Alberta Hansard — 20 November 1980, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 19, Session 2)

19801120

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

November 20, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 1613 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Thursday, November 20, 1980 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SELECT COMMITTEES MR. TOPOLNISKY: Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the select Standing Committee on Law and Regulations, I wish to report that the committee has given consideration to the need for the following regulations established pursuant to

Section 5 of The Licensing of Trades and Businesses Act, being

chapter 207 of the Revised Statutes of Alberta 1970, as amended: Alberta regulations 190/78, 192/78, 195/78, 198/78, 199/78, 200/78, and 204/78. The committee has concluded that the regulations are no longer necessary and should be repealed, and accord ingly recommends the same to the Assembly. head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 90 The Architects Act, 1980 MR. CHAMBERS: Mr. Speaker, as the Alberta Associa tion of Architects stands on the eve of its 75th anniversa ry, I think it's appropriate for me to request leave today to introduce Bill 90, The Architects Act, 1980.

It was first introduced in the spring of 1979 as Bill 31. The Architects Act, 1979, was allowed to die on the Order Paper in the fall of 1979. Using the principles contained in the government policy on professions and occupations and taking into account the submissions of various groups reacting to Bill 31, modifications have been made to the legislation previously proposed. Not only does this Bill represent these modifications, it also embodies the joint memorandum of agreement signed by the architects and engineering associations. I wish to congratulate the two associations on that historic signing.

Further, may I state that this is the first legislation in Canada to embody such an agreement. [Motion carried; Bill 90 read a first time] Bill 96 The Engineering and Related Professions Amendment Act, 1980 MR. CHAMBERS: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to in troduce Bill 96, The Engineering and Related Professions Amendment Act, 1980. These amendments reflect agreement reached on areas of practice by the engineering and architectural profes sions by way of a joint memorandum of understanding.

At this time, I wish to compliment and thank the Asso ciation of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geo physicists of Alberta for its willing assistance in the preparation of this legislation. [Motion carried; Bill 96 read a first time] Bill 93 The Workers' Compensation Amendment Act, 1980 MR. DIACHUK: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to intro duce Bill No. 93, The Workers' Compensation Amend ment Act, 1980. This being a money Bill, his Honour the Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor, having been informed of the contents of this Bill, recommends the same to the Assem bly.

This Bill provides for monetary increases in pensions, benefits, and the maximum earnings per year of a worker, effective January 1, 1981. [Motion carried; Bill 93 read a first time] Bill 237

An Act to Amend The Public Service Employee Relations Act MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill No. 237,

An Act to Amend the Public Service Employee Relations Act. The Act basically repeals Sec tion 93 and sets forth in its place a mechanism to determine essential services and provide for arbitration in the event of a dispute involving essential services. [Motion carried; Bill 237 read a first time] Bill 95 The

Interpretation Act, 1980 MR. WOLSTENHOLME: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill No. 95, The

Interpretation Act, 1980. This Bill will replace the present

Interpretation Act enact ed in 1958, which was based on an earlier model Act of the Uniform Law Conference. [Motion carried; Bill 95 read a first time] MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 95, The

Interpretation Act, 1980, be placed on the Order Paper under Government Bills and Orders. [Motion carried] head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to intro duce through you to the members of the Legislature councillors from the county of Vulcan, Smokey Jones, Harold Northcott, Dave Clark, and Harold Greenfield, and the reeve of the MD of Taber, Cecil Wiest. I'd like them to stand and be recognized by the Assembly. MR. TOPOLNISKY: Mr.

Speaker, I am delighted to introduce to you and to the members of the Assembly a composite class of 21 grades 7, 8, and 9 students from Redwater school. They are in the members gallery, ac companied by their teacher Mr. Davis. I would ask that they rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly.

1614 ALBERTA HANSARD November 20, 1980 MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of my colleague the hon. Minister of State for Economic Development — International Trade, I would like to introduce to you, and through you to the members of the Assembly, 50 grade 6 students from Waverley school in the constituency of Edmonton Avonmore. They are seated in the public gal lery, accompanied by their teacher Mr. Wally Mosychuk. I would ask that they rise to receive the welcome of the members of the Assembly. head: MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Department of Environment MR. COOKSON: Mr.

Speaker, as you know, Alberta Environment has been monitoring air pollution levels near Pincher Creek, in response to some concerns from local residents and their MLA, Fred Bradley. I have here today three reports that discuss this subject. The first report includes the results of the air monitor ing carried out by the pollution control division of Alber ta Environment near Pincher Creek from March 1 to May 31 this year. The second is a study of the area's selenium levels done this summer by the University of Calgary's Kananaskis centre for environmental research.

The third was prepared for the Environment Council of Alberta by Dr. E. McCoy, head of the pediatrics depart ment at the University of Alberta. In his report, Dr. McCoy evaluates the health concerns of the families and makes recommendations for future action.

In the Alberta Environment report, continuous mon itoring of seven different pollutants from March 1 to May 31 showed two things: first, there was no correlation between monitored levels of pollutants and written health records kept by area residents; second, the levels of all monitored pollutants were below the Alberta Clean Air Act regulations, with two exceptions that posed no health hazard. The exceptions were for hydrogen sulphide and ozone.

Hydrogen sulphide levels exceeded the one-hour regula tion on three occasions, but the highest level recorded was less than I per cent of the level where health effects are known to occur. For ozone, the 24-hour regulation was exceeded for 92 per cent of the monitored days, but was also below the one-hour regulation. Little informa tion is available on long-term effects of exposure to ozone, but the most recent information on short-term exposure shows that the highest level of ozone recorded in Pincher Creek was about 50 per cent of the level where documented health effects have occurred.

It should be noted that ozone levels recorded are not unusual for Alberta. Similar levels have been monitored in other parts of the province and are believed to occur naturally. In the report from the Kananaskis centre, no evidence was found to relate human health problems to the se lenium levels in the air and groundwater around Pincher Creek. The levels measured were considerably lower than air and water quality standards set by the World Health Organization.

The report, which was initiated in response to residents' concerns that selenium was causing health problems, cautions that this information was collected last summer, and is not necessarily applicable to the whole year. The third report, Dr. McCoy's evaluation of health problems in the area, states that a group of families has greater health complaints than one would usually expect. But he goes on to say that "one would conclude from the available data, there is no correlation with gas plant emissions and health complaints of the families." Dr. McCoy makes some specific recommendations for future action.

Some of these recommendations call for further health studies on, for example, a comparison of Pincher Creek area families with a control group. Other recommendations concern further air monitoring. The three reports indicate a health concern — the exact nature and cause of which is unknown — that basically affects four families. Since we are talking about a matter of health, I have been discussing these reports with the Minister of Social Services and Community Health for his department's fur ther assessment of the need for any future health studies.

Alberta Environment, for its part, will continue to investigate pollutant levels in the area. We will again send our mobile unit to the Pincher Creek area to monitor air pollution levels this winter, and we will also fund a second selenium study for the winter months. The results of these studies should be ready sometime next spring. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Federal Budget — Alberta Initiatives MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the first question to the Premier.

It flows from the remarks the Premier made within the last day concerning what steps the Alberta government takes to protect the Alberta economy from the effects of the recent federal budget. My question is most specifically on the areas of the steps the government will take to encourage the petrochemical and coal mining industries. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, as I advised the media yesterday after my remarks, I'm not in a position to elaborate in any way on the three items I raised in my remarks to the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce yester day at noon.

I stated that these would be developed over the course of 1981. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I pose this supplementary question to the Premier: is the government considering some of the funds being committed from the capital projects portion of the Heritage Savings Trust Fund? I raise that question in light of the fact that if that is the case, will we be having some supplementary estimates this session as far as capital projects are concerned, or might we hold the session over until January or February and have some supplementary estimates then? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, at the moment we haven't reached the stage of development of the policy alternatives other than in general directions to be able to reach even any tentative conclusions with regard to the source of funding. There's nothing that at the moment would warrant any delay in terms of moving forward with the capital projects division; it is more likely that the measures I referred to yesterday would be reflected in our budget next spring. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question to the Premier.

In addition to moves that Alber- tans can expect in the budget next spring for projects such as petrochemical industries, is the government giving consideration not to downgrading but to speeding up the

November 20, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 1615 process for approval of some of the projects which are in a variety of forms between the Energy Resources Conser vation Board and are on their docket now? What I'm trying to get at is: is it a matter of speeding up the process? Is that one of the alternatives the government is looking at in addition to making more money available in other areas? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is yes. MR. R. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, with regard to the initia tives the province is looking at as far as the coal industry is concerned, is the Premier in a position to indicate whether the initiatives at this time are looking at the province, through the Alberta Energy Company, becom ing more directly involved in coal ventures in the prov ince?

Or in fact is it the government's initiative basically to leave this to the private sector, to see that the approval process is in place and working smoothly and appropri ately, and then the government seeing that the infrastruc ture is in place when the projects that are approved can go ahead? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, that's a very relevant question, and certainly the involvement of the Alberta Energy Company in coal projects in this province is clear ly within their mandate, as discussed in this Legislature when the Alberta Energy Company was incorporated.

But there's nothing specific at this time that I could refer to on a project basis that would be specific enough for reference in the Assembly. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, then, trying to stay away from the specifics of the question involved.

On the matter of petrochemical and coal ventures, I take it that the Premier has said today that, in addition to seeing that the approval process is working smoothly, the government would see its major involvement in the provision of infra structure, so that projects clearly within Alberta and Alberta's jurisdiction, outside the domain of federal inter ference, can go ahead. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, what I specifically said in referring to that is that in terms of new economic and financial directions and policies for the province, they include: "additional encouragement to accelerate projects for petrochemicals, coal, forest products, agriculture, irri gation, and others." The nature of what we're doing really involves the encouragement to accelerate those projects. If I'm following the thrust of the question from the hon. Leader of the Opposition, one way does relate to infras tructure. I particularly mentioned transportation, but there are other ways as well.

One that I have already referred to in answer to an earlier question is speeding up the approval process. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, one further question. Is using the full scope of the Alberta Opportunity Company legislation, which makes it possible for the government to become involved in projects on a venture capital basis, one of the alternatives the government is looking at? That portion of the Alberta Opportunity Company legislation has never been used. Is that one of the avenues the government is also looking at at this time? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, that's not the present thinking of the government, although that option is available for consideration. We are considering the need to accelerate our decision-making relative to the need for venture capital in the province. As the hon. Leader of the Opposition is aware, it has been a matter for some consideration both within the Assembly and within the select committee on the Heritage Savings Trust Fund.

We do feel that the current circumstances warrant accelerat ing as well, if you like, the decision-making as to the vehicle that could be used for venture capital in the province that would be most helpful at this time or in the very near future. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I take from the Premier's answer that the government has decided to move on the question of venture capital financing, and now it's simply a matter of doing that as quickly as possible. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, that's right.

