LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Tuesday, April 11, 1972 2:30 p.m. (The House met at 2:30 pm.) PRAYERS (Mr. Speaker in the Chair.) head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill No. 26: The Beverage Container Amendment Act 1972 MR. ASHTON: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill being The Beverage Container Amendment Act. 1972.

An objective of the bill is to further reduce the litter problem by extending the provisions of The Beverage Container Act to make further items refundable such as the liquor, wine, and imported beer bottles. further, the bill will permit substantial improvements to the depot system in Alberta for the convenience of Albertans in obtaining refunds for beverage containers. [Leave being granted, Bill No. 26 was introduced and read for a first time.] MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to move, seconded by the hon.

Minister of Health and Social Development, that The Beverage Container Amendment Act be placed on the Order Paper under Government Bills and Orders. [The motion was passed without debate or dissent.] head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS MR. GRUENWALD Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of very important guests in the speaker's gallery that I would like to introduce to you and to the hon. members of this Legislature. The first one is -- being ladies first -- is Mrs. Sue Wearmouth. I am sure that the people on the other side of the House will recognize that name, incidentally. I would just like to indicate, Mr.

Speaker, that she is a member of the Calgary Separate School Board and the Vice-President of the Alberta School Trustees' Association. She is also accompanied by Mr. Raymond Clark, who is from Bow Island. He is the immediate past president of the Alberta School Trustees' Association. Be is also the Mayor of Burdett. He is a very energetic and enthusiastic community worker, I can assure you, and is a very successful businessman. These people are both richly endowed with special blessings, insofar as they are both from the fringe area of Lethbridge. Would you please stand and be recognized?

Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1471

26-2 ALBERTA HANSARD April 11th 1972 MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, I wish to introduce to you and through you to the hon. members of this Assembly, 13 students from Victoria Composite High School in my constituency of Edmonton Centre. The students, Mr. Speaker, are accompanied by Mr. Scragg, Mr. Simbalist, and Mrs. Shadlow. It is particularly pleasing for me to introduce this group, as these students are enrolled in our government's Priority Employment Training program. The students and their instructors are seated in the members' gallery and I would now ask that they rise and be recognized by this Assembly. MR.

ZANDER: Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to introduce to you and through you to this Assembly, 50 students, young men and women from the Drayton Valley Junior High School. They are accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Newell and Mr. Sawchyn. They are seated in the member's gallery. Would they please rise and be recognized. MR. PURDY: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure this afternoon to introduce to you and to the members of this Assembly 33 students from the Stony Plain School. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Maronick and the bus driver, Mr. Yoist.

This morning they visited the Edmonton Journal, went over to the museum and then came to watch us in action this afternoon. Would they please rise and be recognized. MR. COOPER: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to direct your attention, and that of the members of this Assembly to the public gallery, which is practically filled with the finest in the land -- 90 Grade IX students from the J.R. Robson School in Vermilion. They are accompanied by their teachers, Mrs. Jack, Mrs. Stangland, Mr. Pachmann, and their driver, Mr. Stevenson.

I do hope that what they see and hear in this Assembly today will help them in their social studies. I ask the students to rise and be recognized. head: FILING RETURNS AND TABLING REPORTS MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might take this opportunity to table in the Legislature a letter that I sent to the Prime Minister yesterday.

I'd like to read the contents of it: "The Canadian Press reported today that in your address to the National Newspaper Awards dinner in Toronto, you stated that as part of a proposed new northern transportation system, the federal government is considering an all-weather highway, being the first highway to join southern Canada with our third ocean coast.

"Because of the geographic position of Alberta, and the fact that Alberta is a natural staging area and logistical centre for northern transportation, I wanted to assure your government at the earliest possible time that the government of the Province of Alberta is very interested in working with you on the planning of such an all-weather highway subject to appropriate financing arrangements. "I trust it will be in order for our Minister of Highways, the hon. Mr. Clarence Copithorne, to contact your Minister of Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1472

April 11th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 26-3 Transport, Mr. Jamieson, as a follow-up to your address and to this letter. "Because the Alberta Legislature is now in session, and due to the public interest that has arisen as a result of your remarks, I propose to table this letter in the Legislature." MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table two documents, being the Impact on the Environment of Surface Mining in Alberta, which is a documentation of the proceedings before the Environment Conservation Authority, held during the fall of 1971.

As per the policy of the government, a copy of these hearings was prepared for each member of this Assembly. MR. PEACOCK: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table the report of the accounts of the Alberta Commercial Corporation for the year ending December 31, 1971. DR. HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, some days ago, the hon. Member for Drumheller inquired about correspondence between the hon. the Premier and the Civil Service Association. It's my pleasure now to table the letter from the Premier to the president of the Civil Service. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Ombudsman' s Telephone Number MR. SORENSON: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Premier. Hon. Premier, is it the intention of the government to implement the recommendations of W.S. Shandrowsky, the Co-ordinator of Government Telephone Listings, and print the telephone number of the Ombudsman in all the telephone directories in the province? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I cannot respond specifically to the hon. member's question, but I have read an interesting

article in the Calgary Herald of April 10th regarding an effort by staff writer, Mr. John Bennett to contact the Ombudsman. It was my intention to pass this news report on to the hon. Minister of Telephones so that there could be some improvement in the general ease with which the public may communicate with the Ombudsman. Certainly, what the hon. member generally suggests with regard to his question is something that I think has considerable merit, and follows up questions raised by the hon. Member for Calgary Bow several weeks ago. MR. WILSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Would the government go one step further and accept a suggestion from a Socred -- that of listing a government information Zenith number in all directories throughout the province? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, we are always very open as the hon. members opposite know toward suggestions, and certainly that is one that has been made on prior occasions. We will be taking a look at the feasibility of it. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1473

26-4 ALBERTA HANSARD April 11th 1972 MR. RUSTE: Mr. Speaker, a supplemental to that. As it relates to calls to the Ombudsman, if the name was listed in the directories, and I am thinking of the northern, central and so on, would it be possible to have that on a Zenith call so that the individual, no matter where he lives in the province, would be able to call without having any long distance charges? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, in answer to the question, I believe it was answered by the previous answer given, and that is certainly something we will look into as part of an effort to make it easier for the public to get in touch with the Ombudsman, and a greater degree of awareness by telephone companies as to the Ombudsman's role and proper function. MR. WERRY: Mr. Speaker, on this question, at the present time AGT is conducting a study of all government services in providing information and accessibility through the rural areas, and to provide a greater accessibility. The study will be completed very shortly.

I think the point raised with respect to the Ombudsman is a valid point, and I will direct the attention of that study group to that specific question. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview, followed by the hon. Member for Drumheller, and the hon. Member for Calgary McCall. The Farm Implement Act MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct this question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture. Is the hon. minister aware that by taking advantage of

Section 9, Subsection (2) of The Farm Implement Act, manufacturers have effectively shielded themselves from any action by a farmer for breach of warranty? I am referring more specifically to the case of Arndt vs. Schultz Motors and J. I. Case, which was decided on March 28th, and which effectively rules out the impact of

Section 5 of The Farm Machinery Act. DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, may I first say that we are in the process now of recruiting a director of The Farm Implement Act. Why this wasn't done before I don't really understand, because the Act was passed last spring. Subsequently, after our taking office we had a look at this entire operation and have decided to try and implement it. I am quite interested in the legal decision the hon. member refers to for a number of reasons, and will be quite willing to, later on, develop alternate legislation if it is necessary to effectively improve the warranties that farmers receive.

MR. NOTLEY: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister. It is my understanding of the legal decision that if the Subsection (2) is eliminated, we don't have a problem. Although I understand there is no intention to bring in a complete overhaul of the Act at this session, would the government consider bringing in an amendment which would eliminate Subsection (2) and at least alleviate this particular problem caused by the legal decision? Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1474

April 11th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 26-5 DR. HORNER: There are a number of problems, Mr. Speaker, in this area that I would like to get cleared up. If we cannot do it by regulation, then it may be necessary to bring in an amendment to the Act. Cloud Seeding Program MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the hon. Minister of Industry, who, I understand, is chairman of the Alberta Research Council. Does the Alberta government plan any direct cloud seeding programs this year for hail suppression? MR. PEACOCK: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture.

Veterans' Hospitals MR. HO LEM: Mr. Speaker. I would like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Health and Social Development. A meeting, Mr. Minister, was held in Calgary last Sunday to discuss the possible closing or takeover of the Colonel Belcher Hospital. This meeting was called by the members of the Royal Canadian Legion, Alberta No. 1 Branch, and invitations were extended to some civic officials as well as MLA's from both sides of the House. Were you aware of this meeting? MR. CRAWFORD: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but at the time the meeting was held I was not aware of it.

I became aware of it on Monday and have received an oral report on the meeting, which I understand relates to the concerns of the vetera ns as to what could happen if the federal government pressed the policy, which it is tentatively pursuing at the present time, to continue their efforts to have veterans' hospitals taken over by authorities other than the Department of Veterans' Affairs. My understanding as of yesterday is that the group that called the meeting in Calgary, either the Legion or a branch of the Legion, in Calgary is providing me with a copy of their brief by the mails, and it has not yet arrived.

MR. HO LEM: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker... MR. LOUGHEED: I would like to add that in addition to that I believe the House would be pleased to know that we received a full report with regard to that meeting from the Mayor of Calgary. I personally had a discussion with him about it, and it is something about which our government has considerable concern and intends to give it that sort of concern. MR. HO LEM: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The concern expressed at the meeting was perhaps to the second paragraph of this letter of invitation.

And it reads: "Recently while in Calgary, the Deputy Minister of Veterans Affairs over a local news media, invited on behalf of the federal government any civilian groups interested in the takeover of the Colonel Belcher Hospital. The Royal Canadian Legion in the Province of Alberta vigorously oppose such a proposal." Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1475

26-6 ALBERTA HANSARD April 11th 1972 And I was just wondering if at this time the hon. minister might like to make some preliminary comments on this proposal. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I think Dr. Hodgson is flying a balloon, and I think that the talk show referred to was some three or four weeks ago, and I know that this has been an area that the federal government has been trying to move towards for at least ten years. MR. HO LEM: I have another supplementary. Mr. Speaker.

Recently, a wing at the Colonel Belcher Hospital was closed, thus putting additional pressures on the already bed-shortage on the overall hospital picture in Calgary. As a result of this we find that there are some veteran patients in or on the waiting lists of other hospitals. Now, having consideration into the peak-load of veterans which has not yet been reached from World War II, what does the minister feel he can do to alleviate this problem so that the people concerned may have some peace of mind? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr.

Speaker, the assurance that I want to give to the House -- although I must say that the area is one of federal responsibility and I don't want to be in the position of announcing policies of any federal government until after the next general federal election, but the hon. Member for Calgary Mountain View is not involved in that in any way. Now, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say that despite the concern and sensitivity to the needs of the veterans as we may show and may wish to show, I still have to bear in mind the fact that it is an area of federal responsibility.

