same time. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1778

April 17th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 30-31 MR. CHAIRMAN: Very well, Mr. Harle. Go ahead. MR. HARLE: Mr. Chairman, with regard to a matter in my constituency, and this concerns the coal fields which are being developed at Forestburg. In the light of the commission hearing which took place in December and January of this year, I wonder, is the department going to come out with some reclamation requirements which will have an influence on the reclamation of surface mining areas after they have been mined? MR. YURKO: In connection with the hon. member's question -- the hon.

Member for Drumheller -- I would just like to say that he certainly touched on the matter that we have discussed quite frequently in the last seven months as to what type of cost-sharing formula we would use. We have been using a 50-50 cost-sharing formula. In some instances we have been using a 75-25, but we hope to get some more uniformity in this area.

Again it is a case of local initiation, in most instances, where there is initiation at the local level, and secondly where there is a desire on a local level — or the private owner in some instances — where there is a public advantage to undertaking some work, then we recognize that if the local authority is prepared to put some funds in -- say 50% -- then we would generally work with them and add the additional funds and this is, as I said, under consideration and may change. This, of course, is again dependent on the total budget that we, in fact, have, that the department gets for this type of work.

Here again, in all sincerity, I suggest that it is my hope and my intent to increase the budget that is available for this type of work. This is preventive work, and can in fact, in the long run, save both the province and the people involved, be it the local authority, or even private owners in some cases, much larger sums of money. In this respect, I say in all honesty, that I hope to be able to increase the department's budget for this type of work, but in all cases it will be related to local initiative -- to a large degree, not in all cases -- and also the local input.

In many cases the labour can be provided locally, and thus their input and our input will be associated with other costs, materials and so forth. So we recognize that we have to increase our performance in this area and will do whatever we can.

I do want to suggest that we are working on a policy in connection with river basin stabilization and management and in connection with work done in this type of area, we of course have recognized that where we can declare the river in the general public interest, that in instances like this we recognize that there is a good argument for total input by the province -- where we can declare a major tributary or a major river as in the general public interest. On the basis of priority and money availability, work then will be done on a total provincial government input. This is what we declared the Paddle River.

We declared the Paddle River as in the general public interest of Alberta, because of its wide and great influence, and as a result, in that particular instance, it was a total input by the province. However, in other areas where we can't declare the creek or the stream or even a very small river, in the general public interest, then we will be attempting to establish a cost-sharing formula. And this cost- sharing formula may be 25-75, 50-50 -- this is an area under study at this particular time -- but we do expect to resolve a policy in this area before very long.

In connection with the coal field at Forestburg, we will be bringing before this House, of course, during this session the Land Surface Conservation Act, and this act will make provisions for reclamation of coal fields that haven't been reclaimed in the past. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1779

30-32 ALBERTA HANSARD April 17th 1972 I wouldn't want, at this time, to attempt to indicate what features of the legislation will be. The House will just have to wait until the legislation is introduced. MR. STROMBERG: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to remark to the minister that as he's probably no doubt aware, in many instances government departments are the biggest polluters we have in Alberta, and I refer to the Road to Resources up in Grande Cache.

When that railroad was built, there were a considerable number of streams that were silted up, due to the run-off of clay from this railroad, and I can certainly verify that myself. Streams that I, in the past, have had good fishing in are completely ruined for several years. Another party in that area is Northwest Pulp and Paper.

The environment people, a year ago, were giving them a rather rough time on their roads and the run-off on their roads, and they pointed out to the Department of the Environment at the time that there was less run-off and they were taking better care of their roads than the Department of Highways, and the Department of Highways is probably one of the larger offenders we have. When a new highway is being built, there is no protection for a year. There is grass seeded on the edge, but that grass takes a year or two to become established and there's a considerable amount of just plain run-off and silt. MR.

YURKO: If I just might make some comments to reinforce what I said the other day in connection to building roads in critical areas. I indicated at that time that whenever a road was being built in a sensitive ecological area that we would, again depending on availability of funds, undertake an environmental impact study. I certainly agree with the hon.

Member for Camrose that the area of siltation, the area of grassing and the proper slopes on roads and highways is one of extreme importance and this is what I was alluding to the other day when in fact, I was talking about, I believe, secondary Highway 940, being built up into the Kananaskis. I do agree that most of these roads cross many streams and do interfere with the natural water courses, and it's incumbent upon the engineers to recognize the environmental features, and as a result, incorporate these environmental features right in the design of the road itself.