In the sense of proceeding with venture capital, the government has still been unable to come to a final decision as to how — in terms of the vehicles that might be used — to assure that it is satisfactory in terms of the appropriate balance with the private sector in the province, and if at all possible, to avoid a situation where the decision-making relative to venture capital is of a civil service nature. MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Environment. The hon. Premier indicated that irrigation was going to be consid ered in this venture.

Was this going to be looking at water resource development on our water basins in the province as far as water storage is concerned? MR. COOKSON: Mr. Speaker, the most recent an nouncement we've made with regard to the work of both Environment and Agriculture involves some $300 million to $400 million over a period of time, primarily through the Heritage Savings Trust Fund. It is an ongoing pro gram, and we intend to continue with it.

There have been no discussions, at least as yet, to expand that program beyond the terms set out in the news statement we made at the time, that some areas would be reviewed in 1985 and then we would reassess as to how much more rapidly we might accelerate the program. MR. MANDEVILLE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could I take this as the announcement that there would possibly be some speed-up — I'm thinking of the multipurpose Eyremore dam at Bow City that's been discussed for several years now and the possibility of putting that dam in. Would that process be speeded up? MR.

COOKSON: I don't think I want to comment on that, Mr. Speaker, except to say that we are expanding our funds in the area of irrigation, both on behalf of Agriculture — and the minister may want to comment on that — as rapidly as we can in terms of resources, manpower, equipment, et cetera. We intend to continue that process. The matter of construction of further dam facilities is something that would have to be discussed in the future. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion to the Premier. The Premier indicated in his remarks that it is in terms of the agricultural industry.

Does the Premier have studies going on through the various de partments relative to the kinds of industries that can be put in place in general agriculture in Alberta and into the

1616 ALBERTA HANSARD November 20, 1980 irrigation areas? Will some new thrusts be initiated in the policy, is it just in the idea stage at this time and hoping that something can happen, or is there something more concrete? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't respond to it quite the way the hon. member has phrased the ques tion. It is a policy direction. Implementation will occur during the course of 1981. I think it would not be until well into 1981 that we could be more specific with regard to the matter raised by the hon. member. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion to the Premier.

Would it be proposed by the government in the policy direction to make more capital available, say, to farm groups or persons to start their own processing industries or to get more into the indus trial area from the production area? Would there be a thrust such as that, or would more capital be made available by the province so that whoever or whatever would like to start processing industries would be capable of doing so in Alberta? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, under the current cir cumstances the objective referred to by the hon. member would certainly fit within the new policy directions.

It will take some many months to evaluate the degree in which the constraining factor is that of any capital or govern ment encouragement that is realistic. Those would be the parameters under which we would respond to the hon. member's question. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, one further supplementa ry question to the Minister of Energy and Natural Re sources in his responsibility for forestry development in the province.

Once again referring to the announcement which has been made, I would like to ask the hon. minister what areas of the province the government is looking at for expansion of the forestry operation. Is it primarily the northwestern area of the province, that vast forested area north of Peace River; secondly, the Rocky Mountain House area where on a variety of occasions there have been rather high expectations and no realiza tion of the projects? MR. LEITCH: Mr.

Speaker, in discussions with forestry officials some time ago I urged them to move forward in planning as rapidly as possible to enable the resource to be utilized. As to what areas might come first, without having made any final decisions at the moment, certainly the Rocky Mountain area would have a very high priority. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, to the minister. Mr.

Minister, once a decision has been made that it's econom ically viable to move ahead in an area — and we use the Rocky Mountain House area as an example — it would then be the government's expectation to call for proposals on much the same basis as was done in the hearings which the Member for Athabasca chaired during the last two years? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I don't know that I would want my response to be taken as a firm commitment to hold public hearings in all instances.

There may well be occasions when it would not be necessary or appropriate, having regard to our past practices and the particular projects we may be dealing with. But generally speaking, the answer to the question as to whether we would hold public hearings would be yes. That has been the practice when any large block of timber is being made available; we would call for proposals and have public hearings. But I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility of making an allotment in a specific instance without public hearings, because of a special circumstance. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary ques tion to the Premier. It's with regard to the timing of the announcement. Some time ago, when we talked about the Heritage Savings Trust Fund and the diversification of the economy of Alberta, we established that as a goal. We have differences of opinion as to whether we've reached that goal or made some advancements on it.

With regard to this policy announcement that the Premier has made here, I was wondering whether we would have some type of more concrete proposals for the spring budget and maybe a time line when it seems as if we can implement the proposals in the province of Alberta? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought the timing of the announcement was relatively obvious. Quite obviously we're in a situation where both the Alsands and Cold Lake projects are likely to be involved in a significant delay.

We felt it was important to communicate to the business community in the province that a great deal of additional activity was already occur ring within Alberta that in an overall economic sense could take up any slack involved. In addition to that it was the view of the government that we might be in a position, as I've explained in earlier answers today, to accelerate other projects by way of encouragement. It will be our intention during the course of 1981 to follow through on that policy.

Depending on the timings of the evaluation, some of it will be reflected during the budget in the spring, but not all of it will be. Quite clearly, this is an acceleration by way of encour agement that could involve many aspects. One area I specifically mentioned is the question of our own corpo rate tax system, a complicated subject but one that does pose some opportunities for us.

So we're facing quite a different economic scene than we were last spring, when of course we were concerned with the overheating of the Alberta economy with a very aggressive conventional oil and gas industry, with all the other things going on, the northern pipeline and the Alsands and Cold Lake proj ects even coming together. Without extending my answer too much, I believe I was asked in this Legislature about the difficulties of those two projects going on at the same time. Quite clearly the province of Alberta and its economy are in a different circumstance today.

As a result of that, I felt it was important to outline as early as possible to the business community — and to assure investor confidence in this province — the general new directions we would follow. As I say, in terms of implementation it would be well through '81 before we would be involved in fully meeting those objectives. MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture. To date some of our irrigation districts are putting internal storage in their districts to add additional acres of water.

Is the minister anticipating adding any funds to the present funds they have now for internal storage so the districts can put in internal storage within their own boundaries?

November 20, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 1617 MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, the portion of the pro gram announced under the 15-year water management program for irrigation set aside $100 million for the agricultural share of upgrading, and over five years, with in that $100 million, has the capability to accept from irrigation districts some of their internal storage as part of the upgrading system. The flexibility has been built into the system so the program could be escalated as rapidly as the irrigation districts themselves are physically capable of handling.

So it does take care not only of those capable of speeding up their program but some internal water storage as well. Constitutional, Energy Legal Actions MR. R. CLARK: I'd like to direct the second question to the Attorney General. What progress has been made by the six provinces that are jointly putting together the test of the propositions the federal government has put for ward in the constitutional package, and Alberta's in volvement in moving ahead with those actions? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I'll just be careful in saying that going from memory with specific dates may not be precise.

But subject to that, the progress is very, very good. The first one filed was the Manitoba Court of Appeal reference. My understanding is that that will be argued before the Manitoba Court of Appeal. Of course we will be represented there by legal counsel, as will the other provinces, probably as soon as within three weeks from now. That would not be the case if at that time the court, for any reason, adjourned all or part of the proceedings. But they will actually be before the court at that time, and our legal counsel will be present.

If it is possible to hear the arguments of all the parties at that time, I would guess the judgment would follow, after having been reserved. I'm not sure how long that would take. But in the circumstances and complexity of the proceedings, I think the progress in that case would have to be called very rapid and very significant. On the other cases, I would have to check. My most recent information is that Quebec and Newfoundland have not yet filed their proceedings, but that is pending very shortly. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney General.

Will Alberta's involvement in the Quebec and Newfound land proceedings be similar to what I understand it to have been in the Manitoba action, that Alberta will be represented by legal counsel? Not understanding the pro cedure exactly, will that legal counsel argue the case on behalf of the Alberta government, or simply be there in a back-up role to the lead responsibility, which I under stand the government of Manitoba has? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr.

Speaker, that's a very good question because it enables me to indicate to hon. members that our position in all these cases will in fact be that of a party in the proceedings. The mere fact that they're not being conducted in an Alberta court doesn't take away from the fact that we will be there as full parties to the proceedings. That is an important thing to make clear. MR. R. CLARK: To the Attorney General. Is he in a position to indicate who will be the legal counsel on behalf of the province of Alberta at the Manitoba hearing commencing in three weeks? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr.

Speaker, the team of legal counsel who are prepared at present to go to court could be augmented. But the Deputy Attorney General, the assistant deputy attorney general who is responsible for constitutional law, and perhaps one other member of that

section in the department would be present to present the argument. Whether any additional legal counsel is sought from the private sector is something I think would be more likely in the Quebec and Newfoundland cases than in the Manitoba one. MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Attorney General.

In light of the offer by the federal government to have a direct reference to the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to the Alberta appeal on the energy issue, has the Attorney General communicated with respect to the federal government on the matter of a direct reference of the constitutional issue to the Supreme Court of Canada? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. Member for Calgary Forest Lawn has pointed out, this is a sepa rate proceeding we're speaking of now, one commenced in the Alberta court in respect to the proposed federal gas export tax.

There has been no development since about a week ago when I indicated to the House that I had a brief telephone conversation with the federal Minister of Justice and arranged at that time to provide him with copies of the constitutional reference being placed before the Al berta Court of Appeal, the documents in connection with it. No further communication from the federal govern ment has come to me in respect to that matter. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion to the Attorney General. I understand three ques tions are possibly under consideration in the hearings.

Would it be possible for those questions to be tabled? I don't believe they are public at present. As well, is the government endorsing those three questions as they have been drafted? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I must be clear if I can as to whether the hon. member is asking about the Manitoba reference in which we are taking part or the reference filed in our own Court of Appeal with respect to the gas export tax. MR. R. SPEAKER: The Manitoba one, Mr. Speaker. MR. CRAWFORD: The Manitoba one? The documents are of course public as soon as they're filed, Mr. Speaker, and are therefore public in Manitoba.

We can certainly accommodate hon. members by providing copies of what has come to us in the respective court filings. Grain Exchange MR. MANDEVILLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the hon. Minister of Agriculture with regard to the recent grain exchange set up in Calgary. Could he indicate the status of the exchange and when it will be in operation? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, the grain exchange the hon. member mentions is a system whereby we hope to

1618 ALBERTA HANSARD November 20, 1980 increase the availability of feed grain to the livestock industry and provide a service producers of coarse grain. At the present time, the exchange of course is going through the preliminary legal routine to see what is re quired from a legal point of view. As soon as that is cleared, the physical aspect of setting up the exchange itself would take perhaps another month to two months. I would say that barring the cleaning up of whatever legal impediments we have or the commitments we have to meet, we should be in operation within about two to three months. MR.

