May 17, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Tuesday, May 17, 1983 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill Pr. 13 Koney Island Sporting Company (Limited) Continuation Act MR. HIEBERT: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill Pr. 13, the Koney Island Sporting Company (Limit­ ed) Continuation Act.

The purpose of the Bill is to authorize the company to continue under the Business Corporations Act with its present memorandum and articles of association. [Leave granted; Bill Pr. 13 read a first time] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MRS. LeMESSURIER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to file with the Legislative Assembly copies of the 1982 annual re­ ports of the Marigold Library System, the Yellowhead Regional Library, and the Parkland Regional Library. Copies were circulated today to all Members of the Legis­ lative Assembly. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. NELSON: Mr.

Speaker, I have the great pleasure today of introducing to you, and through you to mem­ bers of the Assembly, a group of 30 bright, energetic, young grade 6 students from the Pineridge community school in that great metropolis of Calgary McCall. They are led by teachers Mrs. Phyllis Armstrong and Mr. Greg Herod, and have with them parents Dorothy Hall and Garry Hall. Mr. Speaker, these students and parents are part of the community of Pineridge. Of course, this being Pineridge community school, much activity and dialogue between the community, the parents, and the school takes place.

It's a great pleasure indeed to welcome these people to our Assembly, and I wish they would stand and the members would give them the welcome of the House. MR. COOK: Mr. Speaker, it's a special treat for me today to introduce to you, and through you, 40 grade 8 students from the Dickinsfield junior high school and their teachers Evelyn Deys and Mike Neale. They're here to see their Legislature in action, and I'd like to ask them to rise to receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. MRS. LeMESSURIER: Mr.

Speaker, I have the pleasure today to introduce to you and to members of this Assembly 20 students from the English as a second language department of the Alberta Vocational Centre in the constituency of Edmonton Centre. They are here with their leader Miss Jana Kacur, and they are seated in the public gallery. I ask that they rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Hydro-Electric Power Development MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the first question to the hon. Minister of the Environment, first of all. It deals with hydro-electric development in this prov­ ince.

Can the Minister of the Environment advise the Assembly what progress, if any, has been made on the commitment to encourage public participation in the de­ velopment of environmental impact assessment guidelines for the Slave River project? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, when a proponent is selected, the normal environmental impact assessment process will take place, and an environmental impact assessment will be required. At that time, there will be public input with regard to the environmental impact assessment guidelines. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister.

In view of the efforts by the federal department, what discussions are now taking place be­ tween provincial officials and federal officials concerning the EIA proposed by the federal government? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, at some earlier point in time, the former Minister of the Environment had discus­ sions with ministers responsible in other jurisdictions with regard to an environmental impact assessment process on the Slave River.

Specifically, we expressed that we would be co-operating with other jurisdictions with regard to this matter, that our environmental impact assessment process would act as a common source of information with regard to that process, and that we would address concerns of other jurisdictions in our environmental im­ pact assessment process. With regard to the specifics, the federal government has an environmental assessment review process. They're aware of our approach and, I believe, are co-operating with us. They've provided us with a copy of their draft guidelines with regard to their process.

It's presently being reviewed by our department officials, and we will be responding in due course. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. In light of the initial work done by the federal govern­ ment on environmental assessment guidelines, when can the minister give the House an undertaking that this information, as well as the work of the provincial de­ partment, will in fact be compiled and made available to the public so that the public may have meaningful input into developing environmental guidelines on this project? MR. BRADLEY: Mr.

Speaker, as I indicated earlier with regard to the environmental impact assessment process in the province of Alberta, when a proponent comes for­ ward and is selected, we will require that an environ­ mental impact assessment be done by the proponent. At this point in time, there is not such a proponent. So it is

1004 ALBERTA HANSARD May 17, 1983 very early, perhaps premature, to become involved in the type of process the hon. leader is suggesting, when a proponent has not yet been named. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. In light of the response of Mr.

Smith, the director of the environmental assessment division, to the executive direc­ tor of the Environmental Law Centre, what commitment can the minister give the House that in fact the govern­ ment of Alberta — not the proponent, but the govern­ ment of Alberta — through some appropriate me­ chanism, will guarantee public input in developing the guidelines? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd have to review the specific correspondence the hon. leader has alluded to. But with regard to our environmental impact assessment process in the province of Alberta, there is in that process an opportunity for public review.

I believe we've commit­ ted ourselves to having public input with regard to the development of environmental impact assessment guide­ lines for their specific project. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Is the hon. Minister of Utilities and Telecommunications in a position to report to the Assembly what progress, if any, has been made in determining the proponents of such a project, and whether or not the government is any closer to making a formal announcement on the Slave project? MR. BOGLE: Mr.

Speaker, discussions are very actively under way between the two utility companies involved — TransAlta Utilities and Alberta Power, through its parent company Canadian Utilities — and the government of Alberta. I anticipate that as events unfold, appropriate announcements will be made. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Can the minister advise the Assembly whether the strate­ gy for hydro-electric development primarily emphasizes the Slave project? Or is it in fact a two-dam strategy; that is, involving both the Slave and Dunvegan projects. MR. BOGLE: Mr.

Speaker, as I'm sure the hon. member is aware, this government has committed itself to very actively assessing the potential of both the Dunvegan and Peace River sites, as well as the alternative sites on the Slave River. Therefore it's fair to say — and I'll be pleased to get into this in more detail during my estimates — that we're not closing the door on either potential site for dam development in this province. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Can the hon. minister give the Assembly some indication as to when a formal resolution of these options will be made by the government? MR.

BOGLE: First of all, Mr. Speaker, it must be made clear that before a decision can be made to proceed with the dam on the Slave River, a number of very important steps must be taken. There must be hearings, through the ERCB, and there must be environmental impact studies. Those two major elements will take another two and a half to three years before we are in a position where a decision can be made to proceed or not. There are still a number of studies that need to be undertaken on the Dunvegan site, in terms of soil stabilization of the banks and other matters.

I can't be more definitive on time lines on Dunvegan at this particular moment, other than to say that both options are open in terms of possible develop­ ment of hydro-electric dams for the potential in those areas. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. The minister indicated that further tests have to be under­ taken at Dunvegan. On April 14 my colleague asked a question with respect to the geotechnical study, and the minister indicated that he would take it as notice.

Is the minister telling the House today that the initial study indicates that further study is required on bank stability at the Dunvegan site? MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, the basic question we're now down to is: what type of dam can be constructed on the Peace River at Dunvegan; whether we would go with an earth and fill structure or a concrete structure. [interjection] Does the hon. member have a question he'd like to ask? [interjection] Just mumbling. Mr. Speaker, I'd be very pleased in my estimates to . . . MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, to the hon. minister, just for his information; he wanted to understand what I was saying. I wanted to send that great architect and engineer, Noel McKay, to the area. Possibly he could find a location. MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, if the hon . . . MR. WEISS: May I make an objection to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker. Mr. McKay has been deceased for some time, and I don't think the name should be used in that sense. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, I willingly accept the hon. member's remarks and withdraw any derogatory references to the name of Noel McKay; only that he is part of political history in this province, and I raised it in that context. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the final supplementary. MR. NOTLEY: As a result of meetings that I gather took place with at least several members of the Territorial Executive Council, I think, could the minister advise the Assembly what discussions occurred and what representa­ tion was made by them? MR. BOGLE: Mr.

Speaker, I believe the hon. member is referring to a visit made this past weekend by the Member of the Legislative Assembly for Lac La Biche- McMurray and myself. We were accompanied by the co-ordinator for the Slave River project, pre-investment phase. We visited residents in Fort Chipewyan in the province of Alberta.

After some discussions with com­ munity leaders in that area, we went on to Fort Smith, where we met with two members of the Territorial gov­ ernment as well as town council and chamber of com­ merce representatives and, I might add, members of the coalition who have stated a position against the project. There was very open dialogue, in the sense that the purpose of our visit was to open discussions to ensure that the lines of communication were open. So we're

May 17, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1005 working with the Territorial government and with both the town council and residents of Fort Smith. AOC Loan MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the second question to the hon. Premier. Perhaps if there is time, we'll come back to the hon. minister a little later on. With respect to the meeting with Mr. Foster in Red Deer on July 7, 1982, the hon. Premier is quoted in the May 9 Hansard as saying the matter was being pursued, and would be pur­ sued, by both the Minister of Economic Develop­ ment and the Minister of Tourism and Small Business.

Could the Premier elaborate for the Assembly on just what the ministers were pursuing? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I thought that was self- evident from the number of questions that have been raised in the House with regard to Ram Steel. The Minister of Economic Development was interested in the project from the standpoint of economic diversification, and the Minister of Tourism and Small Business was involved in the project in relation to economic activity in the Alberta Opportunity Company. I knew both ministers were involved in discussion of those matters because I had had discussions with them.

Beyond that, I don't know how I can elaborate. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Premier. What is the policy of the Alberta govern­ ment with respect to handling AOC applications? Is it common practice for ministers to meet with Alberta Opportunity Company applicants while their applications are being assessed by the AOC? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, there are exceptions to this.

As we recall, when the Alberta Opportunity Com­ pany was established as a lender of last resort for the province some years ago after we first came to office, clearly it was understood that there would be communi­ cation both ways. The normal course of applications would flow to Alberta Opportunity Company officers, through them to the board, and beyond a certain limit, would then be brought forward by the minister to the cabinet committee on priorities, finance, and planning. The other way in which it would happen is in a circumstance where economic diversification or broad public policy was involved.

Quite clearly there was noth­ ing in the mandate of the Alberta Opportunity Company that would preclude, as a matter of policy, any represen­ tations made on behalf of government ministers to a project to have consideration for policy elaboration be­ yond what might normally be the straight commercial aspects of it. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Premier. Yesterday the minister indicated that he thought the application was sent to the AOC in July. During the meeting the Premier held with Mr. Foster, was there any discussion on the possibility of a loan through the AOC? MR.

LOUGHEED: No, Mr. Speaker. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Tourism and Small Business. Is the minister in a position to indicate the reason for the meeting on November 25, where the minister indicated that the normal course was just to follow the route through the AOC? Why was a meeting necessary to tell the officials of the company that? Why not just a phone call or a letter? MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, I've answered that on four occasions to this point, I believe, and it can be checked in Hansard. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I have checked in Hansard, and I'm asking the question: why was a memo or a phone call not required? MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, maybe if I can just elaborate on that particular point. On occasion — and I'm now speaking of myself personally — I get comments that sometimes I'm inaccessible, because I'm accessible to someone else.

At this particular point, the point of dis­ cussion is: if a person or a company calls and wishes to have a meeting and, in the discussion I may have with them, I answer any concerns relative to that and they pursue it beyond that, I'm quite prepared to meet with them or with anyone — it causes some difficulty in the

schedule from 7 a.m. to whatever time in the evening it may be — to lay them out eyeball to eyeball. In this case, that's exactly what did occur, Mr. Speaker. MR. NOTLEY: I'm pleased to learn of this accessibility. I wonder if all the other small companies going bankrupt will find just as much accessibility. Mr.

Speaker, is the minister in a position to inform the House whether, at the time the order in council was passed or Executive Council made the decision to rec­ ommend the loan, the government had obtained informa­ tion that the company was in general compliance with the AOC guideline that 20 per cent equity should be there by the shareholders in the company? MR.