I just suggest again that this is an area that we're concerned with and have almost as a policy basis today that whenever a road will be running into an ecologically sensitive area, we will call for an environmental impact study, initially. This is not always possible, because sometimes one department moves ahead of another, depending upon available funds, depending on manpower and so forth. We will simply try to do this wherever possible and we will certainly have it under consideration. MR. RUSTE: Mr. Chairman, a question to the hon. minister on that.

Do I take it then, with the remarks he has made in this field, that there may be highway work delayed until these studies are made? MR. YURKO: Mr. Chairman, I don't believe I said that. I said, sometimes we get out of phase and we may follow instead of lead. But, generally, we will try to lead in every possible instance. MR. CHAIRMAN: You had a question, Mr. Wilson? Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1780

April 17th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 30-33 MR. WILSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask a few short questions of the hon. minister. When you tabled the annual report of the Department of the Environment, sir, you drew our attention to the fact that it was printed on recycled paper. I would like to know the purpose of this. Was it because of economics? Was it done as an experiment? Or was it done as tokenism to environmentalists? Or was there some other reason? I am sure there is a simple answer to the next question, but we do have quite a plethora of personnel figures that don’t add up, at first blush at least.

In the 1971-72 estimates, it shows a total of 219 people. Then, in your opening remarks, I believe you said that you had provided for the addition of 55 new people in your department. Those two figures don’t come to the 280 that are included in the 1972-73 estimates. To further confuse the issue -- and I would like you to explain it -- in the annual report, it shows the total of 355 in the department, as of December 31, 1971. Perhaps you could clarify the discrepancy in figures on personnel. MR.

YURKO: With respect to your first question, hon. member, I want to suggest to you, that the report was printed on recycled paper because of all the reasons you suggested and several others. In connection with total personnel, there have been a number of inter-departmental transfers. I indicated earlier that the Land Development Branch of the Water Resources Division is being transferred to the Department of Agriculture. Furthermore, we have transferred -- has the hon. member examined the capital account expenditures? MR. WILSON: Yes, I have examined them. MR.

YURKO: We have had some transfer from one appropriation to another which is indicated, for example, on Appropriation No. 2999, we indicate that 22 positions were transferred to the Department of Agriculture. There was a transfer of 19 managerial positions to Appropriation No. 2920. I believe that if there is any confusion in the hon. member’s mind, it is really because of the fact that we have had some inter-departmental, and transfers within the department from one appropriation to another. I would certainly be prepared to reconcile this for you and get it all established on an easy to read and understand sheet.

However, I do want to indicate that the total increase in connection with our department was as I have indicated before. I can go through these figures again if you wish. MR. WILSON: Thank you very much. There was quite a discrepancy in the annual report. It showed a total of 355 personnel. Your 1972-73 estimates total 280, plus the additions on the capital account. Back to the business of the -- MR. YURKO: Hon. member, those positions that are listed -- the 280 — are not all the positions of the people in the department.

We have a very substantial number of positions providing technical services in Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1781

30-34 ALBERTA HANSARD April 17th 1972 the irrigation division in Lethbridge, for example, and this comes under the Capital Account. The technical services that we provide to the irrigation districts are under Capital Account under Appropriation No. 2984. This represents a very substantial number of people. I have the figures. There are 164 in the Lethbridge office. I am transferring a number of these to Agriculture. The land development division is being transferred in total to Agriculture out of the Lethbridge contingent.

The total that we are going to transfer to the Department of Agriculture is 42 of which 22 are full- time salaried positions and the remainder are not salaried and are not shown in the Appropriations. MR. WILSON: So those 42 that are being transferred to the Agriculture Department are in addition to what was included in the Agricultural estimates. Is that right? MR. YURKO: Two are in the Agricultural estimates. The other twenty aren't. MR. WILSON: Okay, back to the recycled paper on which the Annual Report was printed. You say it included economics and I assume that it is an economic advantage.

Can we then expect in future years to see more government Annual Reports on recycled paper? MR. YURKO: Well, I just wanted to suggest to the hon. member that really more and more paper is being recycled and used, and in some of our Eastern cities a tremendous amount of paper is derived from recycled paper. Besides that recycled paper that is used in such things as building products -- Building Products Ltd. uses an amazing amount of paper in the production of their goods right here in Edmonton. And as matter of fact, I think they have a difficult time getting all of their requirements now and again.