And when the hon. member asks for an assurance in any way, all it can be is that we will do our utmost within the area of responsibility that we have. MR. HO LEM: One final question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statements made by the hon. the Premier that they have been in touch with the association, I would take it that you will be in touch with the group involved in Calgary, namely the Royal Canadian legion. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr.

Speaker, the Premier's statement was that the Mayor of Calgary had given a full report on this subject and I had earlier said that my understanding from the Legion in Calgary is that they are forwarding a written presentation through the mail, and every necessary follow-up will be made. MR. HO LEM: They have asked me to forward this to you. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton Kingsway, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary Bow, and the hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury, and then the hon. Member for Edmonton Strathcona. Alternative Edmonton Airport Site DR. PAPROSKI: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to direct this question to the hon. Minister of Industry. As a result of the extensive preliminary favourable studies that have been carried out regarding an Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1476

April 11th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 26-7 alternative or additional airport site 10 miles northeast of Edmonton, and with the resultant delay -- despite the fact that the federal authorities have approved the site in principle -- I would like to ask the hon. minister what are the results of the meeting you have had with representatives from this site, and was the City of Edmonton represented at this meeting? MR. PEACOCK: Mr.

Speaker, we had a meeting with a group from Edmonton and recommended that they include the City of Edmonton in any further negotiations that they may have with us or meetings that they may have with us and get their approval first. DR. PAPROSKI: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the hon. minister means that he's not planning to take any further action unless the City of Edmonton moves first? MR. PEACOCK: That's right, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary Bow. Credit Buying MR. WILSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Premier.

Given the fact that many senior citizens and low income people cannot obtain credit cards, plus those who do not want them, what steps are you or your government planning, if any, to protect these cash buyers from subsidizing credit card losses, expenses and fees? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, there's a presumption in the question that I don't think is accurate. MR. WILSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the hon. Premier or his government aware of recent statements along this line in the Alberta Consumer magazine? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, the question of various reports of this nature, and the very fact that they have been published, does not make them accurate. We're aware of the problem and we're giving it consideration. Perhaps the hon. Minister of Manpower and Labour might want to add a comment, but I think it's a matter that is under review. MR. WILSON: A supplementary on the same vein then, Mr. Speaker. Are you planning any steps to protect Alberta citizens from havinq to notify clubs and companies not to send products that they don't want? Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1477

26-8 ALBERTA HANSARD April 11th 1972 MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I think the evidence of positive contention and immediate action on that matter was illustrated effectively by the hon. Minister of Highways in the same area a few weeks ago with his announcement. MR. WILSON: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I didn't make the question clear enough... MR. SPEAKER: Strictly speaking the question is out of order because it involves the use of the mails which is a matter of federal jurisdiction. The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury. Red Deer College Inquiry MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon.

Minister of Advanced Education regarding the Red Deer College inquiry, a follow-up on the question that I asked last week. Will the hon. minister follow the direction established during the SAIT dispute in Calgary, when the government made a statement saying that the results of the public inquiry would, in fact, be made public? MR. FOSTER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. Premier has dealt with this as I did last week.

There is an important distinction to make here and that is that SAIT then, and SAIT now, is part of the Department of Advanced Education and is in one sense therefore different from a college because, as we appreciate, a college is a relatively independent and autonomous body. Perhaps I should go a bit further, Mr. Speaker, on the matter of recommendations of this inquiry and what we intend to do about them.

I would like to say, as a matter of my philosophy in terms of a public inquiry and report to this minister, that I believe very strongly that public business should be done in public, and since we have declared that the matter of the Red Deer College is a matter of public concern, therefore, the report is a matter of public concern and should, as much as possible, be dealt with in public. But at the same time I think we have to recognize that the report of the commissioner will probably touch very directly upon the lives and the roles of some people in that college.

And I think that until government has had a chance, in my view at least, to assess the recommendations of the commissioner and perhaps to deal with them to some point, it would be inappropriate to perhaps -- again I'm dealing in a very grey area -- make the report public early, and therefore add to the prejudice or to the uncertainty of the role or the lives of people who may be dealt with in that report. On the other hand, Mr.

Speaker, I feel that once we have had an opportunity of reviewing that report, or any other report, and taking some action, it would be appropriate for the public to know what was in that report and for this minister in particular to respond for, perhaps, not complying with some recommendations. Now maybe I'm not makinq myself too clear, Mr. Speaker. It depends a great deal on the report -- I will go back to my first principle -- I think public business should be done in public and as much as possible, recognizing the rights of individuals. I will certainly endeavour to do that.

Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1478

April 11th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 26-9 MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Bearing in mind once again the rights of individuals and the fact the report will be finished I understand in early May, and that it's not very long after that time when the students start to decide where they are going to school in the fall, would the hon. minister also keep that factor in mind so the enrolments of the Red Deer College continue in the direction they have, because it is very important that we deal with this matter and get it out of the way, and the show on the road. MR. FOSTER: Mr.

Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's opinions expressed and I merely wish to assure him that I am not unmindful of the problem here, both as minister and as MLA for the City of Red Deer. I can assure the hon. member and this House, that the matter of the Red Deer College inquiry is obtaining my very personal attention. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton Strathcona followed by the hon. Member for Wainwright and then the hon. Member for Clover Bar. Stolen Motor Vehicles MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the hon.

Minister of Highways, and perhaps I should pose the problem first and then the question could be more easily understood. Last night the police appeared at the door of one of my neighbours and took away his car which he had purchased two years ago. He was astonished to discover that the car which he had purchased two years ago was a stolen vehicle. He'd taken the normal checks through the Motor Vehicles Branch of registrations and nothing . . . DR. BUCK: The question! MR. KOZIAK: I appreciate your concern, I think that perhaps if I can put this in proper perspective the question can then be better understood.

On checking the registration at Motor Vehicles there is nothing disclosed to the purchaser that would make him aware that the car was stolen or that he was dealing with somebody that did not have proper title to the car. Now my question is; has the department considered making or allocating licence plates to motor vehicles rather than to people so that you have one licence plate allocated to one car for the life of that car and with that particular number allocated to that car for the life of the car rather than having licence plates that are transferable from vehicle to vehicle over the course of a year? MR.

COPITHORNE: Mr. Speaker, the question is well taken because it also is very pertinent in regard to motorcycles and these type of vehicles and we are taking it under consideration. MR. NOTLEY: Supplemental question, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could direct this to the hon. Attorney General because it deals with a very similar case to the one raised by the hon. Member for Strathcona. Has the government given any consideration to expanding the scope of the Crimes Compensation Commission to cover victims of fraud such as Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1479

26-10 ALBERTA HANSARD April 11th 1972 the gentleman in Strathcona and also the case of a constituent of mine who suffered the same loss? MR. LEITCH: That problem has been brought to my attention. I think it is a very difficult one and involves some very complex matters and while it is a matter of concern, and something we are considering, at this moment I can't be any more definite than that. MR. HO LEM: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. the Attorney General, you will recall that recently in Calgary similar incidences had happened regarding the stolen car ring.

More specifically a 1968 or 1969 Lincoln was sold and later the police had taken it away, and of course, upon investigation they found that this particular person that was selling this car had sold numerous cars throughout the city during that month. Now would this be perhaps linked up with an organization throughout North America -- organized crime. MR. SPEAKER: Order please! The supplementary has an extremely tenuous connection with its predecessor and I wonder if I might, just at this point, say that I am concerned about the fact that the

preambles to the questions are becoming longer and longer and I wonder if we could get them down to their essentials so that they are, in fact, questions rather than speeches. HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Wainwright followed by the hon. Member for Clover Bar and then the hon. Member for Calgary North Hill. MR. RUSTE: Question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture, re dealership. Has he any further information? DR. HORNER: No, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would like additional information, I invite him to put a motion for return on the Order Paper. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR.

RUSTE: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary basis, I understood that in my earlier questioning that you offered to get the information for me and you didn't mention this prior to this time. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. And this is related to a question I asked several weeks ago, hon. minister. This was in relation to increased representation on county council from Sherwood Park. At that time I believe, you said that there would not be any increase in representation on a county council.

My question is: I have heard on Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1480

April 11th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 26-11 one of the local news outlets, that there would be an increased representation up to three. I would like to know if you could inform the House if this is so, or not. MR. RUSSELL: Yes that's so, Mr. Speaker. At the time the hon. member asked his previous question. I'd have to check the wording, but I think he asked me if there were any moves or legislation being considered to increase the representation and at that time there wasn't. I've been having continuous meetings with the hon. member Mr. Ashton, with the former councillor from Sherwood Park, Mrs.

Stewart, I've met. with the new councillor. Mr. Jim Ford, and I also had one meeting with the existing county council. As you know this is an old problem. The previous administration didn't act on it, we have acted and we're adding two more representatives from Sherwood Park. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary North Hill, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary Mountain View, and then the hon. Member for Calgary Millican. MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to put a question to the hon. Minister for Foreign, uh, Intergovernmental Affairs. Regarding the Colonel Belcher Hospital.

Inasmuch as Alberta veterans appear to be again threatened by a federal initiative to reduce their rights, will you express concern to the federal government on behalf of veterans in this province, even though the matter may be under federal jurisdiction? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I'd be to and I've already had an opportunity to discuss it briefly with the hon. Minister of Health and Social Development, so in answer to the hon. member -- yes, by all means. MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Highways.

Has he received any representation or complaints concerning the illegal closing of road allowances to rivers, to recreation areas, etc. in the Calgary area? MR. COPITHORNE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I've received various complaints in this regard and they are taken in due course and careful consideration. MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, supplementary. Did the hon. minister receive any correspondence concerning this issue? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Point of Order, point of order. MR. COPITHORNE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I've received correspondence on this. MR. LUDWIG: Mr.

Speaker, would the hon. minister table the correspondence and his replies for the benefit of the hon. members here. Would he Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1481

26-12 ALBERTA HANSARD April 11th 1972 also indicate to the House what stand if any, he is taking, what recommendation is he making with regard to these illegal closings of the road allowances. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Out of order, out of order. MR. COPITHORNE: Mr. Speaker, I think that we might be able to table some of that -- it's very difficult, but I think we can probably table that, and he's expressing, the hon. member is expressing his own opinion on the legality of road allowance closures. MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, if I'm expressing my opinion, I'd like to . . . SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR.

SPEAKER: Is this a question or . . . DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs, and I would like to know in relation to the question I just asked, if -- I would like to know, as the population of this hamlet increases, will they be adding new members, or will they eventually be asked to incorporate? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is asking a hypothetical question. DR. BUCK: May I ask a supplementary then? [Laughter] SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed, agreed. DR. BUCK: Will there be further increased representation on county council? MR. RUSSELL: Well, Mr.

