Alberta Hansard — 31 October 1977, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 18, Session 3)

19771031

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

October 31, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1757 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Monday, October 31, 1977 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: Question of Privilege MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of personal privilege to ask this Assembly to deal with the attempt to impugn my character, my integrity, and my reputation by the Leader of the Official Opposition on Friday, October 28, 1977, during the question period. In placing this matter of privilege before you and the Assembly, I wish to advise that I have followed

Section 14 of the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta. The rules under

Section 14(4) and (5) state that after appropriate debate, Mr. Speaker would then rule whether there appears to be a prima facie case of privilege. In making that deci sion, I would ask you to consider seriously your own remarks from [unofficial] Hansard during the ques tioning by the Leader of the Opposition on Friday last, wherein you stated: The hon. Leader of the Opposition isn't asking a question. He's making . . . [interjections] But there has to be some limit to the list of topics with regard to which a minister can be asked, is he aware?

In very many instances — and it would appear to me in the present one — such a question is really not a question but rather a representation. In fact in this instance it might even be called an accusation. Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition attempted, through his line of questioning, to leave the impression in this House, with the media, and through the media with the public, that I as Minister of Housing and Public Works was guilty of improprie ty in the conduct of my duties. Mr.

Speaker, the facts available to me indicate that the hon. leader's insinuations, innuendoes, and accusations are totally without foundation in fact. Indeed it appears that the hon. leader could readily have obtained factual infor mation on the matter if he had attempted to do so. The land referred to in the hon. leader's question Friday last was included in an annexation order of the Local Authorities Board on September 9, 1976, which order the cabinet approved by order in council on November 2, 1976, and which order was effective January 1, 1977.

The order in council was made public by the Minister of Municipal Affairs shortly after its approval in cabinet. Prior to this action by the minister, the Local Authorities Board sent out letters on November 3, 1976, to all landowners whose land was being annexed and to all other people who had expressed an interest in the annexa tion. Mr. Speaker, anyone expressing such an inter est, including the Leader of the Opposition or any member of this Assembly or any Vegreville citizen, could have received such notification if he or she had expressed an interest. Mr.

Speaker, prior to and after the annexation or der, I have not had any private discussions with any of the landowners within the annexation order nor with any persons who may have been interested in purchasing land privately within the annexation or der. Also, as stated by me in the Legislature in answer to a question by the Leader of the Opposition, I wish again to advise that I have had absolutely no discussions with Mr. Mazankowski and/or Mr.

Wil liam Yurko of Vegreville, nor was I in any way aware whether or not these two gentlemen own land or were contemplating purchasing land within the area designated by the Local Authorities Board for annexa tion to the town of Vegreville. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I have checked with department officials as to whether or not any member of the Department of Housing and Public Works or the Alberta Housing Corporation had any discussions or negotiations with respect to the land referred to by the Leader of the Opposition as having been pur chased by a Don Mazankowski and a William Yurko in December 1976.

I have been advised by the respec tive deputy ministers and president of the Alberta Housing Corporation that no discussions or negotia tions had taken place with respect to the land pur chased by Mr. Mazankowski or Mr. Yurko. Further more, I am told that these two individuals have not sold the land in question, so no gain has been made. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, January 18, 1974, as Min ister of the Environment, I officially announced on behalf of the government the Vegreville Envi ronmental Laboratory and Research Centre.

May I quote a paragraph from that official government release which enunciated official government policy. The location 50 miles east of Edmonton was selected in keeping with provincial government policy of locating wherever and whenever possi ble government offices and services in smaller [towns]. Mr. Speaker, it was and is government policy to locate the Vegreville Environmental Laboratory and Research Centre in the town of Vegreville. I have on several occasions publicly restated this official gov ernment policy, as have other MLAs and ministers. The hon.

Leader of the Opposition also asked me during the question period if I cared to indicate to the Assembly whether I publicly stated over the Camrose radio station that the land adjacent to the Vegreville research station would be annexed to the town of Vegreville, despite the recommendations of the Local Authorities Board. The answer is no. Mr. Speaker, on June 24, 1977, my secretary phoned CFCW and obtained from a Candice Claridge the transcript of a story carried by CFCW.

That story was as follows, and was the result of a comment by the reeve of the County of Minburn: The Reeve of the County of Minburn, Art Roland, indicates there is a possibility the County will go to court to attempt to recover its costs in a current annexation dispute with the Town of Vegreville. The Town wants to annex 4 quarters from the county, including the site of the Alberta Envi ronmental Laboratory and Research Centre, a suggestion which has drawn stiff opposition from the County. The Local Authorities Board this

1758 ALBERTA HANSARD October 31, 1977 week opened a public hearing into the applica tion, but the hearing was adjourned until later this year at a request of the town. A couple of provincial cabinet ministers had been quoted as indicating earlier this year the government would like to see the environmental centre located in the town rather than the county.

Now, in the words of Minburn Reeve Roland, "we have considered taking the government to court to see if we can recover what we have spent on the annexation hearing." Roland adds "no final decision regarding possi ble court action will be made until after the results of the hearing later this year has become known. We feel the Local Authorities Board is being dictated to by certain government ministers." The ministers are Bill Yurko of Public Works and Dick Johnston of Municipal Affairs. I made no public reply to the story, but sent a trans cript to the Minister of Municipal Affairs for his consideration. Mr.

Speaker, an instance in which I was directly quoted by CFCW was in March 1977 after a visit to my office by the mayor of Vegreville, who expressed a real concern in regard to a possible delay in the construction of the Vegreville laboratory. To a direct question in regard to delay, I answered as follows: More of a clarification of procedures in terms of moving ahead with construction.

I assured him . . . — that is, the mayor of Vegreville — . . . there is going to be no delay in terms of construction of second phase, that [it] is proceed ing on schedule, and that in fact it may be necessary to discuss with the county re obtaining of a building permit in the initial stage up until when the whole area is annexed to Vegreville. What was in question, Mr. Speaker, was from whom and what jurisdiction a building permit should be obtained. The whole area related directly to the en tire Vegreville Environmental Laboratory and Research Centre. Therefore, Mr.

Speaker, unless the hon. leader wishes to explain his intentions behind his line of questioning last Friday and offer appropriate apolo gies, it would be my intention, based upon your rul ing, to have a motion moved to refer this matter of privilege for appropriate action to the legislative Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. Mr. Speaker, the nature of the insinuations of the Leader of the Opposition last Friday should be of real concern to every member of this Assembly.

The character assassination potential of such insinua tions, without factual knowledge to back the insinua tions as undertaken by the Leader of the Opposition, is unlimited. All of us have relatives. I happen to have very many, because of my Alberta pioneer an cestors. I believe there are at least three other rela tives with my name, but of course different middle initials, or in some cases no initials. So we are distinguishable. In addition, I know I have at least 150 first cousins, several hundred second cousins, and a matrix of interrelations numbering in the thou sands.

Surely this Legislature cannot expect me to be accountable for the actions of so many relations. But, Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to act without responsibility, but with the immunity of this House, and question possible links or knowledge transfer between any member of one's family tree and a member of this Assembly.

A member of this House could readily impute motives to another member because of any stand taken on The Planning Act, environmental legislation, energy legislation, and all other legislation, because of the hypothetical possibil ity or probability that a corresponding relative may materially gain from such action. I can only conjec ture that the massive amounts of money allocated by government to housing, to agriculture, to research, to promote industry, to energy resource development, surely must benefit relatives of all us sitting in this House. Mr.

Speaker, it is difficult enough as a member of this Assembly and as a minister of government to enunciate and articulate officially adopted govern ment policy, without being accused of sinister motives. However, it is even more difficult for us in the Assembly to function as the community leaders we are, if we are to be unduly restrained by the thought of being accused of impropriety by a fellow member of this Assembly because of the immunity he or she enjoys here.

If I should speak publicly about the need and method for curbing land speculation, and another MLA who happens to have relatives in the land investment and development business dis agrees, is she or he then to be accused of improper conduct in this Assembly? Mr. Speaker, I have always considered the profes sion of politics to be the highest of all professions. For the years during which I have been a member of this profession, I have endeavored to conform to the highest possible ethical standards, with honesty and a clear conscience in all that I have done.

My ethical standards have not wavered, for they are part of my very make-up and my religious beliefs. I have not joined the profession of politics to gain wealth, but to serve. It has always been my practice — and one which I have attempted to relate to the departments which I have headed — to deal and treat all Alberta citizens with courtesy, respect, fairness, and equality, irrespective of their relationship to any member of this Assembly. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is not only for my sake that I ask this Assembly to deal appropriately with the attempted insinuations and accusations of the hon.

Leader of the Official Opposition on Friday last during the question period, but also for the sake of maintain ing the integrity of the profession of politics itself. Recent events in democratic countries have overly blemished our profession, such that it is suspect in the minds of many of the public. It would be inappro priate to have this Legislative Assembly inadvertently add to that blemish. I ask this Assembly to deal effectively and appropriately with this matter of privilege. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, in rising to respond to the comments made by the Minister of Housing and Pub lic Works, simply let me say that it's my intention to ask, under

Section 14(4), that after I've made a very brief comment it's my intention to move to adjourn the debate. I simply want to say, Mr. Speaker, that in the course of my raising these questions in the House on Friday, I did it from the standpoint of asking the

October 31, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1759 minister to respond to those particular matters. I simply want to say, Mr. Speaker, it was not my inten tion on Friday last, nor on any other occasion, to become involved in what the minister has chosen to call "character assassination". For if that is the way I wanted to go, Mr. Speaker, it would have been very simple for me or any other person to release the information, never to raise it in this Assembly, and never have afforded the hon. minister the opportunity he's had this afternoon, or would have had in the course of question period Friday or in future question periods. So, Mr. Speaker, in light of

Section 14(4) that says, "Mr. Speaker may [after] such debate as he thinks appropriate . . .", I would ask that — additional check ing is going on by my own office today, in light of comments the minister made over the weekend, also some documents — it may very well be, Mr. Speaker, that I'll want to table some documents with the Assembly or with you, sir, before you make your ruling. It's on that basis, Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to adjourn the debate. MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, the hon. member has suggested that I made comments over the weekend. Mr.

Speaker, I want to advise the Assembly that the news media have repeatedly con tacted my office and me at home. I have repeatedly stated that this is a matter of privilege, and I would respond to the matter in the House at the first opportunity, which is today. DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I hardly see where the hon. leader's motion to adjourn a debate which in fact has not been moved can be in order. It is quite correct that you, sir, may close that debate after you've had sufficient information to try to determine whether in fact there is a prima facie case of privilege.

But the hon. leader does not have the authority to adjourn a debate which has not yet been moved. I would simply suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the minister has outlined very clearly in what in my view is a very proper case of privilege, and that you should take it under advisement and so advise. MR. SPEAKER: It would seem to me that the debate on a question of privilege is not the type of ordinary or formal debate which would lend itself to a motion to adjourn the debate. The well-established parliamen tary rule is that a question of privilege takes prece dence over any other business of the Assembly.

