March 14, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 27 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Monday, March 14, 1983 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] Commonwealth Day MR. SPEAKER: May I draw to the attention of hon. members — and I'm sure most of you are aware — that today, the second Monday in March, is Commonwealth Day. As far as I know, the only member of this Assem­ bly, other than ministers, who has taken

part in a plenary conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Associa­ tion and is still serving in the Assembly is the hon. Member for Camrose. He and I have discussed the obser­ vance of this day and, if the House so approves, he has kindly agreed to read the message of Her Majesty for Commonwealth Day. HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. STROMBERG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to bring the Commonwealth Day message, 1983, from Her Majesty the Queen, Head of the Commonwealth.

In the seven years since the second Monday in March was adopted as Commonwealth Day by all the independent nations of the Commonwealth, their number has grown from 35 to 47 and hundreds of thousands of young people have started, and indeed completed, their formal education. It is worth reminding ourselves, therefore, that the day was chosen because it was likely to be a school day in every Commonwealth country. The choice re­ flected the desire of governments that their young people should learn about the Commonwealth and, once a year, should be given a special opportunity to think what it is all about.

First and foremost, it is about people, and particu­ larly about the young. In many countries they make up nearly half the population. At its most spectacu­ lar and exhilarating it is about athletes such as I saw last year competing brilliantly in the unique atmos­ phere of the Commonwealth Games; at its most enchanting it is about the children who gave me such a welcome on my first visits to some of the island nations in the Pacific Ocean; but fundamentally it is concerned with all those who in their early years have to learn how best to meet the challenges of living in the world today.

This is why, through its youth program, its techni­ cal and professional programs and its work in the fields of health and education, the Commonwealth helps to tackle the problems of underemployment and undernourishment and to provide opportunities for millions of families to achieve the fulfilment in life which is their natural right. The Commonwealth cannot of itself solve all the problems of the human race but as a worldwide community it works for peace and for the elimina­ tion of poverty. It does care about the lives of indi­ vidual men, women and children.

Through the ready sharing of ideas, experience, skills and resources between governments and between people in all walks of life it seeks year by year to enrich the world in which its young people are growing up. Elizabeth R. MR. SPEAKER: In addition to thanking the hon.

Member for Camrose, it may be in order to recall that the Commonwealth of Nations has a special importance for us quite apart from other associations of nations because it consists of a group of nations which share our own traditions of parliamentary self-government, and also to recall the potential which the Commonwealth Parliamen­ tary Association has for all of us to enrich that sharing of parliamentary ideas with our colleagues in, for example, Australia, the United Kingdom, India, and other areas of the Commonwealth. head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 15 Department of Transportation Amendment Act, 1983 MR. M.

MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to intro­ duce Bill No. 15, the Department of Transportation Amendment Act, 1983. This being a money Bill, His Honour the Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor, hav­ ing been informed of the contents of this Bill, recom­ mends the same to the Assembly. This Bill, Mr. Speaker, is designed to increase the amount of the advances from the General Revenue Fund to the stock advance fund of the Department of Transportation. [Leave granted; Bill 15 read a first time] Bill 204

An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly Act MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to move first reading of Bill 204,

An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly Act. This Act would clear the criteria on which the Official Opposition and the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Oppo­ sition may be designated in future Assemblies. [Leave granted; Bill 204 read a first time] Bill 14 Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1983 MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to intro­ duce Bill No. 14, the Attorney General Statutes Amend­ ment Act, 1983.

This Bill would amend four statutes which are the responsibility of the Attorney General: the Alberta Evi­ dence Act, in respect of the addition of school boards to the number of institutions which are not required to provide original documentary evidence in certain situa­ tions; the Arbitration Act, to establish a time during which a challenge to an arbitration board award must be

28 ALBERTA HANSARD March 14, 1983 made in a superior court; the Court of Appeal Act, in order to provide for more than one registrar of the court; and the Fatality Inquiries Act, in order to enable the Attorney General to require fatality inquiries in certain circumstances to be reopened or reconvened and, further, to provide that in certain circumstances a fatality inquiry might be stayed in the light of investigation going on in respect of potential criminal offences. [Leave granted; Bill 14 read a first time] Bill 18 Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund Amendment Act, 1983 MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I request leave to intro­ duce Bill No. 18, the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund Amendment Act, 1983. This being a money Bill, His Honour the Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor, having been informed of the contents of the Bill, recom­ mends the same to the Assembly. Mr.

Speaker, the two major purposes of this Bill are as follows: firstly, to enable a transfer of all the income of the heritage fund to the General Revenue Fund from September 1, 1982, till August 31, 1984, a period of 24 months; and secondly, to enable the special heritage fund Act, which will be introduced shortly, to include a 15 per cent transfer of non-renewable natural resource revenues for 24 months, beginning April 1, 1983.

These amend­ ments, of course, relate to the September '82 announce­ ment with regard to funding for the economic resurgence program, the interest rate programs, and to reduce the deficit. [Leave granted; Bill 18 read a first time] Bill 7 Department of Economic Development Amendment Act, 1983 MR. PLANCHE: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to intro­ duce Bill No. 7, the Department of Economic Develop­ ment Amendment Act, 1983.

The main purpose of this amendment will be to allow the government to guarantee lease agreements and other obligations, in addition to the loans which the Act al­ ready permits. [Leave granted; Bill 7 read a first time] Bill 10 Rural Electrification Revolving Fund Amendment Act, 1983 MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill No. 10, the Rural Electrification Revolving Fund Amendment Act, 1983. This being a money Bill, His Honour the Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor, hav­ ing been informed of the contents of this Bill, recom­ mends the same to the Assembly.

The purpose of this Bill is to increase the maximum funding available to the fund from the current $45 million to the proposed $55 million. [Leave granted; Bill 10 read a first time] Bill 11 Department of Utilities and Telephones Amendment Act, 1983 MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill No. 11, the Department of Utilities and Telephones Amendment Act, 1983.

This Bill will reflect the title and responsibilities of the minister and provide for the transfer of the administra­ tion of the water and sewer municipal grants program from the Department of the Environment. [Leave granted; Bill 11 read a first time] Bill 17 Health Occupations Amendment Act, 1983 MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a Bill, being the Health Occupations Amendment Act, 1983. The Bill has two features.

First, it provides that health professions and occupations may choose to give up par­ ticular legislation in favor of operating under the terms of the Health Occupations Amendment Act, 1983. And se­ cond, it identifies the first three health occupations to be designated in this province upon the recommendation of the Health Occupations Board. The three proposed for designation are emergency medical technicians: parame­ dics, respiratory technologists, and medical radiation technologists. [Leave granted; Bill 17 read a first time] Bill 3 Registered Music Teachers' Association Repeal Act MRS. LeMESSURIER: Mr.

Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill No. 3, the Registered Music Teachers' Association Repeal Act. The purpose of this Bill is to repeal the 1982 Registered Music Teachers' Association Act. [Leave granted; Bill 3 read a first time] Bill 13 Water Resources Commission Act MR. PAYNE: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill No. 13, the Water Resources Commission Act. The primary purpose of this legislation, Mr. Speaker, is to establish the Alberta Water Resources Commission. As hon. members may recall from the hon.

Premier's announcement of the commission last December, the functions of the commission will include the review of long-term water resources planning by the government, the evaluation of short- and long-term water resource projects, the monitoring of related interprovincial nego­ tiations, and advising the government with respect to water resource policy. DR. BUCK: Good stuff, Bill. Henry needs the pension. [Leave granted; Bill 13 read a first time]

March 14, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 29 Bill 21 Alberta Games Council Amendment Act, 1983 MR. TRYNCHY: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill No. 21, the Alberta Games Council Amendment Act, 1983. The purpose of the Bill is to establish an Alberta sports council and to expand the functions of the said council. [Leave granted; Bill 21 read a first time] Bill 8 Professional Statutes Amendment Act, 1983 MRS. FYFE: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill No. 8, the Professional Statutes Amendment Act, 1983.

Alberta was the first province in Canada to permit medical doctors, dentists, chartered accountants, and lawyers to practise their professions using companies in­ corporated under the Companies Act. Responding to requests from these professions, this proposed legislation will remove the bar in the existing professional Acts and allow these professionals to incorporate under the new Business Corporations Act. [Leave granted; Bill 8 read a first time] MR. CRAWFORD: Mr.

Speaker, I move that Bill No. 8, the Professional Statutes Amendment Act, 1983, be placed on the Order Paper under Government Bills and Orders. [Motion carried] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. SZWENDER: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to in­ troduce Bill 202,

An Act to Amend the Blind Persons' Rights Act. The purpose of this Bill is to provide . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order. If we might just get leave of the Assembly to revert. HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: It is so ordered. head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS (reversion) Bill 202

An Act to Amend the Blind Persons' Rights Act MR. SZWENDER: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to in­ troduce Bill 202,

An Act to Amend the Blind Persons' Rights Act. The purpose of this Bill is to provide to persons dependent on hearing ear dogs the same rights as we previously provided for blind persons dependent on seeing eye dogs. [Leave granted; Bill 202 read a first time] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS (continued) MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to file the annual report of the Alberta Opportunity Company for the year ended March 31, 1982. I should point out that copies of the annual report were sent to members on June 22, 1982, and copies will be made available to the new members. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to table copies of the 1982 annual report of the Legal Aid Society of Alberta. Copies for all members are in the hands of the Clerk. I would also like to table copies of the annual report of the Attorney General's Department for the year ended March 31, 1981. Copies were forwarded to members prior to the Assembly assembling, Mr. Speaker. DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table the 1980-81 annual report for the Department of Social Services and Community Health. MR. SHABEN: Mr.

Speaker, I wish to table the annual report of the Alberta Home Mortgage Corporation for the year ended March 31, 1982. Copies will be made available to all members of the Assembly. MR. TRYNCHY: Mr. Speaker, I wish to file the annual report of the advisory committee on wilderness areas and ecological reserves for last year. MR. SPEAKER: I have the honor to table the 16th annual report of the Ombudsman of Alberta for the year 1982. MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the annual report of the Alberta Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Commission for the year 1981-82. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. R.

SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to intro­ duce through you to the Assembly two special guests, young students from the Blackie school. Both are excel­ lent honor students. As one of their rewards because of their hard work, they have been able to visit the Legisla­ ture. Wanda Lowrey and Aimee Willoughby are accom­ panied by Wanda's father. Would they stand and be recognized by the Legislature. MR. HIEBERT: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague the Hon. Tom Chambers, the Member for Edmonton Calder, I would like to introduce 58 grade 5 students from St. Lucy school.

They are located in the members gallery and are accompanied by their group leader, Mr. Magliocco, and additional leaders Mrs. A. MacLeod and Mr. Arendt. I ask them to stand and receive the welcome of the House. MR. STEVENS: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague the Minister responsible for Native Affairs, the Member for Edmonton Mill Woods, I'd like to introduce to you, and through you to the members of the Assembly, 10 students from the Mill Woods campus of Grant MacE­

30 ALBERTA HANSARD March 14, 1983 wan Community College. They're here with their instruc­ tor Miss Powell, and they're studying political science. Would they please rise and receive the welcome of the Assembly. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce through you to the members of the Assembly two people: Miss Rita Moir of Valhalla, B.C., who is a founding member of the Images women's magazine [collective], which is the oldest continuously publishing rural women's magazine in Canada; and Miss Wendy Hurst of Thrums, B.C., an instructor of geography, anthropology, and women's studies.