ADAIR: The normal practice for a loan over $1 million is that it would be submitted by the board of directors with a recommendation to me, and through me to the finance and priorities in cabinet, and be accom­ panied by a package of material justifying that recom­ mendation and providing all the necessary materials that may be used by us to review that particular application, and was used by the board of directors and the manage­ ment of AOC. MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the final supplementary on this topic. MR. NOTLEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My supplementary question to the minister is really quite direct.

Did that package of material contain information with respect to the 20 per cent equity guideline, and did the proponents have that equity guideline at the time Executive Council considered the loan of $8 million? MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, it provided all the necessary information that they used to make the decision to recommend and that we used to recommend approval. Transportation Department Truck MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Transportation is with regard to his personal

1006 ALBERTA HANSARD May 17, 1983 truck at Grande Prairie. I'd like to ask the minister how often he uses the truck in terms of transportation between the airport and his personal residence. MR. SPEAKER: I have some misgiving about a question of this particularity. Surely the minister would have to consult records to count the number of times, so he might answer the question accurately. It would seem to me that this should go on the Order Paper. MR. NOTLEY: We just want a ballpark figure. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques­ tion to the minister.

I'm not requesting a definite number but an approximate one — once a week, once every month — as to the use rate of that actual vehicle purchased by public funds. MR. NOTLEY: How many other people have used it? MR. M. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I attempted to answer that question during the course of my estimates, which I believe was a week ago last Friday. Unfortunately there were not very many people in the Legislature. The truck in question is a half-ton, four-wheel drive 1983 Dodge.

It was purchased by the deputy minister of the department in December 1982, primarily for the use of myself and senior staff when we were doing highway inspection or looking at projects that might be in areas which were not normally considered areas that you would travel through with an automobile. The truck was located in Edmonton until late February or early March, almost three months after it was purchased. In fact, I didn't see it until sometime in late February or early March. At that time, I drove it from Edmonton to Grande Prairie.

I have used it on perhaps five or six occasions since March for road inspection tours I've made in various parts of the Peace River country. For the most part, it has been located either in the transportation shops or at the airport in Grande Prairie. I've utilized it to travel to and from areas I was looking at, including some in the hon. Member for Spirit River- Fairview's constituency. It has also been at my home in my constituency, because it was most convenient for me to return there when I was finished what I was doing. Mr.

Speaker, I'd have to say that as Minister of Transportation, it was my intention to spend a lot of time travelling throughout this province on the ground. I've travelled a lot of this province in my eight years in the cabinet, both in Agriculture and in Municipal Affairs; however, much of it by air. I thought it was important that I get to know the province very well. In that regard, I planned some four trips over the course of the summer of 1983.

The first is on June 3, 4, 5, and 6, from Grande Prairie to Slave Lake and north on Highway 67, some 270 miles, stopping en route at a number of points where the hon. members for Peace River and Lesser Slave Lake have asked me to consider additional road work, and finally to an opening of Highway 67 at the Wabasca River, some 80 miles south of Fort Vermilion, on Satur­ day morning, June 4, at 11 a.m. I intended to go on from there and return home on Sunday, and back to Edmonton. As well, I intended to utilize the same vehicle perhaps two weeks from then, on a trip north into the hon.

Member for Spirit River-Fairview's constituency, up through the Hines Creek area . . . MR. NOTLEY: You'll need it on Highway 64, Marvin; at least a four-wheel drive. MR. M. MOORE: . . . looking at a road construction project connecting the Bonanza area with British Colum­ bia. I intended to utilize it later in the summer to go from Grande Prairie, on Highway 940, directly to Calgary through four or five constituencies, including some side trips into areas where, again, we're being asked to con­ struct new roads.

Finally, I intended to utilize it this summer on a trip through the Fort McMurray area, an area I've never driven to — I've flown a lot of times — and associated side trips there that would be two or three days. Those were my intentions, Mr. Speaker. Over the course of the last week to 10 days, the matter of whether or not I might be benefiting personally from being Minister of Transportation, having access to such a vehicle, has caused me a great deal of concern.

The result has been what I consider a hassling of my personal office staff, department staff, and my own family, about where I am on weekends, what I do, and what kind of a vehicle I use to travel in. I've therefore decided that the perception of my utilizing a government-paid, four-wheel drive vehi­ cle to travel throughout the province is not one I should continue to try to defend. I have decided that I will instruct the deputy minister of the department — and I tried to do that today, but unfortunately he's out of the province — to have the truck returned to Edmonton to be utilized here by senior staff.

I know very well they have good need for that kind of truck. It will only be utilized by me when I'm picked up, driven, and returned by a member of the department. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention in any way to forsake my plans to travel this province in my responsibilities as Minister of Transportation.

I intend to do that in several ways: by the use of my own government car, where that is appropriate; where that is limited and not appropriate, I may rent an appropriate vehicle on a short-term basis; and where that isn't practical, it's my intention to utilize government aircraft, including a helicopter. Mr. Speaker, I conclude by saying that I don't think my actions in this regard should set any future precedent with respect to whether or not a minister of the Crown might be able to utilize government transportation of this nature for purposes of carrying out his responsibilities. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary ques­ tion. First of all, could the minister indicate the rationale behind the use of the truck in the first place? Is it because of road conditions? As a member, what concerned me was that it seemed to be a northwest area vehicle rather than a provincial vehicle; I'm not sure the potholes in southern Alberta are that bad. Second, has the minister access to vehicles in the various regions? For example, the shop in Grande Prairie has a number of government trucks that I'm sure could be utilized under circumstances necessary to the minister. MR. M. MOORE: Very clearly, Mr.

Speaker, the answer to the first question is that the roads for which the Department of Transportation is responsible in this prov­ ince lie not only in the secondary and primary highway systems but in improvement districts as well. By far, the largest majority of those roads are located in the northern part of the province. In addition, I can say quite frankly to the hon. member that I've travelled the province enough to know that the utilization of the vehicle would

May 17, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1007 have been in the Eastern Slopes area from Calgary north, generally speaking, and in northern Alberta. Quite frank­ ly, I had little use for it in other areas of the province that could be accessed without any problem by motor car. The answer to the last question is: no, in my view there are no suitable vehicles available, when and where a person might want them, from the department, and there­ fore it will be my intention in the future to lease or rent whatever is required from the private sector. Spousal Abuse DR. BUCK: Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Social Services and Community Health. First of all, I would like to compliment someone for sending this bit of blue and orange propaganda over to me. My question to the minister is on battered wives. Quoting from this propaganda article, it says: Our priority is people. Since 1971, your Conservative team has worked hard to im­ prove the quality of life for our citizens and disadvan­ taged in particular. Mr.

Speaker, I guess probably we as politicians, when something such as battered wives is brought to our atten­ tion on a very, very close relationship — one of my staff members went through this. I would like to know from the minister, in light of the facts that we have these promises about priority of people and the cutback in social services, if the minister . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Let's come to the ques­ tion. We've had a pretty good speech so far, and perhaps it could have been given in debate. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say that we didn't miss you last week. [interjections] MR.

SPEAKER: I'd like to make sure the hon. member doesn't miss me this week either. [interjections] DR. BUCK: I guess if everyone were as sterile as this Assembly, we wouldn't have battered wives. Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate what he or his department are doing about the serious matter of bat­ tered wives, in light of the fact that one-third of the people are turned away from battered wives' shelters because there just aren't facilities available? DR. WEBBER: Mr.

Speaker, in terms of prevention, programs across the province are funded by family and community support services, operated by the municipali­ ties in Alberta. In some cases, there are battered wives' shelters. I don't have the numbers in front of me today, but I would say that the programs we have in place in this province are unequalled by any other province in this country, in terms of this concern. If I recall correctly, there will be several new shelters going up in the province in the next little while, where women who are subjected to battering can seek refuge along with their children. DR. BUCK: Mr.

Speaker, in light of the fact that one- third of the people who need help are turned away, can the minister indicate at this time if he is aware of this problem and is actively pursuing trying to put facilities in place so that these one-third who are turned away can receive some help? DR. WEBBER: If I recall the numbers, Mr. Speaker, the main concern relative to being turned away from the women's shelters occurs in Calgary and Edmonton. Again, if I recall correctly, it's hoped that the opening of the new proposed shelters will relieve that particular concern. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

Is the minister in a position to indicate what second-stage support the minister or his department are looking at to help wives who have been battered and have had immedi­ ate treatment but want something a little bit longer, to try and help them get their families and their lives together? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, certainly in terms of assist­ ance to people who have problems, the stay in the women's shelter is usually relatively short.

If further as­ sistance is required, they can approach the district social services offices and seek further assistance there, whether it be through family counselling or getting social assist­ ance. So there are a number of possibilities available. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, the minister doesn't seem to understand. It's the emergency situation, where the woman and children have absolutely no place to turn to when they are they are turned away at the doors of the facilities. What is the minister going to do about the emergency situation? DR. WEBBER: Mr.

Speaker, I thought I addressed that question earlier, in terms of the fact that, if I recall correctly, the opening of additional shelters in both Edmonton and Calgary will address that particular concern. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, has the minister given any direction to the people in his department as to what to do on an emergency, immediate basis? Are the case workers allowed to tell this wife and children to go into a motel room, to keep them away from the fellow doing the battering? DR. WEBBER: Mr.

Speaker, in terms of a woman and her family going to a shelter — if the shelter is full, then they are counselled at that particular place as to what kind of assistance is available to them through Social Services and Community Health. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, just on a point of clarification. Does that mean the case worker has the power to say to this lady and her children: go to the closest motel, and we will look after it for you that day and that night? Is that what the minister is saying? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, I will have to check on the details of what kind of advice is given.

I know that in terms of approaching a shelter, they try to assist them if they can. The problem exists only within Edmonton and Calgary. In the rest of the province, fortunately the vacancy rates in many of the shelters are very low. And we are addressing the problem which is directly related to Edmonton and Calgary. MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the final supplementary on this topic. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney General. Is the Attorney General in a position to indicate that in the cases where the wife is usually afraid to lay a charge against the batterer, the Crown will lay the charge?

1008 ALBERTA HANSARD May 17, 1983 MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, the normal practice since last fall has been that the Crown does in fact lay the charges. There is perhaps a little bit of explanation re­ quired because of the divergence in the types of cases. In some cases, the police arrive while a batterer is present on the premises; in other cases, they do not. In some cases, some indication of what has occurred is given virtually at once; in other cases, it takes a little while or some encouraging from friends or the like in order to consult the police.

The evidence has to be assessed as to its sufficiency for laying a charge and for an investigator to be able to say in his own declaration, in signing the documents to get the charge under way, that he indeed has sufficient knowledge to lay it. Subject to that, the policy is to relieve the battered wife as far as possible from the diffi­ cult and demanding responsibility of being responsible for the charge herself. Human Rights Education Program MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my ques­ tion to the Minister of Labour.