Con sequently if any hon. members wish to make some observations with regard to this matter, I would re spectfully invite them to make those observations now, so that I may have the benefit of them in considering whether there is in fact a prima facie case of privilege, which of course is the total extent of my responsibility. Likewise, I would respectfully invite the hon. Leader of the Opposition, if he wishes to say anything further, to say it now, having regard, quite properly, to the situation having arisen out of what was said in this Assembly last Friday. That is what is before us.

There is really not any obligation on the Speaker to inquire into the truth of the allegations. I'm not here to judge truthfulness. As I understand it, the duty which every Assembly such as this imposes on its Speaker is simply to make a decision, a finding, as to whether what was said in the House constitutes on the face of it, or prima facie, a case of privilege. That is the point which I am now concerned with, and I would suggest that hon. members should be con cerned with. If they have any observations to make with regard to that point, I would invite them to make them now. MR. GETTY: Mr.

Speaker, I want to participate just for a moment, because I'm puzzled by the position the hon. Leader of the Opposition has expressed today. It seems to me that having raised the issues in the manner he did on Friday, and having been responded to so fully and in detail by the hon. Minister of Housing and Public Works, surely to want now to delay — or as he said, adjourn the debate — merely casts additional question upon the minister. Because he's now saying, I've heard you clear up the matter completely, but I want to check you again. I don't quite understand the position of the Leader of the Opposition.

I would think the proper way is that the matter, having been expressed as it was — and perhaps unfortunately, in the zeal of carrying out duties and responsibilities in the House — should now be cleared up by accepting the information and request of the Minister of Housing and Public Works, and either withdrawing the insinuations or apologizing. That way, it seems to me the House can be restored to its previous state. Otherwise we have this hanging over the House, that there is something wrong with the conduct of one of the ministers, which has quite rightly, I think, been challenged by the minister involved.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that while we have some considerable honor to be members of this House, we have some very heavy responsibilities to each other as well. And when, in carrying out those responsibilities enthusiastically, we do tend perhaps to cause damage to one another, and particularly when it is reported publicly, we should move as quick ly as possible to try to undo that damage, knowing that in many cases it is impossible to undo. I would urge the hon. Leader of the Opposition to undo as quickly as possible what he has started. MR. SPEAKER: It would appear that no other hon. members wish to take

part in the discussion of this question of privilege at this point. I would say that the hon. Minister of Housing and Public Works has raised the question at the first opportunity; so as far as that is concerned, there is no further decision to be made by the Chair. Presumably he received Hansard some time today before the House sat, and of course it is a matter of sufficient seriousness that Hansard rather than even the 'blues' should be checked before the point is pursued. The give and take of the question period is not an ideal time to decide, even prima facie, on most questions of privilege.

I shall therefore examine Friday's Hansard and carefully consider the remarks which have been made by the hon. Leader of the Opposition as well as the two government ministers, and bring back word to the Assembly as soon as possible, in discharge of my duty, to decide whether there's a prima facie case. Hopefully I'll be able to do that tomorrow or not later than Wednesday.

1760 ALBERTA HANSARD October 31, 1977 head: NOTICES OF MOTIONS MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise to give oral notice of the designated motion for Thursday next. It is, Mr. Speaker:

Be it resolved that an all-party select committee of members of the Assembly be struck to examine the deteriorating relationship between farm incomes and farm input costs in the prov ince of Alberta with a view of making recommen dations aimed at establishing better markets, more secure prices, and controlling necessary input costs, with specific attention to be paid to the feasibility, with reference to other Canadian provinces, of provincial income assurance pro grams, systems of orderly marketing, and land- use and tenure policies. head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 92 The Consumer and Corporate Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 1977 MR.

HARLE: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill 92, The Consumer and Corporate Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 1977. Mr. Speaker, the purposes of the bill are: first, to amend The Agricultural and Recreational Land Ownership Act as it affects the provisions of The Companies Act and The Societies Act. Secondly, to amend The Companies Act to permit better service to the public by those who use the services of the companies branch.

Thirdly, to amend The Co operative Associations Act to make co-operatives sub ject to the same requirements as any other business firm in regard to the sale of securities to the public. Fourthly, to amend The Credit Union Act in order to assist credit unions in the province. Fifthly, to amend The Licensing of Trades and Businesses Act as to the establishment of fees, the sale of bedding or uphols tered or stuffed articles by extraprovincial manufac turers, to give the director authority to refuse, sus pend, or cancel licences, and to set up an appeal procedure.

Sixthly, to amend The Mortgage Brokers Regulation Act to transfer the jurisdiction from the Securities Commission to the Superintendent of Real Estate. It also provides for a new appeal procedure. Seventhly, to amend The Societies Act so that it is more similar to the present Companies Act in respect of the setting of fees and addresses, and to require the filing of an audited financial statement rather than an audited balance sheet, which could be signed by two directors. [Leave granted; Bill 92 read a first time] Bill 254

An Act to Amend The Alberta Bill of Rights MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill 254,

An Act to Amend The Alberta Bill of Rights. The basic principle behind the bill, Mr. Speaker, is to set out that no statute or law in the province of Alberta shall be construed as having retroactive effects unless it is expressly declared by

an act of the Legislature to operate notwithstanding The Alberta Bill of Rights. In other words, before retroactive legis lation can be introduced there must be a provision that expressly relates this to the "notwithstanding" clause of The Bill of Rights, which is our primary legislation in the province. [Leave granted; Bill 254 read a first time] Bill 93 The Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 1977 MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill 93, The Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 1977.

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 Assembly. Mr. Speaker, there are two principal purposes of the proposed legislation. The first is to introduce in two pension acts provision for the payment of bene fits to common-law spouses, similar to the provisions in the Alberta Workers' Compensation Act, which provides for benefits to be paid to common-law spouses. The second purpose is to provide for the calcula tion, on a somewhat different basis, of the cost of purchasing prior service.

This provision, Mr. Speaker, would only be applicable to employees who join the provincial government service after January 1, 1978 or, alternatively, present employees who did not make arrangements to purchase prior service before January 1, 1979. In addition, Mr. Speaker, certain amendments are proposed which will improve the administration of the pension legislation. [Leave granted; Bill 93 read a first time] Bill 95 The Glenbow-Alberta Institute Amendment Act, 1977 MR. McCRAE: Mr. Speaker, I move to introduce Bill 95, The Glenbow-Alberta Institute Amendment Act, 1977. The purpose of the bill, Mr.

Speaker, is to assure that government-appointed representation on the board of governors of the Glenbow-Alberta Insti tute will reflect the increased fiscal responsibility for the institute assumed by the province of Alberta dur ing the past few years, and will also establish a firm base for ongoing governmental financial support. Such support currently approaches 70 per cent of the annual expenditure of the Glenbow-Alberta Institute. [Leave granted; Bill 95 read a first time] Bill 87 The Metric Conversion Statutes Amendment Act, 1977 MR. CHAMBERS: Mr.

Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill 87, The Metric Conversion Statutes Amendment Act, 1977. This bill provides for conver sion of imperial measurement to metric within sever al acts of this Legislature.

October 31, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1761 [Leave granted; Bill 87 read a first time] Bill 94 The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees Act MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill No. 94, being The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees Act. The purpose of this act is to enable the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees to organize as an association, as do other unions, rather than as a society under The Societies Act, as at present. [Leave granted; Bill 94 read a first time] MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I move that the follow ing two bills be placed on the Order Paper under Government Bills and Orders: Bill No. 87, The Metric Conversion Statutes Amendment Act, 1977, and Bill No. 94, The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees Act. [Motion carried] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. SCHMID: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the annual reports of Alberta Culture, the Glenbow- Alberta Institute, and the Alberta Art Foundation. MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table the annual report of the Alberta Oil Sands Technology and Research Authority. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. STROMBERG: Mr.

Speaker, may I present to you and to the members of this Assembly 40 of Alberta's brightest students along with their teachers Mrs. Beebe and Mr. Emann. Naturally, these students come from my constituency, from the town and community of Daysland. Mr. Speaker, they are pres ently sitting in the members' gallery. I will ask them to rise and be recognized by this Assembly. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Attorneys General Conference MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the first question to the Attorney General. It really flows from the attorneys general meeting that Alberta's Attorney General was at last week.

My question is: were there discussions of the proposed federal amendment to the Criminal Code which would guarantee the right of any accused to be tried in either official language? MR. FOSTER: No, Mr. Speaker, we did not discuss that specific subject. But while I'm on my feet, perhaps I could say that Alberta today does have the capacity to conduct such a trial in French. I recognize that it would not be easily achieved in certain parts of the province, but we do have available bilingual members of the judiciary, prosecutorial staff, court reporters, and the like.

It may be difficult to impanel a bilingual jury in some parts of the province, but Alber ta does have that capacity, if we were in fact called upon to do so. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Attorney General. Has the Alberta Attorney General's department in fact been called on within the last year to provide court facilities in Alberta in the second of Canada's two official languages, French? MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware that we have been called upon to do so.

Indeed I was aware only shortly before the matter was introduced that it was going to be a proposal to amend the Criminal Code. I have not spoken to Mr. Basford, the federal Minister of Justice, about the matter since I received the notice, but hope to have the opportunity of doing so before too long. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Attorney General. At the same conference, was it the position of the Attorney General that Alber ta was not yet prepared to move ahead with the implementation of the federal gun control legislation? MR. FOSTER: Mr.

Speaker, one of the provinces at the meeting of attorneys general felt that the time line for implementation was simply too rigid. They didn't feel they could be in a position to have appro priate staff in the field and all the necessary machinery in place in order to implement the federal legislation, and therefore requested the concurrence of other provinces in approaching the federal gov ernment requesting a six-month delay in the imple mentation period. Alberta agreed to the request of that province, and my memory is that almost all, if not all, provinces concurred in that. MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, to the Attorney General. Is it the intention that the federally passed gun control legislation will in fact not be implemented in Alberta or, as far as that goes, in Canada for an extended six-month period? MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, I should say again that one of the provinces requested, to use the vernacular of the opposition, a six-month hoist. The other prov inces, with one possible exception I think, agreed that that would be a useful suggestion to the federal government.

As I recall, the Attorney General for Prince Edward Island and the Premier, Alex Campbell, were going to write the federal Minister of Justice and make that recommendation. Whether or not it will be accepted and acted upon by the federal gov ernment, I'm really not in a position to say. RCMP Activities MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the second question to the Solicitor General. My question con cerns the recent statements by the Prime Minister and the federal Solicitor General regarding illegal RCMP raids on offices of the Parti Quebecois.

Will the Solicitor General instruct the RCMP that the tolerant attitude of the federal government toward such illegality is not the attitude of the government of Alberta, and that illegal police raids on offices within

1762 ALBERTA HANSARD October 31, 1977 Alberta will result in criminal prosecution of the offi cers responsible? MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to take

part in any problem that exists in the province of Quebec, but certainly my instructions to the RCMP are to carry out their duty to uphold the rule of law in the province of Alberta. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Solicitor General. Has the Solicitor General had discussions with the commanding officer of the RCMP in Alberta since the Prime Minister's com ments and the revelations that have taken place in this area? I am referring again to the Alberta gov ernment's attitude toward that kind of thing in Alberta. MR. FARRAN: Mr.