I ask that they stand in the public gallery and be recognized. MRS. CRIPPS: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Member for Drayton Valley — well, you all had somebody else — it's my pleasure today to introduce to you, and through you, 64 students in two classes from the St. Anthony school in Drayton Valley. They are here with their teach­ ers Miss Rita Steele and Mr. Szatkowski and with parents Mrs. Olive Goertzen, Mrs. Betty Marchi, Mrs. Julie Strocher, Mrs. Muriel Hartley, Mrs. Toni Lord, Mrs. E. Vanden Oetelaar, and Mrs. D. Clark.

They are in the public gallery, and I would like them to rise and receive the traditional welcome of the House. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Oil Pricing MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this ques­ tion to the hon. Minister of Energy and Natural Re­ sources. What process has the Alberta Petroleum Market­ ing Commission adopted to review changes in the inter­ national price of petroleum? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr.

Speaker, let me respond by say­ ing that in the aftermath of the determination in London today by the OPEC membership, in the weeks ahead we will be assessing the adherence to that arrangement that has been arrived at. So I suggest to the Assembly that it will be a period of some time within which we will be able to come to some conclusions with respect to world prices. If the member is looking for a more detailed response with respect to precise mechanisms, I would have to take such a question as notice. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

In the last several days, has the minister held discussions with the chairman of the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission, and has that commission undertaken any consulting studies, beyond in-house studies, on the inter­ national pricing situation? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, I [confer] with the chairman of the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commis­ sion on a regular basis. I have no knowledge of any specific studies by consultants that have been contracted or undertaken through the auspices of the Alberta Petro­ leum Marketing Commission.

The work that the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission is doing is on an on-going basis in assessing world prices and the implica­ tions and policy impact here in the province of Alberta. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. What discussions has the minister had with the chairman of the marketing commission concerning the vulnerability of the Alberta producers' position in the Canadian mar­ ket place should there be a dramatic fall in the price of oil, and particularly the problems of some of the produc­ ing countries; Mexico is a good example.

What assess­ ment has been made of the danger of the Canadian market place being flooded with cheap offshore oil? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, while the manner in which the hon. member has framed the question is not beyond the limits of this Assembly, in fact the substance of his question is somewhat hypothetical, given the ac­ cord that was arrived at today in London. That is of course assuming that that arrangement is adhered to. Certainly there have been ongoing discussions with the chairman of the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commis­ sion.

However, I would suggest that given the Alberta/ Ottawa energy agreement, under which there would be no rollback from the $29.75 Canadian price unless we had the incidence of a dramatic fall in world price beyond that level, we anticipate no difficulties in that regard, provided that the accord in London is adhered to. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

Is the minister advising the Assembly today that in dis­ cussions with the federal government, it is the view of the federal government, as well as the provincial government — notwithstanding the $29 American price set today, the federal government is of the view no rollback should occur? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, I believe the subject matter of the question was dealt with by the hon. Premier in his remarks in the Assembly last Friday, when he acknowledged that it wouldn't be appropriate to suggest that there were no difficulties whatsoever with that view, because in fact another

interpretation of the agreement has been publicly stated. I would simply reiterate for the benefit of the House that Alberta is strongly of the view that there are no rollbacks, in accordance with the agreement. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister. Beyond wishful thinking, what speci­ fics has the minister got to give the Assembly today to assure that there will be no rollbacks? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, I simply encourage the hon. member to read the agreement. MR. NOTLEY: I have. And I have also read further information which would lead one to be concerned. Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question. Is the minister in a position to advise the Assembly what review has been given by the government to the impact of declining oil prices on the international scene for the last several months now on the feasibility of heavy oil development, in particular the Husky project? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr.

Speaker, I think it's fair to say that while the government has certainly been assessing the overall situation, in the absence of a determination of world oil pricing it's extremely difficult to postulate on the feasibility or otherwise of specific projects, be it the Husky project, which the member has alluded to, or any other projects which are being contemplated and consid­ ered. I simply say that with that accord in London having now been announced — and once it becomes clear as to

March 14, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 31 the adherence to that accord — certainly the would-be participants in such undertakings will now be in a posi­ tion to assess the feasibility of those projects. There have been discussions involving the government and various industry proponents. Now that a pricing scenario is firm­ ing up, those participants will be better able to assess the feasibility of specific projects. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister.

Has there been any discussion between the minister, or any representative of the government of Alberta, and federal ministers — in particular Mr. Lum- ley, in view of his statements over the weekend — concerning the possibility of, if not megaprojects, at least significant investments in the heavy oil industry? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, no there has not. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question to the hon. minister.

What consideration has been given by the gov­ ernment to redefining new oil and seeking an adjustment of the agreement with Ottawa concerning the date at which new oil comes into play, which I believe was 1980, if my memory serves me correct. Has there been any discussion on that possibility? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, as has been clearly stated by the Premier, the policy of this government with respect to the pricing of crude oil is a policy and a principle of market pricing, and that continues to be our principle and our long-term position.

The fact of the matter is that on every occasion when it's appropriate, we have been working in conjunction with industry on en­ couraging the federal government to take whatever steps are positive in terms of reaching that goal of market pricing and world pricing. So it's fair to say that there have been representations on an ongoing basis by the provincial government to the federal government with respect to redefining classifications of oil and of our position of principle in favor of market pricing. MRS. CRIPPS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Further to the questions regarding continuity of demand, what information has the government obtained regarding the necessity of the refiners taking the nominations? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very important question, that of being able to deter­ mine, first of all, what surplus we may have to Canadian needs. Under the existing nomination system, there is no obligation for refineries to take what they nominate.

As a result, we have been encouraging the federal government to work through the National Energy Board with our Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission to use the contract with the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commis­ sion as the basis for the National Energy Board nomina­ tion and, in that way, encourage refiners to take what is nominated and, as well, be able to determine in advance what we may have by way of surplus in crude oil, the light and medium varieties in particular, and therefore be in a position to look for alternate sales in respect of [inaudible]. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question, Mr.

Speaker, to the Treasurer. It ties into this. We will be having a budget coming in. Is today's price going to be used for computing the budget? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, the assumptions which will be made in the budget with respect to revenues will be in that document. I think it's important, because it's a complex and interrelated issue, that they all be set forth at once. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question. With the price that was announced today, and saying that it holds, do you have a quick analysis as to whether this will add to our deficit? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I don't think that quick, off-the-cuff analyses are appropriate when dealing with important matters of public finance down the road. MR. MARTIN: Yes or no, Lou? Hydro-electric Development MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my second question to the hon. Minister of Utilities and Telecommunications. Can he advise the Assembly what the position of the government of Alberta is with respect to several major hydro-electric proposals — one is the Slave and the other is the Dunvegan? Can any more definitive information be given, particularly with respect to Dunvegan, at this time? MR. BOGLE: Mr.

Speaker, as the hon. member is aware, there was reference to both the Slave River proposal and the Dunvegan project in the Speech from the Throne. A more detailed explanation of financial considerations will have to await the budget, which will be brought down by the Provincial Treasurer. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question to the hon. minister. What assessment has been made by the depart­ ment of the relative merits of the power grid as opposed to major investment in hydro-electric development, par­ ticularly the Slave as opposed to the power grid? MR. BOGLE: Mr.

Speaker, I assume the hon. member is referring to the proposed western electric power grid, which was under consideration for some time between the governments of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Alberta. I draw to the hon. member's attention that in July of 1982, an agreement was reached in Calgary by the three minis­ ters representing the three respective governments, that this matter would be put on hold for a period of two years and reviewed after that period of time. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

Is the minister in a position to outline to the Assembly at this stage whether it will be the minister's intention to table in the House at the earliest possible opportunity the costs of power from a western power grid, compared to the relative costs of power produced on the Slave? MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, there are two parts to that question. First of all, with regard to studies which have been undertaken on the feasibility of a hydro-electric project on the Slave, a number of documents have been filed with the Legislature Library.

On the second matter, with regard to the grid itself, Alberta does favor the release of information prepared on behalf of the three governments involved. Once the concurrence is obtained from the other governments involved, the material will be made public.

32 ALBERTA HANSARD March 14, 1983 MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister. Since the announcement was made, I believe last summer, about the government's interest in the Slave project, what specific discussions have occurred between representatives of the government of Alberta and either of the two private power companies — or any power company, for that matter — concerning the pro­ posed construction of a dam on the Slave? MR. BOGLE: Since the announcement this past summer of the proposed hydro facility on the Slave River, Mr.

Speaker, there have been a number of discussions with the private-sector companies in this province. I'll be pleased to go into those in some detail once the budget is brought down. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. In view of the fact that in 1980 the Premier of the province himself announced the imminent, not construction but at least moving ahead on the Dunvegan dam proposal, what is now the holdup on Dunvegan, as outlined specifically by the Premier in April of 1980 of this House? MR. BOGLE: On the contrary, Mr.

Speaker, the hon. member should refresh his memory by reading the Speech from the Throne. He'll see reference to that project and the fact that we will continue to examine its feasibility. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. What are the obstacles, at this stage, to achieving the timetable the Premier so clearly set out in 1980? MR. BOGLE: Clearly, Mr. Speaker, an issue on which I'll welcome questions from the hon. member once we get into the estimates on the various votes. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. MR.

SPEAKER: Might this be the last supplementary on this topic. MR. NOTLEY: Is the minister in a position to tell the House whether or not there have been any subsequent discussions with the government of British Columbia, pending the last time this matter was discussed in the House, way back in April or May of last year? MR. BOGLE: I'll take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker. Although I'm not aware of any recent discus­ sions, I would like to check. Drilling Activity in Alberta MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, with regard to drilling activity in the province. At the present time, it's at a seven-year low. I wonder if the minister could indicate what kind of initiatives or steps are going to be taken by government to try to increase that drilling activity, and whether the minister still feels as optimistic about the 1982 well servicing and drilling incentive program as he did just a few months ago. MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr.

Speaker, there's no question about the fact that the development drilling incentive and well servicing program was an effective program which was fully subscribed to in the latter half of 1982. In responding to the question, Mr. Speaker, I might mention to the Assembly that there are a number of initiatives the government has taken with respect to the oil and gas industry. As a matter of fact, just last Friday we were criticized, to some extent, for the magnitude of those endeavors.

Without wanting to go into too many of the specifics, in addition to the oil and gas activity plan, which significantly reduced royalties and provided further incentives for exploration, we've got the exploration drill­ ing incentive program, the geophysical incentive program, the Alberta PIP or petroleum incentives payment pro­ gram, as well as an enriched royalty tax credit program. All in all, Mr. Speaker, I think it's fair to say — and the industry would concur — that the netback position in the province of Alberta is as favorable as anywhere on the North American continent. I might add, Mr.