But in Canada as a whole, there is a substantial amount of paper being recycled and you can buy recycled paper. We have adopted as a policy matter in the Department of the Environment the idea of reusing recycled paper as frequently as we possibly can to, in fact, highlight this area of total resource recycling. We have a project going on examining the recycling of paper within government, as we recognize the Alberta government uses an enormous amount of paper and we are really examining whether or not this is feasible.

On the first look at this matter, I think my department indicated that this may not be feasible at this time, but that doesn't necessarily satisfy me. We may look at it a second time. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, is it more costly to use recycled paper than other paper? MR. YURKO: Mr. Chairman, it depends on the quality of paper that you wish.

You recognize that the quality of paper isn't as high on recycled paper because it is difficult to remove some of the inks and so forth and there is, I think, a greyish tone and as a result, some of the recycled paper has been used in certain areas only, and some people just don't want to use it because of the quality of the paper. But as far as I am concerned, it doesn’t affect my eyes and the printing on it is as good as on top quality paper. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1782

April 17th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 30-35 MR. TAYLOR: Is it true, hon. minister, that it is more difficult to recycle the Edmonton Journal than other newspapers? MR. CHAIRMAN: On that -- yes, Dr. Buck. DR. BUCK: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. minister a question which I have been afraid to make a comment on but I am sure he would be disappointed if I didn't. I feel that the hon. M in ister of Agriculture has had a relaxing weekend and I hope he won't launch into a tirade, therefore I think that possibly I will be able to get a few words in. Mr.

Chairman, and hon. minister, I would like to say a few words on the South Cooking Lake project. I listened very intently to your discussion on setting priorities, and looking at matters related to maintaining water levels I have been very, very appalled, Mr. Chairman, at the silence that has been very, very observable from the opposite side of the House by the 'silent 16' in this matter, and I speak of the hon. MLAs from Edmonton. I should say maybe the 'fightless 15', because the Speaker can't enter into this discussion.

But I would think in a project as important to the City of Edmonton as the South Cooking Lake project, we certainly should have had some response from the people on the other side of the House. I really think that they are negligent in their duties because they are not pressing the hon. minister to go ahead with this project. The former government placed a high priority on this, the Environment Conservation Authority did an extensive study on this project, and we felt that it was of a very high priority nature.

I am very, very disappointed to find out that the new administration that has been going ahead and looking in new directions and looking at environmental aspects would place this in such a low priority. This is a project that concerns approximately half a million people in this area and to say that we are studying and studying will mean nothing more than the death of south Cooking Lake and with that, Hastings Lake.

I would like to read for the hon. members just a few lines from the report on the "Summary of the Public Hearings on a Proposal to Restore Water Levels in Cooking and Hasting Lakes" and to bring to the attention of the hon. members how serious this situation is in south Cooking Lake. MR. FARRAN: [Comment inaudible] DR. BUCK: If you would like to know all the details, hon. Member for Calgary North Hill, I would suggest that you read the little pamphlet from cover to cover because it would give you all the details.

You know that I wouldn't want to take too much more than 40 minutes of the House's time to go into the entire report. I will just briefly read one small

section that will give you an indication of the gravity of the situation and this is by Mr. Spooner, and if the hon. members are not really concerned, this is fine, they can go out and have coffee, but I hope that the 'silent 16' will at least stay in the Assembly from that side of the House, or the 'fightless 15' as I mentioned before, because I am really, really disappointed that they haven't been bringing this subject up to the hon. minister. I hope that if nothing else, I can shame them into bringing this priority up in their caucus, if they won't do it in front of the people of this Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1783

30-36 ALBERTA HANSARD April 17th 1972 province, maybe they will do it in caucus behind closed doors. But this is a

summary of the speech that Mr. seaplane base, gave to the hearing and Spooner, who operates the it will indicate the concern about the loss of water in this lake. And it goes on: "I have operated the Cooking Lake airport for the last 30 years and the last three years we are almost out of business. In the last 20 years I have measured the water each morning, so since 1952 we have dropped 50 inches. Now I have kept a record for over 30 years and the evaporation on this lake alone is from 8 to 16 inches during a summer.