In his ministerial state­ ment last Thursday, the Premier said he had asked the minister to respond positively, within reasonable limits, to the request of May 4 by the chairman of the Alberta Human Rights Commission, to conduct a further public education program aimed at combatting any racism in Alberta and explaining the nature of dis­ crimination and the importance of exposing it . . . I'm glad the Premier finally took our advice. My question to the minister is, can the minister identify what group or agency will be directed or retained to put this program together? MR. YOUNG: First of all, Mr.

Speaker, I note that the Individual's Rights Protection Act and the Alberta Bill of Rights are respectively Bills 2 and 1 of this administra­ tion. So any recognition of the importance of respect for everyone's rights is a recognition taken by this govern­ ment many years before the hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood entered the Assembly. On the question of what agency, if I understood the hon. member correctly, that is a matter on which I had a discussion this week with the chairman and the executive director of the commission. It's a matter on which we will have a further discussion this week.

It obviously relates to the kind of program which is deemed most effective. Until that is completely determined, obviously it's impos­ sible to give an answer to the hon. member's question in any further detail. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I was talking about the public rights campaign that the minister refused the first time. Can the minister advise when it is anticipated that this program will be ready for implementation? I know the discussion stage is on, but they must have an idea of when they want to start it. MR. YOUNG: Mr.

Speaker, the commission obviously has some ongoing educational programs. I gather that the hon. member is speaking to what additional program­ ming. In that event, I have for the moment given him the answer. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question. Specifically because the Premier said there would be an extra public education program — that was part of the announcement — can the minister advise if an extra budget has been struck for the program? MR. YOUNG: Mr.

Speaker, I've already indicated that I've had one meeting this week with the commission on the very subject of the nature of the program and that I'm having another meeting this week on the same subject. And I should add that the commission will have a full meeting on June 8, I believe, although I'd have to check that date. So until decisions of that nature have been taken, I don't believe I can give the hon. member further details. I point out to the hon. member that any programming in this area has to be very carefully undertaken, for several reasons which the hon. member ought to under­ stand well.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, this is an area where the focus should be to create understanding and sensitivi­ ty by all persons for every other person's color and reli­ gious beliefs, just to identify two points. If that is to be effective, it obviously needs to be very carefully considered. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question to the minis­ ter. Then did the Premier not consult with the minister before he made his statement dealing with the Human Rights Commission? This is certainly part of the Minister of Labour's portfolio. Did he not know anything about it before the Premier made his statement? MR. YOUNG: Mr.

Speaker, on that question I can give the hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood full assurance that there was in fact consultation. All parties recognized the very significant challenge that is involved and that it would not be possible to reach to a shelf, pull off a program, and start running that program. Since the announcement was last week — and I've only indicated I had a meeting this week. Mr. Speaker, I didn't tell the hon. member that I had a meeting with the chairman of the commission last week. I now do that. I consider that the matter is being followed and pursued with a high degree of vigor. MR.

MARTIN: A supplementary question. Vigor may be your word for it. Is the minister saying that with all the controversy swirling around over the last month and with the Premier's statement on Thursday, virtually nothing of substance is ready to report to the House at this moment? MR. NOTLEY: Nor before the end of the session. MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, again I repeat what I've already told the hon. member. A meeting last week, a meeting already this week, a further meeting this week, and a meeting with some outside persons interested in this subject this week, surely ought to be worth-while progress.

The hon. member obviously would like to hear some details about what is being considered. At the moment, I'm not prepared to do that until the contemplation by all parties on this very serious challenge has been completed. MR. MARTIN: One final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister indicate when members of the Assembly will have some idea of the details of the program?

May 17, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1009 MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I can indicate that as soon as other parties — because very obviously I am not totally able to make the complete decision, since the commission, as an independent commission, is involved in this matter. They have certain decisions to take, and I am not absolutely certain of the time frame in which they will take those decisions. But I have already indicated the interest and commitment which the chairman and staff of the commission are showing.

I can therefore reassure the hon. member that based on the commitment already demonstrated, I would be quite prepared to relate to the Assembly at the earliest possible time when those deci­ sions are taken. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. We have a number of members, six to be exact, who have not yet asked their first questions. If there's time, we can come back to this topic. Commercial Fishing MR. WEISS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Associate Minister of Public Lands and Wildlife.

In the recent review of the department's estimates, I raised the question of assistance for the commercial fi­ shermen of Fort Chipewyan. Will the minister advise the Assembly if a decision has been made or will be forth­ coming with regard to the freight subsidy, as reportedly recommended by the task force? MR. SPARROW: Mr. Speaker, we have a great concern for the fishing problems of the Fort Chip area. I have a meeting tomorrow with my deputy minister and assistant deputy minister, who are reporting to me after analysing the task force report.

We are also sending our assistant deputy minister to meet with the president of the fresh fish marketing board in Winnipeg on Thursday of this week. He will be reporting back to us with reference to discussions he's having with them. Other items that he will be discussing along with the freight costs and the distance to Winnipeg will be the price of fish, the possibil­ ity of processing fresh fish in Alberta, the increased possibilities of marketing fresh fish in Alberta, and the quality control of fresh fish in Alberta. I hope we can help solve their problem.

It's a problem that basically stems from the cost of fish and the high freight cost coming out of that area. MR. WEISS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Will the recommendations of the task force be made available to the public? MR. SPARROW: This is basically an internal document that was done by our staff. The

summary of it and recommendations from it will be coming to me. There's a lot of information in here that I think should be kept within the department. If you as a member wish to go over it, I'm glad to have your input on it. MR. WEISS: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, if I may. Will the minister assure us that members of his department will contact members of the co-op to avoid any unfortunate incident that might occur, such as dump­ ing the fish in the reflecting ponds out front? MR. SPARROW: Very definitely, Mr. Speaker.

If that is a problem, the 20 fishermen involved in fishing in that area should be going back to work, rather than hauling fish down here. Employment for the Disabled MR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister responsible for Personnel Administration. It pertains to the employment of disabled citizens with our government. Have recent economic conditions had an impact on our government hiring disabled citizens? MR. STEVENS: Mr.

Speaker, we've debated in the House the situation that has affected all Albertans and all Canadians as a result of the national energy program and the federal tracking of U.S. interest rates which, among other misguided policies, have led to a downturn in our economy. Disabled Albertans who are seeking employ­ ment with the province of Alberta are facing the same dilemma other Albertans are facing: a reduced turnover, fewer positions, and generally a reduction in the availabil­ ity of recruitment positions in the government of Alberta. MR.

PAPROSKI: A supplementary question dealing with the same subject area involves the need to increase opportunities for disabled Albertans with our govern­ ment. Has the minister or members of his department considered new methods to enhance opportunities with the Alberta government for disabled Albertans? MR. STEVENS: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should indicate that the program the Member for Edmonton Kingsway is seeking information about — and I recall that prior to his welcome arrival in the House, as a citizen he had express­ ed concerns about this area as well.

The program under the Personnel Administration Office has been in effect in this province since 1975. It's been very successful in ensur­ ing that Albertans who have handicaps or disabilities of various sorts — either mental or physical infirmity or other disabilities — have an opportunity to obtain mean­ ingful employment with the government of Alberta. The requirement, of course, is that all employees have qualifi­ cations to meet the tasks required. One of the programs this government pioneered in 1981, the year of the disabled, was the establishment of a work experience program.

That program has been very successful in providing disabled Albertans with an oppor­ tunity to upgrade skills so that he or she may be able to obtain full employment in a permanent position, should that be available. Medicare Advertising Campaign MR. SHRAKE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care. I've had some calls from concerned senior citizens in my area regarding a questionnaire postal card that was delivered to them. It's addressed to the Hon. David Russell, Minis­ ter of Hospitals and Medical Care, et cetera.

It states a real strong, urgent support for a lot of medicare pro­ grams and requires their signature, name, and address. I guess they have to waste 32 cents on the thing to send it back. Would you please tell me what is the purpose of this card, and is it from the provincial government? DR. BUCK: The Friends of Medicare.

1010 ALBERTA HANSARD May 17, 1983 MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I don't know who or­ ganized it. Usually printed material like that has some identification on it. I was disturbed because they're com­ ing into the office by the hundreds. MR. NOTLEY: Are you surprised at that? MR. RUSSELL: One of the seniors in Calgary called and asked me why I was asking for them. [interjection] Yes, those two should look concerned. When we phone the lodge manager, she was only able to tell us that these had been delivered to the door by a lady who didn't identify herself, with instructions to have them sent back to me. MR.

NOTLEY: We can debate it in Bill 38, David. MR. RUSSELL: I have concern about the cards for three reasons. The message on them is that they support medicare. The only reply is: well, so do we. There's no government in Canada that supports medicare more strongly than this one. Secondly, they are spending 32 cents on them. And I think they're being delivered under misrepresentation, because the idea is certainly being left in some minds that this is a government survey of some kind, and of course nothing could be further from the truth.

I think it's unfortunate that somebody is trying to organize seniors living in lodges and nursing homes to do this kind of thing. MR. SHRAKE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is there any way your office can get the word back to some of the senior citizens' homes and buildings that they don't have to send this type of thing in? Some of them felt concerned that they were actually obligated to send it in, stating all these strong views. Is there any way your office could handle that? MR. RUSSELL: We can do a certain amount by way of organizing responses.

I'm going to try to enlist the aid of MLAs, where possible, and see if we can't get the word back that way. Rental Deposits MR. LEE: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In a sense, it's a supplementary to that asked by the hon. Member for Calgary North Hill on March 17 and the legislation introduced by the hon. Member for Calgary North West on April 13. It pertains to the damage deposit interest rates being paid by landlords in Alberta.

In view of the critical market conditions and the precarious state of many landowners, is the minister contemplating any ac­ tion earlier than that which might be anticipated by debate on the Bill in this House? MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr. Speaker, certainly I think we all recognize that there is now an imposition on landlords that wasn't there before and, I suppose, an imbalance that was there with respect to tenants when the interest rate being paid to tenants was very, very low and, of course, in the market place it was very high.

Through letters to various people who have written me about this problem, I have made a commitment that we'll definitely make an amendment to the Bill this fall, though I was certainly hoping that we would have the benefit of debate on the hon. member's Bill before we did that. It is my hope that it will come up this fall, before we undertake an amend­ ment to the Act. MR. LEE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Bill is 14th on the Order Paper.

Certainly many of the small landlords are having great difficulty in justifying a dif­ ference of as much as 5 per cent between that which is being paid in term deposits and the current rate. I wonder if the minister would reconsider, in terms of an earlier consideration of that legislation. MRS. OSTERMAN: I certainly will, Mr. Speaker. If it appears that that Bill will not be up for debate in time for the Assembly to move with an amendment on the Land­ lord and Tenant Act, I'll undertake that. Bankruptcies MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, I too have a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

It's with regard to the annual report of the supervisor of consumer credit, which the minister submitted to the Legislature. In view of the fact that the total bankruptcies in Alberta in the 1982 calendar year were up some 47 per cent, could the minister advise the House if this program of personal bankruptcies is being investigated on a monthly basis? MRS. OSTERMAN: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. I didn't catch the import of the member's question — just the last line. MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, could the minister advise the House if the personal bankruptcies that are recorded in Alberta are monitored on a monthly basis?

MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure what the hon. member means by "monitored", but we certainly collect the statistics. MR. GOGO: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the fact that in 1982 they were up some 47 per cent in Alberta, from 1,400 to some 2,123 for the calendar year. The reason for the question is that I'd like the minister to indicate, if possible, if it's being monitored on a monthly basis and if the number of bankruptcies is decreasing in 1983. MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr. Speaker, I'll undertake to bring that information back to the hon. member. I think we have some statistics for March. MR.

GOGO: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. While looking that up, could the minister advise the House with regard to the orderly payment of debts process that the province assumed from the federal authorities, where over 1,000 debts were being paid off through the minis­ ter's department? Could the minister advise the House at that time if the rate of interest charged to those debtors is being reviewed? MRS. OSTERMAN: I'll undertake that, Mr. Speaker.

May 17, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1011 ORDERS OF THE DAY head: MOTIONS FOR RETURNS MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the motions for returns on the Order Paper, I wish to advise that the government accepts without amendment nos. 172 and 175. I advise that when Motion 171 is called, I will be moving a slight amendment. I move that motions for returns nos. 170, 173, 174, and 176 stand and retain their places on the Order Paper. [Motion carried] 171. Mr. R. Speaker moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing:

(1) The names and official position designations of all government of Alberta employees working in offices outside of Canada, listed by location of office, as at May 5, 1983;

(2) The previous position held by the persons in (1) immediately prior to their current posting;

(3) The number of years of service within the Alberta civil service for the persons in (1);

(4) The official salary ranges for the positions designat­ ed in (1). MR. HORSMAN: I move an amendment. Copies have been supplied to the hon. Member for Little Bow and to the Speaker. Motion for a Return No. 171 should be amended as follows: in paragraph three, strike the words "within the Alberta civil service" and substitute the words "with the government of Alberta". [Motion as amended carried] 172. Mr. R. Speaker moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing:

(1) The total amount of money granted by the province to the Barrhead town and county airport for the years 1980-81, 1981-82, and 1982-83;

(2) The purpose for which the money was granted;

(3) The projected total grant to the Barrhead town and county airport for the fiscal year 1983-84;

(4) The technical specifications of the airport runways and facilities;

(5) The name of the firm or group that performed the 1982 engineering evaluation of the Barrhead airport and the total cost of that evaluation. [Motion carried] 175. Mr. R. Speaker moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing:

(1) The total budget allocated to each municipality for the family and community support services program (previously preventive social services program) for the fiscal years 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981-82, and 1982-83;

(2) A breakdown of the same budget to municipalities, including funds allocated for administrative costs and funds allocated for the support of community agencies. [Motion carried] head: GOVERNMENT DESIGNATED BUSINESS head: GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Second Reading) Bill 4 Planning Amendment Act, 1983 MR. MUSGROVE: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill No. 4, the Planning Amendment Act, 1983. It's an amendment to the Planning Act to allow re­ gional planning commissions to have their regional plans in place until December 31, 1983.

It will also allow the preliminary regional plans to be in place until they have adopted the regional plan or until December 31, 1983. Mr. Chairman, some of the regional planning commis­ sions have been having some problems getting municipal­ ities to agree on the content of the regional plans. The new guidelines that were brought in by the Minister of Municipal Affairs early in 1982 have narrowed the para­ meters and should expedite their adoption. [Motion carried; Bill 4 read a second time] Bill 29 Business Corporations Amendment Act, 1983 MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I move second read­ ing of Bill 29, the Business Corporations Amendment Act, 1983. I really don't have a lot to add in second reading, in terms of my introduction in first reading. The importance of passing this particular amendment this spring probably hinges basically on one section. There are a number of people in the business community who believe that there presently exists in the new Business Corporations Act a

section that might — if they were to continue under the new Business Corporations Act from the present Compa­ nies Act, they would attract some tax. So because of a concern raised in the business community, basically by the accountants' profession, we are making an amend­ ment in that regard. As I said before, the other amendments are basically to clarify terms and, in some instances, some needless re­ quirements of corporations. [Motion carried; Bill 29 read a second time] Bill 30 Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund Amendment Act, 1983 (No. 2) MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I move that Bill No. 30, the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund Amendment Act, 1983 (No. 2), be read a second time. The principles involved in this Bill can be shortly stated. Firstly, the amendment to the first part of para­ graph three, although very short, provides the vehicle for the financing which will establish the new Alberta venture capital corporation. As indicated previously in news re­ leases by my colleague the Minister of Economic Devel­ opment, there will be a loan from the heritage fund in the amount of $200 million to establish that entity.

The estimates will be tabled shortly, and there will be an appropriate debate on those estimates in Committee of Supply.

1012 ALBERTA HANSARD May 17, 1983 The second principle contained in the Bill derives from the recommendations of the Auditor General last spring, with respect to the review by the Legislative Assembly of amounts invested by the Alberta investment division of the heritage fund, essentially in four Crown corporations: the Alberta Housing Corporation, the Home Mortgage Corporation, the Opportunity Company, and the Agri­ cultural Development Corporation.

The third amendment simply improves the investment flexibility and, therefore, the opportunity for the highest possible return under the commercial investment division, and facilitates cash management. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to rise briefly and say that we intend to support the Bill. We think it's a small step in the right direction toward legislative control of the heritage fund, which has been an ongoing criticism the opposition has given the government. We think there's a long way to go yet.

But because it is a step in the right direction, we will support it all the way through. [Motion carried; Bill 30 read a second time] Bill 32 Department of Energy and Natural Resources Amendment Act, 1983 MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill No. 32, the Department of Energy and Natural Resources Amendment Act, 1983. Very briefly, Mr.

Speaker, the Bill provides for the establishment of the advisory committee on heavy oil and oil sands development, and prescribes the membership and function of the advisory committee. [Motion carried; Bill 32 read a second time] Bill 33 Freehold Mineral Rights Tax Act MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill No. 33, the Freehold Mineral Rights Tax Act. This legislation has been facilitated by recent constitu­ tional amendments, which now enable the provinces to levy an indirect tax as well as a direct tax.

As a result of this constitutional provision, we are now able to move to a production-type levy with respect to freehold mineral rights, as opposed to the present system of taxation on a property-like tax basis. We believe there are many advantages to this new system. It will ensure that there will be no requirement for the some one thousand appeals per year based on the property value type of system we've had in the past. The assessment will simply be on the basis of production, and the Bill includes provisions to ensure that that system can be put in place. In essence, Mr.

Speaker, the Bill provides for a move from a property-type tax assessment to a production-type tax assessment, this being facilitated through the recent constitutional amendments with re­ spect to indirect taxation. [Motion carried; Bill 33 read a second time] Bill 35 Hail and Crop Insurance Amendment Act, 1983 MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill No. 35, the Hail and Crop Insurance Amendment Act, 1983.

The main purpose of the Bill is to permit the govern­ ment to guarantee the payment of money borrowed by the corporation or advance money to the corporation for the purpose of meeting any of its obligations. Losses due to hail were very severe in 1982, and premium risk losses were at an all-time high. Similar years occurring in succession would seriously affect the reserve fund. As the Act now stands, the province may advance or guarantee funds for operating expenses only, and would not be allowed to advance or guarantee funds for the payment of indemnities.

With today's high cost of producing grain crops, farmers require more protection. But the corpora­ tion cannot increase the per acre coverage limits without a provincial guarantee. Mr. Speaker,

section 31 as amended will allow farmers in Alberta the protection they require. Other noticeable changes include

section 18(6), where the maximum amount of a fine as outlined in

section 7 could be increased to $500 from $100. Imprisonment for a term of not more than one year in default of any payment, is being eliminated. As well, in subsection (7), the reference to imprisonment for a term of not more than three months in default of payment has also been eliminated. Mr. Speaker, we feel that appropriate ar­ rangements for repayment can be made with farmers, thus avoiding any further hardships on farmers today. Also, Mr. Speaker,

section 22 has been changed to reflect a harvesting allowance, whereby the farmer would receive a slightly higher payment in the event of crop damage in excess of the 70 per cent level. The allowance is common in the hail insurance business today and is intended to at least partially compensate the farmer for additional expenses often associated with harvesting a badly damaged crop. Other amendments are of a general housekeeping na­ ture and delete some provisions in the previous Act that are no longer applicable, and some minor changes to other sections.

These sections provide for such matters as maintaining a separate premium account for each region of the province and prorating the indemnities by region, if required. Although these conditions may have been acceptable to some farmers in the early years when insur­ ance was not otherwise available, they certainly are not acceptable today. Mr. Speaker, those are the changes that are reflected in the new Bill. [Motion carried; Bill 35 read a second time] Bill 36 Provincial Parks Amendment Act, 1983 MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move second reading of Bill No. 36, the Provincial Parks Amendment Act, 1983.

Firstly, the Bill makes changes which are in keeping with the departmental reorganization and the govern­ ment's desire to reduce the amount of red tape in admin­ istering the Act. The Bill will allow the minister to make changes to regulations dealing with the administration of

May 17, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1013 the department, rather than resorting to cabinet approval for other than policy issues.

Section 2 of the Bill clearly identifies the other agencies which will have enforcement authority under the Provin­ cial Parks Act. Sections 5, 12, and 19 of the current Act have been repealed, as these sections are presently consid­ ered in other departmental legislation, and therefore over­ lap will be reduced.

Section 7(1) of the Bill provides the minister with clear authority to administer newly ac­ quired lands which will eventually be designated as pro­ vincial parks or recreation areas. This measure will allow for interim administration, management, and protection for those lands to ensure productive use prior to development. Changes to

section 8 of this Bill will provide the minister with greater flexibility and responsiveness to private-sector initiatives for providing services and facili­ ties in parks and recreation areas. Fees for certain dispo­ sitions would be determined through the public tender process, and would therefore be reflective of current market conditions.

Section 10 of the Bill clearly identifies the recourse open to the minister in situations where it is felt a person has established their place of residence in a park. Many of the changes to

section 11 will provide a legal basis for the control of activities such as the use of firearms, off-highway vehicles, and fires in provincial parks and recreation areas. Mr. Speaker, the amendments proposed in this Bill are an attempt to update and make improvements to

an Act which establishes provincial parks and recreation areas for Albertans. I ask for your support for second reading of Bill No. 36. [Motion carried; Bill 36 read a second time] Bill 43 Municipal Government Amendment Act, 1983 MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 43, the Municipal Government Amendment Act, 1983. The Municipal Government Act is much like a consti­ tution for our municipal governments in the province, and deals with many individual areas.

The amendments, as well, deal with many individual areas, and it's difficult to identify a common theme or thread that would tie the amendments together. They deal with specific problems and concerns that have been raised with us over the past number of years. The amendments respond to resolutions that have been passed and to concerns that have been expressed to the department and to myself by the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association and the Alberta Asso­ ciation of Municipal Districts and Counties.

We've been able to specifically address certain concerns with respect to the matter of gas co-ops and the loss of a franchise area on annexation; the need of municipalities, in particular the cities of Edmonton and Medicine Hat, to have flexible authority in terms of the structuring of such debt instruments as they want to sell on the open market — for the city of Edmonton, particularly for the Genesee project; for the city of Medicine Hat, in connection with their natural gas utility. During the course of first reading, Mr.