Speaker, that is a fair question. I spoke with Reeve Parker at two o'clock today about that, because that is a concern of their council. When I made the decision to act under The County Act, and it is the minister that eventually has to act under that Act, I took those matters into consideration because this was a genuine concern of the council. I also considered the fact that the council, as it is now constituted, is one of the smallest, if not the smallest county council in the province, having only five members.

It has only one member representing the area of Sherwood Park, which has in excess of 16,000 people. So there is a great imbalance insofar as representation by population is concerned. We also discussed the matter of the potential incorporation of Sherwood Park as a city, because if it did incorporate right now, it would be Alberta's sixth largest city and it could have a council completely of its own. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1482

April 11th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 26-13 The matter is fur ther complicated by the position of the City of Edmonton, as now put forth, which has requested the provincial government to annex all of the Sherwood Park area and most of the County of Strathcona into the city limits of Edmonton. To that extent, I think the question is legitimate. Whether or not, down the years, some other government or some other minister would respond to the growth in the Sherwood Park area is a hypothetical question.

I gave Reeve Parker my word today that insofar as I was concerned as long as I was minister, the balance would remain as it is now in favour of the county area, and that I thought that three members for the council was a step forward and was a good step towards a proper balance. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary Millican, followed by the hon. Member for Medicine Hat-Redcliff, and then the hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Leduc, and then the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview. MR. DIXON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

Has he had any discussion with Ottawa about the possibility of the Province of Alberta taking over the responsibility for the payment of family allowances, as has been approved by the Province of Quebec? The reason I ask that -- I was wondering are we interested in the transference of this responsibility or will it be used as a bargaining point in perhaps the transference of other responsibilities, such as shared programs? MR. GETTY: Mr.

Speaker, when the announcement was made by the Prime Minister of Canada regarding this matter, he not only wrote a letter to Quebec, he wrote a letter to all the provinces in Canada, to our hon. Premier also, presenting their change in thinking. That letter is being assessed, both by our department to some extent, and by the Department of Health and Social Development, and we will be making a reply to the Prime Minister of Canada. We will also be discussing it with other provinces, and then I am sure we will be able to make that information available to the House. Indian Sit-In at CN Tower MR. WYSE: Mr.

Speaker, I would also like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs. Is the Cold Lake Indian band still picketing the CN Tower? MR. GETTY: I am not quite sure. I have read about it in the Edmonton Journal, the same way as some of the others do. But I would refer that to our hon. Minister without Portfolio in charge of Native Affairs. MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, the last that I heard about it, they were still up there.

There was a story just, recently that stated that dealings with the federal government were almost at the completion stage and that they may be returning home, I would think possibly within the next week or two. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1483

26-14 ALBERTA HANSARD April 11th 1972 MR. DIXON: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the hon. Minister of Education a supplementary question on that issue. Has there been any further representation -- I mentioned this question a few weeks back -- has there been any representation to get the Indian children back to school, or are they going to write them off for this year? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Speaker, there haven't been any representations made, insofar as I think even the Indians themselves feel that the primary obligation from a constitutional point of view rests not with the provincial authority, but we have, of course, been keeping a close watch on the situation. MR. WYSE: I would like to ask a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs. Have any contributions been made by this government to the band to help them carry on this peaceful picketing? MR. ADAIR: I can take that, Mr. Speaker.

As I said earlier, quite some time ago as a matter of fact, the situation was being watched by our department, and that we would, if requested, assist them in any way that we could. We have not had any requests as of late, to assist them in any manner over the last two or three months. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Premier. Hon. Premier, do you not feel that possibly your government should be looking at this situation a little more closely than you are? I mean, we're saying they are a federal matter, but the children are being educated here, and I feel that possibly we should be taking action. MR.

LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to respond to that question. No, we do not. And we do not for the reason that we feel in these matters it's very important that before any action is taken by a provincial government in the area of Indian affairs involving the federal government, that it only be taken if there has been a request by the native people who have been involved. As the Minister without Portfolio has answered in the previous question, that did not happen.

I think it's very important from a constitutional point of view that the responsibility is the federal government's, and rests with the federal government. If the provincial government assumes unilaterally that responsibility, without first being asked by the native people, we could run into a circumstance where we have prejudiced or jeopardized the rights of the native people of this province relative to their relationships with the federal government. MR. WYSE: A supplementary question to the hon. Premier. Have any contributions been made at all to the band since they have been here? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, the question has been answered by the hon. minister. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. minister said that during the past two or three months there had been no assistance, and Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1484

April 11th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 26-15 certainly left the impression that there may have been some help prior to that. That's the reason the hon. member is asking the question. MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, I can respond to that if I may. The request that came -- I believe it was back in late September -- from the representatives at Saddle Lake, Cold Lake and Kahiwin reserves, for us to come up and have a look at the situation, and after looking at the situation then to send a letter to the Prime Minister. We did this.

We sent a telegram asking if they could resolve it as quickly as possible, and that was the last correspondence we had and the last request that we had from the people of that area. AN HON. MEMBER: Listen to him tell it! Government Payrolls MR. HENDERSON: Mr. Speaker, it must be rather complex here trying to figure out what the firing order is. I'd just like to ask the Government House Leader, Mr. Speaker, if he could give me some indication as to when Return No. 147 might be forthcoming. It refers to the number of employees on payrolls on certain dates starting last year, and so on and so forth, by department.

Now that we're in the estimates, we'd like to have it. DR. HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, we're working on this question as rapidly as we can. It's an extremely detailed question. The reports have to come in from every department of -government, then these have to be catalogued and categorized under the common headings, else the information would be non-usable. And I have to say to you, sir, that we are working at this with real dispatch, but it will take some more time and I would beg the indulgence of the House in this matter. MR. HENDERSON: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker.

Could the minister give us any idea if it's going to be a week, two weeks? DR. HOHOL: Well, it will take more time than that, Mr. Speaker. It will also take a great deal of money. This is an expensive question, and it will also be an expensive answer. MR. HENDERSON: That's nothing to you fellows. Regional Libraries MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this question to the hon. Minister of Culture, Youth and Recreation. Can the minister advise the House whether he plans to introduce any legislation this session with respect to libraries?

Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1485

26-16 ALBERTA HANSARD April 11th 1972 MR. SCHMID: Mr. Speaker, we have asked all the libraries of Alberta to reply to us what they consider important, should any changes be introduced in the session. They now have replied and we plan to introduce, if possible, legislation in the fall session of this Legislature. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister. Does the government plan to implement the recommendations of the Leeson study regarding the establishment of 20 regional libraries in the next 20 years? MR. SCHMID: We have introduced some regional libraries already, Mr.

Speaker, and of course, this submission will be part of our recommendations, if necessary, to this Legislature. Civil Service Association MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Labour with regard to the hon. Premier’s letter of January 5th that you tabled today. I would like to know if since that time, you've had any discussions with the CSA with regard to renegotiating or discussing the present 1972 agreement? DR. HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, as you know, and as the Assembly knows, we have joint council meetings ten times a year. We met as recently as Monday.

The subject in question will be on the agenda of the next joint council. It was on the agenda on Monday, but at the initiative of the Civil Service Association membership, they asked that it be moved to the next month's agenda. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. At the present time, is it the government's position to support the mediation settlement that is presently in force for the year 1972? DR. HOHOL: That is correct, Mr. Speaker. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, supplementary question to the hon. minister.

Would he agree that this position at the present time is a position through a unilateral decision of the present government? DR. HOHOL: It is not a proper question, Mr. Speaker, but I will simply say this. We inherited the situation as it was, so I have no opinion on it. We accepted it as it was and moved through with it. Patients in Mental Hospitals MR. DIXON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Premier.

He announced recently that the means test will not be applied for social responsibilities that the government has anything to do with, as far as Albertans over 65 years of age are concerned. I was wondering if his government is giving any consideration to Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1486

April 11th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 26-17 relieving those Albertans over 65, who are confined to our mental hospitals against their will. I say that because there are some patients who volunteer to go in. But those who are confined there against their will -- is the government giving any thought to relieving those patients of the costs they have to bear? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a matter to be properly dealt with when The Mental Health Act is at the committee stage. It certainly seems to me a more appropriate occasion. Direct Seeding of Crops MR. TAYLOR: Mr.

Speaker, may I direct a question to the hon. the deputy Premier. In view of the answer given by the hon. Minister of Industry in connection with money being spent on hail research, did I misunderstand your answer yesterday when you advised that there was no money being spent this coming year for direct seeding? DR. HORNER: I said there was no money being spent in my department. The program the hon. Minister of Industry is talking about is under the direction of the Alberta Research Council. MR. TAYLOR: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

There is money being spent, then, by the Research Council for direct seeding this coming summer? MR. PEACOCK: There will be money appropriated for that, Mr. Speaker. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs. Has he completed the submission to Mr. Marchand at this time? MR. GETTY: We have gone through several copies and we are now working on what I hope will be the final, which will be going to him. Anti-Inflation Measures MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Provincial Treasurer.

In view of the seriousness of inflation problems facing all Canadians, what policy is your department adopting to combat this escalating cost? MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, I think some days ago I was asked that question, when I indicated I had one meeting with Dr. John Young. I'd like to make it clear that in my meeting with Dr. Young that the contingency plans he referred to were clearly plans which they had on a contingent basis, and with which I indicated to him our government was not in a position to agree or disagree. It was simply a matter of discussion of the problem of inflation. I think the hon.

Premier very eloquently indicated, with the fiscal imbalance as presently exists between the federal government and the provincial government, Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1487

26-18 ALBERTA HANSARD April 11th 1972 that the ability to control inflation, largely because of that fiscal imbalance, rests to a very high degree at the federal level. Dr. Young assured me that before any plans would be implemented, if they were, they would meet with our government in Alberta. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. Provincial Treasurer.

In view of the fact that the federal government is talking about contingency plans, do you have a Cabinet sub-committee, or is there a special committee in your department, that is analyzing the economic data available, with the view in mind of presenting the government with concrete ideas to make an adequate response whenever federal plans are introduced? MR. MINIELY: Well, certainly I think that the hon. member knows well that several times in the House we have mentioned the Economic Planning Committee of Cabinet, the Industrial Development Department of the hon.

Fred Peacock, of course, is involved in the statistics area. The point that I wanted to make very clear to the members was at this stage that the federal government has the contingency plans. We indicated our interest and our concern regarding inflation and advised the federal government on our views, but that clearly with the fiscal imbalance that presently exists -- whether we like it or not, it presently does exist -- the actual ability to move in this area is at the federal level and we are happy to provide them with any suggestions we have through our various economic committees. MR.

NOTLEY: Supplementary, Mr ...... MR. SPEAKER: We are just about out of time and the hon. Member for Pincher Creek-Crowsnest has a question which should perhaps take precedence over the other supplementary. MR. DRAIN: My supplementary question is now that the Province of British Columbia has moved into the position of endorsing price and wage controls, is our government going to also consider taking this position? MR. MINIELY: Well, Mr. Speaker, I just answered that question.