Speaker, I have said before, and I say it again, that I have complete confidence in the RCMP. I am not a party to the present trend toward denigrating the police. I am confident that in Alberta they are performing their duty in a completely proper and honorable way. ECA Publications MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my ques tion to the hon. Minister of the Environment. I wonder if the minister could advise the Assembly why the papers of Dr. W.R. Trost have been removed from the Environment Conservation Authority library list of publications for 1977. MR. RUSSELL: I'm sorry, Mr.

Speaker, I don't under stand the import of that question. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, to advise the hon. minis ter, the question is: have the papers of Dr. Trost, which were listed in the 1976 survey of papers, in fact been removed from the library? The reason for asking the question is just to inquire whether or not papers that have been written by that particular gen tleman, published by the ECA, are there for the public to obtain. MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I'll have to inquire from the ECA office with respect to those matters, because I know that when Dr.

Trost left, he did take personal effects, including items from the library, and left others. I'll find out and report whether or not the items the hon. member is referring to were included in that category. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister. Can the minister advise the Assembly whether he has had any discussion with officials of the Environment Con servation Authority with respect to the disposition of papers published by Dr. Trost and other members of the Authority? MR. RUSSELL: No, I haven't, Mr. Speaker. Coal Royalties MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, my question is to either the hon.

Minister of Energy and Natural Resources or the Minister of Business Development and Tourism. Have there been any discussions with ministers of the government of British Columbia regarding a uni form royalty for coal? MR. GETTY: No, Mr. Speaker. MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary. Have there been any official complaints from the government of Japan or industrialists of Japan regarding the royalty charged on coal in Alberta as against that in British Columbia? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether I would categorize them as complaints.

I do believe that in some meetings with representatives of com panies from Japan, they have tried to be more fully aware of the resource ownership positions of the various provinces and the royalties that provinces levy. But I haven't felt that I've received complaints from them. MR. TAYLOR: One further supplementary, which I hope is in order. Are the people of British Columbia receiving less from their coal resource than are the people of Alberta? MR. GETTY: That's difficult to assess, Mr. Speaker. I could try. But royalties are based on the quality, the profitability, the different kinds of coal.

I don't know whether I can answer that. But I could try to give the hon. member some judgment, perhaps privately or publicly, whichever he would prefer. Abandoned Rail Lines MR. STROMBERG: Mr. Speaker, due to concern ex pressed to me by landowners adjacent to the aban doned Camrose/Kingman/Tofield railway, I would ask the Deputy Premier and Minister of Transporta tion if the province is going ahead in implementing what use the abandoned railroads in Alberta will be put to, regardless of the federal czar of transport's rather dubious claim to ownership. DR. HORNER: Mr.

Speaker, the present situation with regard to abandoned lines in Alberta is that we have proceeded to caveat them under The Public Works Act as a public works caveat. We have agreement from Canadian National that they are certainly willing to negotiate the transfer of those particular lines, or any abandoned line that belongs to them, to the Crown in the name of the province. We do not as yet have that kind of agreement from Canadian Pacific. It should also be noted that since the last discus sion we had in the Legislature relative to this matter, the Hall commission has now reported. The recom mendation of Mr.

Justice Hall was that these aban doned lines should be returned to the Crown in the name of the province. The federal Minister of Trans port has not agreed with that proposition, and sug gests that they belong to the Crown in the name of the federal government. We think he is totally wrong and have told him so. So we have gone ahead and 'caveated' the mentioned lands.

It would be our intention to have a joint-use committee, with the adjacent landowners and the provincial department under my colleague the associate minister in charge of public lands, to come to a definitive land use for those particular areas, taking into consideration the

October 31, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1763 people who abut the right of way, but also taking into consideration the future needs for utility and trans portation corridors in the province of Alberta. MR. STROMBERG: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Recreation, Parks and Wildlife.

If the committee of public servants and adjacent landowners described by the Deputy Premier decides that the best use of these abandoned rail roads, especially the Camrose/Kingman one, would be for wildlife, habitat, or for hiking trails, will your department be responsible for the control of thistles and other noxious weeds on this abandoned right of way? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's question is hypo thetical, but perhaps it could be answered briefly. MR. ADAIR: If you remove the hypothetical portion of it, I would say yes. Lamb Processing Plant MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon.

Minister of Agriculture. Could the minister indi cate whether the government has received any bids on the lamb processing plant at Innisfail? MR. MOORE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, by way of negotiation we have received some indication that there are companies prepared to enter an agreement that would seem them either purchasing or leasing the lamb processors' plant. At this point in time, howev er, no decision has been made with regard to any disposal of the plant. MR. MANDEVILLE: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister report to the Assembly whether the plant is running at full capacity? MR.

MOORE: Well, Mr. Speaker, the plant is running at a capacity that is related to the number of lambs presently available to the plant for slaughter. During the course of the summer that was fairly substantial, but in recent weeks it is much less than the amount required to keep the plant working five days a week. MR. MANDEVILLE: One last supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are lambs from outside of Alberta being processed or being shipped to the plant at the present time? MR. MOORE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. MR. CLARK: Supplementary question to the minister.

Could the minister give the Assembly some indication when he expects the government will either enter into an agreement and sell the plant to one of the groups that the minister is dealing with, or is the government considering a longer term arrangement, of the government itself operating the plant? MR. NOTLEY: The Alberta Energy Company could buy it. MR. MOORE: At the present time, Mr. Speaker, all of the matters referred to by the Leader of the Opposi tion are under consideration. MR.

CLARK: Then to the minister: the government has changed its position from some time earlier this year, when it indicated that it was going to attempt to sell the plant to one of the processing groups in Alberta? MR. MOORE: No, Mr. Speaker, that is incorrect. It is still our intention, provided we can enter into a reasonable arrangement, to move the plant by way of lease or sale to some private sector group in Alberta who would undertake to make a commitment to con tinue the slaughter of lambs. Big Game Hunting DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon.

Minister of Recreation, Parks and Wildlife and has to do with big game hunting in the areas immediately surrounding Elk Island National Park. Mr. Speaker, have concerns about big game hunting been express ed to the minister by the residents in the heavily populated areas around this park? MR. ADAIR: No, Mr. Speaker, not as yet. I am not aware of any concerns, taking into consideration, too, that this year's season just opened this morning. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. minis ter.

Can the minister indicate to the House if hunting in this area is being carried out by big game rifles, or is it other methods of hunting? MR. ADAIR: I have some difficulty in responding, Mr. Speaker, in that I don't know just what they have with them. But I assume if they're deer hunting they would a have big game rifle, a 30-30 or whatever it may be. Alberta Vocational Centre MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Advanced Education and Manpower, and is with regard to AVC students.

I've noted that AVC has experienced a 20 per cent increase in student enrolment, but there hasn't been an increase in staff at the AVC. I was wondering what plans the minister has with regard to that, particularly since there is an increasing demand on this resource staff. DR. HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, very clearly the great increase in the number of students at AVCs has a direct bearing on the total number of dollars, and that has to be a careful consideration.

At the same time, we appreciate that the allowance — and it's impor tant to remember that this isn't a wage or a full cover of what it costs to attend AVC; it is an allowance. We're looking at the possibility of some increase, keeping in mind that books and other costs of living are going up, and that the allowances have not been moved in the last couple of years. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to the minister.

Because of the upgrading facilities of AVC — and a large number of students who enter AVC have learning disabilities, particularly reading disabili ties — what additional funds could possibly be ear marked for hiring staff qualified to tutor such disabled adults?

1764 ALBERTA HANSARD October 31, 1977 DR. HOHOL: Alberta Education has probably an out standing capability in working with people with learn ing disabilities, including men and women out of school and in adult classes. While the formal pro gram at AVC here in Edmonton has been discon tinued, we have always maintained at the AVCs throughout the province a high capacity to assist people who have difficulty with learning. This com ponent won't change. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister.

As part of a pre-enrolment type of activ ity, are all AVC students assessed to identify their individual learning disabilities? DR. HOHOL: Learning disabilities are pretty tricky sorts of things. Very often they show up in the process of trying to do a certain program of studies. So there isn't a regimen of establishing that a person has a particular kind of disability. In most cases the people at AVC are simply there to catch up or close the gap or get into a situation where they can get a job or get a higher level of training or education than they presently have. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary to the minister. Could the minister then assure me that if certain students are not receiving adequate assis tance with regard to these learning disabilities, he would consider additional funds to the program? DR. HOHOL: I'll certainly make the commitment all of us have: to make certain that people who go to AVC, or any kind of institution where there is a fundament ally basic kind of preparation, don't lose out on quality or opportunity because of lack of funds. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary to the minister.

Would the minister care to commit as to the time span before giving further information? Would he be prepared to review the present AVC situation with regard to learning disabilities and report to the Assembly, say, within a week? DR. HOHOL: I certainly take on the commitment. We are doing it; we're looking at it. As a matter of fact I was reading some materials on learning disabilities and how we are dealing with them at the Alberta vocational centres. It's interesting reading. I might send the hon. member a copy, and I mean that in a positive way. Certainly we're doing it.

But I wouldn't want to make the commitment that a week from today, at 27 minutes after 3, I would be able to give a comprehensive kind of state of the union with respect to this particular subject. It's an important one, we're working at it and, from time to time, either by ques tion or by report, I will keep the Assembly informed. AEC Acquisition MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my ques tion to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, and ask if he had discussions with the Alberta Energy Company or any of its officials prior to the purchase by the Energy Company of Willowglen electronics? MR.

GETTY: No, Mr. Speaker. MR. CLARK: A supplementary question to the minis ter. Since the Alberta Energy Company has acquired Willowglen electronics, has the minister had discus sions on this matter with the president of the Energy Company? MR. GETTY: Briefly, Mr. Speaker. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, in the course of those brief discussions with the president, is the minister in a position to make available to the House the financial statement with regard to Willowglen, and their pro duction record over the past two years? Could the minister make that information available to the House? MR.

GETTY: I don't have that, Mr. Speaker. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, would the minister be prepared, then, to go back to the president of the Energy Company, acquire the information, and make it available to the House? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, it's a public company. I imagine the hon. Leader of the Opposition could get that public information. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. Perhaps I should just say this: we've attempted to get the financial statement from Willo wglen, having been turned down by Mr. Mitchell and also by Willowglen. DR. BUCK: It's another million.

What's a million, Getty? Attorneys General Conference (continued) DR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Attor ney General. I wonder if the Attorney General would indicate whether law and pornography was discussed at the recent attorneys general conference? [interjections] MR. FOSTER: Topical issue, Mr. Speaker. Some of the provinces, Mr. Speaker, wanted to discuss the matter of child pornography, and there were some recommendations concerning changes to the Crimi nal Code as it relates to the display or the publication of violence and crime in that context.

