LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Tuesday, May 2, 1972 2:30 p.m. (The House met at 2:30 pm.) PRAYERS (Mr. Speaker in the Chair.) head: READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS MR. ASHTON: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move that the following petitions be now read and received. First the petition of the City of Calgary for

an act to terminate certain agreements between the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the City of Calgary; and secondly, that of Orville V. Burkinshaw for

an act respecting Great Way Merchandising Limited and The Securities Act. [The motion moved by Mr. Ashton, seconded by Mr. Stromberg, was carried without debate or dissent.] head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS MR. PURDY: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to introduce some 120 pupils from the Stony Plain Junior High Grade IX class. They are accompanied by the assistant superintendent of the County of Parkland, Mr. Al Myers, the assistant principal of Stony Plain Junior High School, Mr. Jim Orieux, teacher Mr. Arnie Newfield, teacher Mrs. Johnson, and another teacher Mr. Oglestone.

Also with them are the bus drivers, Mr. Yoist, Mr. Jamison, and Mr. Altheim. Also behind me, in the public gallery, we have 25 members of the Stony Plain Chamber of Commerce. I would ask both these groups to rise and be recognized. MR. COOPER: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to introduce to you and through you to the members of this Legislature, 37 Grade IX students from the school at Mannville in the Vermilion-Viking constituency. The young people are accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Bohaichuk, and Mr. Lakusta.

They are seated in the public gallery, and I would ask them to stand and be recognized. head: FILING RETURNS AND TABLING REPORTS MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Sessional Paper No. 113. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2611

41-2 ALBERTA HANSARD May 2nd 1972 head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury followed by the hon. Member for Calgary McCall and the hon. Member for Sedgewick-Coronation. Egg Marketing Board MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon.

Minister of Agriculture and ask him if the Alberta government and the Alberta Egg Marketing board have taken over the operation of the produce house Cal-Ed, so that now in fact, the marketing board is involved in distribution of eggs, in addition to its role of egg buying and having responsibility for the control of egg marketing in the province? DR. HORNER: That is correct, Mr. Speaker, I intended later today to speak to that particular point in some length. MR. CLARK: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I should perhaps ask of you.

Is it permissible to go on with one or two supplementary questions on this issue then? I would like to ask the hon. minister if there has been any financial commitment made by the Government of the Province of Alberta involved in this arrangement between the Alberta Government and the Egg Marketing Board? DR. HORNER: Only a continuation of the guarantee that the Egg Marketing Board or the Egg and Fowl Marketing Board have, in fact, had for some time. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the minister who, in fact, will be supplying the managerial services for this new organization? DR.

HORNER: The Egg Board themselves will be. A Mr. Russ Marfleet, who was formerly with APM will be taking over as manager of the operation for the Egg Board. MR. CLARK: Another supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is APM involved in this arrangement in any way, shape or form? DR. HORNER: None whatsoever, Mr. Speaker. Just to clarify for the hon. member and I'll deal with it later as well the fixed assets of Cal-Ed Poultry Farms, Edmonton, Ltd., have been acquired by the Alberta Egg and Fowl Marketing Board.

Cal-Ed, of course, is a subsiduary of Ogilvie Flour Mills of Montreal, and had provided grading, packaging and other general marketing services to egg producers in Edmonton and surrounding areas. I had early discussions with Ogilvies, Mr. Speaker, in connection with the question of integration of some of these companies into these areas; and Ogilvies were one of the first major companies to announce that they were willing and ready to get out of primary production. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2612

May 2nd 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 41-3 In addition to that, the problem that has been before us, in regard to eggs particularly, has been the lack of a marketing opportunity for the smaller producer. There have been innumerable cases where cases of eggs were not being bought by the grading stations on the grounds that they didn't want them or couldn't use them, because they were in small lots.