At the time firstly, I would like to -- I think it is quite well known that although we are concerned about inflation -- both the Canadian government and the provincial government -- that Canada shows a more favourable picture with respect to the control of inflation than any other modern industrialized country in the world. And that does not mean that we are not concerned about inflation. Clearly, we are and we will be watching it with interest and clearly, we will want to advise the federal government. At this time no, with respect to price and wage controls.

ORDERS OF THE DAY head: MINISTERIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS MR. STROM: Mr. Speaker, I could have possibly raised this on the question period but it relates to the business of the House and I would like Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1488

April 11th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 26-19 to ask the hon. Premier if at this time he is able to provide for the House any firm information in regard to the proposed oil royalty hearings. You will recall that some days ago you suggested the possible time at which we might be having these hearings. We would certainly be interested in knowing if a firm date has been set or is being considered. And then also, I think that the hon. Premier will recall that he expressed a grave concern as to the length of time that the hearings might go on.

He suggested that there might be some need for a committee at that point in time to consider the method in which we would proceed, recognizing of course, that the government has within its power to determine, to quite an extent, the procedures that might be followed. I am wondering if he would be prepared to give us some indication as to whether the government has given further consideration in this regard.

It also runs in my mind that a statement was either made in the House -- and I didn't check the Hansard Record -- but I am wondering if the Premier would care to tell us whether or not the government is going to provide position papers in regard to the royalty matter and when we might be able to expect the presentation of the position papers. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first question the answer is the same as it was before, mid to late April. With regard to the second question the answer is no, it will be a decision made by the Standing Committee on Public Affairs, Agriculture, and Education.

With regard to the third question, we will in fact put in a tentative position paper. It will be a tentative one because the purpose of the hearing, of course, is to give an opportunity for the public to be heard. With regard to the first question -- I mean to make it clear -- is that the tentative position paper will be made available to the members, as I said, before, mid to late April. MR. STROM: (inaudible) MR. LOUGHEED: Yes. MR. SPEAKER: Did the hon. Premier intend to say April or May? MR.

LOUGHEED: I want to make it perfectly clear that what we are proposing is that the tentative position paper will be laid before the House and be referred to the Standing Committee in mid to late April. MR. PEACOCK: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview some time ago in this House asked two questions of the hon. Premier, which the hon. Premier undertook to respond to when the information was available.

The first question was whether or not the Automotive Retailers Association of Alberta had been in correspondence or discussion with the provincial government regarding the development of a code of ethics for the gasoline marketing industry in this province. The second question was whether or not any submissions had been received from the Co-operative movement with respect to the possibility of aid provided by the provincial government being granted to the Co-operative movement to facilitate gasoline marketing by the Co-operative movement in this province. Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to table the answer to those questions. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1489

26-20 ALBERTA HANSARD April 11th 1972 DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a short announcement in relation to two or three matters that are of significance to the agricultural industry in Alberta. First of all we have taken some important steps to meet our commitment to the farmers of Alberta and I am announcing Cabinet approval today of $161,000 in grants to encourage the expansion and marketing of Alberta farm products.

The Alberta Sheep and Wool Commission will receive $58,000 to encourage the expansion and improvement of the sheep and wool industry in the province; $45,000 will go The Alberta Hog Marketing Board to improve expert opportunities for pork products; the Alberta Fresh Vegetable Commission is to receive $22,000 for the improvement of marketing facilities for fresh vegetables and for the direct promotion of Alberta corn on the cob; $13,000 has been allocated to the Alberta Potato Commission to promote Alberta grown potatoes, we would hope that with that allocation that a program to rid the warehouses in Alberta of processed potatoes would be undertaken with some vigour; the Alberta Egg and Fowl Marketing Board will receive $13,000 for the purpose of developing markets for egg and egg products; $5,000 goes to the Alberta Vegetable Growers Marketing Board to assess market possibilities for processed vegetables; the Alberta Corn Committee is to receive $4,500 to seek markets for quality corn production.

In this area, Mr. Speaker, we had hoped to increase the amount of acreage seeded to corn in southern Alberta in relation to industrial development in that part of the province as well. We expect this to be a major start in the marketing thrust that we have been talking about in this Legislature for some time, since the budget was brought down. We have stated in our platform that we are going to do something about the family farm and the important way to do that is by this marketing thrust.

We are looking for access into markets, not only in Alberta and Canada but around the world and in co-operation, as I've said earlier, with the federal Department of Trade and Commerce and the Alberta Department of Industry and Commerce. Mr. Speaker, just to elaborate for a moment, these grants will be used in conjunction and in consultation with the people in my department. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to table two copies of the new regulations having to do with the special program for potato growers in Alberta.

Also two copies of the new Dairy Development Loan Guarantee Regulations, and we hope to have available for all members copies of these regulations by tomorrow. MR. STROM: Mr. Speaker, first of all let me say to the hon. Minister of Agriculture that we certainly appreciate the announcement that he has made today. As far as our side of the House is concerned we are not prepared to debate the proposals that have been made. I am reminded that last night it was suggested that we should be rising in our place and patting the hon. minister on the back for being so generous with his support for marketing.

All I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that we shall save our pattinq on the back until later when we are able to assess the results that will accrue from the proposals that have been made. I'm not in any way suggesting that there may not be results, but I for one would want to reserve judgment until we've had an opportunity of reviewing results that will accrue as a result of the proposals that have been made. I would like to suggest to the hon. Minister of Agriculture that we are getting very close to the end of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.

I would hope that even though we are not maybe dealing directly with the estimates that refer to marketing , if any of our members on our side of the House would want to raise a point in regard to the announcement that has been made we would be permitted to raise it on the discussion of the estimates, even though it may not be directly related to appropriations that are already covered. DR. HORNER: Agreed. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1490

April 11th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 26-21 MR. STROM: I appreciate that opportunity and again I am not serving notice on the government that we will necessarily do it, but I suggest that any time that announcements are made, as they are without any warning, it does not give us much opportunity to respond, and so, therefore, we certainly appreciate having that opportunity. Mr. Speaker, we certainly appreciate at this point in time the emphasis must be placed on marketing, and we are prepared to support any thrust that will improve the marketing possibilities for our primary producers in the Province of Alberta. DR. HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a brief but important

summary report on the labour force employment, and unemployment figures for Alberta, March, 1972. The important figure is that the unemployment rates dropped from 5.O% in February, 1972, to 4.9% in March, 1972. The significant point, Mr. Speaker, is that traditionally, and normally, the unemployment figures rise in February and this year we have been able to reverse this. The number of unemployed in Alberta in March, 1972, decreased by 1,000 from February, 1972, which resulted in the unemployment rate dropping from 5.0% in February of this year to 4.9% in March of this year. This is a decrease, Mr.

Speaker, of 1.7% from the March, 1971, unemployment rate of 6.6%. The number in the labour force in March remained at 657,000, the same as for February, 1972. However, this is an increase of 16,000 or 2.5% over the March, 1971, labour force total of 641,000. The number employed in the labour force in March reached 625,000, an increase of 1,000 or 1.6% over February, 1972. This is an increase of 26,000, Mr. Speaker, or 4.3% over the same month of the previous year. MR. STROM: Mr. Speaker, will this information be tabled for the information of the MLA's? DR.

HOHOL: I will be very happy to table this information, Mr. Speaker, and while I'm on my feet, while I wouldn't want to editorialize, I do want to comment that surely the significant information here means some credit has to be given to the private sector and the public as well in discerning possibly more accurately than ever before, the importance of making specific efforts to reduce unemployment. head: QUESTIONS 158. Mr. Notley asked the government the following question: 1.

Do the 140 people against whom judgments in District Court have been filed for non-payment of Medicare premiums represent all of the people who are in arrears and have the ability to pay? 2. If not, why have judgments been filed against some people who are able to pay and not others, and by what criteria were they selected? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, in regard to question No. 158 I would like to table the answer. 162. M r . Ludwig asked the Government the following question: Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1491

26-22 ALBERTA HANSARD April 11th 1972 1. Which ministers of the Executive Council of Alberta attended the Finance Ministers Conference held in Jasper, Alberta, in the Fall of 1971? 2. How long did the conference last? 3. How many staff members from each Department accompanied each Minister attending the conference? 9. What secretarial staff accompanied each Minister? 5. Were any dinners, luncheons, meals provided at the expense of the people of Alberta during the conference at Jasper? Enumerate please. 6.

What was the cost of all meals and entertainment provided for at the expense of the people of Alberta during the Finance Ministers Conference at Jasper? 7. What were the transportation costs to the Alberta Government in relation to the said conference? MR. GETTY: With respect to Question 162 I would like to table the answer. 167. Mr. Notley asked the government the following question: 1. How many provincial judges are without formal legal training in Alberta? 2. When does the government expect they all will be replaced by legally-trained judges? 3.

Do they receive the same rate of pay as provincial judges with legal training? 4. If not, what is the difference in pay fates? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, in respect to Question 167, we accept the question and I move, seconded by Dr. Hohol that it be made an Order for Return. [The motion was carried without debate or dissent.] 168. Mr. Drain asked the government the following question: 1. (

a) Is the Department of Highways planning to widen the River Road Hinton West this year? (

b) In the meantime what steps are being taken to ensure the safety of the boys and girls riding in school buses on this road arising out of the danger of joint use of the road by Northwest Pulp and Power trucks, school buses and other traffic? MR. PEACOCK: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the answers to Question 168. head: MOTIONS FOR A RETURN 163. Mr. Clark proposed the following motion to the Assembly, seconded by Mr. Taylor. That an Order of the Assembly do issue for a Return showing:

(1) The amount of funds paid out by the Alberta Government to farmers in the province from the Wildlife Damage Fund.

(2) The amount of funds paid out by the Alberta Government to farmers in the County of Mountain View from the Wildlife Damage Fund. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I would say in explanation that I used here the designation of the County of Mountain View. If there's a more Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1492

April 11th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 26-23 convenient designation as far as the department is concerned, I would be quite open to any change that would make the information easier to get. [The motion was carried without debate or dissent.] DR. WARRACK: Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to table the answer to the question. It's a bit late to consider an alternative but it is set up in the second part of the question with respect to the County of Mountain View. 164. Mr. Ludwig proposed the following motion to the Assembly seconded by Mr. Wilson. That an Order of the Assembly do issue for a Return showing:

(1) How many Crown counsel are employed in the following cities: Calgary, Edmonton, Red Deer and Lethbridge?

(2) How many private law firms are employed in each of the above- named cities to conduct criminal prosecutions?

(3) How much money has been paid out to each law firm conducting criminal prosecutions on behalf of the Crown during 1971 in the above-named cities? Enumerate, please.