Speaker, that the fact is that the level of drilling activity in Alberta far exceeds that activity in any other jurisdiction in Canada, notwithstanding some remarks made in this Assembly last Friday by one of the members of the opposition. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques­ tion to the hon. minister. I think we all recognize that oil and gas is in Alberta, and that's where the drilling should be. So comparing it to other provinces really doesn't mean anything. Could the hon. minister indicate what steps will be taken to stop the continued decrease in active drilling wells in the field?

Each day more drilling outfits are closing up shop and stopping. What is the minister doing specifically with regard to that deteriorating situation? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, in responding to the question, it should first of all be pointed out that there is little doubt that the development drilling and well servic­ ing program to some extent caused a moving ahead of drilling activity back into late 1982, activity that would otherwise have occurred in the winter drilling season of 1983. That's simply a reality that has to be recognized.

I also point out that while there are rigs that are not working — and there's no question about that fact and the fact that it's of concern to us — if one looks at the most recent statistics for Canadian well completions, and specifically Alberta completions, the figures to date for 1983 are significantly ahead of well completions to this date in 1982. I draw that to the hon. member's attention. We're closely monitoring the situation. We feel there is a reasonable system of incentives, a very rich system of incentives.

If the hon. member is suggesting that the government should increase the size of the anticipated deficit by funnelling more dollars to the industry, then I would like him to make that specific representation. DR. BUCK: Now you're speaking like a lawyer, John. Petroleum Exports MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques­ tion to the hon. minister. I clearly understand that there isn't any clear plan in the minister's mind or the govern­ ment's. What specific steps is the minister taking to open up more U.S. markets for the export of surplus oil and gas, specifically gas? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr.

Speaker, one of my priorities as minister, since having assumed the responsibilities of this

March 14, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 33 portfolio, has been with respect to the very important question of shut-in oil. In that regard, we have made strong representations to the federal government that they must adopt a different policy of allowing export of light and medium crude to the United States. As hon. members will recall, since approximately 1977 there has been a prohibition of exports of light and medium crude.

Since our having made those representations, first of all back on December 20, 1982, the National Energy Board has announced that for the first time since 1977, they will permit and will receive applications for export into the U.S. market. We believe there is additional work that still has to be done. One of the steps necessary was alluded to in the question by the hon.

Member for Drayton Valley, namely tightening up our nomination system so we have a good fix, a good reading, on what our exportable surplus will be months in advance — some three months in advance — so that we will have some time to arrange contracts in the United States. We're also pressing the federal gov­ ernment to have a more flexible pricing arrangement in terms of the price that can be fetched for our Canadian crude in the U.S. market, and also flexibility on the export tax calculation, to ensure that we are price com­ petitive in the U.S. market. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary ques­ tion to the hon. minister, with regard to natural gas. 1 understand that the price of natural gas into the United States from Canada is deteriorating our market continu­ ally. Could the minister indicate whether there are any steps with regard to that matter, such as letting some of the market forces dictate the price of gas rather than having this artificial price we have? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, the member raises an­ other very critical issue on the energy scene in the prov­ ince at the present time.

There's no question about the situation in the U.S. market, caused by essentially three factors: one, the economic downturn; secondly, some sig­ nificant conservation; and thirdly, some substitution that has occurred from natural gas to other energy fuels. With respect to dealing with that situation, on Septem­ ber 24 last year the Alberta government came forward with the initiatives document, which advocated a flexible approach to marketing as opposed to the rigid one-price arrangement that has been in place for some time now.

Since that September 24 initiatives document, meetings with industry have been held, involving the provincial government and industry, to come forward with some very specific proposals to deal with a very delicate situa­ tion. In addition, there have been meetings involving the British Columbia government, the federal government, and Alberta government officials working along the same lines. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the subject of natural gas mar­ keting in the United States has been a topic on the agenda of meetings of Mr. Chrétien, my federal counter­ part, and myself.

We are moving forward in this very delicate area and will continue to do so. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. Could the minister indicate whether meetings have been arranged with Mr. Chrétien by the minister himself, whether the Premier will be meeting with the minister or the Prime Minister with regard to this subject during his present trip to Ottawa? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware whether or not the Premier intends to speak with the Prime Minister on this subject. With respect to my own in­ volvement, I have now had four meetings with Mr.

Chré­ tien, and I believe at each one of those meetings natural gas has been a topic. I expect there will be subsequent meetings in the weeks ahead. Athabasca University Relocation DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. I'd like to know if the minister can indicate to the Assembly the status of the physical move of Athabasca University from Edmonton to Atha­ basca at this time. Is the process going ahead and, if so, can the minister indicate to the Assembly what that status is? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, two points.

First of all, we have to complete the construction of the university before we can make the physical change, and that con­ struction is proceeding. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I can see why he's not in Ottawa holding the Premier's hand. I guess he got demoted. Mr. Speaker, a question to the minister. MR. JOHNSTON: Look who got demoted, Walt. [laughter] DR. BUCK: I see we've got a new bunch of Charlie McCarthys in here now, Dick. Mr. Speaker, from his discussions with the staff asso­ ciation, can the minister indicate to the Assembly what percentage of the staff now in Edmonton will be going to the new facility? MR.

JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I can't answer that question. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate to the Assembly if, in his discussions with the staff, he has made any arrangement to assist staff move when they are asked to move from Edmonton to Athabasca? MR. JOHNSTON: Oh yes, Mr. Speaker. A combination of government policies will work in that direction. First of all, as you well know, in anticipation of the decentrali­ zation of government services to Athabasca, we anticipat­ ed many needs that community would have.

In particular, the need for human accommodation was established; the need for those kinds of facilities was put in place. In that sense, we anticipated and clearly moved as a result of the decision to decentralize Athabasca University. At the same time, those people who do not wish to make that transition obviously will have some consultative processes with the government, in terms of job relocation. Those are only two of the key items which will be worked upon. Naturally the Alberta Home Mortgage Corporation is available to provide housing.

All these other services, which are a combination of policies, will be available to those people moving to Athabasca. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Can the minister indicate the status of the construction of the projects in the town of Athabasca to house Athabasca University?

34 ALBERTA HANSARD March 14, 1983 MR. JOHNSTON: I would have to refer that question. I can't give an update in terms of housing specifically. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, not the question of housing but the facilities that will be used for the university itself. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it would be more appropriate during the estimates, when we talk about capital expenditures on behalf of the Department of Advanced Education. At that point, I'd be prepared to give some percentage judgment with respect to how far that project is. I think it would be appropriate to leave it to that time. DR. BUCK: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question. Can the minister indicate if he or anyone in his depart­ ment has had consultation or meetings with the people in the area as to the availability of local people being involved in the construction of the project? Can the minister give this Assembly assurance that that factor will be considered? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, the MLA from that area has made major contacts with various members of government to ensure that the government services, the kinds of activities which governments are normally in­ volved in with such a substantial move of this type, are being properly effected.

DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, can the hon. minister indicate if he has had any discussions with his colleague the hon. Member for Lac La Biche-McMurray, or if his confrere the chairman of the Northern Alberta Development Council can meet with unions that will be involved in the construction, to assure local people that they can partici­ pate in the construction projects? MR. JOHNSTON: I'm not too sure if that's a question or a speculation, Mr. Speaker. I'd ask clarification of the question. DR. BUCK: Mr.

Speaker, has the minister had any discussion with his colleague the chairman of the North­ ern Alberta Development Council, who publicly stated that local people should have preference, in consultation with unions? Has the minister done that? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I'd imagine that would be a discussion between the Minister of Labour or anoth­ er minister responsible — perhaps Public Works, Supply and Services — as opposed to my discussion with the chairman of the northern development committee. DR. BUCK: Mr.

Speaker, as the minister responsible for the building and supervision of these facilities, will the minister consult with his colleagues so that the people in the local area will be assured of participation in the projects? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, we have always oper­ ated on the principle of an appointed board of governors, and those governors have the responsibility for carrying out the kind of function you talk about. We believe in the autonomy of those boards, and we respect their judgment in these matters. Frankly, I think it should be up to them to ensure that that does take place.

Moreover, I can assure you that given the demand for skilled work in that area, I would imagine that those people who are resident in that area would have a natural preference. That in itself should be enough to ensure their participation in that contract. DR. BUCK: In other words, what he's saying is he doesn't care. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Mandatory Comprehensive Examinations MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Education, and it concerns the mandatory comprehensive examinations announced in the throne speech the other day.

When he talks about meeting with various groups and revising the policy regarding this, could the minister advise the Assembly if one of those groups would be the Alberta School Trustees' Association? MR. KING: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. MR. GOGO: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. A week or two ago, the two members for Lethbridge met with school boards, and there was a very high degree of inter­ est shown, not in a very positive way. Could I have the assurance of the Minister of Education that indeed he will meet with school boards throughout the province, but specifically with the Lethbridge school boards? MR.

KING: Mr. Speaker, I stand ready to meet with any school board at any time that is mutually convenient to us. I have had no request from a Lethbridge school board for such a meeting. If they're interested in it, I'm prepared to do it. Job Creation MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this ques­ tion to the Minister of Manpower. Has the minister had an opportunity to study the proposals for job creation that the city of Edmonton presented to him on February 2? I have it here. MR. ISLEY: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. MR. MARTIN: A good answer. MR. NOTLEY: What are you going to do about it, Ernie? MR.

MARTIN: A supplementary. Is the minister in a position to advise the Assembly whether it is the intention of the government to proceed with all the projects pre­ sented by the city, or some of the projects presented by the city? MR. ISLEY: Mr. Speaker, I might point out that cur­ rently we're involved in a number of job creation pro­ grams. The priority employment program has already been mentioned in the House. The new employment expansion and development program, which is a federal/ provincial program, is in the process of getting initial projects approved.

That's about a $22.5 million program. [interjections] We're currently looking at the summer temporary employment program. Those announcements will be made in due course. The suggestions from the city of Edmonton, with many other suggestions, went into our

March 14, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 35 assessment of job creation this summer and into the future. I again remind the member in the House of the state­ ments made by the hon. Premier on Friday, which you can read in Hansard, and that is that this government, although very concerned with employment levels, cannot itself, or even with the co-operation of the federal gov­ ernment, solve the problem. We can minimize some of the impact, but the problem is going to be addressed and solved when we get our private sector moving again. MR. MARTIN: I take it the answer is no. I ask a policy question of the minister.

They talk about job creation projects that have a high labor content and a short lead time, and use the example of LRT. Is the government prepared to look into that as a matter of policy? MR. ISLEY: I suggest your question of policy with respect to LRT should probably be directed to my col­ league the Minister of Transportation. With respect to your initial suggestion that . . . MR. SPEAKER: Would the minister please use the or­ dinary parliamentary form. MR. ISLEY: I'm sorry. I think the original suggestion that that type of work is highly labor intensive and low in capital is open to debate. MR.

MARTIN: A supplementary question. Is it the in­ tention of the government to release any special funds for municipal job creation anywhere in the province? MR. ISLEY: Mr. Speaker, I believe the answer to that question will have to wait till after the budget debate and the supplementary estimates. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question. Is the gov­ ernment planning to do anything for the 136,000 unem­ ployed in the province, other than the token measures already mentioned in the throne speech? MR. ISLEY: Mr.