MANDEVILLE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As I understand the exchange, it will not be handling the future markets. Does setting up the ex change have to have the approval of the Alberta Securi ties Commission? The second part of my question is: will this exchange be in competition with the Winnipeg Grain Exchange and the Canadian Wheat Board? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the first ques tion, that's part of the legalities being looked into at the present time.

In reply to the second, it's not the intent to be in opposition to basic grain exchanges but to provide as well an internal arrangement whereby we can keep the producer and the livestock industry hand in hand in a commodity which has been at times rather difficult to get hold of, both in quantity and quality. MR. MANDEVILLE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister indicate what the cost of setting up this exchange in Calgary is going to be before it's completed? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr.

Speaker, although the final cost has not been arrived at yet, we feel the cost will be minimal in regard to the physical aspects, because all that will be required is a small office and of course perhaps a battery of telephones and one or two people, to start with. As we get further into the establishment of the exchange itself, I would be in a much better position to come up with a total cost figure. But it would appear to be very minimal for the services it will provide at the present time. Cold Lake Project MRS. CHICHAK: Mr.

Speaker, yesterday I tried to put a question to the Minister of Energy and Natural Re sources and got shot down twice so to speak, so today I'm a little gun-shy. I hope I have prepared my question in a way that's going to be acceptable to you, sir. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. lady has totally disarmed me. MRS. CHICHAK: Well thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can feel more comfortable in putting my question to the hon. Minister of Energy and Natural Resources.

Has Imperial Oil advised the minister whether, upon receiving the $40 million from the Alberta government or the Ottawa government, they would then be able to resume the work and carry the project through to completion, and with that then set aside their holding position insofar as any contingent on changes to be made by the federal government with respect to their energy/budget matters? MR. LEITCH: Mr.

Speaker, as I understand the situa tion, the $40 million referred to in the Assembly yester day would be used to continue the engineering and design work, that is, to keep in place the expertise that has been assembled for this project, for a matter of some months only. With the expiration of some months, the matter would presumably be reviewed again in light of circum stances then. MRS. CHICHAK: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Since the hon. minister has indicated that it's his advice that it would carry the project for just a few months, has the minister had any communication or indication from the federal government whether any support they might give with respect to the $40 million would be by way of direct funds or through PetroCan? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, the information I have is that the discussions regarding funding would be carried on between the project owners and PetroCan. MRS. CHICHAK: One more supplementary to the hon. minister, Mr. Speaker.

Since the announcement by Im perial Oil of having to take the holding pattern or stop work with respect to the Cold Lake project, has the federal government made any recognizable moves to re sume negotiations with Alberta on an energy agreement? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I don't know that I could add to an answer I gave in the House a couple of days ago, to the effect that I contemplated there would be some exploratory discussions between officials of the Alberta government and officials of the federal government. Municipal Water and Sewer Funding MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, my question to the Minister of Environment is a follow up to a question I asked in the spring session of the Legislature. It's with regard to the Alberta municipal assistance grant for water. In the spring session I raised the question to the hon. Provincial Treasurer that funds were not available to finance these programs. The Provincial Treasurer indicat ed that by all haste and special warrant, money would be made available to finance these programs that were pro ceeding at the municipal level. Time has gone on since May, and now we're in November.

I've raised the question a number of times with the minister as to when the money would be pro vided to the municipalities. The municipalities have had their homework done and all in place; water works and reservoirs have been completed. I wonder if the minister could indicate today when the cheques will be available for the municipalities? MR. COOKSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm signing cheques every day for hundreds of thousands and up to millions. So we have proceeded to provide special funds over and above normal requirements in our budget for the water and sewage programs across the province.

It's a very generous program. I have the support of all my col leagues to go beyond the terms of my budget, and we're processing those as rapidly as we can. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that cheques have been written and understand they're going out. But at the present time some local municipalities — and I'll give you a good example, the town of Vauxhall.

November 20, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 1619 It's costing $400 a day for a small town to pay the interest on the money they have had to borrow in the interim. The follow-up question to the minister is: one, I know their cheque is in the process, but will it be there soon, before they have to start raising taxes? Secondly, will the government consider paying that interest the local munic ipality is paying at the present time? It is a serious matter, Mr. Speaker, and I want to urge the minister — I've urged it all summer actually — to take it a little more seriously. MR. COOKSON: Mr.

Speaker, we do take these applica tions seriously, despite what the Member for Little Bow suggests. That can be vouched for by the special warrants in sums we have provided for this program. The normal procedure we've always followed is that towns and vil lages and those that are getting water/sewer programs have a certain procedure they must follow. We lay that out as we communicate with these municipalities. As we proceeded through the year, we found an ex tremely high number of municipalities had proceeded perhaps beyond their terms of reference in terms of proper procedures and signing on my behalf.

We looked through the long list of applications, which were well in advance of the funds I could provide. I asked for special funds to assist this large number of municipalities, and we categorized them in terms of the time when they applied. I can only say to the member that in the case of Vauxhall it may very well be that Vauxhall, because of the timing and the way our procedure follows, was not included in that very long list. I'm certainly prepared to look at the concern expressed, but that's the situation at the present time. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, I appreciate the minis ter's attempt, but I know in this instant that all paper work was in place. The question I raised with the minister was: is there any consideration by the department with regard to the interest? MR. COOKSON: I would have to take that as notice, Mr. Speaker, in terms of advance borrowing. Of course, the municipalities can finance through the special pro grams under the municipal finance program's special in terest rates.

As to whether our own department becomes involved in advance borrowings by a municipality be cause of their phasing in in advance of the approval of applications, that's another matter. MR. ZAOZIRNY: A question to the minister, Mr. Speaker. It's really a follow up to a question put to the minister some days ago. Is the minister now in a position to advise the Assembly as to the amount of financial assistance the government will be providing to the city of Calgary to assist in the cost of the requested sewage treatment facilities to remove phosphorus from the Bow River? MR. COOKSON: Mr.

Speaker, the special program we announced for phosphorus removal will involve some $18 million over a number of years and about five municipali ties. Under that special program, we will allow the munic ipality concerned to incur a debt of $20 per capita, and then we as a government will pick up 90 per cent of the balance of the capital cost. Then it will be the responsibil ity of the municipality to carry on the operation and maintenance. MR. ZAOZIRNY: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

For the benefit of hon. members, can the minis ter translate that formula into a dollar figure in respect of the city of Calgary and those specific facilities? MR. COOKSON: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether the hon. member wants me to do it here or not, but if you multiply 20 times 500,000 people, you get an idea of the debt that will be incurred by the city of Calgary. Ninety per cent of the balance of the capital cost will be picked up by the province. MR. SPEAKER: I believe the hon.

Associate Minister of Public Lands and Wildlife would like to deal further with some information previously given to the Assembly. Grazing Reserves MR. MILLER: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. In rep lying to a question from the hon. Member for Clover Bar yesterday regarding the Blackfoot Grazing Reserve — and I'm sorry the member isn't with us today — I had stated that we had supplied copies of the plan to the press, in fact, to the Edmonton Journal, the Sherwood Park News, and the Tofield Mercury. I also said that we had placed advertisements as such. I would like to correct that statement.

We did not place paid advertisements. We submitted the plans to them so they would know they were available to the public. As well, we have been able to submit 250 copies of the plan to specific user groups and individuals. MR. SPEAKER: May the hon. Member for Three Hills revert to Introduction of Special Guests? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS (reversion) MRS. OSTERMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my pleasant task to introduce a class on behalf of our co- lleage the hon. Member for Camrose, who unfortunately is ill. I've just been notified that the class is in the members gallery.

They are grades 7 and 8 from the Killam public school, accompanied by Mrs. Pat Erickson, their teacher; and Mr. Lawrence Basterash, their bus driver. Would they please rise and receive the welcome of the House. ORDERS OF THE DAY head: MOTIONS FOR RETURNS MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, I would move that motions for returns 130 and 134 stand on the Order Paper as listed. [Motion carried] 135. Mr. R. Clark moved on behalf of Dr.

Buck that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing copies of all correspondence received by the Department of Educa tion from organizations requesting that the Alberta Cor respondence School be relocated in their communities.

1620 ALBERTA HANSARD November 20, 1980 MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move an amendment to Motion for a Return No. 135 by adding the words "subject to the concurrence of the authors" after the words "in their communities". I have discussed this with the originator of the motion, and he agrees. [Motion as amended carried] head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 207. Moved by Mr. Batiuk:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the government to offer more incentives to beginning farmers by establishing new or enhancing existing programs in order to offset some of the high costs of entering farming. [Adjourned debate April 22: Mr. Mandeville] [Mr. Purdy in the Chair] MR. MANDEVILLE: I adjourned this debate approximately 6 months ago, Mr. Deputy Speak er. This young farmer program was just coming into effect at that point in time, and I have to say to the hon. Minister of Agriculture that it certainly has been accepted very well by our young farmers.

I think it's really been going over well. However, processing these loans has certainly been a heavy load on our loans officers. I got some figures on the amount of the loans processed and put through before this new program came in. In 1979-1980, the total year, $28 million was put into the young farmer program. Now in the first six months this new program has been in effect, $62 million has already been put into this program for our young farmers, which is very commendable.

I would think that by the end of the year $100 million will be put into the program, which is going to be a 400 per cent increase over the previous year. Three-quarters of all the loans that ADC processed up to this point this year have been our young farmers, who have made the appli cations and had them processed. The only problem is that some of the loans that were on the books at the time I adjourned this debate still haven't been completed. It certainly has been a long time, appreciating that there has been a long list. On Septem ber 30 there were still 400 applications before the board to be processed.

On October 31 there were still 270 of these applications to be processed. The loans officers in the areas have continued to be overloaded with applica tions. I must say that they are doing a terrific job of getting them through, but there is just too much work for them to handle with the amount of help they have to deal with these applications. When I was speaking on this resolution last spring, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I indicated I would like to see the minister streamline the processing of these loans.

At the present time, a loan first goes through the local office, then the regional office, and then the head office in Camrose. It certainly takes a long time before a loan is processed, especially if all the details aren't in at every point. I still see where many of our officers and regional directors are having problems getting all the information to the head office. As far as our young farmer program is concerned, I'll agree that in some cases a lot of the loans should go to the board.

But in many cases — as I've said, we've got very competent loans officers in the local offices, and I would like to see them be able to process a loan right at the office. I'm sure, in many cases, they would do an excellent job of processing these loans at a local level. Possibly the minister or the ADC board could set up seminars or a method of training the loans officers so all our loans officers would be able to process some of these loans at the local level. That would certainly speed up a lot of these loans as far as getting them through, especial ly with interim money costing so much at the present time.

I have one application that came in from my area. Two young lads down there were putting in the applica tion at just about the time the new program came in, and they're still paying interest at the bank on interim financ ing. I agree and admit that some of the problem has been with the applicant; it hasn't all been with the board. But it's certainly been a long while getting the loan processed. Another area I think we should be taking a good look at is a lot of our guaranteed loans to farmers.