I encouraged the Egg Board to look into this matter so that we would have a central clearing house in which we could guarantee to every registered producer in Alberta a market outlet for his eggs and where his next major requirement would, in fact, be quality, and if he produced quality eggs he would get the quality prices, rather than the situation that's been going on for the past two years in which, in fact, in certain cases, smaller producers fed their eggs to hogs, or just did away with them, because it didn't pay the freight to ship them to a grading station. There have been all kinds of instances, Mr.

Speaker, where once they did ship the eggs they were refused by the grading stations. As I said, Mr. Speaker, I intend to enlarge upon the situation and our objectives and our hopes for the future in regard to returning a marketing and production opportunity to the smaller farmer, particularly in Alberta. MR. RUSTE: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. Do I take it from his statement, then, that he will guarantee to take the production from any small producer, providing there's a quality, of course? DR. HORNER: And provided that he's registered with the Egg Board. MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, one more supplementary question, then, to the minister. The Egg Marketing Board will be involved in distribution as well as market control? DR. HORNER: That's correct, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary McCall, followed by the hon. Member for Sedgewick-Coronation. Temporary Release of Prisoners MR. HO LEM: Mr. Speaker, I wished to direct this question to the hon. Premier, however in his absence I would like to direct the same question to the hon. Attorney General.

Will the government be making representation to Ottawa regarding the temporary releasing of dangerous inmates held in federal prisons located in Alberta? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I'm at a bit of a loss to answer that question. I wonder if the hon. member has some policy or program in mind that the federal government is now following on which he's suggesting we make representations. MR. HO LEN: Mr. Speaker, by way of explanation to the Attorney General, we read recently of the releasing of dangerous criminals held as inmates Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2613

41-4 ALBERTA HANSARD May 2nd 1972 in federal prisons and this recently happened in the Province of Manitoba. In this particular case, the inmates had just disappeared. This, I feel, is certainly detrimental to public safety. That is the reason why I'm asking what the position of this government is. While I appreciate that it is a federal matter, I'm just wondering whether our provincial government has a stand or some feelings in this regard. Are we concerned about the possible danger to public safety because of such a program? MR. LEITCH: Mr.

Speaker, I am not sure from the explanation given by the hon. member whether he is talking about releases by the Parole Board, that is release by consent, or whether he is talking about an escape. MR. HO LEM: I am talking about temporary releases of prisoners to attend mass, or to attend meetings such as the AA, and this sort of thing, which is the policy adopted currently by federal authorities. MR. LEITCH: Certainly, Mr.

Speaker, we are very concerned within our own correctional institutional system about a release, either voluntarily by the system, or through an escape of any person who at that moment in time may constitute a danger to the public. I have commented on this several times. So far as the federal programs are concerned, I think the hon. member's question involved a conclusion that I am not at all sure is correct. Certainly, nothing of that nature has been brought to my attention. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the hon. the Attorney General. Is the hon.

Attorney General aware that from the federal penitentiary in the Drumheller area, scores of prisoners go out every day to work, to play for dances, to take

part in various activities? Not one has escaped, and they have made quite a contribution to the community as well as quite a contribution to rehabilitation? MR. LEITCH: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the program being followed by the federal government within the federal penitentiary system. Cattle Rustling MR. SORENSON: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture. Is the hon. minister aware of any increase in cattle rustling in this province? DR. HORNER: Mr.

Speaker, I have been informed by a variety of sources that, in fact, in certain areas there has been an increase in cattle rustling. The government has taken steps to try to prevent this by the implementation of additional regulations under The Brand Act by trying to upgrade our brand inspectors, and to work very closely with the four RCMP officers who are directly involved across the province in this business of trying to prevent rustling. I am sure all of us would like to try and stop it.