Speaker, for the benefit of the hon. member, and again to remind the House, I believe the government has under way some rather dramatic pro­ grams to address the employment situation in this prov­ ince. For the new member's benefit, I would remind him of very substantive capital works projects that this gov­ ernment has been carrying on over the past two years. I would remind him of the Alberta Transportation winter works program, which put a lot of trucks and equipment to work during this current winter.

I would remind him of a greatly increased priority employment program to the tune of $26.4 million, which is under way at the moment, and our matching participa­ tion with the federal government in the new employment expansion and development program which is currently going into place and will accept projects that can run until June 1984. I would also remind him of the senior citizens' home improvement program, which is having a very positive impact on putting a number of carpenters, plumbers, carpetlayers, et cetera, to work.

So I would have to say, in answer to the question, that so far I believe the government has made some rather dramatic moves in addressing the problems of employ­ ment levels, and again remind the hon. member that government is not going to solve the problem on its own. We need to build some confidence back into our private sector. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure that the 136,000 unemployed will be glad to know. MR. SPEAKER: If there is a question, could it please be revealed. MR. MARTIN: Let me phrase it in a different way.

Can the minister advise of a single permanent job, other than his own, that has been created since his department has been created? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton Glen­ garry, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary Currie. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques­ tion to the hon. minister. The minister, the government, and the Premier finally found free enterprise again, which is nice to hear. My question to the hon. minister is in building the confidence . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. R. SPEAKER: I want to ask the question. MR.

SPEAKER: If we're going to deal with this matter further — I didn't anticipate that the hon. minister wanted to deal with that last sally, but perhaps he does. Since it got by the Speaker, it would be less than fair if the minister didn't have an opportunity to deal with it. MR. ISLEY: I would remind the hon. member that the priority employment program in itself created 10,935 jobs over the last three months. I would suggest that many of those jobs are probably being enjoyed by his constituents, if he would check. MR.

SPEAKER: Could I ask if this might be the final supplementary as well — or just about the final supple­ mentary on this topic — since there are two other hon. members who'd like to be recognized before the time runs out. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question then is requesting the minister to give some concrete steps as to the type of incentives that are being provided to the private sector of this province to provide jobs. In his new responsibility, what steps is he taking to give encouragement to the private sector for that production? MR. ISLEY: Mr.

Speaker, with respect to what the Department of Manpower is doing specifically to en­ courage . . . MR. R. SPEAKER: I'm not talking about handouts. MR. ISLEY: No, I'm not either. Under the priority employment program . . . MR. R. SPEAKER: That's a handout.

36 ALBERTA HANSARD March 14, 1983 MR. ISLEY: . . . we worked jointly with the private sector in creating jobs on a matching, dollar-for-dollar basis. The types of applications given approval were those that we hope will move into full-time permanent posi­ tions. We also had a very extensive industrial training program which the private sector responded to very posi­ tively to the tune of 4,000 applications, to upgrade employees, maintain higher levels in their particular com­ panies, and so on. I'm not sure, but I gather by the comments that that isn't the kind of answer you were looking for.

I would remind you that on Motion 204 on the Order Paper, I will be very glad to sit and listen to you gentlemen give us all the answers. MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. minister kindly lapse into the ordinary parliamentary form. Environmental Litigation MR. COOK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my first question to the Minister of the Environment, and I'd like to ask some questions relating to the Suncor prosecution last year. Could the hon. minister tell us how the choice of prosecutor for that case was arrived at, how the department selected that individual? MR. BRADLEY: Mr.

Speaker, the choice of Crown prosecutors is at the direction of the Attorney General. He may wish to supplement the answer. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I'd be pleased to. The prosecutor in at least a number — and there are quite a series of charges, some of which have not yet been finally disposed of and would therefore not be a matter that we would speak of in respect to the charges themselves. But with respect to the prosecutor, staff of the Attorney General's Department, operating within guidelines of their employment, are employed in all prosecutions. MR. COOK: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Environmental law is a very complex body of law. Has there been some thought given to trying to develop a body of expertise within either the Department of the Environment or the Attorney General's office so that, in future, prosecutions can be handled by staff who've de­ veloped some competence or special skills in this area? MR. CRAWFORD: Yes, that has been undertaken, as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker. I would not say it was apparent from the progress of the prosecutions that members of the department lacked in skill, ability, or experience in respect of the work undertaken.

Even so, there has been some additional planning, which has al­ ready proceeded beyond the planning point to the imple­ mentation point, to acquire a higher degree of expertness in this particular field. We've acted on that. MR. COOK: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the Department of the Environment's organization chart, there is a slot designated for departmental solicitor, if you like. That position has been unfilled for about three years now.

Has there been some thought given to assigning a member of the Attorney General's staff to work, much like a public affairs officer, in conjunction with the de­ partment on a day-to-day basis, preparing prosecutions and also helping the staff develop an attitude toward enforcement, instead of consultation or simply holding the hands of some of the companies, as we've done in the past. MR. NOTLEY: Good point, Rollie. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr.

Speaker, once again, in most areas of the law, whether it be in civil or criminal law, over the period of the last two or three years the department has developed teams of lawyers who work in specific areas of expertness. I don't know about any vacancies in the Department of the Environment. Legal services to all departments are handled by people that, with perhaps a very, very few exceptions, are on the staff of the Attorney General. MR. COOK: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. This question will be directed back to the Minister of the Environment.

What kind of back-up was given to the prosecutors for this particular case? I'm particularly in­ terested in contrasting the level of back-up with the Mannix prosecution, where a lot of departmental staff were assigned to that prosecution. How many staff were seconded to the Suncor prosecution? What kinds of staff were they? What levels of expertise did they have to bring to the prosecution. MR. SPEAKER: With great respect to the hon. member, as he goes on with a question that asks for that much detail, it seems he's getting closer and closer to qualifying for the Order Paper. MR.

COOK: I will put that on the Order Paper. But one last question: what is the department's philosophy on enforcement? How many prosecutions have there been, vis à vis infractions of the law? How do we handle, on a normal case basis, trying to enforce departmental stand­ ards and regulations? MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. member's question includes how many prosecutions there have been, perhaps we should deal with this on the Order Paper. We have just barely enough time for one further member, the hon. Member for Calgary Currie. MR. ANDERSON: Mr.

Speaker, in view of the time and the depth of the question before me, I'll await tomorrow's question period. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have received certain messages from His Honour the Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor, which I now transmit to you. SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: Order! [Members rose] MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor transmits estimates of certain sums required from the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund for the 12 months ending March 31, 1984, for the purpose of making in­ vestments pursuant to

section 6(1)(

a) of the Alberta Her­ itage Savings Trust Fund Act in projects which will provide long-term economic or social benefits to the people of Alberta but which will not by their nature yield

March 14, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 37 a return to the trust fund, and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly. His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor transmits sup­ plementary estimates of certain additional sums, not otherwise provided for, required from the Alberta Herit­ age Savings Trust Fund for the 12 months ending March 31, 1983, for the purpose of making investments pursuant to

Section 6(1)(

a) of the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund Act in projects which will provide long-term eco­ nomic or social benefits to the people of Alberta but which will not by their nature yield a return to the trust fund, and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly. Please be seated. head: GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 1. Moved by Mr. Crawford:

Be it resolved that the Assembly adopt the following amendment to Standing Orders, to be effective until the prorogation of the Fourth Session of the 20th Legislature: 1. Standing Order 8 is amended by striking out suborders (2) and (3) and substituting the following: (2) (

a) The order of business for the consideration of the Assembly on Tuesday afternoon shall be as follows: Written Questions Motions for Returns Government Designated Business Motions other than Government Motions Private Bills Public Bills and Orders other than Government Bills and Orders Government Motions Government Bills and Orders (

b) When Government Designated Business is called, the Assembly shall consider any item of business that the Government Whip has designated, by written notice to the Clerk prior to 12 noon on the previous Friday, from those items on the Order Paper for that Friday under Motions other than Government Motions, Government Bills and Orders, or Government Mo­ tions, which may be followed by any other govern­ ment business. (

c) The Clerk shall cause any designation pursuant to clause (

b) to be printed in Votes and Proceedings for that Friday. (

d) A motion that has been designated under this subord­ er may not be designated a second time. (

e) Debate on Government Designated Business shall not continue for more than one hour. (3) (

a) The order of business for the consideration of the Assembly on Thursday afternoon shall be as follows. Written Questions Motions for Returns Motions other than Government Motions Public Bills and Orders other than Government Bills and Orders Government Motions Government Bills and Orders (

b) On Thursday when Motions other than Government Motions is called, the Assembly shall consider the next such motion on the Order Paper unless the Leader of the Opposition has designated, by written notice to the Clerk prior to 4 p.m. on the previous Monday, a motion from those set down by other than government members on the Order Paper for that Monday under Motions other than Government Mo­ tions, in which case the Assembly shall consider that motion first. (

c) The Clerk shall cause any motion designated pursuant to clause (

b) to be printed in Votes and Proceedings for that Monday. (

d) A motion that has been designated under this subord­ er may not be designated a second time. (

e) Debate on Motions other than Government Motions shall conclude at 4:30 p.m. (

f) At 4:30 p.m., Public Bills and Orders other than Government Bills and Orders shall be called, and debate thereon shall be governed by the standing orders that are applicable to private members' motions. 2. The following standing order is added after Standing Order 36: 36.1 Notwithstanding any established precedent to the con­ trary, a member not being a government member may have two notices of motion in that member's name on the Order paper at the same time. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr.

Speaker, this motion would provide for the temporary Standing Orders that are famil­ iar to numbers of hon. members who've been members of the last Assembly. The changes propose amendments for the term of this Legislature in respect of subsections 2 and 3 of Standing Order No. 8. What is achieved is that it introduces the idea of government designated business being a specific item for Tuesdays and clarifies the way in which that can be designated.

It provides a designation opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition in respect of the resolutions debated on Thursdays and, by the addition of Standing Order 36.1, it allows members of the opposition to have two notices of motion on the Order Paper at the same time, something that is not possible without an amendment of that type. Mr. Speaker, I think the opportunity is always before us to consider other changes to the rules.

Getting a new Assembly under way may provide the opportunity that all members would welcome: in committee some time during this spring, to look at what other possible changes could be made. I hope that will be possible to do. In the result, I think it is wise to proceed with re-establishing the familiar standing orders 8 and 36.1 in the form, as I've indicated, that many hon. members are quite familiar with. [Motion carried] 2. Moved by Mr. Crawford:

Be it resolved that pursuant to Standing Order 50, Frank P. Appleby, Member for Athabasca, be elected as Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees. [Motion carried] 3. Moved by Mr. Crawford:

Be it resolved that pursuant to Standing Order 50. William F. Purdy, Member for Stony Plain, be elected as Deputy Chairman of Committees. [Motion carried]

38 ALBERTA HANSARD March 14, 1983 head: CONSIDERATION OF HIS HONOUR THE LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR'S SPEECH Moved by Dr. Elliott: That an humble address be presented to His Honour the Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor of Alberta as follows: To His Honour the Honourable Frank Lynch-Staunton, Lieutenant-Governor of the province of Alberta: We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly, now assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech Your Honour has been pleased to address to us at the opening of the present session. [Adjourned debate March 11: Mr. Notley] MR.

NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate this afternoon, first of all, to congratulate you, sir, on your re-election as Speaker of the Assembly, and to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. Member for Grande Prairie and the hon. Member for Calgary Foothills. Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to make a couple of observa­ tions about the constituency of Spirit River-Fairview be­ fore joining in the debate on issues that I think are relevant to the province as a whole.

But there are some particular issues in the constituency that has been kind enough to send me to the Legislative Assembly. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I was pleased today to accompany the hon. Minister of Housing on a new air

schedule that goes from Grande Prairie to Fairview to Peace River to High Prairie to Slave Lake and to Edmonton. Wapiti is not exactly international airways, but it is an excellent service and, incidentally, one of those unusual circumstances where, regardless of our po­ litical affiliation, members can work together. For the last year, all five members of the Peace worked very closely in helping to facilitate that particular service. So this morn­ ing was the first run. It wasn't a champagne run. I think both the Minister of Housing and I are in good form without any help from a champagne run.

It's a long run, but it is nevertheless an important addition to northern Alberta service. Mr. Speaker, I think one of the major areas of concern that is particularly important in northern Alberta is the question of roads. In no area of the province is there a stronger case for expanded road commitments. We had all kinds of money spent on roads all over the province last year. I listened with interest to the hon. Minister of Manpower talk about these programs.

Of course, these were programs announced so generously before the elec­ tion, and I guess the test will be whether or not we're going to have the same kind of commitment to our transportation program after the election. Rural Alber- tans will be looking with great interest on the highway program announced for 1983-84, but nowhere with great­ er interest than in the north Peace where roads are a very serious concern. Mr. Speaker, last fall during the election campaign, the Premier was in a very optimistic mood. According to the Premier, we had turned the corner; we were on the road to economic recovery.

In those sunny days of October, as Conservative candidates scampered from one door to the other bringing people the good news, indeed it may have looked to some Albertans that perhaps the sun was going to shine forever on the Alberta economy. Unfortunately, through skilful campaigning before the onslaught of economic difficulties, the government was re-elected handily. But we now find record unemploy­ ment. We see that the concerns of many people, express­ ed as long as a year ago, about the international oil outlook in fact were correct and perhaps even a more gloomy result than the predictions suggested.

We find that the forestry industry, notwithstanding the decision of the United States the other day, is in a very sluggish state at this point in time. There is no question, when one travels the province, that the concern in our agricultural community about the future of the most basic industry in our province is a matter of real trouble to every farmer, particularly younger farmers who find themselves heavily in debt.

When one sees the huge turnouts at meetings of cattle producers, for example, requesting a stabilization pro­ gram, when one sees the growing interest in a matter that I'm going to debate a little later at greater length — the question of the Crow rate and transportation costs — there is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that there is a good deal of concern among farmers over, at best, sluggish prices and in some cases declining prices on one hand and higher costs, costs that in some respects this government has at least a capacity to deal with.

For example, last summer I remember we had a meeting in our little municipality of some several hundred people, and the major concern at that meeting was school requisitions, because the school board had to increase the requisition. Why did they have to increase the requisition, Mr. Speaker? Because this government is not properly fund­ ing education in an equitable manner. Throughout rural Alberta, wherever I travel in the province, I have farmers coming to me and saying: one of the areas that we can deal with as a province in terms of costs is this question of requisitions. Yet, Mr.

Speaker, I note that not only does it look rather gloomy that this government is going to do anything about properly fund­ ing education, but we have the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care flying new balloons, kites, or whatever he flies on a regular basis, that we have to have some kind of user-pay system in the hospitals, or perhaps a requisition there.

So the farmer who faces higher requisitions than ever before to finance schools for his children may this year find that he has to pay five, six, or who knows how many mills in order to pick up the hospital costs, because this government doesn't want to properly fund its share of some of the basic social services which in 1971, with all kinds of piety — but let me say, I thought at the time at least some conviction — the government said, when they sought office in that election, that they were going to assume the cost of education, health, and social services. Mr.

Speaker, there is tittle doubt that as more and more of this is shuffled on local taxpayers — this is particularly difficult for the small business man and devastating to the farmer who finds himself in the cost-price squeeze. Beyond the matters that I've talked about, we have to look at the grim statistics that exist in this province: 136,000 people out of work. We have, of course, the theory of some that if we provide incentives to large companies, the trickle-down theory will work; that as the rich and powerful become richer and more powerful, somehow there is going to be a recovery: Reaganomics. Well, Mr.

Speaker, the problem with Reaganomics is that supply-side economics, whether practised by Margaret Thatcher, President Reagan, or the federal Liberal gov­ ernment, really doesn't work. The problem is, as most people know, if you are going to sell something, you have to have a market. That market is, at least in large part, a domestic market. The price of unemployment is that you

March 14, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 39 shrink the domestic market and make it impossible to sell goods and services to the people who are your most natural clientele. In the 1930s, Mr. Speaker, Franklin Roosevelt said that we know that heedless self-interest is bad morality. We now know that it is also bad economics. Mr.

Speaker, what we have seen in the western world for the last two or three years has been an effort to try to fight inflation by cutting government programs, by throwing people out of work, in the hope that the whole system is gradually going to right itself But the problem, as is obvious as one looks at the industrialized economies, is that the system simply isn't working. The other day in question period my colleague and I raised the issue of the bishops' statement.

I know that some people — and I was sorry to see the Premier suggest that somehow he didn't think this was a very practical document — have said, the document from the bishops is not very workable. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that long after the people of Alberta have forgotten most of us who sit in this Legislature today, this particular document is going to be a major work the people will study in the years ahead. There are times when people of moral conviction can have an impact far greater than might be apparent at the time.

Members of this Legislature who have gone to see the movie Ghandi could not help but be moved by the tremendous impact of that man and his life. Yet people during his entire life said: you're not a very practical individual; you don't know what you're doing; you have­ n't crossed your t's and dotted your i's in the right place. For those of us who are in the House today — some of the members of my age category, I suppose — the battle for civil rights in the United States, led by the late Dr. Martin Luther King, is another example of moral leader­ ship. People would say, but he's not very practical. Yet, Mr.

Speaker, who could argue for a moment that the world has not been fundamentally changed because of the life of these two very key people in the history of our world? Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that contained in the Catholic bishops' document there is a tremendous amount of common sense. No matter how we may dis­ miss the conclusions with sophistry or whatever, the fact of the matter is that the observations they bring to the attention of the people of Canada must be assessed by members, not only in the federal House of Commons but also in provincial legislatures. Mr.

Speaker, I think I'll just summarize five points. First, unemployment rather than inflation, should be recognized as the number one problem to be tackled in overcoming the present crisis. In my view, Mr. Speaker, that makes sense, not only from the standpoint of the gross provincial product and all the goods and services and even the tax revenue that is lost by having serious unemployment, but there is the human toll of serious long-term unemployment. Secondly, they suggest: . . . an industrial strategy should be developed to create permanent and meaningful jobs for people in local communities.

Third, a more balanced and equitable program should be developed for reducing and stemming the rate of inflation. This requires shifting the burden for wage controls to upper income earners and introduc­ ing controls on prices and new forms of taxes on investment income . . . Fourth, greater emphasis should be given to the goal of social responsibility in the current recession. This means that every effort must be made to curtail cut-backs in social services . . . Fifth, labour unions should be asked to play a more decisive and responsible role in developing strategies for economic recovery and employment.

This requires the restoration of collective bargaining rights where they have been suspended, collaboration between unions and the unemployed and unor­ ganized workers, and assurances that labour unions will have an effective role in developing economic policies. Mr. Speaker, let's look at the record of this govern­ ment against those five assertions contained in the bi­ shops' report.

"Unemployment rather than inflation": at best, we have the Minister of Manpower telling us today that apart from programs that were announced before the last election campaign, when unemployment was much, much lower, and a hope that somehow the private sector is going to put us back on the road to recovery, and apart from funds which are largely transferred from that hated Ottawa government, quite frankly there seems to be very little in this Speech from the Throne which is in fact going to mean jobs now for the 136,000 people out of work. Let's look at the question of an industrial strategy. Mr.

Speaker, that's one of the worst jokes one could come up with now. I remember 16 or 17 years ago, in 1966, when Mr. Lougheed was not even a member of the Legislature but was the leader of the Conservative Party. He went down to Pincher Creek; there was a by-election that year. We're told that the Premier learned a good deal in that by-election about campaigning. In any event, one of the speeches that the now Premier made was an excellent address in which he warned about the overdependence of the then Social Credit government on non-renewable re­ sources.

At that time, 40 per cent of our income came from oil and natural gas sales. Mr. Lougheed thought that was a terrible situation: we've got to diversity the economy. In 1974 the same person, this time Premier of the province, said we have a decade in order to diversify the economy. Today, Mr. Speaker, we observe a Speech from the Throne in which the dream of diversification has been set aside. It would appear that diversification is no longer any major goal of this government. So the second objective of the bishops is set aside.

"Third, a more balanced and equitable program should be developed for reducing and stemming the rate of infla­ tion." This means shifting the burden to upper-income people. Mr. Speaker, while we have all kinds of new unemployed, we have an incredible array of people who have entered the blissful heaven of government patronage appointments since the election: former bag people, for­ mer organizers, all joining the new hallelujah chorus; comfortably off paid for by the taxpayers of Alberta. Is this the way to meet the objective of this third approach? Mr. Speaker, that really is a rather interesting response.

"Fourth, greater emphasis should be given to the goal of social responsibility." This means dealing with the issue of providing basic services for people. Instead, what we see in this province is one example after another of cutbacks. I don't know if a day goes by that someone from a school board, a community health organization, or any group dealing with people problems doesn't write a letter or call one of the four of us and say: we're facing real problems because of cutbacks. The Premier can say, with all kinds of fanfare, that a 5 or 6 per cent increase is not a cutback.

But if the rate of inflation, the cost of

40 ALBERTA HANSARD March 14, 1983 utilities, and the cost of services are going up by greater than that amount, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that local people who are given the responsibility of providing the service have no choice but to see a cutback. So the fourth objective of the bishops is being set aside by this government. Finally, "labour unions should be asked to play a more decisive and responsible role." Mr.

Speaker, we hear we're going to be dealing with fundamental changes in the arbitration system because the government doesn't like the way the arbitrators played by the rules this govern­ ment set. Rather than working hand in hand with the trade union movement to put Alberta back on the road to economic recovery, it would appear to me that we are doing exactly the opposite in this province and creating the whole atmosphere of confrontation which really will not help in putting this province back on the road to prosperity. So, Mr.

Speaker, the bishops' report has been set aside by the front and middle benches across the way. Diversi­ fication, the dream of the Tory party in opposition, has been abandoned. We have, instead, an interesting ap­ proach of double standards. Friday, when I raised the question of performance guarantees on a very, very ex­ pensive program, the Premier in indignation suggested that somehow that would be shackling the freedom of the oil industry. This was the party that proudly talked about all the restraints we were going to put on little people.