I think we should be taking money out of the heritage trust fund and diverting these guaranteed loans, where the interest rates are high and they're a hard debt load to service. I think we should be taking a good look at putting them under the direct loan program. I realize that some of them won't be able to be put under the direct loan program because they don't fit that particular situation. But I would sure like to see some of these guaranteed loans that are 2 per cent above prime and have been carrying on for a long time, and the farmers haven't been doing that well, brought under the direct loan program.

I'm going to be the first to admit that the staff in Camrose and the loans officers at the local level have been doing a terrific job. However, I hesitate to say, I think the minister should take a good look at the consti tution of the board. I think there should be changes in the constitution of a board of this nature from time to time, just to have some new input to some of these particular areas as far as these decisions to be made are concerned. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would say that these loans are the first step that has really helped our young farmers.

But there are other areas we have to take a good look at. For example, the price of gas is going to be increasing in the near future; we're sure of that. I hope our minister will take a good look at continuing and possibly picking up a lot of this increase under the gas program for our farmers that they have at the present time. Another area we've got to do much work on is market ing. I can see that as far as marketing our grains this year is concerned, many of our farmers have debt loads and haven't been able to market their grain, and it's certainly creating a problem as far as the farmers are concerned.

The breweries being shut down all summer have created a problem as far as marketing some of our malting barley and some of our grains are concerned. We do have the international markets, but it's a problem of getting the grain to the markets. The Crow rates — I'm not going to elaborate on that — are one area we all have to do some work to and see that we get the Crow rates into a position where the rail companies are going to be moving our grain.

CN and CP made an announcement a short while ago that they were going to need $14 billion over the next 10 years in order to upgrade the transportation system in this province so they could handle grain as far as western Canada is concerned. One other concern I have — and I hope the grain exchange that is being set up in Calgary is a method of overcoming this — is the announcement the federal Min ister of Agriculture made, putting all feed grains under

November 20, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 1621 the Wheat Board. I think this is something we have to be very careful of, and see that we get our Wheat Board into full control of all our feed and cereal grains in Canada. I think it's an area we've got to give a lot of concern and consideration to. What I would like to see happen — and I'm pleased that in his speech yesterday the Premier indicated there's going to be some diversifying, especially in the area of irrigation.

I think that is something we've certainly got to take a look at as far as developing some of our agricul tural land in the northern part of the province is con cerned. I think that's an area where there's room for much development, and more so in our irrigation districts in the southern part of the province. Many of our irriga tion districts now can't add any more acres for the reason that they don't have the water, they don't have the storage. The Eastern Irrigation District down there is an example. They are not able to add any acres.

They have 600,000 acres for potential irrigation, and they're irrigat ing only 200,000 acres of that. If we had internal storage, or something like the Eyremore dam where we've got on-river storage, we could expand irrigation. In one irri gation district in the province we could triple it. Another concern I think we all have is that so much of our agricultural land has been taken out of production. I was just looking at some figures from the Energy Re sources Conservation Board. Every time 100 jobs are created in the oil industry, a quarter

section of land is taken out of production. Up in the Hussar area — the constituency Mr. Clark, the hon. Member for Drum- heller, represents — they're going to be taking out 2,500 acres of land just for wellsites in that little area alone in the next three years. In conclusion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would just like to say that I would like the minister to take a good look at putting in that Eyremore dam. In consultation I realize that the capital works is with the Department of Envi ronment.

I recall that when we started discussing the Eyremore dam four or five years ago, they estimated the cost to be $60 million. Today they estimate the cost to be in the neighborhood of $200 million. I'd like to see the government take a good look at putting in that storage, not only on the Bow River but on the Oldman River and in any areas where we can put water storage for irriga tion. We could put in the Eyremore dam in phases. We could put in phase one and store 300,000 acre-feet of water, which would be a big step in the right direction, and then add to that as time goes on.

I would like to see us get on with diversification of agriculture in this province, because I can see down the road that agriculture is going to be our number one industry. We see and hear so much right now on our oil and gas in this province, but I'm sure it's not going to be long until we have to look at putting this money we're taking out of a non-renewable resource into a renewable resource, into agriculture. Two areas that I suggest we do it in are irrigation and developing some of the northern part of the province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. PENGELLY: Mr.

Speaker, I welcome this oppor tunity to join in the debate on Motion 207, which was presented by the hon. Member for Vegreville. It urges the government to offer more incentives for beginning farm ers by enhancing existing programs to offset some of the high costs of land and machinery. Mr. Speaker, the Agricultural Development Corpora tion has really been a success story. For the fiscal year ending 1980, 5,235 direct and guaranteed loans amounted to $131.3 million. I realize that since this motion was brought in last spring, a lot of changes were made.

The beginning farmer program on April 1 — the incentives offered then were indeed a great help. No longer is the loan dependent on the assets of parents. All that is now required is that an individual have a combination of farm experience and 10 per cent equity by way of cash or kind. The maximum amount of the loan was raised from $150,000 to $200,000. The loan plus assets has been raised from $225,000 to $300,000. In addition, the rebate incen tive was raised from 4 per cent to 6 per cent, if the beginning farmer meets that objective of the program. Mr. Speaker, it appears there's little left to do.

But with the escalating cost of land and high interest rates, it's really difficult for the beginning farmer to get a start, especially when land is selling at $1,000 to $1,500 per acre. I have two areas of concern that might best be explained by example. I still think there is something more we can do with incentives. I have a constituent who wanted a loan to build a dairy barn. At that time, two years ago, he went to ADC — by the way, he was also building a house. They told him he'd better come back when most of the house was paid for. He did.

And when he made the second application, he was turned down because his assets were too great. The irony and unfairness of the whole thing is that had he bought land 15 miles farther east of Innisfail, he would have qualified for the loan. Now he's employed off-farm, and has no assistance from his parents in purchasing the land he does have; he's built this up by himself. I think we could help him if the amount of assets a beginning farmer can have were raised because of the high cost of land and machinery to qualify him for the beginning farmer loan.

Perhaps there should also be a definition of a beginning farmer. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, we are not helping some farm ers between the ages of 18 and 20 because they do not have the 10 per cent assets in cash or kind. I'm referring in particular to one young farmer, although I have been approached by many, and their situation appears to be about the same. He's finished grade 12. All his life he has worked on the farm with his dad. He knows how to operate machinery and to feed cattle. He's big and strong and knows how to work. He has a strong desire and ambition to be a farmer.

He has the opportunity to buy a farm at a very reasonable price from a widowed grand mother. Now his problem is that he doesn't have 10 per cent in assets, cash or kind. Because of the opportunity this person has to take over a farm with cattle and machinery, and because his father, who is a small farmer, can't really help him, I really feel they perhaps should give him a loan without any down payment. What money he does have could be used as capital to get his crop in in the spring.

Now it may be argued that these are very special and unusual cases, but all the more reason we should try to find a way to assist these who are caught in that trap. Mr. Speaker, I would urge all members to support this motion. We must never forget that agriculture is still the basic industry of this province. Thank you. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise today and speak on Motion 207, submitted by the Member for Vegreville. Land is one of Alberta's great natural renewable re sources. It is estimated that 50 million acres are utilized in crop and livestock production.

Approximately 28 million

1622 ALBERTA HANSARD November 20, 1980 acres are as yet uncultivated. It is also estimated that an additional 22 million acres could be broken and added to farmland inventory. With so much prime land, it is not very surprising that Alberta has developed a highly pro ductive agricultural economy. Alberta accounts for 20 per cent of total Canadian primary agricultural output. Export marketing of agricul tural products is of considerable importance because of the small regional population. There is an ever-increasing demand for Alberta to produce a variety of agricultural commodities.

Escalating land costs and interest rates have made it increasingly difficult for beginning farmers in Alberta today. It's with interest we note that we had submitted to the Assembly, from the Member for Grande Prairie, the Northern Alberta Development Council study entitled a Profile of Part-time Farmers in Northern Alberta. It's an interesting document that points out the need for off- farm work by almost half of those farming in northern Alberta.

Some of the results of this particular study find that most northern part-time farmers view off-farm employ ment as a necessary means of raising capital required for full-time farming. Part-time farmers have played an in creasingly significant role in the agricultural sector. In 1961 the number of part-time farmers was approximately 19,125. By 1975 this had increased to 21,221. There were 35 part-time farmers interviewed in this particular study. Thirty-two were married, between the ages of 34 and 44, while 53 per cent were in the 23 to 34 age bracket.

Young men have been entering part-time farming at a continuously increasing rate. Part-time farmers with the highest off-farm income had the lowest farm income. That's an interesting point. Fifty per cent of total gross income came from off-farm employment. Another point is that one-third of the farmers interviewed began their working careers in another profession before establishing themselves in farming and continuing in both occupations. There are a few characteristics in this. The trend is toward larger but fewer farming units. On average, part- time farmers worked five months of the year on the farm.

Time spent was directly related to the type of farming. Grain farm operators put in most hours in spring and fall, and cattle farmers worked periodically year-round. The majority of farms are family operated. Most part- time farmers desired to farm on a full-time basis but were hindered by, one, escalating northern land costs; two, inability to qualify for Crown grazing leases; and three, inability to qualify for ADC loans because they must demonstrate an ability to farm on a full-time basis.

The government, recognizing the need to provide in centives to beginning farmers, has established a variety of programs to offset the high cost of entering farming, and another to expand the use of training programs such as the green certificate program. On March 26, 1980, the hon. Minister of Agriculture issued a ministerial state ment outlining details of a new program to assist begin ning farmers in Alberta. There were some other criteria for this particular program. There was a once in a lifetime loan, the maximum loan of $200,000, and an upper limit of $300,000 on loan plus assets.

There was a preferred interest rate of 12 per cent for the term of the loan, with a 6 per cent earned interest rebate for the first five years. The applicant had to show some experience and repay ment ability. Further farm program modifications: they brought in a direct loan program. Of course it's been in for some time. It provides for financing on a preferred interest basis for those individuals presently engaged in farming. The direct loan program provides assistance to primary producers, with long-term loans at a preferred interest rate of 12 per cent. Update on the beginning farmer program.

Since April 1, 1980, the Alberta development council has processed 434 beginning farmer applications, resulting in $62 mil lion being spent on loans. These figures represent a three fold increase over those of last year. This might be noted: as compared to other western Canadian jurisdictions, Alberta offers the lowest interest rates and the highest maximum loans. The green certificate farm training program — it out lines it's Alberta Agriculture in co-operation with Alberta Advanced Education and Manpower. The hon. Member for Medicine Hat established the green certificate pro gram.

This is an industry-oriented program, its goal being to train and qualify individuals according to ability, apti tude, personal preference, and, as number one, general farm workers, farmers, herdsmen, or owner-operators. At present 150 persons are registered in that program: 97 at level one, 32 at level two, and 21 potential farmers at level three. Given the increase in complexity and sophistication of farming operations, it would appear self-evident that thorough and practical training is necessary to ensure the success of future farmers. I'd like to point out a few things.