A particular publication entitled High Times was also specifically discussed as an example of a publication which seems to be encouraging criminal conduct. My memory is — and I left the meeting a little early — that I think Ontario or Quebec was going to draft a proposal to present to the federal government. As yet I have not received it, and would not expect to receive it for the next two or three weeks. DR. PAPROSKI: Just one supplementary, Mr. Speak er.

I wonder if the minister would amplify on that remark, or in a broader area, whether a clearer defini tion was made regarding pornography, and that this clearer definition would be helpful in the prosecution of issues concerning pornography.

October 31, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1765 MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, I think the general thrust of the meeting was to define "objectionable publica tion" more clearly under the Criminal Code, to incor porate in it reference to violence and portraying crim inal activity. I'd have to await the specific wording of the proposal from the province involved — and as I say, I can't recall whether it's Ontario or Quebec — before commenting further. Trucking Industry MR. LYSONS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this question to the Deputy Premier and Minister of Transportation.

I wonder if he could tell the House how far along we are with the reciprocal agreement for trucking across Saskatchewan relative to cattle and other forms of livestock? DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, so far as I'm aware, that agreement is essentially in place. But I'll check on the matter and report to the hon. member. Hallowe'en Precautions MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Solicitor General. Have the police forces of the prov ince been alerted to put forth extra special effort tonight in order, if possible, to prevent tragedy result ing from Hallowe'en fun? MR.

FARRAN: All the police forces are on the alert, Mr. Speaker. Alcan Pipeline — Labor Supply MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this ques tion to the hon. Minister of Advanced Education and Manpower, and ask whether, in light of the Alcan pipeline proposal, the minister has met with Grande Prairie College, Fairview College, and Grouard to see what changes in programming might be merited in order to facilitate maximum participation by norther ners in the pipeline project. DR. HOHOL: I haven't personally, Mr. Speaker.

But I'm certain that people from the department have been in touch with the colleges, the industry, and trade union people in a collective way to meet the aspirations of the work force close to the activity of the pipeline. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question to the hon. minister. Is the department considering any expanded funding to the institutions I enumerated, in light of meeting that objective of ensuring that as many northerners as possible have an opportunity to participate in the project? DR. HOHOL: I would be anticipating the budget just a bit too precisely to respond one way or another.

But certainly, as the colleges look to their work in the months ahead, they have to consider their capability to respond to the total circumstance. This is one ingredient that's certainly going to be there for them, at least for two or three years. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Labour. Have there been any discussions between the government of Alberta and the principals of the pipeline company concerning the question of the labor force for the project? Mr.

Speaker, I raise the question in view of the fact that apparently a large number of Alaskans are interested and ready to go to work. And to what extent will that preclude Albertans and Canadians from participating in the project? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what answer I can give that would encompass a different territory in regard to manpower supply from what the hon. Minister of Advanced Education and Manpower could give.

But I certainly don't think there's any chance that the use of American tradesmen, based on being available in Alaska, for other than the Alaskan portion of the pipeline is a serious considera tion. I really believe that the tradesmen who will be at work will be Canadians. As with other major projects in the province, the only time workers are sought outside the country is when they're simply not available here. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Labour.

Have there been any meetings between federal and provincial officials and company officials with respect to ensuring that on the Canadian portion of the line, work permits would not in fact be granted to Alaskans if there were Cana dians available for the jobs. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of any such meetings. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister. In light of the overall unem ployment picture in the country, is it the govern ment's intention to discuss this matter with the appropriate federal officials? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr.

Speaker, again the hon. mem ber is dealing with an area that overlaps between discussions that might be held by officials of my hon. colleague's Department of Advanced Education and Manpower and those which might be held with offi cials of the Department of Labour. My understanding is that the matter isn't sufficiently far advanced for the type of discussion the hon. member is asking about now. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Advanced Education and Manpower.

In light of the need to gear up training programs to maximize the job opportunities for Cana dians, has this matter been discussed by education ministers across the country? Is any study presently taking place to ensure that there is a maximum Canadian labor input to the pipeline? DR. HOHOL: Not quite in that context, Mr. Speaker. In education, we're always looking at this kind of matter in a global way.

In the meeting of ministers responsible for manpower across the nation we try to assess the national circumstance and its implications to regions and provinces, in particular at the regional and institutional level — the colleges, trade schools, trade unions, management. It's in that type of atmo sphere and form that a great deal of impetus is

1766 ALBERTA HANSARD October 31, 1977 provided the institutions to respond in particular ways to make sure we have apprenticeship programs in place, and on-the-job training in place, that we have effective training and supervisory people, and so on. So it's an ongoing thing. Every time a new venture becomes part of the Canadian scene or the provincial circumstance, we certainly attend to it as effectively as we can. There is some initial gap between a public announcement and the capacity to reap and make certain kinds of predictions about the nature of the work force in both kind and number. MR.

NOTLEY: One final supplementary question to the Minister of Advanced Education and Manpower. In view of the disparities in the country and the ability of different provinces to cope with expanded man power training programs, what discussion has there been between the government of Alberta and other provinces to make it possible for people from fairly high unemployment areas of the country, such as the Atlantic region for example, to have the proper train ing so they may in fact take advantage of some of these projects as they arise? DR.

HOHOL: We have had discussions like that, not so much as an agenda item, but as a procedural kind of thing that we use [to keep] in touch by telephone with our colleagues across the nation. In particular, Mr. Speaker, this question is most effectively ad dressed and worked out in bilateral, informal under standings with the federal government and other provinces. Because here we're speaking of costs — costs of travelling — and this is handled mostly between a provincial government and the Department of Employment and Immigration in Ottawa. Enoch Reserve MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, my question was to the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Af fairs. I can hold it until tomorrow without any prob lem. It's a follow-up question on the Enoch Reserve. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to hold my question until tomorrow. Trade Negotiations — Petrochemicals MR. DOWLING: Mr. Speaker, last week I gave a response which I'd now like to clarify. The question was from the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview and involved studies that might have been undertak en by our department relative to the competitive posi tion of Alberta petrochemicals in the United States.

Our department, in working closely with an inter departmental task force on trades and tariffs to identi fy petrochemical products now produced or potential ly produced in Alberta which are most affected by international trade obstacles, has undertaken studies of various kinds, part of which deal with the matter raised by the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview. We hope the results of those studies will help us in developing an Alberta position with regard to an overall Canadian trade strategy with regard to petro chemicals.

Since most of the material gathered in these studies came from private, confidential sources, it's our position to keep that material confidential until such time as the Canadian negotiations are complete, to give us maximum flexibility. ORDERS OF THE DAY head: GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 4. Moved by Mr. Leitch:

Be it resolved that the Assembly do resolve itself into Committee of Supply to consider the 1978-79 Estimates of Proposed Investments of the Alberta heritage savings trust fund (capital projects division); and that the mes sage of His Honour the Honourable the Lieutenant- Governor, the said estimates, and all matters connected therewith be referred to the said committee. [Motion carried] [Mr. Speaker left the Chair] head: Committee of Supply [Dr. McCrimmon in the Chair] MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Committee of Supply will now come to order. head: ALBERTA HERITAGE SAVINGS TRUST FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS DIVISION 1978-79 ESTIMATES OF PROPOSED INVESTMENTS Irrigation Rehabilitation and Expansion Agriculture 1. Irrigation Rehabilitation and Expansion MR. MOORE: Mr. Chairman, just a very few brief comments. A number of hon. members were in the Assembly when the select committee, which you chaired, Mr. Chairman, studied and reviewed the irri gation rehabilitation and expansion program for the current fiscal year.

Really, all I want to say with respect to funds you are being asked to approve for the '78-79 budget year is that the $9 million in question will be expended in much the same manner as it has been during the past two years, with perhaps one exception. Before I mention that exception, I should indicate to members that the manner in which we expended the funds in the last two years has been by way of distribution of the major amount of the funds to 13 irrigation districts.

They are then expended on an irrigation district basis, by way of an 86:14 formula, of which many members are well aware, with the irrigation districts themselves, through their acreage revenue, providing 14 per cent of a project cost while 86 per cent is supplied from these dollars. In addition to that, the distribution of funds between irrigation districts will continue to be based, as it has in the past, on a formula incorporating 50 per cent on acreage and 50 per cent on revenue factors.

The only exception that may occur is that I will again be asking the Irrigation Council — which, by the way, has been a very great help indeed in terms

October 31, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1767 of arranging for meetings with the irrigation districts to consider their proposals for the future year — to undertake some review of this 86:14 formula. I think I expressed a year ago, and I want to again, that it is still my view that we need to look at that formula in light of today's conditions, and consider whether or not it will continue to serve us well. It may be that the allocation of responsibilities between irrigation districts — by districts I mean irrigation farmers themselves — and the government should be dif ferent than 86:14. Aside from that, Mr.

Chairman, we don't expect any changes with respect to the manner in which funds are allocated. Indeed the priority will continue to be on the rehabilitation of existing works within the irri gation districts, with the development of new land area, at least in most irrigation districts, coming as a second priority. MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Chairman, just a few com ments and a question on this — it relates to the distribution of the funds and the formula they have. I agree it's got to be based on acreage, and there's got to be some method of basing the formula.

However, as far as the formula is concerned, I think some consideration should be given to the age and the need in irrigation districts. I know that some of our smaller projects have been getting a large amount of funds, and they've got their irrigation works in pretty fair condition. However, in some of the older districts — and I'm thinking of the western irrigation district and possibly the eastern irrigation district — some of their structures are more in need of repair than some of our newer areas, also some of the smaller areas.

I see that they're indicating the province is to extend irrigation services to new areas. The experience I had with many of the irrigation districts in southern Alberta in the last year is that in most districts they weren't able to provide enough water for the land they have under irrigation at the present time. So I don't think we should promote putting new areas under irrigation until we're able to get more water storage on our river basins. Could the minister explain the difference between $14 million estimate for 18 months for 1976-78 and the $9 million for 1978-79? There's a reduction there.

Is that as a result of the six months and having that $5 million by special warrant? MR. MOORE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member's

interpretation of the $14 million as compared to the $9 million is correct. As members would know, when a commitment was made to enter an irrigation reha bilitation and expansion program, the Heritage Sav ings Trust Fund Act and relevant legislation was not in effect. So for the first year the projects took the form of funds being guaranteed by the Provincial Treasurer and the irrigation districts borrowing the necessary amount to undertake $5 million worth of work on the assumption that the Legislature would approve, in the following fiscal year, $5 million plus a further $9 million for 12 months.

So yes, the $14 million is comprised of . . . Actually, in fairness I think it should be considered a 24-month period. Because $5 million was utilized in one construction year, $9 million in the next construction year, and we're now asking for approval for a further $9 million for a third construction year. The commitment of $90 million over 10 years would indicate there is a $4 million shortfall that would be made up some time during that 10-year period. I think it's a fair assessment that that is correct.

I would expect that the level of engineering, surveying, and preparatory work the irrigation dis tricts have to do, coupled with escalating construction costs, will lead us into a situation where either next year or the year after we will begin to increase the $9 million slightly during the middle part of the 10-year program to in fact take up the $4 million that wasn't authorized during the first year of the program. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to say a few words on this particular appropriation. I'd like to indi cate that I support the appropriation. I was rather surprised, Mr.