(4) How many law firms are engaged in conducting criminal prosecutions on a continual basis? Enumerate, please.

(5) How many permanently appointed provincial judges are there in Edmonton? in Calgary?

(6) How many Traffic and Criminal cases have been prosecuted in Calgary during the year 1971? In Edmonton during 1971?

(7) How many convictions of traffic and criminal cases have been recorded in each of the cities of Edmonton and Calgary during 1971? MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to refer to the seventh part of that question, I had intended, and I hope that that was the meaning that was taken, that for the number of convictions of traffic and criminal cases that have been recorded in each of the cities of Edmonton and Calgary, that there be a breakdown, not just a figure -- but how many criminal and how many traffic -- if that distinction could be made. That's the only difference that I have. MR. LEITCH: Mr.

Speaker, in connection with that question, I have one or two other questions for clarification, and perhaps the hon. member who has moved the motion could clear them up now or otherwise they may require an amendment. The first question is whether with respect to part (1) the hon. member is referring to Crown Counsel employed only on criminal matters, because we have counsel in those cities who do civil work. MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, that is correct, I had intended to inquire entirely with regard to criminal prosecutions only and traffic prosecutions -- criminal court proceedings here. MR.

LEITCH: The next question I have, Mr. Speaker, for clarification is whether in part (5) of that motion, the hon. member is referring to those provincial judges who hear criminal matters, because again we Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1493

26-24 ALBERTA HANSARD April 11th 1972 have provincially appointed judges in those cities who hear civil matters. MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, I'm interested in the magistrates' court judges. MR. LEITCH: One last question for clarification, Mr. Speaker, deals with part (7) and that is whether the hon. member is interested only in the convictions that were recorded in those cities or in the trials as well? MR. LUDWIG: Question (6) states, how many cases have been prosecuted in Calgary and Edmonton, so that clears it. Thank you very much. MR.

SPEAKER: Taking the question as clarified in that manner and without a formal amendment, does the House agree to the question? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. 165. Mr. Dixon proposed the following motion to the Assembly, seconded by Mr. Ho. Lem. That an Order of the Assembly do issue for a Return showing:

(1) Copies of submissions, all correspondence and minutes of meetings regarding public land negotiations between the Department of Lands and Forests and the Metis people in the area of Grande Cache since September 1, 1971.

(2) Copies of all correspondence regarding this issue from people other than the Metis people since September 1, 1971. DR. WARRACK: In regard to question 165, Mr. Speaker. I'm happy for myself and on behalf of the department to comply with the question. However regarding the second part of the question, I do wish the opportunity to obtain the courtesy of approval from the people with whom the correspondence was conducted. MR.

SPEAKER: Does the House wish to have the motion deferred or would you prefer to pass it, subject to the condition mentioned by the hon. minister? [The motion was carried, subject to the condition specified, without further debate or dissent.] 166. Mr. Dixon proposed the following motion, seconded by Mr. Ho. Lem: That an Order of the Assembly do issue for a Return showing: Copies of inspection reports and recommendations regarding inspections carried out by the Deputy Minister of the Department of Health and Social Development, Dr. P. B. Rose, and the Director of Veterinary Services, Dr. J. G.

O'Donoghue, governing the use of laboratory animals in colleges, institutes of technology, and high Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1494

April 11th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 26-25 schools in Alberta, as mentioned in Sessional Paper Number 32-72, required under

Section SO of The Universities Act. [The motion was carried without debate or dissent.] head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS Chemical Defoliating Agents MR. CHAMBERS: Mr. Speaker, my motion reads as follows:

Be it resolved that the Government of Alberta give consideration to placing a three year moratorium on the use of chemical defoliating agents for use in clearing pipe lines, transmission lines, railway rights of way, oilfield battery sites, and lease roads. and that during this three year interval the government give consideration to conducting extensive investigation and research into the effect of such chemical use on wildlife as well as the general environment. and that the government through the Environment Conservation Authority give consideration to holding extensive public hearings on this matter to determine public reaction.

Mr. Speaker, a great variety of herbicides are in general us? today. These have been designed to do specific jobs, to selectively destroy or suppress undesirable trees, shrubs, grasses, and weeds. Some of these formulations have the following trade names: 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T, MCPA, Dalapon, TCA, to name but a few. The first five names are the most, commonly employed in Alberta with the 2,4-D and the 2,4,5-T being the prime material that is used for brush control.

My resolution has been pointedly directed toward brush and tree control along power line, railway line, and pipeline right of ways and to alone oil field lease roads, and battery sites. Agricultural lands and municipal road allowances were excluded for what I thought to be good reasons. There can be no argument but that the phenomenal growth of unit agricultural production -- the so called world wide green revolution -- has been due in large part to the successful development and use of agricultural chemicals and fertilizers and pesticides.

The result has been the saving of millions of people the world over from starvation and malnutrition. Certainly I don't think we have heard too much of world wide famines in recent years, as have occurred in the past. This is probably attributable to this green revolution as it is called. It has been estimated that this technological revolution, if fully implemented, will provide sufficient food for the world for sustenance for at least three more decades.

Since there appears to be no alternative to the use of chemicals to forward this green revolution, it would seem therefore in my view, to be irresponsible to legislate a moratorium on the use of chemicals for agricultural purposes. Municipalities also depend heavily on the use of defoliating chemicals to suppress brush growth along rural roads. I think we are all aware that brush growth along narrow and winding country roads, certainly minimizes visibility and poses a severe traffic hazard for school buses and for general road traffic.

Many lives are at stake here and for municipalities to be able to control this brush growth within their financial means, the use of chemicals appears to me to be a necessity, in this case, and worth the risk, therefore, that is imposed by the use of these chemicals. However, with regard to the riqhts-of-way named in the resolution, the implications of a moratorium are not so drastic, because what we are essentially talking about here in these cases Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1495

26-26 ALBERTA HANSARD April 11th 1972 that are in the resolution, are dollars and not lives. Right of way brush may be controlled through manual or mechanical means, although probably at a considerably higher cost than through the use of chemicals. The chemicals that are commonly used for brush control are 2,4-d and 2,4,5-T for deciduous trees, and Tordon or sodium TCA for coniferous species.

The latter chemicals are considered to have a much greater safety factor than either 2,4-D or 2,4,5-T, and therefore are generally considered to pose no problem. 2,4-D and 2,4,5-t are complex compounds of carbon, hydrogen, chlorine and oxygen, and have been in use since the late 1990's. 2,4-D has by far the widest usage, with some 1,723,000 pounds being applied over some 4,233,000 acres in Alberta during 1971. 2,4,5-T, although generally a more effective herbicide than 2,4-D is considerably more expensive and therefore, not so widely used in the province.

The teratogenic effects from the use of 2,4,5-T -- you know, when I first encountered that word, teratogenic, I ignored it and hoped it would go away, but it kept coming up in all the literature that I researched on the subject. While I'm sure that it's familiar to the medical people that we have in the House, for the benefit of the other engineers, including Mr. Henderson and Mr. Yurko, it refers to the effect on embryonic development.

Anyhow, the teratogenic effects from the use of 2,4,5-T first came to light in Viet Nam in 1969, when the South Viet Namese newspapers reported that there had been an increase in human birth defects in parts of the country that had been defoliated by the American army. A study subseguentlv released, showed that the test by a chemical laboratory in the USA, indicated that mice treated during the early pregnancy with large doses of 2,4,5- t gave birth to malformed offspring. This report resulted in the placing of restrictions on the use of this chemical, That was on 2,4,5-T, not 2,4-D.

At this point, I think it would be worthwhile to recite a principle well-known in scientific circles as Karnofsky's Law, which states, quote that: "any drug administered at the proper dosage, at the proper stage of development, to embryos of the proper species, will be effective in causing disturbances in embryonic development." Although Karnofsky's Law specifies only drugs, it undoubtedly holds true for many, if not all other chemicals. Defoliating chemicals would probably fall into this category, since they were, in effect, engineered to destroy living organisms. Mr.

Speaker, it might be interesting to point out here that many substances in every day use by humans may be toxic if taken in high enough dosage. Common table salt, for example, if large enough quantities are taken is toxic. So is aspirin, some alkaloids such as caffeine and nicotine, tranquilizers, antibiotics, includinq penicillin, the drug cortisone, I think most solvents, most pesticides, and very many industrial effluents. In fact many other materials that we either use or encounter daily are toxic if taken in large enough quantities.

Digitalis, which has saved the lives of many people that have heart problems is extremely lethal if taken in much larger than the recommended dosage. Now, there have been many reports on the adverse effect of 2,4,5-T on human reproduction with often conflicting advice. Some tests have indicated that an impurity in the chemical called dioxyn or TCDD is the real culprit. The teratogenic potential of 2,4,5-T with a dioxyn content of less than 0.5 parts per million in considered to be minimal.

The Canadian government has apparently begun to relax restrictions on the use of 2,4,5-T, provided that the dioxyn level is kept below 0.5 parts per million. Direct toxicity is generally referred to a so-called LD-50 scale, which represents the lethal dose, measured in milligrams of the compound per kilogram of body weight, that's required to kill 50% of the test animals involved. Test data on rats indicates that for 2,4-D, it takes between 300 and 1,000 milligrams of this compound of Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1496

April 11th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 26-27 2,4-D per kilogram of body weight to induce acute oral toxicity. In terms of a 124 lb. human being this would equal approximately 2/3 of an ounce of pure 2,4-D. That is the amount that would be required to kill half the test species, or the equivalent to a 124 lb. human. The volume of the chemical which might be ingested by an animal after spraying brush would seem to be a very minute percentage of the amount that we have said here would be required for direct toxicity.

In fact, 2,4-D, which has been generally used in this province since 1945, has generally been considered quite safe. However, recent reports from France, I think this was in the past few months, indicate that 2,4-D in test cases, can cause malformities in quail eggs. Fortunately, 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T both have relatively short life cycles after they have been applied. Exposure to sunlight and oxygen tend to break them down rapidly. Studies have shown that the half- life of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T in plants is in the order of two weeks.

So, these chemicals have probably been mostly dissipated over the period of one month or so. Some evidence has been presented which indicates that there is a transfer of 2,4-D residue from grasses to the milk of dairy cows. The quantity is a relatively low amount, in the order of .1 part per million. But, this is apparently sufficient to taint the milk slightly. This residue has been found in milk for a period of up to seven days after a brush spraying in the area where the cows were pasturing. Mr.

Speaker, I have tried to present the facts incomplete though they are, on both sides of the question regarding these chemicals. The conclusion I have drawn is that they are probably safe if used correctly. However, an element of doubt remains. Is it possible for these chemicals, the way they are applied in Alberta, to cause birth deformities? It is not likely, but I don’t think we know for sure. Has the use of 2,4-D resulted in a decrease of the pheasant population in Alberta? Probably not, but I don’t think we know that for certain, either.