This is the party that is going to change the arbitration process where we don't even have free collective bargain­ ing. We're going to shackle even more the system of arbitration; we can have all kinds of rules there. This is the party that apparently doesn't like bureaucracy when it comes to oil companies but is in favor of the most ridiculous, half-baked program, the Pepin plan, which is going to have 150,000 cheques sent out to individual producers in a bureaucratic foul-up that I can imagine will defy description by the time it's worked out. But we'll get to that in a moment. Mr.

Speaker, it's very interesting to see the double standards. Why should we have some kind of reasonable performance guarantees for the oil industry programs in this province? The first why is that over the next four years, the economic resurgence program is going to cost $5.5 billion, a $5.5 billion program without any clear-cut set of

definitions as to what the money is going to be used for or performance guarantees to ensure that Alberta money is in fact used right here in this province. That's a little rich for our blood, especially when we find ourselves facing, for the first time, a very serious provincial deficit. Mr. Speaker, all one has to do is look at the figures — not figures compiled by the New Democratic Party, by the nasty Liberal government in Ottawa, or even by the Independents, but figures compiled in oilweek.

I don't think anyone would suggest that oilweek is somehow a socialist magazine that has been taken over by crypto- communists. It's the kind of magazine I'm sure every Tory could read comfortably. You look at the facts and find that as each year goes by, but particularly in the last two years, the difference between the revenues of the industry and the expenditures in Alberta has grown greater. More money is being taken out of this province than is being ploughed back in. Despite what the hon.

Minister of Energy and Natural Resources may like to suggest, or the Premier on Friday, that isn't the situation right across the board. While things aren't going so well in Alberta, if you look at Saskatchewan, British Colum­ bia, Manitoba and, most important of all, northern Canada, you find that exactly the opposite is true. What's happening, Mr. Speaker? Because of programs that are in place — federal incentive programs in part, without doubt — money is being shifted away from Alberta to other parts of the country, particularly to northern Canada. Mr.

Speaker, I suggest to you that it is not unreasonable that if the taxpayers of Alberta are going to have to forego or, in the case of direct subsidies under this program, dig up some $5.5 billion over four years, between concessions of one kind or another or direct money, it is not unreasonable to say to the industry that there must be reasonable performance guarantees that that money be spent in Alberta. What's wrong with that? Even the government members are saying that the railroads have to live with performance guarantees.

And you bet they should live with performance guarantees if we're going to make any changes in freight rates in this country. But, Mr. Speaker, if that's true of the railroads, why is not also true of the energy industry? I just don't accept the proposition that what one might described as this kind of continual, massive, corporate free lunch should go on without being challenged.

My colleague and I, particularly during the course of the estimates of the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources this year, will be quizzing that minister in some detail over the entire economic resurgence program as it applies to the indus­ try, and asking where reasonable guarantees can be in­ corporated in that program. Over the last year, I've met with a number of people in the energy industry, and they aren't as upset about performance guarantees as the members of this House. Mr.

Speaker, at a time when the people of Alberta have to look at perhaps the largest deficit in the history of our province, it isn't good enough for this government to say, we won't bring in perform­ ance guarantees — even suggesting that is an evil, bureaucratic, Alberta version of the national energy pro­ gram. That kind of name-calling isn't going to answer the simple question that if we are going to make available billions of dollars, then we have a responsibility as the guardians of the public trust in this province to ensure that that money makes its way to achieve the purpose for which it was designed. Mr.

Speaker, I want to say just a word or two about the energy agreement, because there is certainly no doubt at all that this government got itself into what one must describe as a completely ridiculous situation in 1981. When the Premier has to stand in his place and admit that the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources had apparently not advised him of an agreement over what would happen if prices drop, that is really quite mind- boggling. This is a government that claims that it's busi­ nesslike; this is a government that's proud of its corporate competence.

But how could one be proud of that kind of massive breakdown in communication? Three years ago, the now Minister of Utilities and Telecommunications got into something of a controversy over the then minister's department. One of the major issues in that controversy was communication within the department, and rightly so. This Legislature even debated a motion to reduce the minister's salary because of the failure of communication within the department. Are we as members of the Legislature to sit back and accept at face value the proposition: shucks, nobody told me?

Are we to accept at face value that the government of Alberta went down and signed an agreement in 1981 and didn't take into account the possibility that prices could drop? In 1973 I remember the then member from Wetaski­

March 14, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 41 win, the hon. Jim Henderson, who at that time was an Independent, standing in the Legislature and saying, the day will come when prices drop. Are we to suggest that this government is so unmindful of what was going on in the world that in 1981 when the federal government knew what the fine print was, a major admission as to what would happen if prices dropped was not brought to the Premier's attention? What kind of way is that to run a government? Mr. Speaker, I say with great respect that that is not any demonstration of competence at all. We have some real problems now.

The Minister of Energy and Natural Resources can try to put a sunny side on this issue, but he hopes that the OPEC price will stick. You bet he probably hopes the OPEC price will stick. But what happens if it doesn't? What are the contingency plans? Are we to presume that other Canadians — and we don't have to single out one political party, all three political parties — if prices drop dramatically in the world oil market, will not flood the eastern Canadian market with oil from Venezuela, Mexico, or other pro­ ducing countries.

With a surplus of oil in the world, if that price begins to drop, the bargaining power of this province in dealing with Ottawa is extremely weak. The members in the House know that, basically, whatever fine point we may wish to point on the agreement. The Premier interprets it one way; federal politicians of all parties will quickly interpret it another way. The fact of the matter is that the reality of the world economic market place will jeopardize our position. I remember standing alone in the Legislature in 1980 and voting against cutbacks.

One of the concerns I ex­ pressed at the time was if we cut back oil when there was a scarcity in the world, what kind of environment are we going to be creating when there is a surplus? Mr. Speak­ er, this government is going to find that all the bravado of 1980 will be very, very hard to put to work in the concrete, difficult challenge of negotiating oil prices over the next year. I want to deal with another issue that may at first not seem related but in my view is rather fundamentally relat­ ed. That is the question of western transportation and the Crow rate in particular.

Let me first of all tell members of the House why I think there is a clear relationship. The position of the New Democratic Party of Alberta has always been that, in a nation like Canada, there have to be trade-offs. If we were going to shield energy prices at a time during most of the last decade when prices were moving up — whether that shielding is 75 per cent, 70 per cent, or whatever the final figure may be — it's not unreasonable that we should expect a trade-off in return, a quid pro quo, if you like. The fact of the matter is that in 1977 we had our opportunity to seize a quid pro quo.

It was the report of the Hall royal commission on western transportation. For years, western politicians had talked about freight rates and tariffs, and it was such a general discussion. I remember the discussion in 1973 at the premiers' conference with Prime Minister Trudeau. It was really so general as to be almost meaningless because the federal government could look at the western politicians and say: if you're talking about freight rates, what do you mean by freight rates; what kind of mechanism are you going to bring in that would allow lower freight rates?

In 1977, after the most comprehensive review of west­ ern transportation in the history of the country, Mr. Justice Hall came in with a proposal which would have given us the basis for a new national policy. That was that we extend the Crow rate to everything that is produced from grain so that some of the so-called prob­ lem barriers that the Crow rate on export grain and agricultural processing caused could be eliminated. It was a good proposal, Mr. Speaker. It would have been an expensive proposal.

It would have cost all Canadians a lot of money — no question about that — but it would have been the basis of a trade-off: shielding energy prices in return for an historic agreement on getting our prod­ ucts to market at a competitive price. I have no quarrel with the theory behind that. One looks at the tremendous subsidies we have in our airport system, the St. Lawrence Seaway.

We look at our competitors elsewhere in the world: the great Mississippi River system in the United States which reduces the cost of getting American grain to market; the fact that Australian grain is grown just a few miles from the coast; in Argentina no freight rates at all, it's considered part of the national approach to get grain to market in that country. Here was a possibility of a trade-off, but we chose not to pursue it. Mr.

Speaker, now that we are losing our competitive position on oil, as oil prices begin to falter and we see a growing surplus in the world, we have the staggering possibility of this government being accomp­ lices — if you can believe it — in throwing away the one little card we still have: the Crow rate. I would say to members of the House, even if you're the most militant free enterpriser there is, I would ask you whether or not it is wise to throw this card away. Mr. Pepin, who is a very charming man, can charm anybody into thinking almost anything.

And I think he's used his charm and skill with great ability in dealing with ministers of this government. In any event, he says: don't worry; we'll just make a few changes in the system, be much better for everybody; why, the railroads are going to improve the system; you'll have all kinds of agricultur­ al processing in the west, and it will just be great. Of course there are a number of unanswered questions about Mr. Pepin's plan.

The first that I would think this prov­ ince, that is concerned about provincial rights, should be asking itself is: why did we sit silent when the federal government began the approach on the Pepin plan and deliberately by-passed the western provincial govern­ ments? We all know that if the Crow rate goes and there are major changes in the western transportation rail sys­ tem, somebody has to pick up the costs. Who is the somebody? It's going to be the ministers of transportation in the three prairie governments. But they weren't asked to be part of this whole process — totally left out.

We have member after member, including rural mem­ bers, who would rise in righteous indignation about being left out of energy discussions, about federal unilateral action on energy. I agree with them, because co-operative federalism means that the federal government has to work co-operatively with the provinces. But on this issue of the Magna Carta, if you like, of western transporta­ tion, all of a sudden our rural members in particular are silent, lost their voices. No protests here. Well, Mr. Speaker, I really wonder how credible that is.

Then we have the proposal itself: the Gilson report and then the proposal that Mr. Pepin has come up with. Half of the money is going to be paid to the farmers. All one has to do is read the Hall commission report. It dismisses that proposal in one sentence and says it would be a bureaucratic mess, really little more than a joke. The idea of 150,000 cheques going out is the most monstrous suggestion.

I understand it's going to be based on some form of acreage payments related to crop insurance fig­ ures, that the price is going to range from $5.60 an acre in the areas where elevators are close together, to as low as

42 ALBERTA HANSARD March 14, 1983 $1.50 or $1.70 an acre. Guess where that will be: northern Alberta areas. I wonder where our northern Alberta MLAs are standing on this question of acreage payments. I'm told that Mr. Pepin has come in and said, we'll come in with a little system here and try to equalize it a bit. But I understand it's not going to equalize it totally, Mr. Speaker. So farmers who already have to haul their grain further are going to get a smaller acreage payment.

But you can imagine the potential for bureaucratic foul- ups and problems when you bring in a system that is based on acreage, taking in crop insurance figures as the basis of computing what a farmer receives. The basic argument of the pools and others is that if you are going to provide a subsidy, you pay it directly to the railroad so that you can insist on performance guarantees. If they don't bring in the changes they promised, they don't get the subsidy. What ability do 150,000 permit holders really have to bargain with Jack Horner and the CN or the president of the CPR. Really, Mr.