Chairman, as I listened to the minister in heritage committee describe the costs and point out to us that he felt there was no problem there. I'm pleased to hear that. I wasn't surprised in a negative sense, I was surprised in a positive sense; that is, if I recall correctly his discus sions in the heritage committee, the minister indicat ed the costs seem to be under control, and that we were more or less going on schedule. I hope that remains the situation, Mr. Chairman.

But if it doesn't, I still think we have to recognize the impor tance of making the investment, particularly when it comes to rehabilitation and expansion. Now I certainly would not want to see a situation such as we now notice in the Department of Hospi tals and Medical Care, where a $25 million facility has become a $75 million facility in a matter of a year and half. We don't have that situation here. We don't have to cross that bridge because it appears that at this stage anyway the costs are under control.

But then I would say to the minister that it's going to be pretty tricky to stay on top of these costs. Major projects are all going to tend to push things up at once. If we get the Alcan pipeline, we're talking about at least $1 billion worth of that in Alberta, perhaps $2 billion — the third oil sands plant.

It seems to me that one of the real problems this government is going to have to face in all our capital works projects is that if we find our projects are going ahead simultaneously with major private projects, it's going to put on tremendous inflationary pressure which will be extremely difficult for any government to control. Now in my judgment the answer is not to back off irrigation rehabilitation. Far from it.

But it seems to me that two or three years down the road we may have to make the rather unenviable choice of agree ing to rather substantial increases in the investment here from the $200 million set out in 1975 or, alter natively, deliberately saying to some of the promoters of major private projects that they're going to have to wait two, three, or four years. There can only be so much demand in the Alberta economy at a given time, and if we get overheating of the economy we're going to find that both private and public dollars will be eaten up by uncontrollable inflation.

So while I rise to support the appropriation in a very definite way, particularly as it applies to rehabilitation of the irrigation system, I would just issue the con cern I think all of us will have to indicate, that in the years ahead if we get too many of these projects going at the same time, we could very well find that

1768 ALBERTA HANSARD October 31, 1977 the cost increases will be enormous. The only point I would make: I'd like the minister to be a little more specific in his reasons for changing the 86:14 formula. One of the reasons I kind of liked the 86:14 formula, to be quite blunt about it, is that it seemed to me that that was the basis of a reasonable formula that might be applied to water resource proj ects in northern Alberta. I know that the ECA had come up with a 75:25 split. At the present time we have a 50:50 split in costs.

When the minister indicated they were reviewing this 86:14 formula I may have misunderstood him, but I sensed he was approaching the proposition — gingerly, but approaching it notwithstanding — of cut ting down the provincial share. In other words, instead of 86:14 it might be 80:20, or 75:25. So I wonder if the minister would perhaps be a little more specific about how the government sees this particu lar formula. I realize these formulas are not written in stone and have to be adapted from time to time.

I think the Member for Bow Valley made a good point, that there are some differences too in the irrigation systems that are obviously going to have to be taken into consideration. But I would be interested in the government's thinking on this matter. MR. MOORE: Just to expand briefly on that, Mr. Chairman, it's my view, having made some study within the Department of Agriculture of the 86:14 formula, which I believe was developed as far back as 1949, that a number of conditions have changed since that time.

I believe the value of water on farmland, taking into consideration the kind of crops that can be produced on much of that farmland today as opposed perhaps to 30 years ago, indicates to me that an individual farmer who wishes to have water on his land should feel there is more value to placing that water on his land than the 14 per cent indicated in the existing formula. My personal view is that a formula of 75:25 for irrigation rehabilitation and expansion would be more appropriate than the 86:14 formula.

I say that for two or three different reasons: the one I have just out lined, plus the fact that our commitment in govern ment is not to undertake a certain amount of work; rather it's to undertake work in irrigation rehabilita tion and expansion at a cost of $90 million over a period of 10 years. Now whether or not, in relation to the hon. member's earlier comments, we increase that down the road, is something we can't tell now. But certainly we have a commitment to provide up to $9 million a year over a 10-year period.

Indications are that some irrigation districts are in fact not following the 86:14 formula, in that with the allocation of heritage savings trust fund dollars they apply those funds on an 86:14 basis and then turn around and do additional work with their own dollars. Some review I have had indicates that in fact the irrigation districts are voluntarily coming up more in the neighborhood of a 75:25 split in terms of what is paid for out of this budget and what they are collect ing from their farmers to do themselves.

So I think that sort of formula — which is not a great adjustment, but some — would be more appro priate today. However, there are 13 irrigation dis tricts that all have certain views with respect to the benefits to society in total and to themselves as indi vidual farmers, and a number of people on the Irriga tion Council, whose responsibility it is to advise me on these matters. I hesitate to suggest we're going to move in that direction without having further discus sions with the irrigation districts and the Irrigation Council. On the other matter, with respect to the comments of the hon.

Member for Spirit River-Fairview basically about erosion control and water management pro grams in other parts of the province, I take the view there as well — and I would have to say, Mr. Chairman, that it's a personal view as a Member of the Legislative Assembly — that there is an opportu nity to reconsider existing 50:50 cost-sharing ar rangements and hopefully move closer to the kind of arrangements we have with respect to irrigation rehabilitation. MR.

THOMPSON: I wonder if the minister is consider ing a program where, in any project in which heritage savings trust funds are concerned, they would put up signs stating exactly how much of the fund is involved, so that 10, 15, 20 years down the road people could look and say, this is where the money is put. I can see in this capital division, especially with irrigation, where it gets blurred, and who knows who puts what in. I would like to see the department consider putting up a sign on these projects, stating how much actual heritage funds are put in each one of these projects. DR.

BUCK: [Inaudible] put the Premier's picture on too? MR. THOMPSON: If necessary. MR. MOORE: Mr. Chairman, I have not considered that matter, but I'd be extremely pleased to take the hon. member's representations under consideration and invite any other hon. member who may wish to pursue the matter to talk to me about it. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make two comments to the minister, one for the record and secondly with regard to policy direction of the moneys that are being made available. As I understand from your comments, the split is $90 million for the agricultural

section and $110 mil lion for the environmental

section in regard to irriga tion rehabilitation and expansion. What concerns me, and I'm sure many others, Mr. Minister, is that the $90 million is the limit or the lid we've placed on irrigation rehabilitation as such, which will mean that as we develop it over this 10-year period our effective dollars may be, say, only $65 million, because the dollar just isn't doing as much and it seems that trend is continuing. So I would have the minister have a look at that and possibly reconsider it.

Because with fewer dollars less work is to be done and, as we well recognize, in the irrigation districts there is ample pressure just to do the rehabilitation within the dis tricts at the present time. I'm sure it will take a lot more than $65 million at the present time. So that is a concern of mine. Now I also understand, and maybe the minister could clarify this for me, that out of that $65 million there is an expectation of the government — and this is a sort of informal, or maybe formal, policy directive — that a greater emphasis should be placed on

October 31, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1769 expansion rather than internal rehabilitation of the existing districts. If that assumption I have made is correct, I think the amount of dollars available to do not only internal work but expansion work — maybe we're going to spread ourselves so thin that we won't get the necessary work done within the districts. Possibly the minister could comment on that and clarify my thinking with regard to it. MR. MOORE: Mr.

Chairman, on the first point with respect to the $90 million perhaps being $65 million over the course of years, probably to some extent the reverse is true, in that in addition to $90 million over the 10-year period at the present rate at which irriga tion districts, through their members, are contributing to rehabilitation and expansion, it would appear they will be putting in about $30 million, leaving us with $120 million.

In addition to that, a commitment we made some time ago, providing $2 million a year from the regular budget of the Department of Agriculture to irrigation rehabilitation, is being maintained. That's a further $20 million. So we actually get up to about $140 million at a minimum over the 10-year period. Inci dentally, that's aside from the $30 million the irriga tion districts themselves will be putting in. That $110 million is something like $110 million more than any contribution that was made before by the government of Alberta. It's a good start. The matter of which comes first, rehabilitation or expansion?

Early in 1975 we outlined that from $90 million, $50 million would be provided for expansion of existing irrigation districts. That figure was based on our bringing under water about 50,000 new acres a year over the 10-year period. In addition to that, we indicated $40 million would be expended on rehabili tation of existing works in irrigation districts. Now there is no question that spending $40 million over that period of time will serve to substantially improve the existing works. But rehabilitation of our irrigation districts is going to go on forever. It isn't going to stop at the end of 10 years.

Quite naturally, there are now projects in reasonably good repair that 10 years from now will be scheduled for repair. So in terms of rehabilitation, it's difficult to determine where we will be for sure in 10 years. But hopefully our system will then be better than it's been for some time. But I stated a few weeks ago in committee study of past expenditures, as well as stating to the irrigation districts and the council, that the priority is on reha bilitation, not expansion, and that the figures of $40 million for rehabilitation and $50 million for expan sion are not written in stone.

As the years go by in this program, we have the ability to divert our atten tion more to rehabilitation, if that is necessary, rather than expansion. I think it's important that we do that. Because certainly in terms of things like canal lining, where you're curing a lot of seepage problems and saving a lot of water, it's more important to get that done than to bring new land under irrigation if in fact you're wasting water because of rehabilitation not being carried out. So in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the priority defi nitely is rehabilitation. The figures can and may be changed to reflect that priority. DR.

BACKUS: Mr. Chairman, in Israel their very extensive irrigation program is based on pipeline sup ply of water. In view of our capability in pipelines and the added expense of it being offset by loss of water from seepage and from evaporation, I wonder if the government had considered, under the rehabilitation, at least in

part installing plastic pipelines instead of relining ditches and doing all these other things, because that would enable hundreds of acres of land presently just taken up in ditches to be actually brought under cultivation. MR. MOORE: Mr. Chairman, yes, the irrigation dis tricts through their engineering services and the irri gation division of the department in Lethbridge have made rather extensive studies of underground pipe systems for the transportation of irrigation water.

Without presuming to be an expert on the matter, I could say that with the larger canals thus far, the economics of providing the movement of water in that way are simply not there. Up to a certain size, however, my understanding is that some experiment al work is being carried out, and some practical appli cation of piping irrigation water is in place, when it comes to moving it throughout a district. That is a matter that may change as the years go by.

We simply have to be up-to-date in terms of our engineering and cost studies vis-a-vis the loss of water that might transpire by way of leakage or evaporation when you transport water in a canal. I would have to say in conclusion, though, that at this time it doesn't appear there will be a major use of pipe for the larger canal systems. MR. R. SPEAKER: In the rehabilitation work going on, has there been any difficulty in the districts in obtain ing contractors and people to do the work. Are you getting any feedback to that effect? MR.

MOORE: I have not personally been made aware of any great difficulties by any of the irrigation dis tricts in securing either contractors or engineering services or the like. Undoubtedly, as with any project, they've all had some minor difficulties and problems. But I think part of the reason the difficulty has been minimized is that the projects are generally being carried out by the irrigation districts themselves. A district, say, like St.