Therefore, it seems obvious to me, that we do need to conduct extensive investigations and research into the effect of using these chemicals. Furthermore, I think the people of Alberta should be given a chance through public hearings, to present the public view on this important subject. Mr. Speaker, the imposition of a moratorium would also produce some adverse effects. Certainly, it would have an adverse economic effect on our chemical application companies and the chemical producers. This is a consequence which I hope this Assembly will give serious consideration to.

Furthermore, considerable tree growth along the rights of way would result during the proposed moratorium period. Apparently, the best time to kill the right of way brush is when the trees are from three to six feet tall. At this point, when they are sprayed and killed, the grass takes over and no unsightly mess remains. However, trees greater than 15 feet tall, when they are chemically killed, are unsightly and create visual pollution problems.

The cost of manually or mechanically removing brush and trees, is estimated to -- at least according to some estimates I've seen be in the order of ten times the cost of using chemical defoliants. One estimate I saw, covering right of way clearance costs for a 20- year control period, showed a total cost of $1,125 an acre for mechanical maintenance, vs. S120 an acre for chemical control. while this estimate is quite possibly on the high side, nevertheless, the Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1497

26-28 ALBERTA HANSARD April 11th 1972 permanent discontinuance of chemical control could conceivably result in an increase in product cost. On the other side of the coin, Mr. Speaker, reverting to manual and mechanical clearance could provide many jobs for native people and for students and for others in need of work, and therefore might result in an overall reduction of unemployment in the province. Further, when the need arises, technology always has arisen to the challenge.

Large mechanical tree harvesters that are used and have been used since the war in timbering operations are a good example of what good technology can do. There has been a lot of progress in that area during the last 20 to 30 years. As you know, these timbering operations were previously horse operations. Now it is essentially done mechanically through very modern and efficient tree harvesters. It seems quite possible therefore, that if chemical treatment is discontinued, industry will soon develop good mechanical equipment for right of way brush control.

Further, a good job of mechanical clearing might produce more aesthetic looking rights of way than does chemical treatment. In

summary, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that this Assembly will debate this matter in depth. It is a serious subject and the implications of the moratorium are significant regardless of which way we decide. Mr. Speaker, although I suspect that the proposed extensive investigation and the hearing would result in the chemicals being cleared for continued use, in my view, we cannot afford to take the chance in not calling a halt during a period of investigation.

I think there has been far too much tendency in our society in the past to develop and use chemicals of all kinds first, and then afterwards, discover the effects of whether or not the effect is adverse or not. I think the time has come when we must thoroughly investigate and prove the effects of chemicals before we expose the general public to them, and I therefore request the approval of this Assembly on the resolution. Thank you. MR. APPLEBY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to second the motion regarding chemical defoiliating that has just been read and moved by the previous speaker, the hon.

Member for Edmonton Calder, Mr. Tom Chambers. The hon. member, I feel, has very adequately dealt with the scientific and technological aspects of the motion that we should consider in relation to this subject. You will note, Mr. Speaker, that the resolution specifically asks for a three year moratorium on the clearing of pipelines transmission lines, railway rights-of-way, oil field battery sites and lease roads. Personally, Mr. Speaker, I feel sure that this resolution could be extended to cover rights of way of all forms including municipal roads and perhaps this might have been included in the motion.

However, Mr. Speaker, I think that rather than discuss these sorts of specifics, our concern here has to be the principle in general. Now, I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that this motion will undoubtedly initiate considerable discussion and a great variety of views from the members of this Assembly. And I would like to bring into the debate myself, two items which I personally consider quite pertinent and which perhaps may be considered by some as rather novel in this situation. The first of these items, Mr.

Speaker, has to deal with the beekeeping industry here in Alberta, and the hazards that chemical spraying of various rights of way may introduce for the honey producer. Mr. Speaker, some herbicides and some fungicides are toxic in varying degrees to honey bees. And with the acceleration in the production of honey in Alberta in the last two years, it is quite conceivable that chemical defoliating spraying could become a major problem in this respect, and I say this, Mr.

Speaker, because in recent years, this very topic and this very problem has become very Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1498

April 11th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 26-29 serious in California where most of our package bees come from each year. And it has reached the stage in California, Mr. Speaker, where it has been necessary to introduce remedial legislation and regulations to help overcome this threat to the beekeeping honey producing industry. This threat arrives in two ways, Mr. Speaker. The first of these is contamination of the foilage which the honey bees use as resting places as they travel back and forth within the range of the area of their honey gathering foraging. And, Mr.

Speaker, research has shown that this range of the honey bees in their foraging area can be up to as much as seven miles in some areas. However, one and a half miles is much more of an average. Here in Alberta, if we do have our clover, rapeseed or whatever forage crop the honey bees are working on close to the colonies, the range may be even less. Of course, Mr. Speaker, one might ask how can control of defoliating spraying be so significant if the fields over which the bees range are going to be sprayed anyway.

However, we find that in most cases where these colonies are located on farmer's land, and this is always done by previous arrangement with the farmer, that there is co-operation with regard to the times of spraying and as much as possible the types of spraying so that the hazards are considerably reduced in these circumstances. Also, Mr. Speaker, the sprays that are used in the spraying of the field crops are considerably less severe in nature than those used in the defoliating work.

Another hazard to the beekeeping industry is the contamination of the water supplies which the bees use along the roads and along the ditches in these types of areas. These are the types of areas that the bees quite generally use for their source of water supply. The contamination of such water sources, because of spraying by strong chemical defoliating agents, can be of quite a lasting nature and the residue from the spray will remain for considerable time after the spraying has taken place. Now that's my first item that I wanted to introduce into this debate, Mr. Speaker.

The other one, as far as I'm personally concerned, is that of the aesthetic viewpoint and I think this should be considered. I'm sure all the hon. members in this Assembly have seen the results of this type of spraying in many instances. Mile after mile of ugly, dirty, dreary looking, dead types of foliage, contrasted with the fresh, green, live look of that beyond the sprayed area, is something to consider. Mr. Speaker.

Surely if we here in Alberta are so concerned and so proud -- and justifiably so concerned and so proud of the natural beauty of our land, with the attractions of our countryside and with all the appeal that the Alberta natural areas have to tourists coming to this country, then this should be something we should take into consideration with regard to the method of defoliating along these right of ways. There might be a question raised, Mr. Speaker, that if we don't use this chemical means what are we going to do? And the hon.

Member for Edmonton Calder had mentioned the matter of costs in relation to mechanical control in these instances and I think this was well put. But I'm also reminded of some of the things that have gone on this past winter in the matter that a great deal of clearing along rights of way and along roadways in particular has been done through winter works programs, which in many cases has relieved the necessity for unemployment insurance or welfare payments, and I think this is something we could take into consideration too.

Also we should all think in this case, what is the most effective way of permanently controlling this foliage anyway? Is it the mechanical means or is it the chemical means? Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1499

26-30 ALBERTA HANSARD April 11th 1972 So Mr. Speaker, I very whole-heartedly second this motion, and I hope this resolution will be passed, and t hope that it will not just end up as a three year moratorium, but it will be something of a more permanent nature. Thank you. DR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to this resolution. Firstly, I would like to congratulate the hon. Member for Edmonton Calder, Mr. Chambers, and the hon. Member for Athabasca, Mr. Frank Appleby. I think they have chosen a most timely and urgent topic.

My comments will be to the point; man lives on a spaceship called Earth, and it is a closed environment. The environment is polluted and it is being polluted constantly and his survival is being threatened. The earth resources are exhaustible, and we know that, and environment is deteriorating. Man and all forms of life are in peril, and we know that. Man is having difficulty adapting.

There are many areas of the environment that are being polluted, and just to briefly enumerate some of these to refresh our memories; there is fossil fuel, combustion, industrial wastes, municipal sewage, solid waste disposal, strip mining, fertilizers, thermal pollution, pesticides, radioactive wastes, oil spillage on oceans, deforestation, noise, carbon monoxide, sulphur oxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxide, particulate matter, lead, arsenic, plastics, pesticides, and so forth. Just mentioning all these items, Mr. Speaker, to the Assembly sounds like pollution and I can assure you that it really is that.

Let's look at the positive side. There is no doubt that agriculture and the production of agriculture, the increased capacity and the processing has increased tremendously as a result of pesticides and chemicals. There has been unprecedented development in this area and there is no doubt, as the hon. Member for Calder had stated, that many lives have been saved as a result of increased food production. Chemicals have offered much in the area of science and medicine and comforts for man.

However, to understand the complexity of chemicals requires a background in many, many disciplines: toxicology, biochemistry, enzyme kinetics, entomology and so forth, and wildlife biology. It is interesting today, as we talk in the Assembly, that we have some disciplines represented such as engineer, doctor, teacher, and so forth and maybe we can arrive at some concensus from other members.

In other words, what I am saying, it takes a multi-disciplinary approach even to understand the chemicals that are polluting our environment, and it involves all the economic structure of our whole society and it involves also, and it should involve, local, provincial, national and world-wide authorities. Let's look at the negative side. The leaders and authorities in these areas, the scientists, eminent scientists, men like Sir Julian Huxley, who is an eminent biologist around the world, W. D.

Waddington who is an eminent geneticist, Peter Scott who is an eminent naturalist, and many, many others, world renowned scientists, have indicated to us there is nothing to worry about -- we're all going to die. we are going to die within 30 to 50 years unless we reverse this trend of pollution caused by chemicals and overpopulation. In other words they are saying, sabotage the technocratic society with all the pollutants and the chemicals that we have. Now you can see why I am wearing this red jacket to brighten the day because of these dark remarks.

However, it is something that we must contend with and we must listen to, and as man is typically what he is, he is a non-believer unless he is personally in pain himself. And we know that behavioral scientists have indicated quite definitely that we have the remarkable ability of denying the problem when we can't face it or we can't resolve it; and I am afraid that Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1500

April 11th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 26-31 man, not only in Canada, not only in Alberta, but around the world is doing exactly that. So, as this resolution deals with man and his environment, I feel it is very important to step back for a few moments and have an over-view of where, in fact, we are going. He talk about progress. What does this mean? This means we are going forward towards some goal. What is that goal? Well there are many people who will tell you there are many goals. I suggest to the members of this Assembly, Mr.

Speaker, that they consider three concepts of progress; one is the religious concept -- we believe in life after death -- terrific, that’s a better life, and I am glad most of us believe this. Some believe in a materialistic concept of progress, and this is well shown in the United States and Canada and the western world -- that means more and better, more and better, and beyond our income. I suggest to the hon. members of the Assembly, Mr. Speaker, that they consider another concept of progress.

A scientific, philosophic, religious concept of progress, which makes use, not only of science and knowledge -- and knowledge is science -- but uses science and the wisdom of how to balance that knowledge, and to indicate to the rest of the people in our society where we are going. So this scientific, philosophic, religious concept of progress -- a goal for society -- opposes that the individual is the most important, because he can't be in this philosophy. But it also opposes the state and the society as the most important, as we have in communistic countries.