One, the average age of farmers in Alberta is 47, and only 4 per cent of Alberta farmers are under 25. In order to lower the age and increase the number of young farmers, which would en sure the contribution to the future of agriculture, young people must be given incentives to induce them to venture into farming. Continuing high costs dissuade many po tential agricultural producers. Farm operating expenses and depreciation charges were up 16 per cent in 1979. As we are all aware, interest rates are at an all-time record high. The farmer is greatly affected by them.

For ex ample, one chartered bank suspended its five-year rate on farm loans and now offers only a one-year term at 1 per cent above the NHA rate, 17.75 per cent on April 15. Treasury branches offer preferred rates to farmers, averaging 0.5 per cent below the prime lending rate. Even at these rates, the high cost of financing, land costs, equipment, et cetera, make starting out in farming excep tionally difficult, if not virtually impossible.

Continuing along with the Northern Alberta Develop ment Council, a recent report pointed out the escalating northern land costs, the inability to qualify for these grazing leases, and that 53 per cent of part-time farmers are in that particular age bracket. In light of the above-mentioned information, Mr. Speaker, the government should be commended for its contribution to the development of agriculture in the past. However, it must also be stressed that there is an increasing need to assist beginning farmers in view of the economics of the agricultural situation in Alberta. Thank you. MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr.

Speaker, it's a pleasure for me to enter the debate today. I certainly commend the hon. Member for Vegreville, who brought this motion forward last April. Since this motion was brought in a lot of things have happened. Discussing more incentives for beginning farmers and everything is important, but I think it's always important to discuss agriculture wherever you have the opportunity, because it is the base industry that we have in the province and it's going to be here for a

November 20, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 1623 long time. When I look at the motion, there are some key words: one, "beginning farmers"; the second, "offer more incen tives"; and the third, "enhancing existing programs". All of us here today who are farmers were at one time beginning farmers. When my dad started farming, he rented land and continued to work out until he finally owned his land and had a viable unit. When I started, I rented land and worked out. I don't think the working wives out there are mentioned very often.

I know we lived on what my wife made, and we put everything we made on the farm back into the farm. I'm sure that's being done by a lot of people today. My brother was quite a bit younger than I was, and he's starting out. He rented land and is working out, and his wife is also working today and bringing in money that will put the farm on its feet. You know, when I read this document from the hon. Member for Grande Prairie, who is chairman of the Northern Alberta Development Council, I think a couple of striking things are in that. It says that 'of the 35 part-time farmers interviewed 32 were married'.

I'll bet you the 32 who are married are probably doing better than the other three who aren't. It seems that when a man and wife are working together on a farm, there's some thing about getting out there and doing things together in the soil, or whatever you're doing. It makes it . . . [laughter] AN HON. MEMBER: I don't think that came out right. MR. FJORDBOTTEN: I'm a farmer, and I call it the way I see it. Part-time farmers, with the highest off-farm income, had the lowest on-farm income.

That shows that the ones who were working off-farm were probably holding down good jobs and didn't have time to really devote their energies to the farm. So that's why I think the beginning farmer program to allow the young farmers to build a viable economic unit is always something special, when you consider that when they work there, they can have a good unit in the future. It says the part-time farmers account for about 40 per cent of northern Alberta farmers. I don't know what the percentage would be across the province, but I suggest it would be nearly as high.

Most northern Alberta farmers, it says, view off-farm employment as a necessary means of raising capital required for full-time farming. They have the drive and the interest to want to be full-time farmers. I won't say too much about the ADC program, because the hon. Member for Innisfail laid it out very well, very factually. I think some upgrading can be done in that particular program. I don't think anything is ever made by human hands so well that it can't be improved, and I'm sure some streamlining can be done on that. Everything we do should help and induce people to go into farming.

But you know, not everybody makes a good farmer. You can have all the incentives you want, but still you've got to have that love of the soil and that interest. Good cattlemen have told me that if you want to be a good cattleman you've got to be able to think like a cow. I really don't know if that would be true. But I know that when I ride on an airplane I can tell whether the pilot's good or not, because the airplane just seems at one with the pilot if he's good. I think it's the same with the soil. You've got to have a love of the soil.

You can go out in the spring and pick up a handful of fresh dirt and it smells sweet. You've got to have that feeling for the soil, and you've got to have a love of it in order to be really successful at it. If you don't have that desire, I don't think all the incentive programs or anything you do to enhance things are going to go that far. I'd like to say a bit about the railroads. We talk about the railroad opening up the west, and it certainly did. But now the railways, the rail policies, the strikes, and the freight rates are causing a lot of problems.

We need to address that issue and upgrade our transportation, not only by rail but by roads and everything else across the province. Another thing I think we should be working even harder at is rehabilitation of land. I know the hon. Member for Wainwright has a great interest in this. Everything we do today can be overproduced. We can have too many cars, too many houses — we have too much of a lot of things. But one thing there isn't much of is land. It can't be overproduced because the good Lord isn't making any more land. We have to rehabilitate and wisely use and take care of that land we've had.

I think that's the greatest incentive for the future. If farmers on land at the present time are using it wisely, it can be passed on to future generations. Another thing I think we should be doing is processing more of our products here. You know, we can grow all kinds of products, but our processing needs to be greatly upgraded. We should have an aggressive marketing poli cy. It's something we shouldn't leave to others, or throw rocks at anybody else and say, they should do this and the other thing. That's something I think we can put our hand to and take on through.

I'd just like to compliment the Minister of Agriculture a bit for the ADC program and how he's been working with the ADC board to try to improve on a number of areas. When you come out with something like that and you have that volume of applications, there are always going to be a few problems. I think that is something we have to look at and try to streamline even more in the future. Thank you. MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, like the previous speakers, I feel this is an important subject to discuss here today.

I'd just like to mention that the three speakers before me are members of the caucus committee on agriculture. That goes to show the dedication members of that committee have to agriculture. I think it's actually becoming a cliche to say how important agriculture is to Alberta. There is hardly a person in this province who doesn't recognize that fact, so I really won't start listing what makes it important to Alberta. One of the previous speakers mentioned that the average age of the farmers in Alberta is 47. It wasn't many years ago that it was 59.

I think the programs we have brought forward in Alberta in the last few years — that's a dramatic change. It's something maybe we in agriculture are too close to; we don't see the forest for the trees. But I think we are making great strides in encourag ing young people to get into the industry. Like the previous speakers, I believe that this beginning farmer program we've just brought in, that is taking a couple of the restrictions out of it, has really helped get young people interested in the farming business.

I'd like to give a little rundown on agriculture in general, and then maybe a couple of comments on how we could encourage young people get into the industry.

1624 ALBERTA HANSARD November 20, 1980 When I first started farming, we had real problems with markets. I'm talking about grain farming now. It seemed like we could raise a lot of grain but no one wanted to buy it. In the last couple or three years, maybe a little longer, that has changed dramatically. It seems now, as far as world markets are concerned, that just about anything we raise can be sold. In fact if the newspaper reports are correct, we could sell a lot more than we are. So that is one cloud that used to hang over agriculture that is no longer there, at least for the present.

Another point that I'd like to make in that area is production. Our grain production has increased dramat ically in the last few years. Some things that have caused that have been the increased use of fertilizer and herbi cides, less summer fallowing being done these days, and of course more acres put into crop every year. I think another thing that has made a dramatic difference is the increase in power equipment that we use. It seems people are getting their crop in at the optimum time nowadays and getting it off, which is equally important.

So there is no doubt that we have increased production dramatically and the markets are there if we can get to them. Those were the things which probably the farmers in the first 50 years of agriculture in this province wrestled with more than the problems we have today. We have problems today that are just as important as the ones they had in the past. I can see problems that will be coming up in the future. One is increased costs of fuel, fertilizer, and farm equipment.

I'd like to get a statement across this afternoon that the Minister of Agriculture tried to get into the question period the other day, and I've heard him say it many times. It is the fact that Alberta farmers have the lowest cost farm fuel of anyone in North America, and this government is determined to see that that advantage stays there. Now that doesn't mean we're going to continue at the price we have today, but the very fact that there is a competitive edge there — and it doesn't matter whether they're farming in Ontario, Kansas, or where.

The price of fuel to a farmer in Alberta is one of the main costs of production. If we always have the lowest cost fuel in North America, we have a competi tive edge in that area. I think that's a very important thing for the people of Alberta to understand. Of course fertilizer is going to go up too. As natural gas goes up — and it's one of the components of nitrogen fertilizer — we're going to have to wrestle with that problem. And farm equipment has increased dramatically over the years, over the last 30 years that I know of.

The way some of these farm equipment companies are getting into trouble, there is no doubt in my mind that we're going to see that factor increase, because obviously they're going to have to increase the price of farm machinery so they can run in the black. So there are some problems we're going to have with increased cost. [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] Several of the speakers alluded to grain transportation and the movement of the product. Well, the minister sitting across from me has been wrestling with that prob lem. We have to face reality.

We are working with both the federal government and two or three other provincial governments in this area. Until we get agreement — it's something like the constitution; everyone has to agree to it before you can get anywhere in this area — we will still have problems with transportation. But remember, we have been a leader in a couple of areas. When it comes to the port of Prince Rupert on the west coast, I think this government played a major role in pushing and support ing that project.

There's no doubt that four, five, six years down the road, it's going to make a dramatic difference in the handling of grain. It can't help but do it because it's going to increase the capacity considerably. Another thing we've done: there was no problem in this province in supporting the purchase of hopper cars. You can argue if you wish that it really wasn't our responsibil ity. Maybe it wasn't. Maybe it's the railroad's responsibil ity, or whoever. But we were prepared, as far as Alberta Agriculture is concerned, to get into that area.

I think that is encouraging to anyone in agriculture, beginning farmer or otherwise. Cash flow is another problem the farmer in Alberta has today. The Member for Bow Valley mentioned that. Historically, the farmers used to put in their crop in the spring. The different suppliers used to carry them until the fall, then they'd harvest, take their crop off, and pay off the suppliers. The way interest rates are today, and will be in the future, these farm suppliers cannot really carry the farm community as they've done in the past.

Therefore it's imperative that an increased cash flow is going through the agriculture community to these suppli ers so they really can stay in business and support agricul ture. So these are some of the problems agriculture has. I'd like to talk now a little about the way we as a government can help young farmers. Two or three members alluded to the beginning farmer program, so of course I'm not going to repeat what was said. I think it has been covered very well. There are a few problems in it.

There's bound to be administrative problems getting any new program that is put into effect, that is popular and in demand, on the track and successful. I guess the quicker we can get out the bugs that are there, the happier everyone will be, including the government. But let's be realistic; the thing we are doing is realizing a need and responding to the need. We do have a few problems in the program, but I'm sure it will smooth out down the road. Another area I'd like to talk about — and I don't think the Legislature or the public in general is aware of what we're doing here — is availability of land.