I would hope our farmers themselves would continue to be ever vigilant about branding their cattle, and about making sure to keep an eye on them, because this is part of the prevention as well. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2614

May 2nd 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 41-5 MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary Bow, followed by the hon. Member for Wainwright. National Air Photo Library MR. WILSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs. Further to your previous statements assuring the Legislature that some alternate program would be implemented when the federal government closes the Calgary branch of the National Air Photo Library on June 1st, can you now advise what that alternate program will be? MR. GETTY: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot. MR. WILSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Inasmuch as the Independent Petroleum Association of Canada, the Canadian Petroleum Association, the Alberta Society of Petroleum Geologists, the University of Calgary Geology Department, plus agriculturalists and foresters, have all indicated this is an important, useful facility, when can we expect an announcement on the alternate method of carrying on the service, keeping in mind it is due to be closed on June 1st? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, there has been some concern expressed by the companies that the hon. member has mentioned.

However, he may not be aware that there are, in fact, alternate sources presently in the province where you can obtain this kind of assistance. Our own Department of Lands and Forests, for a fee, will provide this kind of service. Nevertheless, the federal government is aware that theirs has been used fairly extensively, and they are trying to provide some other alternative method. MR. WILSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Does the Department of Lands and Forests have an equivalent file which includes 700,000 prints? MR. GETTY: Well, hon. Mr.

Speaker, perhaps I should refer to the Minister although he may not have all the facts with him today. You can get a picture of any part of Alberta, yes. MR. WILSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Minister of Mines and Minerals. Have you considered purchasing the prints from Ottawa and making copies available through the provincial government? MR. DICKIE: We haven't taken any active steps in that area at the present time. I propose to have some discussions with my colleague, the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs.

I might say also that I haven't had any representations from the various organizations that the hon. member has mentioned. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2615

41-6 ALBERTA HANSARD May 2nd 1972 MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Wainwright followed by the hon. Member for Bow Valley. Slave Lake Timber Development MR. RUSTE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Lands and Forests. Some time ago he announced April 30th as the deadline for proposals to develop a select block of timber in the Slave Lake area. Could you report on that to me? DR. WARRACK: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to report that indeed we did have a proposal come forward and it came to my office on Friday afternoon, so it was well within the deadline.

We do have that proposal now, and we will be looking at it, and we have, in fact, Mr. Speaker, scheduled a public hearing on the afternoon of May 15th for Slave Lake as a follow-up to the proposal that we did receive. MR. RUSTE: Just a supplementary. Do I understand then there is only one proposal submitted? DR. WARRACK: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there was only one proposal submitted. On preliminary examination however, Mr. Speaker, it looks like a very good proposal, both in terms of the proposal itself, but secondly also, as a proposal for a forestry operation that should assist other forestry operations in that area.

MR. RUSTE: A further supplementary. Where will the hearing be held on this matter? DR. WARRACK: At Slave Lake. Loans to Potato Growers MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct to a question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture. Are you aware that potato growers are not able to make loans under the present regulations of the Potato Guaranteed Loan? DR. HORNER: Well, Mr. Speaker, they are from the ordinary chartered banks, but the Treasury Branch -- as I told the hon. member a few days ago we are making changes so that the Treasury Branches can be involved as well.

I understand that this question deals with the use of

section 88 which the chartered banks can use, and which the Treasury Branches can't use, but we are changing it to allow the Treasury Branches to use a chattel mortgage on the product which, in effect will give them the same kind of security of

section 88 in The Bank Act. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2616

May 2nd 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 41-7 MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. It is the chartered banks that are not making the loans at the present time with the present regulations. I think that the potato growers and the banks have got together and that any of the applications that have been made to the chartered banks to date have been refused, and they are requesting changes in the regulations. DR. HORNER: Well, Mr.

Speaker, the regulations were primarily drawn up by representatives from the chartered banks in conjunction with people in ay department, and if there is some fault in the regulation that prevents them from making loans, I'll check on it, because we are changing it with regard to the treasury branches. But this was done in full consulatation with the banks. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Camrose, is this a supplementary? MR. R. SPEAKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister. In an earlier question you indicated that you had met with the chartered banks and other banking institutions.