It seems that over the last number of years when we get a heavy snowfall we get a rise in water, but in the last two years it goes down. W e are always losing, we have never come back to our normal. The evaporation is too great because the timber has been cleared, roads have been built, small little streams have been diverted and we are sitting on a hill.

We are at 2,419 feet elevation and we only have an area around Cooking Lake of five miles, at the most, that runs into Cooking Lake, all the rest of it runs in the other direction." And a statement that was made, which might have sounded facetious, but really summarized the critical nature of the situation was that "if we don't do something about South Cooking Lake we might just as well turn it into a golf course, because that's what will come of it." So that is all I am going to say, Mr. Minister. I know that you are concerned, I believe that you are genuinely concerned about projects such as this.

I appreciate the fact that you have to set priorities. I appreciate the fact that there are 75 members that always have a pet project. But this is not particularly a pet project, this should be a project of all the people in this Legislature because the matter is that critical. So I ask the hon. members once again on that side of the House to support me in this and try to move this up to a number one priority basis. It has not been budgeted for this year, but I feel that possibly next year may not be too late, but I would say in three years that the lake will be irreversible.

I know you will be saying that we must investigate how much of the shore line is Crown property -- I agree - - because it would not be a wise spending of the taxpayers' money if it was going to restore a shore line for private people only. We all know that there are certain amounts of footages around the entire lake that belong to the Crown, so it would no way affect just the people who are private property holders. So, hon. minister I appreciate your concern, but I would like to see if you could move this priority up. MR. YURKO: Mr.

Chairman, I think I would like to go on record of making some comments in this regard. I would first of all like to indicate that in the late 1800's, I believe it was 1897 or so, the lake was dry, totally dry, and it certainly revived itself. The record proves that in fact -- and this was presented at the hearings and is well documented. I also want to indicate that seven months ago when I took over the department I looked very hard to find if there was any appropriation or any money allocated or, for that matter, what priority was given to rehabilitation of this particular lake.

I haven't found very much in the files, but I do want to suggest that that doesn't mean to say that the department isn't cognizant of the problems in this area. It is not only Cooking Lake, Lake Miquelon, and all the lakes in this eastern part of the city — Gull Lake is another lake — there is real concern with a lot of these lakes. I do want to suggest to the hon. members that we recognize this concern, we recognize there is a need for an input in this area.

This is really why we have undertaken, almost within months after we took over government, the establishment of a major policy direction Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1784

April 17th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 30-37 in this area. And the major policy direction as I indicated is going to be associated with cost-sharing. It isn't fair for the people of Alberta to go and rehabilitate a lake when its entire shore line is privately owned, or for that matter, when the majority of that shore line is privately owned. We are not in the business of providing benefits for a handful of people. We are in the business of providing benefits for the people of Alberta and this is why we are evolving a policy in this regard.

I do suggest that we have looked at this policy very, very carefully and we will make no end of provision to provide local communities, local municipalities with the possibility of upgrading their priority listing. If they have much of lake, for example, that is privately owned and the costs involved may be fairly high, the local communities, the local people, can upgrade the classification of that lake by purchasing property and dedicating it to the public good.

By doing this they will upgrade their project -- and I am talking about the type of thinking we are doing in this area -- they will upgrade their project and provide the type of facility available to the public where then it can be classified as something in the public good instead of in the private good. So that there will be all sorts of opportunities for people who own private property and own the shoreline of a lake to upgrade that lake and bring it into the realm of contribution by the province.

And I hope when we do establish this policy and put it before the people of Alberta this will give the people around Cooking Lake every opportunity to participate in upgrading their own priorities. The emphasis will be on them to upgrade their priorities and not necessarily on the government to contribute on a non-equitable basis just because somebody wants to enhance his property or his particular station in life. DR. BUCK: Mr. Chairman, I agree with one small point the hon. minister made in that there should not be an expenditure of public funds to enhance private property.

But he knows, as well as I do, that all the representations that were made in this little pamphlet -- I would say as a ball park figure that 85% of these people were not locally concerned -- they were people outside the Cooking Lake area, they were people mostly from the Edmonton city and vicinity that were concerned about the loss of this lake. They are concerned not about the property, they are concerned about the ecological loss to the people of the province and the people in this area more than the enhancement of private property in that area.