The Member for Macleod mentioned that there is only so much land. Well, that's true. You can underline that when you're talking about agricultural land. There's only so much agricultural land in Alberta. I would like to commend the Associate Minister of Public Lands and Wildlife. I was just going through his annual report. It says in the report he sent to the Heritage Savings Trust Fund: In the current fiscal year, it is expected that about 1,700 quarter sections will be posted for agricultural disposition. Of this . . . 230 quarter sections will be posted in units for new settlement.

We all have heard many times about how developers, the cities, and industry are gobbling up agricultural land. But we very seldom look at the other side of the coin and see that the government of Alberta is putting more land into protection every year by far than is being taken out. Availability of land, to some extent, will help young farmers to get an opportunity to buy land. So I really think the government, and the minister especially, should be commended for this program of making land available for young farmers to acquire.

Another area, which the Member for Spirit River- Fairview used to rave about, is the fact that all these foreigners are buying Alberta land right out from under Albertans. I was going through the minister's annual report. I usually don't read these things, but I just

November 20, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 1625 happened to stumble onto this. It's on page 73. I'd like to read this into the record. This is the area acquired by foreigners and the percentage of total rural sales. In '75-76, 59,000 plus acres were acquired, and this was 2.4 per cent of total rural sales; '76-77 was 166,682 acres, and 5.6 per cent of sales. When the government put in the Act on restriction of sales to foreigners in '77-78, it dropped, it went down. There were 31,800 acres, which is 1.2 per cent. In '78-79, we had 56,250 acres, which is 0.02 per cent; in '79-80, 6,392 acres, which is 0.02.

So from my point of view at least, the government has been very successful in restricting the sale of agricultural land to foreigners. There is not the same competition for young farmers to start and acquire land for farming, because there is less competition from outside buyers. Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude by saying, if I can find where I was concluding . . . AN HON. MEMBER: Toward the end. MR. THOMPSON: Toward the end, yes. I'd just like to say that the resolution we're talking about today says young farmers need an incentive to start farming.

In my estimation, young people in Alberta do not really need an incentive to farm. Many of these young people want to follow in their fathers' footsteps. They feel it's a good way of life. We really just have to give them an opportunity to be successful in the industry. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. WOLSTENHOLME: Mr. Speaker, I'm kind of pleased to speak on this motion, particularly after hearing the hon. Member for Cardston talk about the incentives; that they don't need the incentive to get going as far as their physical outlook is concerned because there are a lot of good things about farming. It's a good life.

As an ex-stubblejumper, I would have . . . Yes, the hon. Mem ber for Calgary Millican pounds his desk over there. When we were down in Saskatchewan on a trip . . . He comes from the same part of Saskatchewan as I do. How two people such as us could come from the same part of Saskatchewan, I don't know. I won't repeat some of his stories, I guess any more than he would repeat some of mine. Anyway, it was quite an experience. To get back to the motion, when I was campaigning, funding for beginning farmers was one thing that came up quite often.

If there happened to be a group present the argument that always developed was: why farmers; why not the beginning contractor, beginning young busi nessmen, or something to that stage? The young people interested in farming would always say, yes, but how much of what you're doing can you eat? [interjection] If you want me to argue, you have to get on a different tack than that. Actually, they're right. With so much agricultural land going under concrete jungles, asphalt, and what have you, we need all the agriculturally minded people we can get to take

part in agriculture. We need to have all the stumbl ing blocks removed that prevent them from getting into food production. So we must do all we can to assist them. I was very pleased this spring with the program the hon. Minister of Agriculture brought out. I know some of the young farmers in my area who were able to take advantage of this program. They are now able to make a worth-while contribution to the production of food. In my view, we're going to be responsible for feeding a good many hungry mouths in this world not too many years down the road.

Quite a few young people in my area are now returning to the farm. They are doing a good job. They returned to the place where they grew up and, because of economy of farming, they left. A few years ago in my particular area the average age of the farmer was middle-age or more, but now it's nice to see the young people. They add a refreshing look to a community. They add all the zest and vitality and make a community much more alive, much better to live in. Many of this government's programs have made it possible to get them back on the farm, but that's not to say more couldn't be done. Hearing the hon.

Member for Macleod talk about the sweet smell of earth and so on kind of reminds me of my youth. The smell of alfalfa still . . . [interjections] It doesn't smell good. I remember the first time I worked on a farm. My brother and I contracted out to do the work of one man, to put up some alfalfa. That was in the dirty 30s. Even today, whenever I see or smell alfalfa, I get hot and weary. Another memory — I still get itchy as all get-out when I see barley being harvested. I can remem ber being up in a loft of a barn trying to move the straw back when three fellows were throwing it in the other end of the machine.

I couldn't seem to keep it out of the way and that blower seemed bound to bury me. Anyone who has never had barley straw inside his shirt, around his waistband, up his legs, and in his boot tops, doesn't know what he's missed when it comes to itchiness. Those are some of the unpleasant memories. There are many pleasant memories. The smell of new-mown hay, leather on horses, and the sweet smell of cow's breath; that is, as long as they haven't been eating . . . AN HON. MEMBER: Which end? MR. WOLSTENHOLME: It's easy to tell that some of my urban comrades do not know which end a cow breathes from.

The cow's breath was sweet as long as she hadn't been eating . . . AN HON. MEMBER: Stinkweed. MR. WOLSTENHOLME: . . . stinkweed. Then, even the milk had an unsavory smell to it. But I guess I'd better quit reminiscing or I'll be here most of the afternoon. If some of those programs had been available in those days, I would likely have been a farmer instead of a jeweller. AN HON. MEMBER: In Saskatchewan. MR. WOLSTENHOLME: Yes, likely back in Saskatch ewan too. However, I guess everything works out for the best.

Yes, we've come a long way from those days, but let's continue to support agriculture to the best of our ability. Thank you. MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the Member for Vegreville for introducing Motion 207, and all hon. members for their participation in the motion itself and interest in agriculture, especially the beginning young farmer. Since the resolution was introduced in the Legislature, we have had the opportunity to introduce the new begin ning farmer program administered by the Agricultural Development Corporation.

I would like to take just a moment to report the results of the new program to you. The new program came into effect on April 1 this year. Other than changing the amounts of the moneys available

1626 ALBERTA HANSARD November 20, 1980 to an individual who wished to start as a beginning farmer in agriculture, the most important factor to me is the withdrawal of the beginning farmer program from the lender of last resort aspect of the Agricultural Develop ment Corporation, and what it's meant to agriculture in this province in regard to the number of beginning farmers making applications entirely on their own. Just as a re fresher, the amount of money available to a beginning farmer is $200,000. The loan plus the assets for a maximum of $300,000.

I would like to impress upon all members the degree of flexibility that is built into the program so that the majority, whether they be male or female who are making application for a start in agricul ture, can be helped under that one existing program. Since April 1 — in other words, in the last six months — we've had the opportunity to approve over three times as many beginning farmers than were handled in the last three years. In other words, 80 per cent of all the appli cants who are now handled through the Agricultural Development Corporation are beginning farmers.

As of mid-October, in a six-month period, 613 applications had been handled for an amount of $80 million. Of those 613, 80 per cent were beginning farmers. In other words, we have now provided funds to 434 beginning farmers.

If those numbers continue, at the close of our fiscal year, the end of March 1981, we estimate 1,300 new beginning farmers will have been helped by the new program; 1,300 new individuals in the agricultural industry who not only add to our productive capability, but an opportunity to draw from the knowledge and capabilities of their peers who will be leaving agriculture with the opportunity of knowing there is some young chap — either he or she — taking their place as they leave.

That influx of young blood into the agricultural industry is one of the main reasons the average age of farmers is continually drop ping in this province, certainly a factor one should be very proud of. What happens to a group of individuals — in other words, those who make up the Ag. Development Corpo ration — when a new program is instituted? In this particular case, the sole lender and provider of funds to beginning farmers and the sheer number that arrive with their applications and what it does to a group.

In the last six months 12,400 interviews have been held, and the majority of those are potential beginning farmers and those who also would qualify for the areas of direct lending under the other programs of the Ag. Develop ment Corporation. A backlog of beginning farmers that over the winter had made some commitments had the opportunity to look at potential farms and, knowing that perhaps some changes were being made early this spring, withheld any application until the new policy was insti tuted and announced and, of course, swamped ADC with applications.

One can look back over six months to see the workload that has been handled. The 12,400 applications, of which over 10 per cent of the interviews have been held on-farm, would give you an indication of the workload that had to be met. As of mid-October, the addition of six new candidates as loans officers for the first time brought us up to a full commitment of 50 loans officers throughout the province. Of those 50, 18 are less than three months old and another seven are newer than 12 months. Mr.

Speaker, it takes time to train people to handle the applications before us, and I would have to say that the number of applications handled to date certainly is an indication of the extremely heavy workload. I would like to compliment the ADC staff for handling those numbers to date and bringing the backlog, which has built up over the summer, back to a normal backlog as of the end of September. It was something that can be handled quite easily. Mr. Speaker, that is basically a program for beginning farmers.

That's just a small start in what Agriculture can provide and has provided for all those new beginners: the acquisition of the land and the opportunity to start a life in agriculture; the opportunity for the department to look to his or her future, to provide the opportunities of marketing, upgrading themselves through extension, winter courses, and the many, many other aspects that are the responsibilities of not only the Department of Agriculture but this government. Mr.

Speaker, in light of the hour, I would leave the remainder of all those aspects one would like to add and, in closing, say I'm very pleased with the reception of the beginning farmer program and look forward to working with a group of new farmers and helping them in any way we can. MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to adjourn the debate. MR. SPEAKER: The debate has actually ended, with the effluxion of time.

It will be a matter of recognizing whomever rises first when the item is called again. head: PUBLIC BILLS AND ORDERS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Second Reading) Bill 206 The Conflict of Interest Act MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move second reading of Bill 206, The Conflict of Interest Act. Mem bers will recall that the discussion with regard to conflict- of-interest legislation is certainly not new in this Assem bly.

If my memory serves me accurately, during the previous year I moved Bill 203, which was basically the same piece of legislation I'm proposing to members of the Assembly to consider today. Also, the Member for Spirit River-Fairview moved a motion dealing with the question of conflict of interest or that broad general area. Mr. Speaker, I put this Bill on the Order Paper for two reasons. One, my colleagues and I see this question of conflict of interest as a matter of considerable impor tance. In the course of my remarks this afternoon, I don't plan to remake the arguments by me or others who took

part in the debate almost a year ago. What I do urge members to seriously consider is once again the question: don't we need to move in some direction on the question of conflict of interest further than we have to date? After touching very briefly on the main aspects of the Bill, Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate to the members what I believe was a rather significant move in the course of last year as far as conflict-of-interest action taken by a government in Canada.