Speaker, I identified the fact that provision exists in the Act for the establishment of business revitalization zones, and that provision has been well received by municipalities since the introduction of the Bill. There are other provisions that all hon. members will have familiarized themselves with by reading through the Bill. It's unnecessary for me to repeat them, except to request that members join with me in responding to the needs of the municipalities in this province by supporting Bill 43 on second reading. [Motion carried; Bill 43 read a second time] Bill 45 Utilities Statutes Amendment Act, 1983 MR.

CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 45, Utilities Statutes Amendment Act, 1983. This Bill would amend two statutes: the Gas Utilities Act and the Public Utilities Board Act. In one respect, the amendment in each of the two Bills is the same. The purpose is to expand the opportunities the Public Utilities Board has under each of those two statutes to take into account certain matters in the setting of rates of return. The new matters they would be able to take into account would be the construction of capital projects for the utili­ ty, which had not yet been commissioned and brought into service.

Therefore, at any point in time after a project has been approved to go ahead and some expend­ iture of capital funds had occurred, the board could take into account, along with other things that they are re­ quired to take into account, the question of whether some rate of return should be allowed. The value to the consumer, Mr. Speaker, is quite evident. It would create a situation where, with very expensive capital projects being developed, the opportunity would be there to phase in over a period of time the increases that are certain to result to the consumers.

I conclude that portion of it by just noting that there are certainly two sides to the issue. But, of course, the board is not obliged to allow anything in respect of work in progress; it is something they may take into account. Another matter in the Public Utilities Board Act is really no change in principle: an adjustment of certain existing provisions in regard to the payment of expenses, and also salaries and remuneration, in respect of mem­ bers of the Public Utilities Board. [Motion carried; Bill 45 read a second time] Bill 46 Department of Housing Act MR. SHABEN: Mr.

Speaker, I move second reading of Bill No. 46, the Department of Housing Act. The responsibilities for Housing and Public Works were previously contained in one Act and, as a result of the introduction of Bill 37, the Department of Public Works, Supply and Services Act, that separation of re­ sponsibilities will be laid out in statute. There are no changes in responsibilities with respect to Housing as a result of rewriting and separation of the two departments. [Motion carried; Bill 46 read a second time] Bill 49 Petroleum Marketing Amendment Act, 1983 MR. KOWALSKI: Mr.

Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 49, the Petroleum Marketing Amendment Act, 1983. The purpose of the Bill is threefold. Firstly, it relates

1014 ALBERTA HANSARD May 17, 1983 the definition of "pentanes plus" to the definition in the regulations under the Mines and Minerals Act rather than to the definition in the Oil and Gas Conservation Act. Secondly, it provides authorization for payment of sales proceeds of petroleum and pentanes plus by the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission to an opera­ tor or designated financial institution. Thirdly, it outlines the procedure whereby payment of these proceeds must be made by the operator or the designated financial insti­ tution to the owners within five days after receiving them. As well, Mr.

Speaker, the Bill eliminates cross references to sections in the Mines and Minerals Act. I ask that all members support second reading of Bill 49. [Motion carried; Bill 49 read a second time] Bill 50 Alberta Energy Company Amendment Act, 1983 MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 50, the Alberta Energy Company Amendment Act, 1983.

The single issue of principle in this Bill relates to the announcement in November 1982 that the previous policy with respect to the automatic 50 per cent ownership of the shares of the government in the Alberta Energy Company would be changed so when new shares were issued and sold by the company, the government holding could automatically drop to a lesser percentage. That in fact occurred when the Alberta Energy Company issued a successful $85 million share issue last December.

Accord­ ingly, this Bill simply puts that new policy into effect. [Motion carried; Bill 50 read a second time] Bill 53 Franchises Amendment Act, 1983 DR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 53, Franchises Amendment Act, 1983. Hon. members who wish to make a detailed compari­ son of the ramifications of this Bill should refer to

chapter F-17, Revised Statutes of Alberta 1980, Fran­ chises Act. The purpose of the amendment to the Bill will tend to deregulate certain trades between some vendors and purchasers of franchises. Under the proposed amendment, the director of the Securities Commission, upon application by the parties involved, will assess spe­ cific circumstances intended to demonstrate that an ex­ emption from the requirements of the Act is warranted. The Franchise Act presently does not allow sufficient flexibility to exempt worthy applicants from the require­ ments imposed. Hon. members might refer to

section 3(1). This subsec­ tion contains the core of the entire amendment. Upon application by prospective vendors and purchasers of franchises, the director of the Alberta Securities Commis­ sion may, in appropriate circumstances, exempt the "trade in a franchise" from the requirements of the Act.

Section 3(2) provides alternative mechanisms for formal consideration of an application. In essence, Mr. Speaker, the whole impact of Bill 53 is in the area of deregulation, and it should be of some considerable assistance and less cost in situations where employees or people in the same industry may be able to purchase a franchise. [Motion carried; Bill 53 read a second time] Bill 54 Financial Administration Amendment Act, 1983 MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 54, the Financial Administration Amendment Act, 1983. There are four proposals for modifications in the law in this Act, Mr.

Speaker. Firstly, as indicated in the budget, while in previous years moneys flowing from the heritage fund were adequate to provide financing totally for such Crown corporations as the Opportunity Company and the housing corporations, that is no longer the case this year. Accordingly, this Act provides a loan fund me­ chanism which will enable the province, in the name of the province of Alberta, to go to the public debt markets, borrow moneys for those corporations, and re-lend them to those provincial corporations as necessary.

Secondly, the Act provides for the Treasury Board or the Provincial Treasurer, in the case of certain remissions under $2,000, to approve remissions and debts payable to the Crown in certain circumstances set forth in the Bill. Thirdly, there's a provision for the partial payment of guarantees of rural gas utility loans and, lastly, a propos­ al to clarify the procedures for the province and for provincial corporations regarding the assignment of debts owed by the Crown. [Motion carried; Bill 54 read a second time] Bill 55 Real Property Statutes Amendment Act, 1983 MR. CRAWFORD: Mr.

Speaker, I move second reading of Bill No. 55, the Real Property Statutes Amendment Act, 1983. Mr. Speaker, the need for this legislation arose as a result of a judicial

interpretation in which both the Build­ ers' Lien Act and the Land Titles Act were interpreted jointly, with the result that numbers of mechanics' liens — no doubt in the many thousands — would now be perceived by many claimants and their solicitors as being invalid. This is a result of a judicial

interpretation in January of this year, setting aside a mechanic's lien and a builder's lien in one situation as a result of the document not having been executed by a witness in the form re­ quired by the Land Titles Office, although for many years, all such documents had been filed under the terms of the Builders' Lien Act without that type of completion of the document. In other words, Mr.

Speaker, this would substantially put the two statutes in the position where, for the filing of builder's lien claims in the Land Titles Office, it would accord with what, for the most part, legal counsel always felt the law was. The other provisions of the Bill are important enough because there is a provision allowing a person whose lien has lapsed as a result of what has occurred in the last few months and the general confusion and consternation in the land titles system, to seek a judge's order re­ establishing the validity of his lien.

That is subject to the necessary type of qualification that if a person is granted such an order re-establishing a lien which had otherwise become invalid as a result of this new principle of law, he does so subject to intervening bona fide interests of third parties.

May 17, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1015 Despite the confusion — I used the word earlier — that occurs in a situation like this and the need to restore people to the position of having the rights they believe they were exercising, a by-product of some good always comes from it; that is, the clarification of sections 151 and 152 of the Land Titles Act. Examination showed that there may well be other situations where there would be some doubt about the validity of documents for reasons similar to the one I referred to as giving rise to this Bill.

When hon. members see the addition of sections 152.1 and 152.2, there are no major principles involved in any changes there, but there is a considerable degree of clari­ fication of what is required to be witnessed and what is not. [Motion carried; Bill 55 read a second time] Bill 47 Department of Advanced Education Act MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, in moving second read­ ing of Bill 47, Department of Advanced Education Act, I simply want to put on record a couple of comments with respect to the intentions of this piece of legislation.

Although it appears to have several sections, in fact this Act does nothing new in terms of existing legislation but brings into one piece of legislation sections which have been found in other Acts, which are essentially applicable to advanced educational institutions within the province. It should be understood, Mr. Speaker and members of the Assembly, that this legislation at the same time makes those corrections to effect the separa­ tion of the Department of Advanced Education and the Department of Manpower.

Other than that, there is noth­ ing new in terms of policies or principles which would require the attention of the Assembly or should be drawn to the attention of the Assembly. I encourage members to agree to second reading of this legislation. [Motion carried; Bill 47 read a second time] Bill 57 Public Service Amendment Act, 1983 MR. STEVENS: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to move se­ cond reading of Bill No. 57, Public Service Amendment Act, 1983. The Public Service Act provides the basis for the government's internal personnel system.

It established the Personnel Administration Office under the Public Service Commissioner and provides the basis for job classifica­ tions, the setting of pay, conditions of service, and the manner in which people are recruited to, selected for, or appointed to the public service. The proposed change in Bill 57 stems from recent changes in the province's economic situation and our government's policy of fiscal restraint.

In recent years during the rapid expansion of the province, the govern­ ment, as an employer, experienced both a corresponding increase in the demand for public services and a very difficult labor market from which to recruit. Now we are faced with a situation in which we are holding the line and even reducing public service growth. At the same time, the lack of opportunities elsewhere has caused a sharp drop in our vacancy rates. Despite this, demands in some areas of government service continue to grow.

To meet these demands, we will need to re-deploy employees from other departments and programs where demand has diminished. Most additions to the public service are filled through a competitive process. The Public Service Act provides the Public Service Commissioner, with discretion, to exempt appointments on the grounds of persons having special­ ized knowledge or qualifications which are unlikely to be bettered through competition or where there is an urgen­ cy in the requirement to render the competition impract­ icable. Bill 57 widens these grounds to encompass the kind of re-deployment I've described.

The second area of amendment removes the need for certain orders in council for matters of a routine or administrative nature and provides authorization by ministerial order. Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is provision for a revolving fund to facilitate the charging back of the cost of training and development. These programs are offered by Personnel Administration using a combination of external and internal resource persons. We strongly believe that the training and development functions are management responsibilities which should be budgeted for by each department.

The principle of user pay will ensure that Personnel Administration remains responsive to the needs of departments. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few initial comments on the principle of Bill 57, particularly with respect to the significant change to

section 4 of the Act. Before this Assembly agrees to any lessening of the impact of the competition system for jobs, I think we have to be very, very clear what we're doing, and the arguments must be convincing indeed. Mr. Speaker, last Friday, when you were not present, we had a session on the question of government pa­ tronage. As I reflected upon the answers that were given, I thought we had a new crusade from this government to sort of repeal all efforts to do away with patronage.

Of course, at one time we had a very frank and upfront position in the Conservative Party: you reward your friends; you punish your enemies. You hive the Grits — I think Sir John A. Macdonald used to say, in terms of setting boundaries — and you make sure that good Tories are appointed to positions according to the best law of patronage. As a result of this kind of questionable approach, developed into a real art by the Conservative Party in Canada and by certain elements of the Democratic and Republican machines in the United States, a reform movement grew.