Mary's — which is rather large — and some of the others as well, have a fair capability in terms of engineering, knowing who and where the contractors are, and knowing how to issue tenders. They also have a fair amount of capability themselves to actually perform work. So it's a little different situation than if my department were to go into the irrigation areas and say, we're going to undertake all this work, and have to provide ourselves with the engineering ability to do that and contract it. That, Mr.

Chairman, is the very reason we chose the route of going to the irrigation districts and the Irrigation Council and saying, show us your priorities and, within the parameters we have established for use of these funds in rehabilitation and bringing on new land, we want you to do the work. We want you to handle the funds, handle the contracts for con struction work. Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, those irrigation districts are all very properly audited, most of them by the Provincial Auditor's office. They provide to me an

1770 ALBERTA HANSARD October 31, 1977 annual report on work they're undertaking. Our de partment in Lethbridge is always on top of what's being done by the irrigation districts, and I feel more than confident that that's the appropriate way to carry out the work. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to support what the minister is doing in that area. That technique is number one, and the feedback from the other irrigation districts is good too, to the effect that they appreciate that type of general guideline and then follow through with the capability of doing the base work in the districts.

It's working out well. MR. HYLAND: Mr. Chairman, to the minister. I was glad to hear him say the main thing in the trust fund money is to upgrade the existing systems. I think we have to upgrade our existing systems to a great degree before we get too far into too great an expan sion, so it's not, as in the proverbial story, putting the cart before the horse. At that time we'll be fully aware of the mistakes we have made previously, and hopefully we won't make them again. Mr.

Chairman, my question to the minister is: in light of the existing situation of water availability, is it not true that through upgrading of the existing sys tems almost the total water that is available now — remembering that we're not counting the studies that are presently progressing, but the total water availa bility now — would be used in upgrading the systems and making better water usage of them, thus allow ing more water through the ditches and more pump ing on the high side of the ditches and such? MR. MOORE: Mr.

Chairman, when we're involved in rehabilitation we're really involved in making better use of water. If we can line canals and do certain works that prevent seepage, we can improve the use of water and thereby either put more water on certain acres of land or bring new lands under water. I'd find it difficult to make a blanket statement saying there's no more water available. We've just come through a very difficult year, which hopefully won't be repeated and our water storage will get back up. In addition to that, the situation varies and differs from one district to another.

While some have been extremely short of water, others have managed to make good use of the water they did have and continue to be in a position where they can add some lands. So there's no ques tion that the co-operation which is going on presently between my department and the Department of the Environment is extremely important in that the De partment of the Environment is charged with the responsibility of delivering water to the headworks. So to conclude, Mr. Chairman, we will not be rushing headlong into bringing new lands under water without the full knowledge that water is availa ble.

The only other thing I can say on that matter is that it seems the irrigation districts themselves are making very sure, by way of their authority over new water rights, that we don't get into a situation where we have canals that are empty. Agreed to: Irrigation Rehabilitation and Expansion $9,000,000 Environment 2. Irrigation Headworks Improvement MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, do you have any open ing remarks? MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Chairman, I think the major points were probably covered adequately by the Minister of Agriculture when he introduced the first vote under this budget.

I think hon. members understand that the responsibility of Environment lies from the head- works back, and as a result of the previous commit ment we've been undertaking a series of works and want to continue with them this year insofar as headworks rehabilitation is concerned, improved operation and maintenance of main works. Water storage or flow regulation of the Oldman River of course will be an important part of our expenditure, as well as some miscellaneous items.

I think I can report to the members fairly good progress since the takeover of the headworks was arranged with the federal government by my prede cessor. The transfers are proceeding in an orderly way, along with the agreements for repair, and I think our own work is going forward at an acceptable level of progress. The funds we're asking for this year, $6.6 million, I think are reasonable for a full fiscal year. Unless there are any questions from particular mem bers, I'd like to recommend acceptance of that amount, Mr. Chairman, so we can continue with those major projects. MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr.

Chairman, I also appreciate this amount of money in irrigation headworks im provement. However, I do think it's a drop in the bucket as far as developing our water resources is concerned, storing or getting water management. I'd like to ask the minister if he has met with the federal government, because I certainly think the federal government has a responsibility as far as the devel opment of our water resources is concerned.

In 1973 they went into an agreement with the provincial government where they were going to put in some funds to rehabilitate some of the major projects and to take over one particular project in Alberta. So I think this is an area that should be explored as far as getting federal government money involved to devel op our river basins. One project in the 1973 agreement the provincial government drew up with the PFRA hasn't been completed, and that's rehabilitation of the Bassano Dam.

As I said before in the House, I would like the minister to take a really good look before they let the federal government spend $12 million rehabilitating the Bassano Dam. What I'd like to see the minister do, possibly with the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs, is see if the federal government would put up some more funds toward putting in storage on the Bow River basin.

I think if they were approached and the situation explained as far as the $12 million is con cerned — that it's no water storage at all; the only thing it will do is divert water the same as the dam is doing at the present time. However, if the federal and provincial governments were to put some money into building the Eyremore dam, we wouldn't need the diversion at Bassano. The Eyremore dam would divert the water into the eastern irrigation district, not

October 31, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1771 only for irrigation but for industry. So I'd certainly like to see the minister take a real good look at holding a meeting with the Minister of Agriculture and possibly the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs to see if we can get some participation in this project from the federal government. MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Chairman, I did want to respond to the hon. member because I know of his specific interest in that particular project.

I think he's proba bly aware we're waiting for the response from the eastern irrigation district board concerning the report which they asked be undertaken with respect to the Eyremore dam as opposed to the rehabilitation of Bassano. The report was mainly done by PFRA and there appears, insofar as we're concerned anyway, to be agreement between the two governments at this time. The repair of Bassano is the one that looks to be the best expenditure of funds. We haven't yet had a response from the eastern irrigation district board to that report. I know of their particular interest in it.

But I should say at this time that it would be our intention to conclude that agreement and get that work done, because I believe it is essential. What ever scheme eventually goes ahead for further storage or management of the stream I think we will need the Bassano headworks. That's where the matter stands at the moment. We've completed the review we undertook with PFRA for the EID, and we're awaiting their response. MR. NOTLEY: I'd like to move for a moment from the Bassano Dam to the flow regulation on the Oldman River. Mr. Chairman, I understand that Mr.

Ron Buchanan has resigned as a member of the Oldman River water management committee. My question to the minister is: has an appointment been made to replace Mr. Buchanan? MR. RUSSELL: No it hasn't, Mr. Chairman. I asked the committee to review this. They've reviewed it twice and, at their meeting last week, passed a motion recommending that the vacancy not be filled at this late date. We haven't made a final decision on that, but we did search for somebody who could represent the broad interests of the river basin to try to make up some of the criticism made by the original committee appointments.

But it's the opinion of the committee members, who are working very hard, looking at how far into the studies they are and the work to be done in a very short time, that the vacancy be left. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Chairman, a further question to the minister. The minister indicated that the committee had recommended no replacement be made. My question to the minister really flows from my under standing of Mr. Buchanan's status on the committee. I believe Mr. Buchanan represented the Cowley/ Pincher Creek area on the committee but was also a member of the committee for the preservation of the three rivers.

Was any consideration given, Mr. Minis ter, to accepting the proposal — I believe the three rivers committee had made a proposal for a person to replace Mr. Buchanan. MR. RUSSELL: Yes, careful consideration was given, Mr. Chairman. At the time of Mr. Buchanan's resig nation the committee came up with a number of replacements. One of the names was Mike Cooper, who was a member of the three rivers preservation site, and his name, along with others, was considered.

I have to be quite frank and say we were looking for somebody with a broader range of interest rather than a specific interest group, because I think there already is more than adequate representation on the committee from the west end of the river basin. We've been criticized for not having any representa tion from the extreme east end, and also perhaps that the conservation and environmental aspects of the project weren't adequately represented.

So our first emphasis was to try to find someone either from the east end or from the conservation and environmental sectors who could give a broader range, rather than a group which represented a possible specific dam site. It was in that connection that Mr. Cooper's name was given consideration. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question to the minis ter. Who is in fact looking at this question of recruit ing a replacement for Mr. Buchanan?

Is that some thing the committee has taken upon itself as one of its responsibilities — ultimately the minister will make the decision — or is the government canvassing for possible replacements apart from the recommen dations of the committee? Really what I'd like to get at, Mr. Chairman, is the context of whether a replacement will or will not be made. Will it be on the advice of the present commit tee, or is the government looking for a replacement independently? MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Chairman, the answer to that is: both. I asked the committee to try to find a replace ment at the time Mr. Buchanan resigned.

I also asked the MLAs from the regions involved to suggest names. Quite a few weeks have gone by and the vacancy has been there. A person was approached whom we thought would be very suitable, and he was unable to take it on. The three rivers preservation committee made representations to two groups of cabinet ministers at the time of the southern Alberta cabinet tour, so I honestly believe that appointment has been given a very fair share of attention. Last week I asked the committee to look at it again, because we were anxious to get a decision made one way or the other.

Their recommendation was that the committee vacancy should be left. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Chairman, to follow that up, when will the minister be making a decision? The minister indicated the committee had given him that recommendation. MR. RUSSELL: It's made, Mr. Chairman. MR. NOTLEY: So as far as we're concerned, then, there will not be a replacement. Fair enough. Okay. Mr. Chairman, is the minister now in a position to outline to the Committee of Supply the target date for the completion of the management committee's work and when the information will be made public? MR. RUSSELL: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

As a result of a large meeting of farmers in southern Alberta, which

1772 ALBERTA HANSARD October 31, 1977 my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and I attended, we tried to put forward that work as much as we could. We now expect all the technical studies by the consultants to be done by the end of March 1978. A final report — that is, a correlation of the studies and any additional work — could be submitted to the advisory committee by the end of May. We're looking for recommendations to be submitted to me by the end of August. At that time everything would be made public.

We're looking to hold public meet ings following the harvest season, and a decision on the matter by the end of the year. That's very tight scheduling, but we're doing that in response to con cerns voiced by the residents of the region. MR. NOTLEY: The minister said the committee will be making its recommendations by the end of this summer. However, there is no question at this stage about holding public hearings. I gather the ECA will be holding public hearings quite apart from any recommendations the management committee will be making.

Is it the minister's view that we have sufficient time from November 1 until the end of the year to have adequate public hearings on something as vast as this, and have a decision made by government? I realize we have already gone through some of the steps that took place on the Red Deer, so in a sense much of the work will be synthesized and information will be out. But are you satisfied that in fact we aren't trying to compress the hearings and the final decision into too short a period? I realize you're under some pressure — we all know that — but, in my judgment, there is an important process here. MR.

RUSSELL: This is an instance when I agree with the hon. member. The process is important and I'm on record in several places in southern Alberta in saying that we'll carry that process out properly. I think the bulk of public opinion down there seems to be pressing the government for an early decision, and we're trying to get as early a decision as possible without harming the integrity of the public hearing process. MR. R.