As far as the weak argument the hon. minister makes about back in 1885 the lake was dry. I think when you look at this -- I don't know what dry means, if it is absolutely totally dry or down low -- we know that because of the changes in farming techniques the diversion of water away from the little creeks and so on that go into the lake, this lake cannot come back by itself. This year and last year we had two of the highest snowfalls we have had in the last decade or decade and a half and the lake is not coming back; and the lake is not going to come back unless it has some help.

This is where you, sir, and your new government are supposed to provide the leadership. You are the ones that are supposed -- MR. YURKO: We are providing it. DR. BUCK: -- to say, "Ladies and gentlemen we will help you, we have the people, we have the resources, we will provide that leadership." But you're not providing that leadership. You are saying to the people at the local level: "Come in and bring a delegation in to us and Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1785

30-38 ALBERTA HANSARD April 17th 1972 tell us what to do or how the problem should be solved. We'll be glad to help you." That's leadership? That's baloney -- that is not leadership. I beg your pardon, that's an unparliamentary word. But the term possibly indicates the type of leadership that the government is showing, because it isn't showing any.

It is saying to the people in a local area: "You come in here and lobby us and you tell us the answers and then we'll help you." In the area of cost- sharing, the hon. minister well knows that the people in the area and the County of Strathcona, and possibly the City of Edmonton as represented by the 'silent 16', are more than willing to help this project, because it is of vital importance to this city right here to help restore Cooking Lake. So, hon. minister, I humbly ask you to move this priority up because it is a pretty critical matter. This lake will not be able to come back without some help from man. MR.

CHAIRMAN: On that point can we -- yes, Mr. Ruste. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say a word or two about Cooking Lake. MR. YURKO: Another part here -- MR. TAYLOR: That is right. I believe that the consideration of raising Cooking Lake should not be based primarily on whether it's going to benefit the people who happen to own land around the sides of the lake. Frankly, from what I can recall, raising the lake is going to probably hurt some of the people rather than benefit them.

I would think that any consideration for raising Cooking Lake would be based on a number of factors, but one of them being the need of a hydroplane base within the Edmonton area. I recall that the Canadian government undertook a study of airstrips and air bases including the hydroplane base at Cooking Lake last year and whether or not that study has been completed, I'm not aware. I placed a great deal of importance on that study during the last few months in office because I felt this would give us the indication of whether or not Cooking Lake would be needed in the area as a hydroplane base.

If it means that hundreds of planes from the North are going to have to go elsewhere because there is no place to change over within a reasonable distance from Edmonton, there may be a very strong economic factor to raise the lake that would give this higher priority which would mean much to this part of the province. If on the other hand, there are other areas found that will provide the hydroplane setup, then of course, it would be a different matter entirely.

I would suggest that one of the major items to consider in diverting water to Cooking Lake is the basis of whether or not we need a hydroplane base in this area. The other consideration that should be considered is the recreational facility of Cooking Lake for the people in the metropolitan City of Edmonton. Certainly there is a shortage of recreational areas where there is water involved, and when the water gets too low, then certainly the difficulty of using it for recreation disappears.

There is, I think, a very excellent potential for Cooking Lake, from both the hydroplane point of view and from the recreational point of view. I would hope that these two items would have the major consideration of the government when they are considering this particular project. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1786

April 17th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 30-39 MR. YURKO: Well, I just might add another few comments, Mr. Chairman, in connection . . . (not recorded) . . . for one minute that we don't recognize this as a problem, and that we're not attuned to in fact what could be done in this area. I have had a number of discussions on the lake itself, and not only on the lake but the entire moraine, the Cooking Lake moraine, which is even in our estimation more important than just the lake itself, because around Edmonton there are a number of lakes, many lakes, that have to be carefully managed.

Certainly Lake Wabamun is one lake and we have indicated now that as far as Lake Wabamun is concerned, the government will do everything necessary to maintain this lake as an area of very high quality, for recreation and so forth. I think you must recognize that there are certain step-wise procedures that we must go through in order to develop a rational lake stabilization policy and a rational method of financing some of these programs.

There is no way that anybody, without too much thought, can suddenly commit $3 or $4 million to stabilizing Cooking Lake without examining the policy in total; without examining the program in total across the province; without examining the relationship of Cooking Lake to Gull Lake, which