I looked around, and could have selected a number of examples where governments of various stripes have moved forward on this question of conflict-of-interest guidelines. I tried to select an example that would find the members on the government side of the House in a very congenial and certainly very open frame of mind. So the example I plan to refer today in the latter portion of my remarks is the August 7, 1979,

November 20, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 1627 release from the Prime Minister's office. The government at that time outlined what I judge to be perhaps the most stringent conflict-of-interest guidelines I have seen; far more stringent, Mr. Speaker, than the guidelines included in the legislation that I propose before the House today. Of course members of the Assembly will remember that at that time the Prime Minister was not the present Prime Minister but Mr. Joe Clark, a native Albertan who is now the Leader of the Opposition in Ottawa. Perhaps I should make just one other connection.

He is of the same political persuasion as the government, and I note that a number of individuals in the House — and I say this seriously — were certainly instrumental in that gentleman becoming the leader of the party he leads today and, I hope, will continue to lead for some time. Mr.

Speaker, in dealing with second reading of the Bill, basically the Bill attempts to set out conflict of interest for members of the Legislative Assembly and some very reasonable exemptions, conflict of interest for ministers, conflict of interest for executive staff members, conflict of interest for deputy ministers, conflict of interest for heads of Crown corporations and government agencies, and then exceptions; then deals with individuals who are former MLAs, former ministers, and with the question of disclosure, the transfer of assets to one's spouse or a member of the family, divestiture, and enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, let's recall for a moment the debate we had previously in this Assembly. As I've said, the Bill outlaws conflict of interest among present and former MLAs, ministers, deputy ministers, executive staff mem bers, and heads of Crown corporations and government agencies. These conflicts are clearly not acceptable. If I recall the discussion we had in the House on this issue last time, the arguments presented were basically that we didn't need it, we already have the kind of legislation that deals with conflict-of-interest problems, and it's unwork able.

Now it's not my intention this afternoon to go back over those arguments, but I want to say to members of the Assembly that the Bill outlaws what I consider to be unacceptable conflicts of interest with the various groups I've already outlined. I believe the kinds of behavior prohibited by this Bill are areas of self-evident or certainly potential conflicts of interest; that is, they place the individual in a situation where his or her responsibilities, authority, or informa tion acquired in public office are liable to be used to promote a private interest in conflict with the public interest.

Further, I believe it's self-evident that such con flicts of interest are improper. Finally, I believe it is self-evident that if we accept that such conflicts of interest are improper, where we see they in fact have occurred, it's essential that we take some steps to move in the direction of placing them — be it this Bill, Mr. Speaker, or be it guidelines from the Premier's office or a future Bill from the government side of the House. Frankly, I'm not too interested in who gets credit for the move in this direc tion. But it certainly seems appropriate to me that we move in this particular direction. Mr.

Speaker, moving on to what's happened in this area of conflict-of-interest action during the past several months, I would say to hon. members that when one looks at the announcement that came from the office of the Prime Minister of Canada on August 7, 1979 — and I'd just like to read very, very briefly from that announcement. New conflict of interest guidelines have been is sued to all members of the Cabinet by Prime Minis ter Joe Clark. They take effect immediately. The new guidelines are [considered tougher] than those applied under the previous administration. Then, Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to touch on five areas that the Clark administration in Ottawa felt were appropriate to put in the guidelines at Ottawa as new features; in other words, new features from the standpoint of going further then the guidelines for federal cabinet ministers at this particular time. I make the point I made earlier that the guidelines included for the cabinet ministers and senior members of the bureaucracy of that time were certainly more stringent than the ones proposed in the Bill that I put forward.

The first guideline is that: The guidelines apply to spouses and children of Ministers, as well as to Ministers themselves, in order to ensure that assets of the entire family unit are covered. Frankly, I think that's going far further than the legisla tion my colleagues and I propose. Certainly we had made the decision that we didn't think conflict-of-interest legis lation should go to that extent. Ministers may no longer place assets in a "frozen trust", a device under which the beneficiary may not control the assets but continues to know what those assets are.

The third proposition put forward by the federal Con servative government at the time was that: Assets which must be sold or placed in a blind trust are defined to include large amounts of foreign [capi tal]. The list also includes larger loans to persons outside the Minister's family. Fourthly: Rules for blind trusts are expanded.

Trustees must include a government-designated trustee, chosen from among a list of recognized trust companies, who would be particularly responsible for ensuring that operation of the trust meets the guidelines and who, in that role, would have the conclusive vote in any decision of the trustees. Fifthly: Gifts of a value exceeding $100 received by a Minis ter or family member from someone outside the family must be disclosed within 30 days. Mr. Speaker, I'm not suggesting we should go that far in conflict-of-interest legislation.

I recognize very frankly the possibility that the Bill we're discussing this afternoon is not going to be received enthusiastically by members of the government. But I raise the matter again today, even though this is the third time in a year and a half that we've had this discussion, because it seems to me impor tant that we recognize — even though we hear the arguments in this Assembly that conflict of interest is no problem in this Assembly — that virtually every other province in Canada has moved in this direction. The Trudeau government put in guidelines.

The Joe Clark government came along and put in certainly far more stringent guidelines than are suggested in this Bill before the House today. Mr. Speaker, I think we are being less than frank with ourselves if we in Alberta, despite the very best intentions of members on both sides of the House, don't recognize that sooner or later — once again, with those best intentions — we will find ourselves in increasing difficulty unless there are very clearly spelled out conflict-of-interest guidelines. Frankly, I prefer to have those guidelines in the form of a Bill. That's why we've gone forward in this manner.

The government at Ottawa, in fairness to them, went forward in a different manner, in effect a directive from the Prime Minister.

1628 ALBERTA HANSARD November 20, 1980 As I conclude my remarks here, I simply say to members of the House that I'm not suggesting for one moment that this legislation will stop all wrongdoing. That's impossible. But to state clearly, as far as possible we should have the guidelines in place. What is wrong, Mr. Speaker, is that the public see that we have the rules clearly spelled out. The public must see that we give some sort of official sanction to such a statement, so that it gains legitimacy in their eyes and ensures that certain consequences will follow if people are found to be in violation of the law. Mr.

Speaker, we're all human. We can all make mis takes. Let's not get bogged down in either praising or condemning governments of the past. I'm not suggesting extreme penalties for innocent mistakes; neither should any government member be so sanctimonious as to sug gest that public officials are above error and therefore above the law. We should be setting an example for the public, not inviting difficulty between ourselves and or dinary people. MRS. FYFE: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the mover of this Bill, the Leader of the Official Opposition, when he says this matter is of considerable importance.

No doubt each member of this Assembly and each person involved in the democratic process must be, or at least should be, con cerned about conflict of interest. But in discussing conflict of interest, one has to go back and think about what it actually means. Where does it apply? If you take the word "conflict" as set out in the Oxford dictionary, the

definitions include: fight, clashing of opposed principles, being incompatible, or opposition to incompatible wishes. We take that concept of being incompatible and put it together with "interest", which has the dictionary definition: being a legal concern to have title right, a pecuniary stake, a thing in which one is concerned, a principle in which a party is concerned, a party having common interest, or a selfish pursuit of one's own welfare — self-interest in effect. We take those terms and try to visualize, how do those words apply to Bill 206 and to the role and responsibility we as legisla tors have?

There's no doubt that in it's most gentle sense life is a conflict. There's conflict in all aspects of public office. I agree with the objective as far as that I think we should be very basically concerned about the image the public has for their elected representatives and the appointed servants who carry out tasks for the electorate or for society. The largest concern I have related to this Bill is that it gives the perception that presently there are no rules, that we have no guidelines to follow, where in fact we do have guidelines which come in a number of dif ferent forms.

I would like to review what obviously has been covered before, but I think it's worth refreshing our memories. How are we controlled by conflict of interest? What guidelines are set out? Firstly, The Legislative Assembly Act enables this Assembly to assume the powers of a court in determining whether a member is in conflict of interest. Under

Section 43(1) of The Legislative Assembly Act, (

c) the offering to or acceptance by a member of the Legislative Assembly of (

i) a bribe to influence him in his conduct as a member, or (ii) a fee, compensation, or reward for or in respect of the promotion of any bill, resolu tion, matter, or thing, submitted to or in tended to be submitted to the Legislative Assembly or committee thereof. The second area relates to activities and acceptance of funds during a campaign period which are stringent with in that period of time. Thirdly, as we are aware, the 1973 ministerial statement of the Premier gives guidelines for all ministers of the Crown. Fourthly, the Standing Orders of the Legislative As sembly.

Standing Order 31 provides that no member is entitled to vote upon any question in which that member has a direct pecuniary interest and the vote of any member so interested will be disallowed. And, if a member feels that the member has a direct pecuniary interest in any matter to be voted upon, the member shall so declare to the Assembly and shall leave the Chamber before the vote is taken. That basically covers any decisions or involvement of decisions within this Legislative Assembly or within the committees.

The fifth area covers areas of far greater significance, relating to the Criminal Code, which specifies remedies for offences of bribery and fraud. I will come back to comment on that later on. The sixth area is the code of conduct and ethics for public servants, which sets out guidelines for deputy ministers. Of course we know that the electorate has the ultimate decision and judgment to make on people they have put into public office to serve their interests. Written ethics cannot make honest people.

You come into public or appointed office as either an honest person or one who does not accept the responsibilities that have been bestowed upon you in that position. I think we have seen an indication in our history, which is not a happy part, that bribery, a kickback, or accepting of gifts that that person is not entitled to is one of the most difficult areas to prove. Setting legislation does not make it any easier to detect, because the person in that office already has guidelines set out.

But if they're not the quality of person who takes into consideration that accepting some thing that will influence your decision, or accepting some thing other than a very, very small, token gratuity, be cause it is your position, is not acceptable — and has been demonstrated within this Assembly on many pre vious debates and in the regulations and items I covered previously. One area I would like to relate to with specific ex amples is the conflict-of-interest area that I had personal experience with in The Municipal Government Act.

One sentence says that no elected person can vote on an issue in which he has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest. The problem related to local government officials is that the

interpretation by the courts of this indirect pecuniary interest has been taken to extremes never previously thought of. I think that's one of the concerns in setting out specific written rules: that there are certain rules or areas you may wish to preclude or prevent by writing "thou shalt not" or whatever. But it is difficult to cover all areas, rather than in a very general way. So what has happened in effect at the local government level is that situations where elected persons were voting on an issue that they did not, in their wildest dreams, think would be any conflict, have then been challenged.

For example, I remember the situation of one local government councillor who voted on an issue related to access into a shopping centre. It happened that this elected person owned a small business in that shop

November 20, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 1629 ping centre, but the access was not deemed to be of any direct benefit to him but part of the responsibilities to improve roadways within that municipality. This person was judged in the courts to be in conflict of interest and was removed from office. One then has to wonder what makes a decision that did not have a direct pecuniary interest, but an indirect one, so different from voting on salaries of MLAs or salaries at any level, or a local government voting on a zoning by-law that may affect the value of a residence, yet not directly.