SPEAKER: At the present time does the minis ter see all studies on track; are we a little bit ahead in some of the studies taking place in the phase two process, and is there any doubt in your mind at this point that we can meet the commitment date you indicated at the meeting at Picture Butte? MR. RUSSELL: No, Mr. Chairman, I don't have any concerns as of today. We've told all the consultants involved of the importance of meeting the deadline, and that if it looks like they're going to be short of time they'd better start overtime now and not wait till the end of the project. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Chairman, I appreciate that from the minister, and I think he knows my feeling about the whole thing. At the meeting that evening in Picture Butte there was discussion with regard to the Keho Lake reservoir. At that time there was some question as to whether work was going to be per formed on the lake, whether it was going to be deepened. Has the minister any update on that information at the present time? That evening there was a little doubt as to whether or not it could be used for a larger storage facility. MR. RUSSELL: Mr.

Chairman, the Keho Lake reser voir would not be included in these funds we're talk ing about. So the answer to the next fiscal year, contained in this budget, is no. Agreed to: Irrigation Headworks Improvement $6,650,000 Renewable Resources Improvement Energy and Natural Resources 1. Alberta Reforestation Nursery MR. GETTY: Mr. Chairman, just to comment on the dollars being requested for the 12-month, '78-79 es timates, this will complete the Alberta Reforestation Nursery and bring us up to the full potential of 20 million seedlings a year.

The nursery is in fact start ing to produce seedlings now, and construction is running on schedule. Other than that, Mr. Chairman, I have nothing to add to the nursery project. DR. BUCK: I'd just like to ask a question of the minister. The minister stated that they've started production and the maximum will be 20 million per year. What size will they be going out to start the reforestation programs? Secondly, will the seedlings be available to people in the commercial pulp and paper business and will they be paying for them, or is this part of the government program?

Also, because we're a little bit behind, will the seedlings be availa ble to acreage owners as well as farmers? MR. GETTY: The last question first, Mr. Chairman. Farmers can obtain seedlings for their purposes through the Department of Agriculture at the Oliver nursery. Those are not supplied through the refor estation nursery. The hon. member asked whether people in the pulp and paper business would be using these seedlings. As a matter of fact large companies have, as a rule, entered agreements with the government to provide their own seedlings.

Reforestation is required of anybody cutting timber in our province. However, there is an option. You can either opt to purchase them from the government or, with a large company, we normally negotiate with it to build its own nur sery, as Simpson Timber have. The real value of this nursery is for the smaller operator — not a pulp and paper operator, but a smaller operator — who obviously can't build a nur sery but pays the government a fee for providing the seedlings. Under any of our contemplated operations I would say, therefore, no pulp and paper operations are going to use seedlings from this nursery.

The other valuable result of this nursery is that we will be able to start reforesting areas that were cut before the laws were changed to insist on reforesta tion. We will be able to reforest areas that have been burned out and are really our responsibility to reforest — they haven't reforested naturally. We will also be able to plant in certain areas that appear to be productive for reforestation. They haven't been burnt

October 31, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1773 or cut previously, but they have just never supported timber operations. We will be able to try to make some of them productive. An inventory has been carried out throughout the province, and we are able to identify those three different kinds of reforestation projects. This nursery will allow us to start making progress on them. DR. BUCK: Just one short question to the hon. minis ter. Is the minister in a position to indicate how the reforestation program is working in the Hinton area for North Western Pulp & Power?

Several years ago I believe they were having problems with erosion in some of the areas where they've attempted reforesta tion. I'd like to know if the minister is in a position to indicate if the program is successful, fairly success ful, or just what has happened? MR. GETTY: Mr. Chairman, the last assessment I had was that the problems had been pretty well ironed out, and that the operation in Hinton is now able to conduct their reforestation fairly successfully. There are always problems in terrain and certain weather conditions, but generally it's now successful.

Agreed to: Alberta Reforestation Nursery $3,740,000 2. Grazing Reserves Development MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, do you have any open ing remarks? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Chairman, the funds allocated for the '77-78 budget, which set up the grazing reserve program for the $1 million toward the basic planning — the amount shown in the capital projects budget of just under $4 million allows the department to initiate and carry on the grazing reserve program as planned under the $1 million portion of the '77-78 budget.

Of course the moneys expended will go basically toward the clearing, breaking, and seeding of the new graz ing reserve programs, including also that area of fenc ing and the dugouts necessary to provide the actual water. The amounts established cover those grazing re serves which we hope to announce before the fall sittings close, and take in that initial submission on those that will be ongoing for the coming year. So basically we're looking at the budget allocation of '78-79.

Because the major portion of the grazing reserve program and expenditures are in winter, in land clearing itself, it extends really over a period and a half. So, Mr. Chairman, to the hon. members: the amount of $3,958,450 will cover the improvement on approximately 20,000 acres, will cover about 95 miles of fence, and takes into consideration a small portion set aside for manpower to continue the ongo ing reserve program, and approximately $750,000 set aside for land assembly to bring each of the grazing reserves on stream. MR. R.

SPEAKER: I understand — and I think we discussed this in the spring session — the allocation is for grazing reserves in the central and northern parts of the province. Has any representation been made to the minister from southern grazing area groups with regard to this program? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. member's question, yes we have had discussions on the amount of money that could be expended on pasture improvement in the south. Of course in many cases it is brush control by means other than land clearing.

We hope, through the normal course of the department's budgets, to meet some of those requirements in southern Alberta. We feel we could meet the number of acres we could add and increase toward their carrying capacity through pasture im provement perhaps from our own basic budget. But for those that exceed that amount, consideration would be given to some consideration out of this fund. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, to the minister.

I haven't the actual figures on this, but I understand that because of the dry weather in southern Alberta a number of the more productive grasses — that put more weight on the cattle, and so on — have been destroyed because they can't compete with some grasses that just grow but don't put good meat on the cattle. I wonder if there has been any discussion or consideration with regard to regrassing some of the present Crown leases in southern Alberta. MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Chairman, it has been and is being considered.

I might add that with the amounts of money that have been allocated through agricul tural research, hopefully we can come up with a type of grass which may meet some of the conditions we have been faced with this spring. But there is ongo ing study. It's not just the grass we've had some problems with, but also areas of water supply, whether they be dugouts or other means. That has to be taken into consideration for next year. Agreed to: Grazing Reserves Development $3,958,000 Environment 3. Land Reclamation MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, do you have any open ing remarks? MR. RUSSELL: Mr.

Chairman, this is a program we got into on an experimental basis last year. It's been extremely successful, and we're recommending a doubling of the expenditures for the next fiscal year. We canvassed the MLAs for a variety of sites throughout the province. We're working with other departments by way of direct grants. We're really pleased with the number of damaged or despoiled land sites which have been reclaimed and brought under public ownership. If anyone has specific ques tions, I'd certainly be more than glad to respond to them.

Some of the kinds of things we've dealt with are: abandoned coal-mined lands, abandoned landfill sites — that's a polite term for dumps — abandoned sewage lagoons, and old borrow pits from former

1774 ALBERTA HANSARD October 31, 1977 industrial sites. Through the Department of Energy and Natural Resources a grant of a quarter of a million dollars reclaimed a number of old mineral exploration and gravel pit sites and trails. The De partment of Transportation got a grant of $200,000 to deal with some of their abandoned gravel pits. The Department of Recreation, Parks and Wildlife is reclaiming 13 sites around the province. Our own department bought about $800 worth of land in co operation with municipal governments. We've also been able to improve some old hazardous coal shafts.

The projects and sites where this work has been carried out literally cover the province. I'm very en thusiastic about this program. I think we're very lucky to have funds from this source to invest in those kinds of things, because I know other governments aren't so lucky. I think it's a very successful program, and I hope the members will vote us the funds to continue with it next year. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to sincerely compliment the government on this program. It just proves what you can do when you have money.

The question I would like to ask the minister is: in some areas old gravel pits that have been lying around in a sorry state for many, many years have, I notice, just been levelled off. Can the minister indi cate if there has been any attempt to do anything productive with those? Even getting the things levelled off is certainly taking them out of the area of being an eyesore. But I wonder if there's any attempt to restore these, or if they can be restored to any functional use? MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Chairman, in some cases there's potential for a local recreation site, whether it's land or water based.

We've been working with the Alberta Roadbuilders Association, trying where we can to use the actual reclamation work as training for equipment-operator students. Those are about the most productive uses you can get out of them, because the reason they are abandoned is that the mining potential of the gravel has pretty well been exhausted. DR. BUCK: One other question, Mr. Minister. This is in the area of the use of abandoned gravel pits. In the Clover Bar area we're using some of those, I believe, as landfill sites for garbage disposal.

I'd like to know if the minister has had any discussions with Calgary Power on using some of the mined-out areas in the Wabamun area as sanitary landfill disposal sites for the city of Edmonton. The reason I bring this up, Mr. Chairman, is that at one time the city of Edmonton had taken out an option on an area where they were going to put a sanitary landfill. It's an excellent agricultural area, just southwest of Fort Saskatchewan.

Knowing the mysterious ways governments sometimes move, be they provincial, federal, or municipal, the city had taken out a considerable cash option on this land and was going to put a sanitary landfill site in this area.

When the discussion took place, in confronting one of the commissioners from the city of Edmonton — and the commissioner had indicated they could econom ically truck garbage within about a 40-mile radius — I asked: had the commissioner's department looked into some kind of cost-sharing program with the city of Edmonton and the Calgary Power people to truck some of the garbage into the area, thereby solving the problem of the garbage disposal and refilling and reclaiming some of these areas?

I'd like to know if the minister has had any discus sions with the city of Edmonton and Calgary Power on using some of these sites for sanitary landfill. MR. RUSSELL: No we haven't, Mr. Chairman. We've had considerable discussions with Calgary Power with respect to those sites. I think Calgary Power feels fairly good about the progress they've been able to make, particularly on some of the sites that are under crop for the first time. They're getting alfalfa off those old abandoned sites. I can't recall the matter of sanitary landfill potential being raised. We haven't discussed it with the city of Edmonton. DR.

PAPROSKI: Mr. Chairman, one question if I may. I wonder if the minister could indicate to the House how many acres have been involved in land reclama tion to date? It may be an unfair question, but if he has that I'd appreciate it. MR. RUSSELL: That might be a useful statistic to get. I don't know. Most of the sites are very small, one acre or less, and they're all over the province. But if the member's interested, I'll make a point of getting that information for him. MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to compli ment the minister for this particular program under the capital projects division.

Certainly my constitu ency has benefited from it, and will continue to, in terms of reclamation of old abandoned coal mine spoil piles and in the filling in of some coal mine shafts which have caved in adjacent to some towns. I'm pleased to see that the allocation for this project of land reclamation has been increased from last year. I think it's a very good place for us to be spending money. We're certainly benefiting from it. Agreed to: Land Reclamation $5,000,000 Development of Oil Sands Technology Energy and Natural Resources 1. Alberta Oil Sands Technology and Research Authority MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr.