The basic thrust of those people arguing for reform was that rather than having public servants appointed on the basis of their political stripe or the color of their complexion, we should have competition and people would be chosen on the basis of merit. This became the centre of a good deal of political debate in the United States. It became the focus of much attention in Canadian politics. All one has to do is review the journals of the early days of this century, and one sees the slow but definite strides toward reform of the process of select­ ing public employees. Mr.

Speaker, we now have a government which — as I reflect on the debate that occurred in the House last Friday — seems to be attempting to turn the clock back, to bring back the good old days of appointment, by­ passing the competition process. As the legislation pres­ ently reads, the Commissioner may exempt an appoint­ ment from competition if he is satisfied that there is some urgency to the appointment or the person has specialized knowledge. We have set out in the Act at the present time two defensible criteria for by-passing the competition

1016 ALBERTA HANSARD May 17, 1983 process. But I ask members to reflect on what the government is now suggesting: a new clause (c), "the exemption is necessary for the effective utilization of employees." That is certainly a very broad definition.

I can imagine that as they sat around in caucus, they must have de­ cided: now how in heaven's name can we come up with a phrase that will allow us to appoint all our unemployed Tory friends — unemployment is high now in Alberta as a result of policies of this government, so there are a lot of unemployed Tories — how are we going to be able to by-pass the competition process? DR. BUCK: I suggested the senate. MR. NOTLEY: Yes, the hon. Member for Clover Bar suggested the senate but, of course, that's a little difficult, a little tricky.

It may be tough to persuade public opinion that we should have a provincial senate. There are more unemployed Tories than that, so they might have to look at some other method. With 35,000 to 40,000 in the public service, there are a lot more jobs than there would be in the senate. So how can we change the rules of the Public Service Act, Mr. Speaker, to allow this new approach to patronage?

Well, we bring in the amendment which the Legislature is being asked to authorize today, a granddaddy clause which allows the government to ap­ point almost anybody they want, because they will be able to justify whatever "the effective utilization of em­ ployees" may be. That is such a broad definition that in fact we are going to scuttle the competition process.

If the minister wanted a little more flexibility in terms of people moving from one branch to another, I am convinced that with the vast number of lawyers we have at the disposal of the government of Alberta, both inside and outside — even in the caucus, they have the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. If the Premier isn't consulting with him on some of these programs — if he was consulting with the former Minister of Energy — perhaps the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources would have time to offer the Minister responsible for Personnel Administration some legal advice.

But with the tremendous array of legal talent, I am convinced that if this government is going to amend the Public Service Act, it could have come up with a little more precise definition than a definition that gives this government almost carte blanche authority to destroy the competition process. Mr.

Speaker, I say to members of the House that if we're going to go this route, then let the government proudly assert it, although I have to say in all honesty that one almost sensed there was that assertion on Friday when the opposition reminded the government in this House of the, I think, sterling observations made by the new Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons, Mr. Nielsen, about the tendency of the federal Liberals to engage in self-serving patronage. I certainly agree with his observations; I think they are right on. Mr.

Speaker, we found very little support for that point of view in this House on Friday. As a matter of fact, the provincial Tories were embracing, almost with jubilation, the attitude toward the public service under­ taken by their new bedfellows the federal Liberals. So we seem to have an Ottawa/Edmonton axis on this business of ditching competition in the public service and instead rewarding one's friends in the old Sir John A. Macdonald fashion or, to go south of the border, the Tammany Hall fashion as well. I see one of the hon. members over there, one of the younger members — yes, yes, the hon.

Member for Edmonton Glengarry — who hopes to be the Richard Daley of Edmonton at some point, if he keeps at it long enough. In any event, Mr. Speaker, what we have at the moment is a proposal before the House which, stripping aside all the partisan comments that have been part of my observations so far, I would say seriously erodes the competition process.

With the evidence of a tendancy toward patronage appointments and rewarding their friends that this government has already demonstrated, before this Assembly endorses this kind of sweeping expansion of appointment without competition, I for one want to have a better explanation than I've heard today from the minister. [Mr. Speaker declared the motion carried. Several mem­ bers rose calling for a division.

The division bell was rung] [Eight minutes having elapsed, the House divided] For the motion: Adair Gogo Paproski Alexander Harle Payne Alger Horsman Pengelly Anderson Hyland Purdy Appleby Hyndman Reid Batiuk Johnston Shaben Bogle King Sparrow Bradley Koper Stevens Campbell Kowalski Stiles Carter Koziak Stromberg Clark Lee Szwender Cook McPherson Thompson Crawford Miller Trynchy Cripps Moore, R.

Weiss Drobot Nelson Woo Elliott Oman Young Fischer Osterman Zaozirny Fjordbotten Pahl Zip Fyfe Against the motion: Buck Martin Notley Totals: Ayes – 55 Noes – 3 [Bill 57 read a second time] Bill 17 Health Occupations Amendment Act, 1983 MR. KING: Did I hear 58 called? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Seventeen. MR. KING: I'm sorry. I thought I heard the hon. Clerk call 58, and I was somewhat at a loss. [interjections] That's very true. I hope hon. members will remember this day, because it won't happen for another 12 years. I move second reading of Bill No. 58, the health occupations Act. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Seventeen.

May 17, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1017 MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill No. 17, the Health Occupations Amendment Act, 1983. MR. SPEAKER: On the assumption that the earlier motion was withdrawn, would members in favor of the motion by the hon. minister for second reading of Bill No. 17 please say aye. HON. MEMBERS: Aye. MR. SPEAKER: Those opposed, please say no. [Motion carried; Bill 17 read a second time] Bill 58 Northland School Division Act MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, on this occasion I really am at a loss. Bill No. 58 was given first reading yesterday.

I made an undertaking to the community school boards in the Northland School Division that they would have an opportunity to peruse it for a few days prior to second reading. AN HON. MEMBER: Adjourn the debate. MR. KING: Thank you for that excellent advice. I'd like to move that Bill No. 58, the Northland School Division Act, be read a second time. In doing so, I beg leave to adjourn the debate. MR. SPEAKER: Does the Assembly agree? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: The motion is adopted. head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 212. Moved by Mr. Clark:

Be it resolved that the Assembly urge the government to consider additional ways of increasing the use of our inland terminals for the benefit of the grain industry in Alberta. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased today to pro­ pose Motion 212 to the Assembly. Upgrading of the three terminals in Alberta cannot be considered in isolation. They have to be considered as part of an efficient trans­ portation system. If they are ever to be anything but underutilized storage facilities, certain improvements must take place.

They must have cleaning and drying facilities, they must be totally [automated], and they must have a system of grading that can be used in the big terminals at the coast. This is just the barest minimum of upgrading that would be required and that must take place. The three terminals in Alberta — at Lethbridge, Cal­ gary, and Edmonton — along with the ones in Moose Jaw and Saskatoon, have a storage capacity of 117 mil­ lion bushels. They were all constructed prior to 1931 and were designed to provide a reserve storage capacity and flexibility in the direction in which the grain was deli­ vered.

In other words, if an elevator in our primary system became overloaded, the grain company could haul it to the terminals and it could be stored there. [Mr. Appleby in the Chair] The utilization of these terminals has always been very poor. You have to ask yourself: when farmers are storing grain on their farms and building more expensive storage every year, why are they paying interest out of their own pockets to cover the storage and we have terminals not being used to their fullest capacity?

For example, the Edmonton terminal — I believe this is in 1981 figures — was used at 38 per cent of its capacity, and 86 per cent of that was for rapeseed. In Calgary, only 23 per cent of the capacity of the elevator was in use, and 33 per cent of that was rapeseed and 39 per cent barley. Lethbridge was one of the terminals that handled wheat. They had wheat, rapeseed, mustard, and corn. Even with all those grains, they used the elevator to only 30 per cent of its capacity. Again, when we have such a surplus of grain on the prairies, why are these terminals not being used to the fullest extent possible?

One of the main reasons is quite simple. It's their inability to use their high volume throu­ ghput to give a freight-rate advantage to the farmers for an incentive to haul. Of course that is due to the Crow rate somewhat. The other part — as producers paid the Wheat Board for storing grains, grain companies like the pool never really made use of the facilities, preferring to use their own and collect storage rather than see the federal government have the storage. So they were never really utilized the way they should have been. They weren't used for what they were originally built for.

The reason is that there is no incentive for a grain producer to haul grain into the terminal system. If I have to haul 50 or 60 miles, there is no advantage if I have to take the same price as my neighbor who hauls it six miles down the road to one of the branch-line pools. There's no incentive in quota, and there's no incentive in storage costs. So why would I haul 60 miles? There's absolutely no reason a farmer is going to do it. Years ago the elevating charges or handling charges — call them what you like — never came into the picture.

But as of late, the elevating or handling charges have been coming into the picture to a much greater extent, until it's now $20 per ton to elevate grain. When you look at the east coast, in the wintertime when the Seaway is iced up and they have to reload the grain at the Lakehead and ship it down to Halifax, it has to be loaded four times. So in handling charges alone you're looking at a lot more than the entire freight rate. To bring it into perspective, nowadays we don't even hear anything about the handling charges in the elevator sys­ tem, but we certainly hear about a proposed increase in the freight rate.

I believe we've heard it to the detriment of our system in the last while. Let anybody suggest for one minute giving an incentive to throughput, and right away all the roadblocks in the system start coming up. We don't seem to have any lack of money for storage or handling charges, elevating charges, and charges like that, but just let it be mentioned once that we're going to get an incentive for throughput and you'll see the roadblocks start to multiply. I guess, Mr. Speaker, we have to have a long-term goal for these terminals.

As I understand it from the Alberta government, the long-term goal is to take the terminals out of the total storage system and give them to the producers as terminals to receive their commodity. Clean it if that's necessary, and get it to tidewater as quickly as possible. What they would like to see on a long-term basis is five turnarounds through the terminals in a year. At the present time, we're doing 1.5. In other words, it

1018 ALBERTA HANSARD May 17, 1983 sits there for almost a year before it gets turned over. I guess the next question you have to ask is: what is necessary to achieve these things? First, as I said before, it's full automation of the three terminals which, in 1980 dollars, would have cost $43 million. You have to have drying and cleaning facilities. You have to have facilities that will load unit trains. They're talking of loading a 100-car unit train in one day. I believe in the States that's pretty slow going even now. They have to have a market for their screenings.

When you talk of screenings, that's another cost to the produc­ er. I believe just last year an average of about 28 million bushels of screenings was shipped to tidewater. The producer pays the freight on that, and he gets nothing in return. Thirteen per cent of these screenings are sold as whole grains, 20 per cent are sold as No. 1 screenings and 12 per cent as mixed feed oats, and 68 [per cent] are refuse screenings. All these screenings could be used on the prairies if they were screened here, and we wouldn't have to ship them to the coast.

One advantage is that it would save us the freight on 28 million tons a year. What else do we need? Obviously we need an incentive. You have to have an incentive to bring the grain to the terminals. You have to have the grain in the terminals before you can deliver it. This could even be so much as an extra quota, or no quota, in the terminal system. One incentive certainly would be to return the freight subsidy to the producer instead of giving 100 per cent of it to the railroads, as has been suggested by the Alberta and Saskatchewan wheat pools.