Speaker, the idea is so silly, so completely absurd, that one wonders how this kind of argument could even float at all. Another aspect of this program that I think has to be noted is: how long does any member of this House really think that transportation subsidies paid directly to farm­ ers will continue? Past the next election, undoubtedly past the next federal election — but how long after that? How much support is there going to be among other industries that feel they would like a little cash too, or other Canadians who are going to be paying this out to individual farmers?

You can just imagine what will hap­ pen the first time a national television network gets hold of a farmer cashing in his Crow benefit cheque to go to Hawaii. It's going to be splashed from one end of the country to the other. Then, faced with a $30 billion defi­ cit, I wonder how long it will be till Mr. Lalonde, or whoever is Minister of Finance, stands up and, in a very serious way says: we've got to draw the line some place, and we're going to draw it at 150,000 individual produc­ ers. Really, Mr.

Speaker, those of us who are politicians owe it to our constituents to be honest about how the political system is going to work. Anybody who thinks that this system is going to be in place for very long is the classic example of a group of turkeys voting for early Christmas. It's not going to last very long indeed. Another thing that's rather interesting in this proposal is no performance guarantees. In real fact, if the railways don't live up to their agreement, they go — if you can believe it — for three years before any penalties are applied. Then we bring in the army of lawyers.

As the hon. member from Edmonton pointed out today, with the problem of certain lawyers holding hands with certain companies, after three years where you don't get fined at all, where there's no prosecution, no enforcement, then what happens. MR. COOK: Mr. Speaker, that's not what I said. I wonder if the hon. member could make a correction. I was not suggesting that government lawyers were holding hands with companies. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I may have misunderstood the hon. member. If so, I would certainly retract those comments.

I wouldn't want to destroy his position and get him in trouble with his colleagues in the caucus at all. I want to make it clear that my colleague and I do not want to see any Conservative members thrown out of the caucus for the next while. [interjections] Mr. Speaker, we might rescind that depending on the intentions of the hon. member, but we'll leave it for the time being. Mr. Speaker, the point I want to make is that for three years there won't be any way of enforcing failure to live up to performance guarantees.

But I think the best argument of all on this entire issue is the suggestion: do away with the Crow rate; it's just going to be great because we're shipping all this unpro­ cessed grain to export position; the only way we're going to develop value-added industries is to have higher rates. The only problem is, what happens to the price of your processed commodity when you try to get it to market?

Let's take, for example, the question of pork, because we're told that we want to revive the packing industry, ditch the Crow rate, cheap feed grain; going to be far more competitive than producing pork and beef; we'll take all kinds of additional markets. That's naive mytho­ logy. I think the best person who spoke on this issue with a good deal of common sense is the Hon. Grant Devine, Premier of Saskatchewan, and I quote from the February 22, 1983, Hansard in the province of Saskatchewan. He's talking about the so-called processing opportunities, by ditching the Crow.

It is debatable if increased pork production in west­ ern Canada. . . And then he makes an aside: I'm sure Alberta would like to hear this if they haven't read it . . . Then he goes on to say: . . . and I'm sure they haven't read it. It's debatable if increased pork production in western Canada would compete with Quebec's pork exports to Japan. The Japanese market is product specific, and Quebec is geared up to serve it. Trans­ portation costs from Japan to Quebec are currently less than transportation costs from the prairies to Japan. Mr. Speaker, that unfortunately is correct.

It's one of the reasons why the Hall commission report made so much sense. We could have extended the Crow rate to everything produced from grain, and we'd be able to get our meat products into an export position at a reasonable price. But now, because of the geography of central Canada, it's absolute naive nonsense to believe that by wrecking the financial position of the grain producer we're somehow going to make it better for the beef producer, and somehow we'll have our packing industry strong, active, and vital and all kinds of people employed. That simply isn't true. Mr.

Speaker, for Tories who have now decided to embrace this new alliance between the federal government — I might say the Ottawa government — and the provin­ cial government here, it's very interesting to look at this advertisement taken out in the Montreal Gazette, Febru­ ary 21, 1983, to talk about the Crow rate as it applies to Quebec farmers. The big, full-page ad, paid for by the taxpayers of Canada, says The Crow Goes Without a Flap — and it appears that it does, as far as Alberta is concerned.

It goes on and makes a number of points, but I think this is particularly interesting, and I'd like hon. members to listen carefully: The introduction of the new plan to replace the Crow Rate will have no adverse effect on the dairy, poultry and egg industries, all of which are protected by their own marketing boards. Then it goes on: The higher transportation costs will prevent west­ ern pork and beef producers from becoming more

March 14, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 43 competitive with their eastern counterparts in their traditional markets. That's what the federal government is saying about the Crow rate in Quebec, paid for by the taxpayers of Canada. And we have this provincial government coming out with, of all things, support for a program which I think is just mind-boggling. The hon. Deputy Premier of Saskatchewan, Mr. Be- rntson, made a number of observations in that Legislative Assembly on the Crow rate. I'd just like to quote one observation he made: No matter how you slice it, Mr.

Speaker, the Pepin plan, the answer always comes out the same. West­ ern Canadian farmers are guaranteed to pay more to haul their grain. The railways are guaranteed to have their costs paid, to have capacity added, and must give no guarantees to perform despite massive inflow of public funds. The benefits of the Pepin plan go, in the most part, to the railways, to central Canadian agricultur­ al producers, and to central Canadian manufacturing plants. The farmers' present statutory . . . guarantee is to be replaced, Mr. Speaker, with guarantees to the railways and central Canada. Now, Mr.

Speaker, against this background, what in heaven's name are we doing listening to the kind of observation I heard from the Minister of Agriculture, whom I like very much as a gentleman but who has to represent a muddle-headed policy from this government, which is going to throw away something that farmers have achieved over decades, without any guarantees? Oh, the minister registered a couple of caveats, and I agree with those caveats. But do you know what's going to happen, Mr. Speaker? That most persuasive of all people, Mr.

Pepin, is going to come out and say: well, with a little change here and a little change there we'll patch it all up, and we'll try to meet our deadline at the end of June. The hon. Minister of Advanced Education, who was our Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Af­ fairs in the past government, knows perfectly well that's going to happen, how skilfully it will be done. And once we do it, as the Deputy Premier of Saskatchewan so eloquently said, we will have betrayed western Canadian producers. That's why it's important that we send this thing back to the drawing board.

Hon. members of this Assembly will know that in Saskatchewan politics, things can some­ times be quite rough. You know, they throw everything but the alley cat into the legislative debates, and I suppose that really doesn't hurt. They really have ri­ gorous, strong debates. But on one issue, Mr. Speaker, the two political parties in Saskatchewan, the Conserva­ tive government and the New Democratic opposition, are as one.

That is in their opposition to the Pepin plan, so much so that in an event which frankly was unique in the history of the Saskatchewan Legislature, a motion was presented that basically called upon the Saskatchewan Legislature to affirm its opposition to the Pepin plan and, after an extensive debate, it was passed unanimously. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to suggest to members of this House that it's important to ask ourselves where we stand on this crucial issue, because there is a timetable involved. We all know that if Mr.

Pepin meets his objective of getting it through the House of Commons by the end of June, it will become law and that's it; it's game over. Farmers are going to be forced to pay five times Crow; it's going to come right out of western Canadian produc­ ers' pockets. There isn't going to be the diversification of the industry that they we're led to believe. The federal commitment will be qualified and reduced. The railroads will not have to live up to performance guarantees. We know what will happen if the government of Canada succeeds on June 30. Mr.

Speaker, there is a large number of farmers — I would think the overwhelming majority of producers — saying to us in the western legislatures: no; you've got to stop this program; you've got to ask the federal govern­ ment to go back to the drawing board; you've got to ask the federal government to sit down and discuss with the three provincial governments and the farm organizations a new transportation program for Canada, not this flawed Pepin plan.

But there is a very definite element of time involved, and if we are mute or sit on the fence or look the other way, and the Saskatchewan Conservative government has to do battle for farmers in Alberta or the NDP govern­ ment in Manitoba has to do battle for farmers in Alberta, one really has to ask where the members of this Assembly stand on the most important transportation issue of our generation. Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude my remarks by moving an amendment.

This motion is amended by ad­ ding the following after the words "present session": and, in the absence of any specific reference in the Speech from the Throne to the Crow Rate proposals advanced by the Minister of Transport for Canada, we further beg leave to note our approval of and support for the motion adopted by the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Saskatchewan on Feb­ ruary 22, 1983, being: "That, because the proposals advanced by the Minister of Transport for Canada to replace the statutory Crow rate; 1) do not recognize the principle of a statu­ tory rate for grain; 2) do not provide cost protection for farmers; 3) do not recognize that grain must be sold in a competitive international market; 4) do not remove the distortion in rates by including all prairie crops and their products under the new structure; 5) do not deal with unacceptable high ta­ xation levels on farm inputs such as fuel; 6) do not provide sufficient performance guarantees for the future growth and development of all facets of prairie agriculture; 7) prescribe an unacceptable limit of 31.1 million tonnes for subsidized shipments; 8) provide central Canada with further ar­ tificial processing and livestock incen­ tives; and, 9) are not supported by a consensus of Western Canadians; And, because these fundamental concerns must be dealt with in any plans for the western rail transportation system.

This Assembly therefore rejects the Pepin Plan."" Mr. Speaker, I would like to move an amendment incorporating . . . I have copies for all hon. members at this time. MR. SPEAKER: I don't suppose it's going to affect to any large extent the scope of the debate on the motion for

44 ALBERTA HANSARD March 14, 1983 the address and reply to His Honour, and no doubt whatever motion comes out of the initiative just taken by the hon. Leader of the Opposition will be voted on. But having heard the motion and not having read it yet or given it the careful consideration it should have, I have some misgivings as to whether it's in order. As hon. members know, our Standing Orders require that a motion be put without a

preamble. It perhaps sounds like a contradiction in terms, but a

preamble that comes after the motion may none the less be a

preamble. The reason for the prohibition against a

preamble is to ensure that motions are put without a great deal of debate being included in the motion. It would appear to me from just having heard the motion read by the hon. Leader of the Opposition that there is in fact a great deal of debate included in the motion. Therefore it would seem to me that it might infringe the rule against pre­ ambles, at least in spirit, but I'll withhold further com­ ment until I've had a chance to consider the motion. MR. YOUNG: Mr.

Speaker, on the question of the proposal of the motion before us, I note that it appears to be a very complex motion as it is worded, and I haven't had the time to study it thoroughly. I do note in the motion a reference to the actions of another Assembly, which leads me to some doubt. But that may be accepta­ ble. I draw it to your attention. The question of the amount of detail I would suspect is going to make any debate, upon the amendment a very narrow debate, because there are nine restrictions or problems advanced. I gather, Mr.