The area becomes very clouded as to what is an indirect pecuniary interest. Another example relates to members on school boards. I have a concern with this Bill when we talk about not being able to turn assets over to a spouse or to a child; that by assuming that turning assets over to the spouse is different, for example, from a school board member whose wife or husband, as the case may be, is a teacher within that system. Situations become very gray. I think we have to approach it by judgment, responsibility, on the part of people who are seeking elected public office and those who are appointed.

I'm certainly deeply concerned that one of the greatest effects of a Bill such as this is that we would certainly not encourage people who have a basic honesty but do have business interests, who have a very active role in our economy; people who would make excellent legislators, excellent elected persons. But because of the straitjacket or the chains put on them for entering public office, the decision, the sacrifice, becomes too great. I'm not talking about the conflict of interest where they would directly benefit, because I think most of us understand that if we directly benefit, that is wrong.

On the other hand, by passing a Bill or law, we are not going to stop the person who does not have those moral values, the person who would take advantage of their position. We have seen in the United States that people in very high offices took advantage of their positions. It's happened, I'm sure, in every democracy. The concern is that we have, firstly, a system of checks and counterchecks that will determine those individuals who may — they are very few — abuse their position of responsibility and trust; and secondly, a system where they can be prosecuted if it's in the interest of the public.

Going back to local government experience, I give an example of a rule I set for myself, related to making decisions. Many times a person who was involved in some development, or representatives of some particular company or firm, would request a luncheon meeting. Maybe a lunch seems to be a very small item, but simply as a matter of course and as a policy I had for myself, if it was the only time to meet and it was appropriate to meet to discuss and gather general information to make a better decision, I ensured that I always paid my own bill.

I certainly did get some strange looks at times, with people thinking that maybe this was being carried too far. But never wanting to be in a position to be beholden to someone else or to have that lunch, no matter how small an item it may seem — I did not want to have it appear or in any way want to feel that I owed any favor. In no way did I want that to color my decision as I represented the people who had elected me. So all I say, in

summary, is that we do have guidelines in place; we are very concerned that all members of this provincial government and appointed persons act in a responsible manner, that they accept their responsibilities in an honest way. I'm not sure there could ever be any strong argument that would suggest that passage of this Bill would prevent any abuses in the future. Nevertheless, we all have a responsibility to ensure that we carry out our duties, that we continue to act as watchdogs for the people who elected us, and that we continue to preserve what has been entrusted to us. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. OMAN: Mr.

Speaker, in rising to address the sub ject at hand, I can't find that in basic principle many members of this Assembly would disagree with the intent, on the broad scale of this motion. I think the mover makes it with good intention. Obviously we want to be an Assembly that has an ethical standard respected by the community we serve. Obviously Alberta does not want to be known as the province that has the best politicians money can buy, as is sometimes known in certain constit uencies outside Alberta, which shall go unnamed. Mr.

Speaker, I think the question here is the matter of degree to which we want to spell out in minute detail what constitutes a conflict of interest. I thought it was significant that the hon. Leader of the Opposition men tioned that the indications he made in his Bill were self- evident. I suggest there's a lot of truth to that. Perhaps that's why I might say it's not necessary to have them spelled out as a code of law, or in some sense written in stone.

I thank God for the fact that the ethical conduct of politicians in our country, our province, and our munici palities by and large has not been called into question to any great extent. There have been isolated instances where some things have happened, but for the most part they have been rather innocently entered into. When you spell out too many degrees of conflict of interest, it's easy to fall into the trap of being unaware of some rather small regulation, which I think my colleague from St. Paul, or rather St. Albert — I kind of exalted her to apostolic status there — mentions.

I think if I go back to the Old Testament, you have the Ten Commandments spelled out there originally, as we are aware. Theologians of later generations decided they should expand on those Ten Commandments, applying them to different situations, and a little later on expand on the expansions, and finally expand on the expansions to the expansions ad infinitum, until you had a rabbinical code of law which touched upon every kind of movement you could possible conceive of.

To pick the hair off one's garment on the Sabbath was to be in great default of the law, which indicates, I guess, the sort of ridiculous aspect these things can arrive at. What they actually did was hinder the understanding and joy of religious experience and practice. It seems to me that if we limit the offices to which we call people when they serve the public in elected or administrative positions too severely, we will therefore close out some very good and capable candidates who simply say, the price is too high to pay to enter in.

I recall hearing the story, which I can't verify, of a very strict Scottish Presbyterian church. I assume it was in the country of Scotland. One morning one of the deacons spied the preacher skating to church, for there was a creek that ran from the house to the church. It wasn't too long until he was called on the carpet and asked, why did you choose to skate from your house to the church on the Sabbath day? He said: well, my horse — which was his usual practice to come — was sick and therefore I had to find another means of conveyance.

To which one of the deacons frowned and said: ah, but the question is, did ye enjoy it? For it was not possible to enjoy something on

1630 ALBERTA HANSARD November 20, 1980 the Sabbath. In some sense, while there is work involved, I think one should be able to enjoy the political ex perience as well. My colleague from St. Albert has well indicated the regulations that have been laid out, which obviously and self-evidently indicate we should not act in such a manner as to create conflicts of interest. Therefore I think having the experience we have had in the last, if you want to call it, number of decades where there haven't been any seri ous problems in this area, perhaps we should leave well enough alone.

I remember a mechanic to whom I used to take a car once in a while for periodic inspections. He said, don't open the hood if the car is running well. It's not bad advice. AN HON. MEMBER: It's cheaper, too. MR. OMAN: Yes, it's cheaper. I agree, sir. Let me depart a little bit here, however, to agree with the hon. member. I have some sympathy with his sugges tion that there be disclosure for all members of the Legislature. A politician at some time in some place was holding forth in the question period and someone asked him, what are those influential forces which stand behind you?

He said, now you've gone too far; you've entered into my personal life, and I don't want you to mention my wife again. Because there may sometimes be some questions, I suppose, there are occasions when I think it would be helpful. We now require our ministers to have disclosures of personal holdings. I recall that when I was an alderman in the city of Calgary we brought into force the fact that all members of council should declare their land holdings within the city. Now of course that was more applicable, because we were dealing continually with matters of land reclassifica tion and so on.

It was very easy to get into a bind. But it really caused no problems; perhaps it revealed the ex treme poverty of some of us. Nevertheless I think there is some aspect here in the sense that if it's laid out before the public, obviously it's clear we have nothing to hide. So in that sense I would tend to agree there is a positive step to be taken here, and perhaps not just the ministers but the members of the Legislature in total should look at the matter of full disclosure of assets. Mr. Speaker, with that exception, I think I would have to say I would not be in favor of the suggestion and proposals before us.

Generally speaking, I think the sys tem is working well. It's not that we should never look at or approve it, but it seems to me we have done very well in Alberta in this area. I look forward to many years while that happens in the future. MR. STEVENS: Mr. Speaker, I feel privileged to join in the debate today. For the first time in this sitting, it gives me an opportunity to express to the Leader of the Opposition and members of this Assembly my personal admiration for his efforts during the years of his service to the people of Alberta.

I have enjoyed being a repre sentative of the constituency next door to him. Therefore it's an opportunity for me to follow his presentation of Bill 206. Having said that, it seems to me, as the member mentioned in his remarks, that we have dealt and dealt and dealt with this; it's becoming an annual event. Per haps it is the hon. member's pet project. I am sorry the Member for Spirit River-Fairview is not able to be with us today. Last year, as we have all recalled — in the member's introductory remarks too — we debated Bills 202 and 203. Mr.

Speaker, I think you were troubled at that time that we might end up debating both of them. But with your approval and the House sitting, we did in fact debate them both. Before I refer to Bill 206 presented today, I would like to refresh our memories about some of the concerns that were identified by the various speakers, speakers who brought out, for example, the first concern: the individual career decision to enter public life — that those Bills and in fact this Bill most assuredly would thwart. I think we all heard members speak about this.

We ourselves have had to make those decisions about leaving our families, businesses, or professions to have this opportunity to serve Albertans for a period in our lives. I believe that to add to that particular pressure by defining in such detail the potential problems and con flicts would further reduce the number of candidates prepared to stand forward and present themselves to their constituents. A second matter of concern that was identified was the cocooning of members who serve in public life. I don't believe we spent enough time on that.

But those Bills, and Bill 206 today, propose that after one leaves public serv ice, as defined by the Bill, one may not provide service for a period of years. That puts a very difficult choice to people — not only before they decide to enter public service but perhaps now as serving members, or as members, as defined in the Bill, of Crown agencies and departments — the difficulty as to how to leave public service and perhaps return to the areas of their endeavors.

I think that is a very significant factor as well and, as I believe the member for Calgary Forest Lawn pointed out, could lead to professional politicians, people who will never leave unless thrown out, as a member has said. That is really the judgment that faces all of us if we approach the people and the people find us not perform ing or following the trusts we have all agreed to follow.

I think the members who have spoken today very clear ly identified the specific provisions of The Legislative Assembly Act, the Standing Orders of this House; the Premier's ministerial statements in '73 and '75; the code of conduct and ethics for our provincial service; and the question of attitude, moral ethics, public responsibility, and public accountability. But what we haven't pointed out in these debates is the role of this Assembly, until this afternoon when the Member for St. Albert brought out how this Assembly could in fact form a court of judgment of our actions.

We didn't discuss the roles of the Ombudsman or the Auditor General — the independent authorities in fact who are charged with examining actions of public serv ants and who can take action based on complaints about, for example, acts of MLAs. I understand there is a code of conduct for Soviet officials. I don't know what the Afghans think of that, but there is a code of conduct. Later in the sitting, we came to Bill 203 — the Bill before Bill 206, presented by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. At that time the leader quoted my earlier contribution to the debate on Bill 202. But he didn't quote the

part in full that he selected, nor did he quote it correctly. I would like to read three lines that were said in this Assembly in 1979, and perhaps correct the record. I said: The principle, the issue that has to do directly with the inference in this Bill before us, is that members of the Assembly, ministers of the Executive Council, their executive staff members, and corporation and

November 20, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 1631 agency heads, act against the public interest or in conflict with the public interest, or forsake their oaths to Her Majesty and her government. We could also spend a few minutes today thinking about the oath we have all signed and sworn to, the oath we have sworn to as members of the Executive Council, for those of us who have that privilege. We might also remind ourselves of the oath in The Public Service Act of Alberta. That oath is taken by every new employee, and it continues after that employee leaves for the period of time when the employee served our government.

I would remind members of the Assembly that there were no guidelines of any sort other than The Legislative Assembly Act itself prior to 1971, under the administra tion for the former gove

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19801120
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L19 S2 19801120 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	e572c25a9003d9580858c7262fdc971ceec1fc44

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