Have you met with any of the banks in the past week, and if not, are you prepared to meet with these groups very soon with regards to the potato growers? DR. HORNER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We met within the last few days, at least my officials have, and officials from Treasury have met with representatives of the banks in Calgary in the last few days on this very subject. Chain Lakes Clean-Up MR. STROMBERG: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the hon. Minister of Lands and Forests.

A group of concerned sportsmen from High River have informed me that the Chain Lakes reservoir west of Nanton has become saturated with suckers. Will your department be giving consideration to rectifying this problem? DR. WARRACK: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Chain Lakes area is just west of Nanton and as a matter of fact, recently that particular provincial park was roughly doubled in size. The lake there is a man-made one that was conjunctively a PFRA and Water Resources Project at the time.

As I understand the situation, it was inevitable that there would be a build-up of suckers in that particular lake, and sooner or later it would be necessary to look at some way to remove those undesirable species -- and even if done this would likely have to be repeated in about four or five years. We have looked at this. Mr. Speaker, I must say that we have not made a concrete decision as to what direction to go on it; there are several alternatives, but none of them are very desirable. MR. STROMBERG: Mr.

Speaker, I thought that in light of past elections there would have been a shortage of this species of fish. But would you give consideration to using a fish-killing agent? Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2617

41-8 ALBERTA HANSARD May 2nd 1972 DR. WARRACK: I was listening closely and found the first part of your supplemental so humorous I missed the second. MR. STROMBERG: The second part of that question was -- would you be giving consideration to using a fish-killing agent? DR. WARRACK: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This would be among alternatives that basically revolve around the different kind of agents that one could use. Some are more selective, but of course more expensive than others, and some are complete.

I'm personally concerned, although I don't have the technical analysis of the long-term environmental aftermath that might be a part of using these kinds of agent. So not having assessed that, I'm not prepared to make a decision on moving in that direction now; but we are looking at that as one of the possibilities to alleviate that problem. It is a serious problem because it's in an area that's of very high recreation value otherwise -- and it's an important question -- as it is readily accessible to many people in Alberta who would like to be fishing for trout. MR. BENOIT: Mr.

Speaker, since this was already done about four or five years ago, and it has filled up again, will the government continue to put in trout at the rate of three-quarters of a million a year again this year, as they have been doing in the past? DR. WARRACK: Well this is the problem exactly, Mr. Speaker. The lake was man-made in the initial instance and stocked, but it was inevitable from a biological point of view that there would be an increasing proportion of the fish life there that would be suckers, and therefore undesirable fish.

It may well be that at some point that it would not be worthwhile to do this in terms of further stocking with trout, but I would hope that we could find a way to salvage the situation. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview, followed by the hon. Member for Highwood. Northern Transportation Corridor MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct this question to the hon. Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs. There's been some speculation that there may be a railroad built alongside the proposed Mackenzie highway.

I'm wondering whether the government has had any discussions as yet on this with the federal government? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, not in specifics. In discussing the whole area of a northern pipeline corridor and transportation corridor, of course, the consideration is that one of the things is a railroad, and the other is an all-weather highway as well as the pipelines. While I've had some discussion about this with the hon. Minister without Portfolio Responsible for Northern Development, I have not had any specific discussions with the federal government on a railroad.

Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2618

May 2nd 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 41-9 MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question, either to the hon. Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs or the hon. Minister of Industry. Has the government considered the possible merits of the Mackenzie railroad and the effect such a railroad could have on our own ARR? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I think it’s something that obviously has to be considered by any administration. Other than that I have nothing to add. Perhaps our hon. Minister of Industry or Northern Development may wish to add something to it. Car Dumps MR. SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Highwood, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary Bow. MR. BENOIT: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the hon. Minister of Highways and Transport. Last year the department, in conjunction with municipalities, arranged for specified places for dumping old car bodies, with the understanding -- at least it was my understanding -- that they would be picked up by the end of the year. Many of these car body dumps are still filled with cars. What is the department’s policy with regard to this matter? MR. COPITHORNE: Mr. Speaker, we tendered the cars last fall.