It is a balance of both; and that word 'balance' rings a note of survival, and I can understand why the Premier has used it so often. So I am saying here, let's get together as a multi-disciplinary approach, let's develop our generalized concept for a goal for progress, and let's work towards that goal, and that goal must be only one thing -- a quality of life and survival on this earth, and that's progress. For if we do not do this, then due to over-population and mass pollution in the next 30 to 50 years, eminent scientists have told us that we're going to all die.

Now we can ignore this; or do something about it. The priorities therefore, must be over-population control, pollution control, man, quality of life, to survive. Using imagination, knowledge, the wisdom that we all have; reason, and not authority alone. Now we talk about adaptation. Everybody has heard this term. Just briefly to comment on this, adaptation is essentially biology. It is the essence of biology -- we adapt to live; and if we don't adapt, we die. I submit to the hon. members of this Assembly, Mr.

Speaker, that there is not enough time to adapt like normal evolution as we know it, as exemplified or proposed by the Darwinian theory. This adaptation, even if it could occur, just the sheer mass of pollution in our society would destroy us. So we have adaptation; we could have evolutionary adaptation, or cultural adaptation, and if we don't have cultural adaptation we have cultural shock.

But if we have physiological adaptation, and we survive -- fine; if we have chemicals polluting our environment -- and this is what is happening then we have problems at the cellular level, at the biochemical level, what do we have -- physiological shock. The same type of shock that you get with blood loss. So I repeat -- there is no time to adapt, unless we act on over-population and on the excess voluminous amount of pollution that is going on, and the artificial nature of the type of pollution that is going on.

Now I stated that the use of chemicals by agriculture and others is placed within the problem of general pollution, and most of these substances in our environment are of serious and sincere medical concern by everybody; for inevitably, as it goes info the environment, it gets into land, sea, air, into the food, into the plant life, and gets to man. The result of pollution is due to industrialization, urbanization, and over-population, and do you know, Mr. Speaker, and for the hon. members of the Assembly, there Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1501

26-32 ALBERTA HANSARD April 11th 1972 are some 10,000 such chemical compounds produced or synthesized every year and they find their way into the industrial aspects of our society, into our social activities, and then into the environment and to man. Nov, toxicity is easy to measure when it's acute -- how much you take before you die, and/or develop symptoms. But it's the chronic toxicity that we're also concerned about and it’s very difficult to measure, because this takes many, many years.

For example, the average American has 10 to 12 parts per million of DDT in his fatty tissue; those who are fatter naturally have more, and I'm worried. However Canadians, fortunately, have only parts per million of DDT in their fatty tissue, but there are some areas in Canada that have already 13 parts per million of DDT in the fatty tissue. Well, this is an inert subject, or inert compound, it doesn't cause any problems, up to this point or at this level -- but what is the level that it will in fact cause certain problems? We don't know this. And what about the other added chemicals -- spraying everything.

Spraying your hair, spraying your shoes, spray this, spray that and the children are being sprayed constantly and so is man, and now you have the synergistic activity of other chemicals besides the chemicals that we do take as a matter of necessity in medicine. Therefore, these are real concerns and these are concerns everywhere in the world, and the province must play a very important role, and it can't neglect this because the National Health and Welfare Department is saying we are safe.

My statements here is to make a plea to the province and the government, that to measure the toxic levels, not only on a short term basis, which is relatively easy, but also on a long term basis, and, I repeat, if the chemicals are used and the result of the toxicity on an acute and a chronic basis over a long period is not known, we don't allow any of these chemicals to be used in the Province of Alberta at any time. We should establish very close communication between the Federal Food and Drug Directorate who have, apparently the statutory responsibility for the drugs and so forth that are consumed by people.

We should establish tolerance and assure that these tolerance levels are acceptable, and not on a presumptive or an assumptive basis. We should ensure that the inspectors are in fact inspecting the various items -- the food, the soil, and so forth. As an example here, in 1966 -- and this goes back quite a few years 3,628 foods were inspected in Canada and 6% had a pesticide residue that was of serious concern. I suggest that this is still continuing. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, hon.

Members of the Assembly, I think it is an important aspect that this province not wait for the National Food and Drug Directorate or National Health and Welfare to act. We should be acting on a preventive and on-going basis to add the precautionary measures that are necessary. We should check the samples, if necessary; we should do our own monitoring or assure that, in fact, the monitoring is being done. We should set the pace and the direction for the rest of Canada. I say without any hesitation, even for the rest of the world.

I think that it is high time that we as a province, and Canada for that matter, not hesitate to say this, because who else in the world is doing it? We are polluting ourselves out of existence. Mr. Speaker, with these comments I support the resolution. It is a bold resolution -- I think it should be bolder. I have no hesitation in supporting any resolution like this that, in fact, will protect, and offer a better chance for man to survive. We cannot ignore those statistics. I congratulate both hon. members for moving this. Let me say to the hon. Minister of the Environment, he has a critical job.

To you sir, we hope you are listening, we are entrusting our lives. Use the power you have for all of us. Thank you. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1502

April 11th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 26-33 MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Whitecourt. MR. TRYNCHY: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few brief remarks on this resolution. But first, I would like to propose an amendment. I propose an amendment, seconded by the hon. member Ron Ghitter, that the motion that Mr.

Chambers listed as Motion Other Than Government Motion No. 1 on the Order Paper be changed as follows -- and I would like to be brief on this and I would say that if each hon. member would just take their proceedings and taking the words "be it resolved that the Government of Alberta give consideration to investigating" and removing the words "placing a 3-year moratorium on" -- remove the six words -- and the next change would be, in the second paragraph, "and during this period of investigation", we would remove the 3-year interval and that would be the amendment that I propose.

I want to say briefly that I agree with the hon. members that moved and seconded this resolution, but I might add that there are ways that we can control this spraying. One thing is, we could use a spray after the birds have done nesting, and I would say later on in the summer -- say July or August. This would in no way interfere with the nesting of our birds and also any animals that might be in the right of way. I would also suggest that we spray brush in its early growth. I would say four feet or less.

I have seen in my area, brush sprayed 15 or 20 feet tall and it just looks terrible and creates a real fire hazard when it dries up. I believe that the large brush, willows, and poplars higher than four feet should be destroyed by other means, such as manual clearing during the winter. It is recorded that only 4% of chemicals used is on roadways, pipelines, well sites, and so on. So you can see, Mr. Speaker, that 96% is agriculture chemicals and they are still going to be used.

If we allow weeds on roadways, railroads, oil lines, well sites and lease roads, to grow, then we'll have a grave situation with weeds growing into farm land. And here again, the farmer will be losing ground, because if he keeps on spraying and these weeds are allowed to grow, and we know they do, then where is he at? I would like to say that we might appoint a Legislative Committee to look into this, and possibly co-ordinate this committee to act quickly, and maybe we could have a solution by this fall sitting.

I would like to ask for your support in supporting this amendment, and I think the points brought up by the two hon. members are very good indeed. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. GHITTER: Mr. Speaker, if I may make a few comments with respect to the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Whitecourt. Firstly, I wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Edmonton Calder and the hon. Member for Athabasca, from the point of view of the debate that they have offered with respect to a very important motion.

I would also say to the Member for Athabasca that I think that his new glasses are much better since he broke his old glasses this morning. I was a little worried that he wouldn't be able to see you, Mr. Speaker, today, but I think he well can with his new glasses. May I suggest at the outset on looking at the motion, Mr. Speaker, that the use of the term moratorium that was in the original motion was to me somewhat of a severe approach with respect to a motion of this nature.

With the use of the term moratorium I think that we must feel that there is a very drastic problem existing in the province in this area, in order to utilize a moratorium, which Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1503

26-30 ALBERTA HANSARD April 11th 1972 indeed, would stop the use of this chemical and would have some economic adverse effects upon industry in the Province of Alberta. We are familiar in this province, indeed, with moratoriums. I think that the Social Credit government in past years has used moratoriums. During the depression there was a moratorium placed on debt, Mr. Speaker, when people were not able to meet their debt obligations.

And so this was good legislation and this was legislation which was invoked at a time when there was a severe circumstance which existed in the Province of Alberta, and when a moratorium was of great use. However, in order for a moratorium to be validly established, I submit with respect to this motion, I think we must determine whether or not there is a severe circumstance which exists which would require us to close up shop until an investigation was completed. I think the hon. Member for Edmonton Calder, in fairness, stated in his debate that herbicides, if used properly, are not really a problem.

I think that from evidence and information that I have seen with respect to herbicides, it is doubtful as to whether or not there are severe problems from the use of herbicides. I think the hon. Member for Edmonton Calder also mentioned that when he balanced the interest from the point of view of the use of herbicides for agricultural purposes and for purposes other than the matters that he has discussed in his motion, that he felt that herbicides should continue to be used from the point of view of the municipal districts and from the point of view of agriculture.

And, of course, the motion in question that we are looking at this afternoon merely deals with the clearing of pipelines, transmission lines, railway rights of way, oil field battery sites and leased roads. It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that with respect to the use of these herbicides, some 96% of herbicides that are used in the Province of Alberta are used solely in the areas within the municipal districts and particularly in the areas of agriculture, and but some 4% of the herbicides that are used in the Province of Alberta, Mr. Speaker, are used in the areas that are mentioned in this motion.

So of course, what is suggested would be a moratorium on the use of a herbicide that is only utilized basically by of the sales of these herbicides in this particular area. I think then that it is not a critical enough issue, from the point of view of the information that we have at our disposal at the present time, that a moratorium should be used. However, I heartily support the attitude of additional research in this area to determine what problems, if any, the use of herbicides will force upon us.

Whereas the hon. Member for Edmonton Kingsway stated so eloquently this afternoon, there are indeed many problems in the use of chemicals on which we must obtain an added expertise and an added alertness and awareness for whatever harmful effects they may impose upon us. I would like, as well, to leave a few other suggestions for the hon. members for their consideration and hopefully their response, that I believe should be considered with respect to the motion as amended.

Certainly, as has been expressed, the added cost, from the point of view of using mechanical means, from a clearing point of view, instead of a chemical means must be strongly considered by this Assembly. It has been suggested that the costs are ten times more if mechanical means were to be utilized, rather than the chemical means. Of course, this might have an adverse effect on the costs of power to rural Albertans for indeed, chemicals are used in the clearing in our rural electrification areas.

And from the point of view of the cost to maintain these areas, the power lines, the transmission and the maintenance of these lines, indeed, the costs would go up. We must, therefore, consider the costs in avoiding the use of chemicals during this period. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1504

April 11th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 26-35 I think we must also be concerned from the point of view of the costs which are attributable to the pipeline companies. After all, the pipeline companies clear their pipeline rights of way to be able to easily determine whether there have been any oil spills. Possibly, they will not have as suitable clearance of their pipeline rights of way by the use of mechanical means as they do by chemical means.