By returning 100 per cent to the railroads, they will take away every incentive and take away the ability of the farmer to haul anyplace except to his local storage facilities, which are on branch lines. Once again, we'll find ourselves back where the grain companies will continue to receive storage on 40-year-old facilities. They'll also have the ability to charge that back to the producer. In storage, it's the producer who pays in the end.

Again, we'll be back to that storage-oriented system where we pay any amount for storage, it seems, in this country, but we will pay not one nickel for efficiency in the system. What else is necessary? I think we not only have to have the facilities in the province to load and to ship, but we have to have the facilities at the coast to unload our unit trains. These are not available at the present time. They are running into lots of roadblocks at the present time in trying to set these things up. There is another roadblock in the way.

Many of the terminals on the coast make a great deal of their revenue from cleaning and selling weed seeds from the screenings. At present, I'm sure that the terminals on tidewater would be very loath to make any new agreement where clean seeds would be coming in and they would be deprived of this revenue. So it's something that concerns the whole system. It has to co-operate, I believe, if we are going to get anywhere. In

summary, the Alberta government can look at sev­ eral areas. But unless we are assured that areas under other jurisdictions can resolve the problems and the fea­ sibility of doing anything for Alberta, we'll just be throw­ ing good money after bad. In other words, why have an inland terminal if we're not allowed a quota that will meet the shipping out of that terminal? Why spend $43 million in upgrading an automatic elevator system here in the province if we don't have similar facilities at tidewater to unload the unit trains? There has to be complete co-operation with all the people concerned.

That's where we're falling down. We're not getting the co-operation from the people concerned. We have passed the time when we look at one small area, such as the grain companies, and say, they have this right and they have that right. The time has come when we must look at the entire system as a whole. In 1979, Mr. Speaker, the producers of western Canada lost $600 million in grain sales because they could not get it to the tidewater. In a two-year period, they lost $1 billion — those are Wheat Board figures — in sales alone. That doesn't include demurrage, storage, handling, and all other charges. That is lost.

Guess who picks them up? The United States picks them up. The United States picks them up not because they have a better product; they don't. We have the best product in the world. They don't sell it any cheaper. They pick it up simply because they can guarantee delivery to tidewater, and we can't with the system we have. Mr. Speaker, I would urge the members to pass this motion. I know it's a big job to try to get all the people in the grain industry to work together. We've seen it even in our own small areas, our own caucus. Everybody has their own ideas on what should be done.

But in my opinion at least, what is being done is certainly not the way we should be going. We should be looking at the entire system. I believe it's also time we in Alberta looked very seriously at inland grain terminals — we have three we can start out with — so we can show that these will be a success, and work in that way. Mr. Speaker, it's time we take some steps to let the producers demonstrate that they want a better system and they will haul farther to an inland terminal.

I think it's time that the producer had a chance to show all concerned that buying a $5 member­ ship in a co-op does not give that co-op the right to vote for him on what kind of system they'll have in the province or in Canada. It also doesn't give that co-op the right to use his dividends to mount a lobby against the very people they represent. Mr. Speaker, I had several calls this morning from my constituents, all farmers, all good former Pool members, who are very angry at what has happened in the grain industry in the last little while.

I believe it's time we started listening not just to a few of the people but to the producers. With that, Mr. Speaker, I'll be very interested in listen­ ing to what other people have to say on this motion. Thank you very much. MR. STROM BERG: I see the Speaker is not in his Chair. I was going to congratulate him on his worldly travels and mention that we in the Assembly sorely missed him the past couple of weeks. I can describe the absence of the Speaker from this Assembly as a little bit like school when the principal comes down with the flu. The students have a ball. However, we did miss the Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, we have before you and the Assembly a major motion that, if implemented, could have far- reaching effects on the agriculture industry in western Canada. But before addressing the main motion, I would like to point out a few major things that are happening in the fast-changing world of protein demand. For years economists of questionable status, the United Nations, the Club of Rome, and various churches have predicted worldwide famine. We in western Canada pro­ spered, while other countries experienced the misfortunes of frost and draught. Traditionally, Mr.

Speaker, our markets for Canadian hard red spring wheat and, to a

May 17, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1019 lesser extent, course grains have been the United King­ dom and Europe, with Britain our number one export buyer. What has happened to that market now? The U.K. ranks number five as a buyer of our grain, and the Common Market is one of our most competitive oppo­ nents on the world grain market, especially in oil seeds and barley. Mr. Speaker, John Diefenbaker came along and opened the doors for grain export to China's millions at a time when United States policy was to starve China into submission. Guess who has out-hussled us now, in both China and Russia?

The Americans, sending huge exports of their corn and soybeans. There are also new, emerging nations that are major protein exporters, such as Brazil and New Zealand with their soybeans. Southeast Asia, as well as central Ameri­ ca, exports palm oil. And of course the new varieties of dwarf rice that have made such a major impact in coun­ tries of southeast Asia, such as the Philippines and Japan, compete with our hard spring wheat. On the other side of the world, Saudi Arabia, along with the United Nations, has invested a bundle in the Sudan to change the route of the White Nile.

Both the United Nations and Saudi Arabia have boasted that in changing the route of the White Nile, they will make the Sudan the bread basket of Africa. Mr. Speaker, a few years ago I had the opportunity to discuss with a Saskatchewan farmer who had been sent over by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool to advise Sudan farmers on modern machinery, technology, and herbi­ cides. This practical, hard-nosed farmer made no bones as to what already was being produced and what could be produced in the Sudan, and it was staggering.

Another country that has used western Canadian expertise to its benefit is Tanzania, where 100,000 acres of dry land have been put into wheat production. That country is no longer an importer but an exporter. Mr. Speaker, a few years ago I had the opportunity to be a delegate at the Commonwealth conference in Zam­ bia. I also had the opportunity to see the country's agri­ cultural base and, believe me, I was impressed: 32 inches of rain annually during the rainy season; high plateau country quite similar in appearance to the area around Calgary.

During the driest, hottest month, temperatures on that plateau were around 75 to 80 degrees Fahrenheit. These growing conditions produced soft wheat yields from a low of 70 bushels to a high of 110 bushels, and a corn yield of about 140 bushels per acre. I'm not sure of soybean production. They get two crops a year. It's a two-crop country — maize, winter wheat — and in some instances there's a third crop, soybeans. And they have unlimited ground water for irrigation.

As the British delegation told me, Zambia has the potential to feed the world and someday will be in direct competition with us as exporters of food. But what really concerned me, as a farmer whose live­ lihood depends on our effective export of grain, is that the Soviet Communist Party's central committee and council of governing ministers recently placed agriculture as their major national priority. For example, in the past three years, grain imports have cost the Soviet govern­ ment at least $23 billion.

It is no wonder that the Soviet Union, China, and Japan are hellbent on becoming as self-sufficient in food production as possible. And where does that leave us? Here in Alberta, on the farthest northern limit of agricultural production in the world, we just don't have the heat units to compete with countries that do have them. We are also plagued with a lousy railroad system, a strike-ridden port in Vancouver that has a notorious reputation among other importing countries, a questionable system of grain storage, and a federal government that believes in a cheap food industry.

There is a growing realization throughout the world, par­ ticularly now with the United Nations, that we're a long way from global famine and, as developing countries learn our technology, we could be facing huge surpluses of grain in North America for the next generation. Mr. Speaker, if agriculture as we know it is to compete and survive, I think we're going to have to change a few things such as in Motion 212, greater use of inland terminals, and starting to use the feasible Columbia bar- geway on the Snake River at Lewiston, Idaho.

I'd like to quote from some material in reference to a terminal at Lewiston, sent over from the Alberta Grain Commission. An emphasis on throughput, not storage, both in inland/river and in coast grain terminals. Turnover rates of 50-70 times were not uncommon. I believe the mover of the motion quoted turnover rates in Alberta terminals at seven times in a year. Perhaps we should be looking at another rail link from Grimshaw westward to connect with B.C.

Rail; the use of containers for prepared feed and special crops, or doing away with the dozen or more unnecessary grades of grain we have for sale; and overhauling the Canadian Wheat Board. A change in the federal government would definitely help. Mr. Speaker, I would like to end my remarks on a word of caution offered to me by the mover of 212, the Member for Drumheller. Drought has hit western Cana­ da before, especially in the '30s, and he remembers it well. He informs me that no rain has fallen on his farm since last June.

As of last weekend, the Member for Drum­ heller was standing in the middle of his farmstead, staring up at a little cloud that was passing overhead, and wondering if it was ever going to rain. And lo and behold, one drop of rain came down. It hit him right between the eyes, and was such a shock to the hon. member that he fainted. This gave his good wife, who was witnessing all this from their kitchen window, quite a shock, and she ran as fast as she could to her husband. She had to throw three bucketfuls of dust on him to revive him. [laughter] DR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to rise to speak to Motion 212.

I'm greatly relieved that in the previous speaker's story, it was dust that was thrown on the Member for Drumheller. The Member for Drumheller has brought forth a very interesting motion that dovetails quite nicely with Motion 210 with respect to the export of product to the Pacific Rim, which we discussed last Tuesday in the Assembly.

I listened with some attention to the mover of the motion, as well as to the previous speaker, and it puts the whole situation in a global perspective: the matter not only of raising the product, but the product isn't any good unless you can move it somewhere and sell it; and if you can sell it, it still isn't any good unless you've got it delivered and then consumed. To have information with respect to other parts of the world and, in particular, the matter of a feeding situation in Africa does keep things in perspec­ tive.

We in the Assembly and the constituents we repre­ sent need to be aware that we are very much involved in terms of a global marketing strategy. If as a country we're falling behind in that global strategy, it is much more necessary for us as a province to work through economic development and overseas economic development, as well as the Department of Agriculture, to keep pushing for

1020 ALBERTA HANSARD May 17, 1983 worldwide markets. Mr. Speaker, for those members of the Assembly who were watching the national news last evening, it was interesting that the major networks dealt with the story where our Prime Minister was riding at the back end of a CNR train, supposedly examining the rail system from Jasper over the Red Pass Junction.

One can only hope that if he's given it that kind of first-hand attention, it will follow that more dollars will be put into the system, that the necessary upgrading will take place at a rapid rate, and that it just won't be seen as another tour outside Ottawa for the Prime Minister. Mr. Speaker, I stand to speak very briefly in debate on this motion because I know other members are more than anxious to get into the discussion. But I stand as an urban member.

As a member of the government from 1979 to 1982, all members of the caucus were very much in support of the purchase of the three inland terminals in Edmonton, Lethbridge, and Calgary to further help as a back-up system in the delivery of farm product primarily to the western seaboard. The whole matter of the upgrad­ ing of the system obviously would involve a fair amount of money. I understand that the current estimate, in terms of providing cleaning and drying equipment, the matter of grading, and the whole upgrading of facilities in the province, will involve an expenditure of at least $35 million.

Then we also have to deal in terms of a railroad system trying to clear trackage in the areas of Lethbridge, Cal­ gary, and Edmonton, so that the preparation of unit trains might become a possibility. I understand there are certain inherent difficulties involved with respect to the various grading systems of grain in terms of trying to get the unitized trains together and then getting them un­ loaded at the west coast, as the hon. Member for Drumheller pointed out in his remarks. Motion 212 talks about "the benefit of the grain indus­ try in Alberta".