Minister, do you have any open ing remarks? MR. GETTY: Mr. Chairman, most of the members are familiar with the major challenge for which AOSTRA is responsible and the importance of the success of AOSTRA to this province and to Canada. We all have a sense of security in knowing we have the tremen dous resources of the Alberta oil sands. But as I believe members are familiar, only some 10 per cent can be extracted economically through known tech nology. The majority of the oil sands, 90 per cent, will need to be extracted by some as yet unknown proven economic technology. That is the challenge for AOSTRA.

To use as a rule of thumb some type of

October 31, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1775 estimate as to the success we might be able to reach as a result of a breakthrough through AOSTRA: using a conservative recovery estimate, if we could come up with an in situ recovery breakthrough, we would be able to produce at our province's current rate of production roughly 1.2 million barrels a day for ap proximately 400 years. Obviously with this type of breakthrough we would not only be self-sufficient in Canada but probably would pretty quickly become once again an exporter of oil to other parts of the world.

The present AOSTRA accomplishments have been in getting five in situ field projects under way. The estimates, as presented here, provide for some $21 million to fund ongoing projects in the field. These are the AMOCO project, some $4.5 million for the period April 1, 1978, to March 31, 1979; a British Petroleum project, some $700,000; a major start on the Shell project of $15 million; a Numac project of $1 million; and a project with a smaller company called In-Situ Research, for some $1.5 million.

In addition roughly $3.6 million has been requested for university research, professorships, Alberta Research Council information centre, scholarships and fellow ships, and Alberta Research Council work in tunnel ing. As I said, this totals some $3.6 million. AOSTRA is presently reviewing proposals in the heavy oil field. They called for proposals. The pro posals deadline was May 15 of this year. It's too early to tell which ones will be approved. However, there is provision in these estimates for some $5 million for heavy oil proposals.

In addition AOSTRA is reviewing other projects in the in situ area, and $6.5 million is provided in these estimates there. Mr. Chairman, I think I could say that I'm very pleased with the start AOSTRA has made. I'm very pleased with the dedication, the work they have done, and the amount of time they spend in meeting the challenge they face. I'm extremely pleased that we have been able to obtain a chairman of the calibre of Dr. Bowman.

While nobody can predict whether we are going to be successful with the AOSTRA break through, as I referred to it, I think we have the people with the capabilities and the resource with the poten tial, and that in the coming years we will in fact make the breakthrough that is so important to Alberta and Canada. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister. Maybe I missed something. Can the minister indicate what funding the Gulf project in Cold Lake has received? Or does he have that information available?

Another question I'd like to ask the minister is: how deep are the in situ experimental plants going and what per cent recovery are they getting, using for example the Imperial Oil site at Cold Lake? Also, at what point is the Shell plant in the Peace River country; how much work have they been doing, how far have they progressed? MR. GETTY: Mr. Chairman, the Imperial plant at Cold Lake is not funded by AOSTRA. That's an experiment Imperial is conducting on their own.

At some stage they will have to determine whether the experiment has been successful enough that they will make an application to the Energy Resources Conservation Board to go ahead with a major project. AOSTRA considered the Imperial experiment but felt it was really too far along to justify their funding, and I believe Imperial were perfectly prepared to continue with their project. I'm not familiar with any Gulf operation at Cold Lake that the hon. member referred to. However, the Shell project has just been announced, and a major start will be made on the project in the coming months.

Other than evaluation work and Shell's own work, to the best of my knowledge there has been no construction on the project. We're fortunate in hav ing the hon. Member for Banff, Mr. Kidd, who is a member of AOSTRA, who perhaps could now add additional details to the deliberations of the committee. I think that has answered the questions the hon. member posed to me. MR. KIDD: Mr. Chairman, I think I might be able to add something on the Gulf one. We considered an application from Gulf but did not feel that it met our guidelines sufficiently to fund it, so we're not funding any Gulf application.

That one was in the Wabasca sands. I don't think I can add anything more that's pertinent. Agreed to: Alberta Oil Sands Technology and Research Authority $40,600,000 Establishing and Improving Recreational Facilities Environment 1. Capital City Park MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, do you have any open ing remarks? MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Chairman, these are the funds required to finish the park. We're aiming for a July '78 opening so that the park will be essentially complete for people to enjoy just prior to the Com monwealth Games opening. It looks like we'll make that target.

I'm excluding from those comments all the work in the Strathcona science park, which is that area outside the actual Capital City Park but which adjoins it. I think in her comments to the House in an earlier debate the hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood gave a very good recapitulation of the status of the Capital work. To sum up, it's on

schedule and on budget target, so we really can't ask for anything much better than that. With respect to the Strathcona science park, we've asked the MLA who has Sherwood Park in his riding of Edmonton Ottewell to assist us in getting citizen participation in the design of the science pavilions. That's been very helpful and very successful. I don't know if I can add much more, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps many of the hon. members have seen the work that's under way. The four bridges across the river are shaping up nicely.

The paths, planting, soil drainage systems, river berms, the construction of a pedestrian and cyclists' overpass, changing rooms, structures, benches, and lighting are all well under way, and it looks like it's going to be a pretty good project.

1776 ALBERTA HANSARD October 31, 1977 MRS. CHICHAK: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to ask a question of the hon. minister. With respect to that portion of the funds allocated toward the purchase of lands from private individuals who were then in the position of selling their properties within the bounda ry lines of the park, my understanding is that the amount was perhaps in excess of what was actually required.

The question that has been put to me by the interested public is whether the portion of fund ing that has been left over and not utilized for land purchases could be allocated to some other aspect, or some other area of development within the park confines. MR. RUSSELL: Yes, it's possible that that could hap pen. I can't say it would be that specific with respect to the land purchase vote. Some of the acquisitions, insofar as those lying inside the city of Edmonton are concerned, are really acquired by the city, which gets reimbursed by the province. Those are well within budget.

I believe those are the ones the hon. mem ber is referring to. We have a couple of very difficult ones in order to consolidate the Strathcona science park, and expropriation will be involved there in an industrial site. We don't know yet what the final price on that will be. It looks at the moment that we may have some flexibility with respect to the total budget, and we're looking to spend it all. MRS. CHICHAK: Just for further clarification or information. It's my understanding that some groups have been making application for consideration for a development of a cultural activity centre.

I'm not sure of the title; I think it's something to do with a heritage village concept development within the park. My understanding is that the group which is interested in promoting this as part of the cultural development under the cultural development program, to be con sistent with the provincial policies, has been request ing whether funds could be directed for this new development out of the portion that was in excess of requirement for land purchases. They appear to be indicating that they were not meeting with favorable consideration with regard to this.

Has this been brought to the attention of the minister, and what has his position been? Is there any flexibility in any deci sion as to whether the funds might be made available? MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Chairman, of course we've had a shopping list of ideas presented to us, particularly with respect to possible capital improvements. By that I mean buildings. The principle we're trying to follow is to develop the land and water resources in there so we do have the basis of a good park. It's that kind of flexibility I'm talking about when we talk about the expenditure of the budget.

It's too soon to say if there will be the kinds of funds the hon. member referred to, but in the event there were, we would probably — and I underline the word "probably" — encourage the kind of facility that would be a natural recreational feature, rather than a building which could go up under one of the cost- sharing or major facilities programs that we already have in place. There's a very nice building for the handicapped, as you probably know, in one of the city park components of the Capital City Park. It was carried out that way, and we'd like to see those others proceed in that manner. DR.

BUCK: I have one short question to the minister. It's an area that of course concerns all of us. It would be very unfortunate if we couldn't use the park we have provided for the citizens of Edmonton — and the province, for that matter — if life and limb would be endangered when you were using some of these areas of the park. It's unfortunate that we have to worry about whether there will be adequate police protection or whether we will require extensive police protection in patrolling Capital City Park and Fish Creek Park. I'd like to know if this is a concern to the minister.

If it's a concern, will we have adequate protection or will we need it? MR. RUSSELL: Well, we'll certainly need it. It's a responsibility of the city — just as Fish Creek Park is in the city of Calgary — because it's property lying within the corporate limits, and the municipal police force is responsible for that. I have had discussions with the Solicitor General — I was hoping he would be in his place, because he's spoken on this before.

In the case of the city of Calgary and for some parts of the Capital City Park, we've asked them to consider horse-mounted patrols for the very difficult portions to get into in both those parks. The two municipali ties haven't responded favorably yet to that idea. But certainly it will be their responsibility, and our law enforcement grants are supposed to be used for these kinds of purposes. MR. R. SPEAKER: To the minister. At the present time is the minister considering other projects under this particular vote? For example, I believe Lethbridge has made a submission.

I've heard the mayor and other councilmen indicate publicly that they would like to see some type of provincial park located on the Oldman River just out of Lethbridge. MR. RUSSELL: There are two aspects to this. The first would be protection by way of city zoning and/or a restricted development area notice against the titles in order to preserve them. We've been asked by two municipalities to consider that — both in river valleys, one in Medicine Hat and the other in Lethbridge. We haven't made a final decision on either.

There have been a number of ongoing discussions with the city of Lethbridge, and they in turn have been handling some of the detailed discussions with private land owners in the valley. In the case of Medicine Hat we have provided some funds to the city for the planning of a river valley recreation park concept. I think both municipalities understand that the first step we would take would be using the RDA legislation and possible commitment later to financial support. MRS. CHICHAK: Mr.

Chairman, I would like to ask the minister whether he has some specific plans under way for the coming year to introduce the public to the official opening of the completed park on any kind of scale that would in fact convey recognition of the kind of benefit the park has, with respect to the length of the park along the river route.

October 31, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1777 MR. RUSSELL: Yes, we've got a public relations fel low at the park office trying to plan a good opening. I've seen a variety of weird and wonderful ideas for that, Mr. Chairman. MRS. CHICHAK: Would it be a worth-while request of the minister to suggest that there be an introduction to the MLAs of his public relations individual to have some exchange of views? Agreed to: Capital City Park $6,943,000 2. Fish Creek Park MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, do you have any open ing remarks? MR.

RUSSELL: I hope that this vote we're requesting from the Legislature for this next coming fiscal year will finish the acquisition. It's been ongoing at what I think is an acceptable pace, and I believe there are only three more parcels to acquire, Mr. Chairman. Then we'll have it all acquired, and we'll be able to turn it over to the Department of Recreation, Parks and Wildlife for development. We're up at about the 2,100 acre mark so far, I think, so we've got about 600 more acres to acquire. We're working diligently on that. Agreed to: Fish Creek Park $2,000,000 Recreation, Parks and Wildlife 3.

Fish Creek Park MR. ADAIR: Initially the appropriation for Fish Creek Park is to continue the work of providing the facilities east of the Macleod Trail in the present Fish Creek Park and covers the continuing work on day-use facil ities, the trail systems within the park; the creation of the lake at the east end close to the Bow River which will facilitate a beach area and a water area for approximately 4,000 to 5,000 for swimming or sun ning;

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19771031
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L18 S3 19771031 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	e785dcde05161dfe1d11e24a29a118b78b427e1f

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