I think we are all very concerned to ensure that, if there be a pipeline spill, it would be readily determinable so that the adverse pollution we have experienced somewhat in this province -- in the Swan Hills area, for example -- would not be met again with adverse environmental effects. So, I think, we must as well, consider the problems that would evolve from this point of view. In conclusion. Mr.

Speaker, although I endorse the motion as amended, in principle, to move into the investigation of herbicides and other chemicals, I would submit for the consideration of this Assembly, that the consideration of a moratorium is too severe under the circumstances and that the motion as amended would solve the problems that the hon. Member for Edmonton Calder is concerned with. On that basis, I would reguest the support of this Assembly to the motion as amended. MR.

SPEAKER: I wonder if I might make an observation before we continue with the debate, having regard to debate which we had on an amendment on a previous occasion. I respectfully draw the hon. members' attention to Pule 42B on page 16 of the Rules, just to mention that any debate while an amendment is before the House -- as all hon. members who have been in the House before will undoubtedly recall -- must be relevant to the amendment. In other words, the question before the House now is, whether or not the main motion should be amended in the manner suggested. MR. BATIUK: Mr.

Speaker, in rising to speak on this resolution currently before us, I would like to also congratulate the initiator and the seconder of this motion on bringing this issue to the attention of the House. It is a matter that is perhaps of greater concern in rural areas than in urban areas, and it is gratifying to see an urban member show such interest in this matter. MR. SPEAKER: May I ask the hon. member whether he wishes to debate the question of, should the motion be amended, or does he wish to debate the main motion? He is speaking with regard to the amendment? MR. BATIUK: Right. Mr.

Speaker, I must take a stand against the resolution originally. However, with the amendment it may be different, for I feel a moratorium on the use of defoliating chemicals is not a wise policy. Had such a resolution been presented ten years ago, and had I been in this House, I may have supported it. However, in the past decade, my experience with agricultural service boards has given me an insight into the problems of brush control. I firmly believe herbicides play, and should continue to play, a vital role in dealing with the problem. There are numerous reasons for such a stand.

The first and perhaps the most important consideration is f i n a n c i a l . A Department of Agriculture report indicates that the average cost of spray of chemicals is $40 per acre, while brushing averages at the cost of $225 per acre. Taken over a long span of time, the difference in cost is even greater. Over a period of 20 years, for example, spr a y i n g one acre would cost approximately $160, while brushing would Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1505

26-16 ALBERTA HANSARD April 11th 1972 cost $1,125, which is seven times greater. The huge difference in cost is due, in part, to the effectiveness of the method of brush control. Brush control by mechanical means would mean that it would have to be carried out roughly every four years. In addition, brushing leads to reqrowth of more dense brush area which means that each succeeding brushing would mean more work. With spraying on the other hand, application would have to be made every five to seven years. Such chemical sprays inhibit regrowth from the roots. Regrowth is usually small, slow and scattered.

Subsequent spraying is usually a smaller problem than the first. When one considers the cost of destroying brush over a great number of acres, it is an undisputed fact that chemical spraying is more advisable. Brush control by any other means would require greater monetary commitments and indirectly the residents of the province will be adversely affected. If we require power companies, for example, to cease chemical spraying, they will find their costs of brush control rising. Rather than suffer the increase they will pass it on to the consumer by raising the power rates. And, Mr.

Speaker, I think this is most inadvisable since we are endeavouring to see that power is provided at cost to Alberta residents, which means keeping our power rates as low as possible. Another concern is that of inconvenience. Chemical spraying can be completed regardless of obstructions such as fences. With mechanical brushing, however, many farmers would be forced to take down their fences in order to give the machinery working room, and then put up those fences again.

When one considers that this must be done every four or five years, it turns out to be quite time- consuming, a nuisance and an inconvenience to the farmer who already finds his time consumed by tasks necessary to the maintenance of his farm. I can appreciate the concern of the environmentalists and those concerned with the preservation of the environment when they express their concern over the effect of chemical spraying. However, all evidence indicates their fears of environmental destruction are unfounded.

First of all, the spraying is done by licenced applicators using chemicals such as 2,4-D which have the approval of the Canadian Food and Drug Directorate, and the various departments of health and welfare, and the various agencies concerned with human health and environmental quality. The known technological properties and their effects on the environment of each chemical are documented, and only those considered safe are registered. Evidences have been produced that herbicides currently in use are non-toxic and the possibility of poisoning humans or other animals with these chemicals is remote.

Anyone wishing such documentations as to the safety of these chemicals can obtain them from the Weed Control and Field Services Branch of the Department of Agriculture. Those who fear that chemical spraying will endanger the lives and nesting grounds of birds should consider the effects of both herbicides and brushing. In the latter, everything is destroyed, as the trees, ground shrubs, weeds and grass are destroyed, plus there is no possibility of any type of habitat existing for the birds until the regrowth, and then only until the next brushing.

With herbicides, however, the broad leaf plants are destroyed while the grass is not affected. Those habitats for birds would not be completely eliminated. Many species of birds are rapidly becoming extinct, and preserving grass may be one of the insurances of existence of some species instead of endangering them. With chemical spraying we can first destroy the bothersome brush and yet protect our wildlife. We must admit that it is also most advantageous to have our roadside and railroad tracks sidings in grass and backslopes with brush, rather than be left with no protective covering.

A grass cover, such as would be left by chemical spraying, would reduce a dirt problem that could be quite hazardous in some areas and could result in the loss of some valuable top soil. A second problem that grass cover will prevent is in soil Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1506

April 11th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 26-37 erosion, a problem that could gradually wash away the soil that is used in building up the railroad track. It must be admitted that one disadvantage of chemical spraying is that the appearance of the sprayed area is not a very appealing sight. It may take up to one or more years for trees killed by spraying to be decayed. However, with brushing, tree roots or remains of branches or even black upturned dirt cannot be called a pleasant sight, and the. next year the beginning regrowth cannot be compared to the neatness of the grass remaining after spraying.

Aside from the physical arguments that may be presented concerning this resolution, the resolution itself has certain discrepancies. For example it is suggesting that railroads, power companies and oil industry be denied the use of herbicides, while counties, agricultural users or anyone else may carry on with their spraying programs. Figures show that counties, municipal districts and agriculturalists use approximately 96% of all 2,4-D and MCPA that is sold in the province and that the industries that I just mentioned use only 4%. A moratorium on 4% of the chemicals would prove nothing to anyone.

The industries of this province, whether it be railroad, the power companies or the oil industry, may favour the use of chemical sprays as they are most effective, while costing a reasonable low cost. Mr. Speaker, for the reasons I outlined, I oppose a moratorium being placed on the use of chemical sprays in Alberta. I realize there are disadvantages to using herbicides and that in the future evidence may be produced that would indicate more disadvantages of herbicide usage.

I understand the Environment Conservation Authority is scheduled to hold extensive hearings on the subject of brush control, but at the moment I don’t believe we would be justified in imposing a ban on herbicides. I appreciate the fact that in some areas herbicide usage would not be desirable and that other means of brush control would be more advisable, just as some areas would require chemical spraying to the almost total exclusion of any other method of brush control. I believe that it should be left to the discretion of the parties responsible for brush control to decide which method could be best used. MR.

DRAIN: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the resolution as amended I cannot help but wonder about the original resolution. My reactions on reading this particular resolution were that the hon. members on your right, Mr. Speaker, had lost complete faith in the hon. Minister of the Environment. And I was very disappointed because, after all, he has worked very diligently at his job and I am confident that he is doing a very good one, and I would feel that I have far more faith than to wash him out in seven months, and imply, as this resolution so does, that the hon. minister should resign. This, I assure you, Mr.

Speaker, is not my particular thinking. Being the sixth in line speaker here, the area that I could cover without beating old hash over is very, very limited. My one specific objection that I had to the original resolution as it was, was that it sets up two classes of citizens in the Province of Alberta -- first and second class citizens. Presumably the railroad companies and the oil companies are in the second class category,

whereas they only use 6% of these particular products. So from that standpoint alone I would be opposed to this particular resolution. Also we have had pronouncements by scientists -- the credulence that these people are given. Scientists' texts say so-and-so -- 25 years down the road everyone will be eating hay or 35 years from now the world population will be such that people will be stacked 20 feet one on top of the other. So this man makes a pronouncement and it's Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1507

26-38 ALBERTA HANSARD April 11th 1972 picked up and the oracle has now spoken. Great words of knowledge have been expounded and this man feels great so he comes out with something else. We had this experience when we had the Delta debate last year when we talked to some of these particular eggheads. So I would think that we should look at things from the standpoint of logic, reason and utility. Suggestion has been made that an alternative method could be used, such as tillage or some other particular form and this, of course, would limit the mechanical method of inhibiting this particular growth.

However there are limitations to this particular process for reasons such as the physical ability to get into various areas, lack of mobility, seasonal factors, such as frost coming out of the ground and so on. And then what happens when you destroy the soil? You immediately set up an erosion cycle -- so then you have to start up some defence mechanism to deal with this, either by reseeding with grass or some other process. And in certain areas of wet ground it is not particularly advisable.

So I for one am not prepared to follow the lemming-like approach to these scientific pronouncements which say that our time in this world is limited to 25 or 30 years. I am prepared to look at it and say it night even last 35 or 40. However, I believe that man has solved many problems in the 5 million years or so that he has been on this earth; he has been able to deal satisfactorily with the mammoths; he has reached a plateau in living where mankind lives longer than he has ever lived in any time in given history, and further lives better and healthier.

If anyone who is a traditionalist is prepared to look back in time, even 100 years, as to how our forefathers lived and the life expectancy of people at that time -- and all these things were brought about by scientific progress, by great advances in medicine. I am sure that all of us will agree, and especially the hon. doctor who spoke so eloquently on this particular resolution, that these medicines have side effects, My mother would try to convince me that castor oil was good for me at one point in time -- I never did agree with her.

I am sure that in limited amounts it could be, but in large amounts it might not be quite that good. So we can look at any particular application of anything. If we are going to say in Alberta that our Department of the Environment is not going to police, or properly evaluate, or permit the use of noxious substances which will be dangerous -- and there are many dangerous things, and all things are dangerous if used in large enough quantity -- well then we should say properly that we should support the resolution as is.

But if we are going to accept the thesis that man can reason, that we can approach problems with understanding, realize the benefits, take heed of the hazards, and deal with the problems, I would suggest that the resolution, as amended, would make far greater sense. A point has been made, and I think that of all the pesticides that have been banned in the world, the one that has probably been the most potent, and the one that is most frequently quoted, is DDT.

It has been quoted that the people in western Canada have four parts per million of DDT in their system, and in other areas in the world they have 12 parts per million of DDT . So we say,