The low tender was Navajo Metals in Calgary, and they are in the process of cleaning them up all over the province on an orderly basis. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary Bow, followed by the hon. Member for Drayton Valley. The Planning Act MR. WILSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. In response to a question of last Friday you indicated that an enquiry would be held around the middle of May into Edmonton’s misuse of The Planning Act. Can you now advise what the terms of reference will be for the hearing, and where it will be held? MR. RUSSELL: Mr.

Speaker, I think we should all stop using the term 'Edmonton's misuse of The Planning Act' because that's not the subject of the enquiry at all, and I would like to correct that. The terms of enquiry will roughly, or approximately, deal with the application of The Planning Act insofar as land contributed by developers towards roadways and circulation systems and for public reserve insofar as the requirements of The Planning Act are concerned.

When I spoke to officials of the Planning Branch some time ago they suggested that probably about the middle of May would be a good time to hold it, because at that time we thought the legislative session might be drawing to an end. It doesn't appear that it will so it's possible the enquiry will be delayed two or three weeks on Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2619

41-10 ALBERTA HANSARD May 2nd 1972 that account -- if it's found necessary. But that's the general idea -- to give interested parties a chance to present their comments with respect to that aspect of the Act. MR. WILSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, will the date and place of the hearings be advertised in newspapers? MR. RUSSELL: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. It's our intention to hear both sides of the story in this regard, because as you know we intend to bring in a completely new planning act at the spring session next year and I think this will be a very useful endeavour to carry out in the meantime. MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Drayton Valley followed by the hon. Member for Calgary North Hill. Sewage Systems MR. ZANDER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of the Environment. Could he perhaps give some indication of what help could be given through his department or the federal department for hamlets located in municipalities and counties that find it very difficult to supply a sewage system, where the water table is very high and the danger of contamination to their water supply would be very great? MR. YURKO: Mr.

Speaker, as I've indicated on many occasions in this House, money, of course, is provided through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for sewage systems to centres in Alberta. Federal monies are provided equivalent to two-thirds of the cost of any sewage system, of which 25% is a grant. However, I have also indicated to the House on several occasions that this government is working very actively on establishing an overall policy whereby the Alberta government could provide some assistance in this regard on a equitable basis to all centres in the province.

That is whether they are of 100 people in size or 1,000 people in size, or 10,000 people in size, and I would like to suggest that it won't be too long before I put before this House a policy in that regard. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary North Hill followed by the hon. Member for Wainwright. New Calgary Air Terminal MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. Minister of Industry. Mr. Minister are you aware of any recent development concerning the Federal Department of Transport's longstanding promise to build a new terminal at McCall Field in Calgary? MR. PEACOCK: Yes we are, Mr.

Speaker, and we understand that it's going forward. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2620

May 2nd 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 41-11 MR. FARRAN: Did they give any timing on starting construction, Mr. Minister? MR. PEACOCK: As the hon. Member for Calgary North Hill knows, they've given at least three different dates. The latest date we have now is that they are intending to go forward this year. MR. FARRAN: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, is there any hope that the federal government can be persuaded to press for early consideration of bilateral agreements on air routes? I think particularly of such applications as Ozark Airways, interested in flying to Alaska via Calgary. MR. PEACOCK: Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that the federal government is looking very favourably on negotiating with the American government in opening the bilaterals and attempting to get them open by June of this year. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Wainwright followed by the hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury. Japanese Industry in Alberta MR. RUSTE: I would like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Industry and Commerce. A recent release in the Financial Times indicates that Japanese television manufacturers are coming, as the heading says, "Into Canada".

It mentions here, "Last week Matsushita Electric of Canada Limited, Toronto-based distributors of Panasonic television, said it will begin assembling TV's in Toronto in the very near future." My question to the hon. minister is; was the minister in contact with this company to have them locate in Alberta prior to their decision to locate in Toronto? Mr. Speaker we haven't been in contact with that particular company but we have been in contact with Japanese companies in order to persuade them to locate and consider Western Canada, and particularly Alberta. MR. RUSTE: A supplementary question.