Speaker, that that is the concern you were raising, that in fact there are that many details before we get to the essence of the motion itself. Is that what I'm understanding from your reading of it? MR. SPEAKER: My concern is simply this and, as I suggested, I don't propose to deal with the matter conclu­ sively at the moment. This motion could easily be the same in substance if it were to say: "whereas the propos­ als advanced by the Minister of Transport of Canada to replace the statutory Crow rate, one, do not recognize . . ." and so on through nine; "therefore

be it resolved that . . . ." That's clearly a

preamble. As I say, I'm not suggesting that the hon. leader is trying to disguise the

preamble, but that is my problem with the motion. I'd like to give it some further consideration. MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, in speaking briefly to the amendment prior to your ruling as to whether it's indeed in order or not, it would be my feeling that the issue is indeed a . . . MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. member now discussing the point of order, or is he entering debate on the amend­ ment? I'm not sure yet whether the hon. Leader of the Opposition has concluded. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I have concluded my re­ marks on the debate by moving the amendment.

If there is to be a discussion on the point of order, I'd be glad to do that. If you're going to defer a decision for a while, then I'll await with interest the discussion of all other hon. members on the amendment, I presume including the hon. Member for Calgary Currie. MR. SPEAKER: In the meantime, naturally I'd welcome any advice or suggestions from hon. members in regard to the amendment, whether they're given on the floor here, by memoranda, or personally. MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, it would not be my intent to debate the content of the proposed amendment.

However, in response to your suggestion that we might participate in the decision you'll be making, I would just agree with the suggestion that indeed to me this seems like a resolution in full with a

preamble and a conclusion. This would seem much more suitable for the Order Paper in terms of a debate in designated motion form on private members' day or in some other possible way, of course excluding the

whereas clauses that seem to be implied by this particular document. I'm not in a position to debate the contents of this proposed amendment. I've not seen one before of this length or this nature in terms of debating the Speech from the Throne. I would feel that this is not in keeping with the normal direction. Perhaps the hon. member has a reworded one; I don't know. It would be my suggestion that this would not be in order and that we should proceed with the debate on the throne speech. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might offer sev­ eral comments on the points of order.

I would say to hon. members that while there might be some debate over the issue you advance, sir, in actual fact what we are dealing with is a resolution in its entirety. While it may be a complex amendment, it's important in my view that these points be there because they are basically part of the amendment as apart from argument. Indeed several of them were even referred to by the hon. Minister of Agriculture in his ministerial announcement on Friday. I suppose one could argue that what you have are nine arguments.

You could also argue that you have nine basic components of a position which together represents the amendment. I would argue that that in fact is the case in this instance. I'm not aware of any rule in our Assembly — and you might correct me if I'm wrong — that because some­ thing's been debated in another Assembly it's out of order in this Assembly. Indeed, as members of the Common­ wealth Parliamentary Association, there would be fre­ quent occasions where in fact similar resolutions would be put and debated. The resolution is modelled very closely on the Saskatchewan resolution.

I don't think the fact that it was done there would make it out of order here. It would seem to me that we have every right as a Legislature, sovereign in her own jurisdiction, to choose, if we wish, to pass a resolution exactly identical to another Legislature's should we pursue that. We may be barred from further discussions on issues we've already dealt with in this Legislature, but I don't think we are restricted, as I understand the rules, from debating what has been dealt with by another Assembly in its own jurisdiction. MR.

SPEAKER: The standing order I'm referring to, of course, is Standing Order 39, the one dealing with

preambles. I might just mention in passing that it seems to me it's a very practical standing order, because if you were going to give reasons, either before or after stating the motion at length, we could have whole speeches in the Votes and Proceedings and on the Order Paper while the matter was awaiting debate. May I suggest then that it might be in order for us to continue with the debate on the throne speech and, as I

March 14, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 45 say, I'd like to have a chance to consider this motion further. As I mentioned in the beginning, it seems to me it doesn't really inhibit the direction or scope of the debate. We are in a throne speech debate. The ordinary motion of non-confidence which arises in a throne speech debate simply regrets that it lacks certain things, and this, I think, is an example of that sort of motion. So it's quite open to hon. members to say, yes, but it's a good throne speech debate, you know, and it doesn't need that partic­ ular thing, and so on.

I think we are not restricted by this proposed amendment in the way we would be were we not in the throne speech debate. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Do I understand your ruling, that you were going to defer consideration of this amendment until some later point, or . . . MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps tonight. MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, on that point, just to be absolutely clear. My understanding of your comments to this point arises out of Standing Order 39 and the appropriateness of the wording of the

preamble, as it were, in this particular motion. However, the motion has been moved, as I understand it, and I guess I'm in a quandary because I understood your comment to the effect that the amendment or the observation — I'm not sure which it is — proposed in the conclusion could still stand if the

preamble were removed, in the event that that's necessary to conform to

section 39. MR. SPEAKER: That's so, and we might as well, if I may suggest, carry on with the throne speech debate. I don't think we're in any difficulty as a result of this proposed motion. MR. MARTIN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I understand that you agreed with what the hon. member said, you're saying, that if the

preamble weren't there and simply said, "the Assembly therefore rejects the Pepin plan", that would be okay? MR. SPEAKER: I'm not sure what that point of order is. MR. MARTIN: You were suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member said if there wasn't what he called a

preamble there — I gathered that you said you thought it would be in order if there was just the one statement. I'm saying the key to it is that this Assembly reject the Pepin plan. The others are reasons for doing it, of course. It was passed through the Saskatchewan government. But I'm asking just for clarification. If all the other things weren't there and it just mentioned that the Assembly rejects the Pepin plan, in your mind would it have been in order then? MR.

SPEAKER: The situation as I see it at the moment is that I would have less difficulty with the amendment if it were to end after stating February 22, 1983. If there were a period there, I'd have less difficulty with it, but I still would like to examine the whole motion. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I'd like to offer this for your consideration.

When we look at the original motion — as I look at the Monday, March 14, Legislative Assembly routine and Orders of the Day — we are actually moving, first of all, that the "humble address be presented" and then that the Legislative Assembly, now Assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech . . . Our purpose in speaking here is either to thank the Lieutenant-Governor as such and give the speech approv­ al or not give it approval. So in making the amendment, if we clear all the rest of the details away, that is the specific thing we're doing: either agreeing to it or not agreeing to it.

In the final analysis, we will have to. In the amendment here — at this point, speaking of it very objectively rather than any other way — we talk about rejecting the Pepin plan, which is not really related to the main motion. I offer that for your consideration, Mr. Speaker. I certainly would like to see the amendment discussed, but I offer it in terms of trying to assess how this fits in with our House rules. MR. COOK: Mr. Speaker, further on the point of order, I wonder if the hon.

Member for Spirit River-Fairview would entertain the proposition of having the motion end with a period at the end of the date 1983. The reason for that would be that it would free you, Mr. Speaker, from having to, if you like, defer your decision. MR. SPEAKER: I'd still like to consider the first part of the motion.

Ordinarily I'd bite the bullet now if it were going to hold up debate, but since I don't see it as having that effect, I respectfully suggest to the Assembly that they might allow me an opportunity to just think about it and look into it a little further between now and this evening, then perhaps deal with it this evening. HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. KING: Mr.

Speaker, could I ask if in your earlier comments on this proposed resolution and in the light of the comments you have just made, you have taken into consideration annotation 170 in the fifth edition of Beauchesne, in which it is stated that a general debate may take place on the address, but when an amendment is proposed, the discussion should be strictly confined to the subject matter of the amendment? I took it from you, Mr. Speaker, that you might have earlier expressed a view which differs from that in Beauchesne. MR.

SPEAKER: I had not taken that into consideration, and possibly without having given this the further consid­ eration I suggested, I've already said too much. MR. KING: Then, Mr. Speaker, to the point of order, I would draw the attention of hon. members to annotation 170, which I think is quite clear in stating that the tradi­ tion of the House with respect to amendments moved to the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne is that the debate must be very strictly limited to the subject matter of the proposed amendment.

Perhaps at the same time I would draw the attention of members to sub 5 of 170, which makes it quite clear, I believe, that the House, having given its judgment on the subject matter of this amendment — we are precluded from any further discus­ sion of this matter at other times in the course of the Assembly. MR. SPEAKER: May I suggest that we just continue with the throne speech debate and not be too concerned about the inhibiting effect of the amendment for the brief time that is available for the rest of this afternoon, and I'll deal with the matter further this evening.

46 ALBERTA HANSARD March 14, 1983 HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. WEISS: As I rise for the 32nd time, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to reply to the throne speech presented at this First Session of the 20th Legisla­ ture. I had a few misgivings for a while whether I was going to have that opportunity or not, and I hope I won't be inhibited as you had indicated. I would like to compliment the hon. Member for Grande Prairie, who moved the speech, and the seconder, the hon. Member for Calgary Foothills, who have set high standards for me and others to follow.

Also, I would like to thank His Honour the Honourable the Lieutenant- Governor, Frank Lynch-Staunton, for his delivery of the throne speech. We look forward to the grace he brings this House. Mr. Speaker, sincere congratulations to you on your reappointment as Speaker of the House. I trust that your acceptance bore some measure of willingness and that you did not suffer any undue physical persuasion. We want you to know that we appreciate your guidance during the long hours of debate, such as was just shown now. We need it, and thank you, Mr. Speaker. Congratulations are also due to the hon.

Member for Spirit River-Fairview on his designation as the new Lead­ er of the Opposition. Although we may seldom concur on the issues at hand, I look forward to his diverse views and their contribution to this House. Although I was some­ what dismayed on Friday last, Mr. Speaker, by the hon. member introducing a motion for adjournment for an emergency debate and then, having the time allotted, fail­ ing to speak on the issue. I trust this will not be indicative of future requests. With your permission, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to extend a warm welcome to all of the 19 new members as they join us in the Assembly for the first time. We look forward to your participation. May it prove rewarding to each of you personally, as well as to your respective constituencies that have given you their confidence. I can well understand the fears and trepidations felt by new House members, for it was at this time and on this day, four years ago, that I was first elected, as well as various other members. I would venture to say, Mr.

Speaker, that all of us here today can vividly recall the very first time we sat in this House with our colleagues. To pick up on the previous speaker as he referred to the honor of speaking, while I do recognize the honor of the privilege to speak, there is a little irony here for my present circumstances. The honor, for the order of speak­ ing now, is really the luck of the draw. To my constituents, a personal thank you for the trust they have placed in me by re-electing me to this Legisla­ tive Assembly of Alberta.

I renew my pledge to represent them earnestly, with honesty and integrity, and to make their voices heard. From the trapper's trail to modern twin bridges, re­ mote hamlets to urban sprawl, expanse of muskeg with wild game to fertile green fields and dairy herds, fishing nets to giant bucket wheels and drag lines: all this and more describes the constituency of Lac La Biche- McMurray. I am proud to have the privilege of represent­ ing this constituency, and it is an honor indeed to present to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Assembly her profile.

I would like to begin by thanking our government for the concern and caring leadership it has given to Alberta and her people. All decisions have not been popular. All programs and services have not been seen to meet the needs. But there is no doubt in my mind that our government has accepted its commitment responsibly and realistically, Mr. Speaker, and with the courage, fore­ sight, and wisdom so necessary to meet the challenges of the present day. I thank you for that.

Within my constituency there have been many benefits during this past year which will be shared by much of the province: the small business and farm interest shielding program, widows' pensions, home improvement grants for seniors, and the rural home heating program, to mention only a few. The mortgage interest reduction program