Through my colleague from Cypress, I'm given to understand that United Grain Growers has been operating for the better part of a year through the Leth­ bridge terminal facility, and that this seems to be working quite well. I'm certain other members of the Assembly can bring us further updated information with respect to usage of the inland terminal at Lethbridge. Recently when I was at the west coast I toured the harbor facilities. I think the first thing that strikes one as being a real difficulty in the system is the number of empty ships floating in the outer approaches to Vancouv­ er harbor.

Other members have spoken with regard to the labor difficulties in Vancouver. But there's this whole matter of how you get the product there, how you get it off-loaded, and how you get it out to sea and moving. The hon. Member for Drumheller mentioned some stats with regard to the use of the inland terminals in April 1982, where quite definitely the three facilities were considerably below capacity, and even then they were involved in other product, primarily involving the storage of canola. I'm given to understand from research docu­ ments that in April of 1983 the situation was quite dif­ ferent.

Hopefully it's part of the learning process. Statis­ tics I have here show that the Edmonton facility was at 98 per cent capacity, the Calgary facility at 75 per cent, and Lethbridge supposedly fairly close to 100 per cent capacity. As an urban member giving input to the discussion, the best that I can say about farming is, number one, a great appreciation for the amount of hard work involved. Second, with respect to transportation of product — to be like the hon.

Member for Chinook in having had a great interest in railroad transportation for a considerable number of years, having bridged not only steam locomo­ tives but now over to diesel. What really is involved in terms of carrying capacity to tidewater is quite an educa­ tion. Having worked on the railroad for a number of years some years ago, I wasn't really aware of what's involved in getting grain to market. I am somewhat appalled to discover that, for example, one railroad car in every 40 is carrying nothing except screenings or waste.

So if we can do the cleaning here in this province, that in turn saves in the cost of shipping and in car space and turnaround time. The final comment I would like to make in the debate, Mr. Speaker, is that from the point of view of local employment in Calgary, Edmonton, and Lethbridge, whatever we can do in terms of upgrading the capacity of the facilities of the inland terminals with respect to clean­ ing and grading would be very useful. We in Alberta are fortunate. We've had a far better track record with re­ spect to our labor conditions.

One would hope this would help remove one more piece of the stumbling block that's involved in the whole rationalization of the transporta­ tion interconnect with the agricultural market as we try to get our Alberta product to places throughout the world where it justifiably deserves to be. MR. BATIUK: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to partici­ pate in this very important motion. I appreciate the hon. member who introduced this motion for his dress. I see he's been wearing an ethnic bow tie this week. [interjec­ tions] It improves the decorum of the House.

I can well agree that this motion urging the government to make better use of the inland terminals, now known as Alberta Terminals Ltd., would help and be better than before when Canada terminals did very little with them. It served mostly as a place for storage. However, I am glad the provincial government considered buying those over the years. The federal government wanted to dispose of them, I guess because they were costly and weren't of much use. I would like to go into a little bit of history. When the Parliament of Canada invoked

section 92 of the British North America Act, declaring that all grain elevators be for the general advantage of Canada, they took jurisdic­ tion over all elevators in the country, despite the fact that by nature the elevators are a local service to the people. In practice the federal government has used their regula­ tory powers to control the use of and the business of running all grain facilities, elevators, and even processing plants in western Canada and some in eastern Canada.

Discretion for the use of their regulatory powers has been passed to the Canadian Grain Commission and partly to the Canadian Wheat Board. The Grain Commission is­ sues licences to operate these plants. In order to obtain a licence, the licensee must be bonded as well as having to agree to follow the regulations in certain ways. The Wheat Board's power to extend regulations — how much each kind of grain enters or leave these li­ censed elevators.

No grain is allowed into an unlicensed elevator, and they do this by setting delivery quotas for each kind of grain and oil seeds at the delivery point, and by completely controlling the allocation of railway cars to the elevators. An elevator operator is always at the mercy of the regulatory bodies as far as his volume of handling is concerned. There is very little scope for operating grain elevators in a commercially rational manner. The opera­ tor's profit position is dictated more by the bureaucrats

May 17, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1021 than by his own acumen. Alberta Terminals Ltd., owner and operator of three elevators in the province, is no different from any other elevator. They are at the mercy of the Wheat Board's delivery quota, regulations, and the board's control over which shippers are allocated cars to move grain out of the elevators and which are not. Alberta Terminals Ltd. does not get an allocation and must rely on their customers to get an allocation of cars and to move grain out of their terminals. Alberta Terminals Ltd. elevators are licensed as ter­ minal elevators.

The distinction between terminal and primary elevators is that the grain passing through ter­ minal elevators must be officially inspected and graded, weighed, cleaned — to have the dockage removed before it is shipped out — and even dried if necessary. None of this is required for grain going through primary elevators. Farmers delivering their grain to a primary elevator can negotiate a grade, the dockage, and the moisture content with the elevator operator. If they deliver to a terminal elevator, the official grade and dockage must be accepted.

An important commercial distinction is that the maxi­ mum handling rate for grain entering primary elevators is set significantly higher than those for the terminals. This allows the terminal operator to offer farmers a better deal at times. Additionally, grain entering primary elevators has usually been brought by the owner of the elevators. Grain entering terminal elevators is owned by a great mixture of companies and individuals, sometimes includ­ ing the owners of the terminals.

All of the above has to be kept in mind when seeking ways and means of making the three terminal elevators more useful to the grain farmers of this province. Until 1975, virtually every primary elevator in western Canada operated at a loss. This was because the regulated maximum handling rate was so low — approximately 3.5 cents per bushel — that the revenue never covered the cost of handling.

This made the owners react in two ways: they built small primary elevators in as many grain growing areas as they could and, second, they also owned and operated terminal elevators at the west coast and Thunder Bay, where they directed all the grain collected in their primary elevators to their own terminals. Here they could offset the losses made in their primary eleva­ tors by profits made at their terminals through revenue from handling, storage, cleaning, drying, and the sale of screenings, which many times brought the best income. [Mr.

Speaker in the Chair] The five inland terminals and the Prince Rupert ter­ minal, in those days owned and operated by the Cana­ dian government, went months without handling any grain. No primary elevator owner would be foolish enough to consign his grain to a government elevator where he would have no chance at all to recoup the losses made by the elevator company. The policy of the Cana­ dian government elevators was that they would not ac­ cept delivery direct from farmers. These six elevators were white elephants — no grain received from the line elevator companies or from the farmers.

After the Cana­ dian Grain Commission raised the maximum chargeable rates at the primary elevators by up to 300 per cent, a certain amount of rationalization occurred. The individu­ al primary elevators, if operated well, could now end the year in the black instead of the red. They could now afford to ship to terminals other than their own, thus increasing their throughput in the country. Prince Rupert terminal in particular began to receive much more grain and probably makes a profit. The Wheat Board now uses it for handling wheat for China in particular.

While I'm at it, I would like to mention, as the hon. speaker before me did, cleaning and drying. I was particu­ larly disappointed when I was at the Prince Rupert terminal, because it seems to me that the biggest portion of their work there is cleaning grain. In 1981 eight car loads of dockage went in every 100-car unit train to the west coast. Just think of how many cars of grain could have gone to the west coast if that grain had been cleaned right on the farms and that dockage used for feed. The cost of moving it, the shortage of boxcars and hopper cars — yet the cost is so much greater there for cleaning.

Because of union conditions in British Columbia, any­ thing over 37 and a half hours would go double time. That made it quite a cost. Naturally, the producer is going to pay for it in the end. Where there have been approximately 1,400 primary elevators in Alberta, there are now only 950. It is no longer necessary to stretch the system way out to get the last kernel in order to ship to the terminals, where the profit used to be. Today only the larger primary elevators are tolerated by the owners. Annual throughput of about 500,000 bushels will allow a primary elevator to make a profit.

Much more than that is needed at the terminal elevator. Under today's rationalized rate regulation, it is neces­ sary for a grain handling company to be integrated from the primary to the terminal in order to survive. Any owner of a terminal elevator who does not also own a network of primary collection elevators has little hope of surviving. Terminal elevators need feeder elevators, given the rail freight rates existing today and overregulation by federal government bodies.

In the absence of any change in the Crow — which could have a rejuvenating effect on the grain collection system by eliminating the temporary elevators and replacing them with a few inland terminals through which virtually all the grain sold would have to pass. These are only a few ways the terminal could survive. One way is for the operator of the terminal elevator to buy grain direct from the farmers for his own account; in other words, become a dealer. That is not recommended for Alberta Terminals Ltd. on several counts.

It is repug­ nant in a philosophical sense, in that the local grain market place is not where the government agency ought to be. There are enough free-enterprise companies now in the business of buying grain. Therefore there is no use in buying grain unless the buyer has somewhere to sell it. This would lead Alberta Terminals Ltd. into a headache- producing system of greatly expanded staff, transfer ele­ vators at the coast or Thunder Bay, and all the ramifica­ tions that go with being a wholesale seller of grain. Once again, there is an established system of grain traders in place.

There is no room for a government agency trying to compete with the real experts. In the end, Alberta grain farmers would be no better served. Another possibility is for Alberta Terminals Ltd. to convert to primary elevators. Again, this is not recom­ mended because, as noted before, grain going into the primary elevators is the property of the elevator operator. He must be able to sell it and move it out quickly to make a profit. ATL could try to become a buying agent of the Canadian Wheat Board, thus taking care of having to find a home for the grain it bought.

This is also repug­ nant in that it would force a provincial government

1022 ALBERTA HANSARD May 17, 1983 agency, Alberta Terminals Ltd., to be an agent of the federal government corporation, the Wheat Board. It would call for a big increase in staff to handle the paperwork. Again, the grain farmers would be no better off. In such an overregulated industry, one hope for Alber­ ta Terminals is to foster the development of a grain trade made up of companies having expertise in trading grain but which do not own their elevators. This is indeed happening.

The idea that the Alberta Grain Commission had when they offered to buy the three terminals in Alberta, fought for nine years ago, was that these eleva­ tors would provide a lively market place where all grain buyers would congregate and compete for the farmers' grain. The grain would enter the terminal elevator but would be owned by the dealer/buyer. The terminal eleva­ tor would live on the normal revenues available to such an enterprise without having the headaches of buying and selling grain. Perhaps that is still the best way for a company like ATL to survive.

This notion is supported by what is currently happening at Lethbridge. ATL, with the co­ operation of the Canadian Grain Commission, is carrying out a test operation to find out if such a system would really work. There are a dozen or so grain companies who compete for farmers' grain presented at the Leth­ bridge terminal. The Grain Commission has waived its requirement that grain must be officially inspected and graded. They allow the buyers and farmers to come to an agreement as to what grade, weight, and dockage is. Payment is made accordingly.

Official inspection is needed only when there is a dispute between the buyer and farmer. This method is working really well and so far has proved to be good for all concerned, including the ATL. It provides the best of both primary and terminal eleva­ tors. It would indeed be a good idea to allow the same process to be carried out at Calgary and Edmonton. Perhaps a word should be said about the new Alberta barley futures contract traded on the floor of the Winni­ peg Commodity Exchange for delivery to any one of the ATL terminal elevators.

The first delivery month traded is in June of this year, so it is not possible to make an assessment of the e