Has there been any apparent success in these contacts? MR. PEACOCK: I couldn't inform the House that there has been any success Mr. Speaker, but I would say that there is interest. Dr. Mowat Report MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Advanced Education, and ask him what progress the government has made on the report done under the chairmanship of Dr. Mowat on the Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2621

41-12 ALBERTA HANSARD May 2nd 1972 problem of articulation between post-secondary education institutions in Alberta? MR. FOSTER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I've read Dr. Mowat's report with great interest and I have forwarded a memorandum to the Colleges' Commission on this topic suggesting that perhaps any further consideration of the Mowat report be delayed until such time as we have had an opportunity of examining the Commission on Educational Planning, the Worth Commission Report. MR. CLARK: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. So that none of the recommendations included in Dr.

Mowat's report would be effective as of September 1st of this year, the commencement of the academic year this fall? MR. FOSTER: Well, Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the House, the Mowat report was referring to the matter of transferability between and among institutions of advanced education. As the House may be aware there is transferability now within the advanced education community, in the non-university sector. The Mowat report, however, was specifically referring to the university sector. This is not a problem that is going to be resolved overnight.

Having regard to the fact that the Worth Commission has been studying this topic for some time, I felt it only fair and reasonable that the whole matter be delayed until such time as that report came in. It is delayed, Mr. Speaker, in the sense that no final decision should be taken. However I can report to the House that discussions are going ahead between both sectors, that is the university sector and the non- university sector, on the matter of transferability. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Pincher Creek-Crowsnest followed by the hon. Member for Lesser Slave Lake. Protection of Agricultural Land MR.

DRAIN: My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the hon. Minister of Agriculture. The in-thing now is the trend towards small acreages around our cities. In many cases this affects prime agricultural land. In effect this land is taken out of production in totality. Properly this type of development should be directed more towards marginal land. Basically, the wealth of a country is predetermined by its ability to produce. Hence, therefore, I ask: Has your government a policy directed towards maintaining prime agricultural land for agricultural use? DR. HORNER: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I agree with the speech the hon. gentleman has made. MR. DRAIN: Has the hon. minister got a policy? DR. HORNER: I agree with the policy as enunciated by the hon. member. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2622

May 2nd 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 41-13 MR. BARTON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture. Will the government be making a decision on the Agricultural Service Centres during this session? DR. HORNER: Well, Mr. Speaker, that's a matter that is under negotiation on a confidential basis with the federal government. I appreciate the hon. member has a pipeline through DREE, but he'll have to await our decision in this regard. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for -- MR. BARTON: Supplementary. Is this cost-sharing? DR. HORNER: As I just said, Mr.

Speaker, these are confidential negotiations that are going on with the federal government. The hon. gentleman should ask his contact in Ottawa about his information. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary Millican followed by the hon. Member for Wainwright. Indian Petitions for Grants MR. DIXON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Several Indian bands have indicated that they are going to petition the provincial government to see if they would be eligible for municipal assistance grants as received from oil royalty, and I wondered if the hon. minister has had the representation yet? And is the government looking favourably on the requests ? MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member gave me notice of the question yesterday and in that time we have done what checking we can to see where these representations or petitions might be. Nobody in my department has heard anything about them yet, so to that extent the question is hypothetical. MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Wainwright followed by the hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Leduc. MLA's Fastball Game MR. RUSTE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the hon. Minister Without Portfolio responsible for Northern Development. In his invitation to all members of the Legislative Assembly to muster a team of members to play three innings of the fastball game at Renfrew Park on Monday, May 6th, I'm just wondering what year that is -- because I understand that May 6th -- this year -- is Saturday? Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2623

41-14 ALBERTA HANSARD May 2nd 1972 MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, we were just doing that to see if the fellows on the opposite side were awake. It is Monday, May 8th at 6:00 p.m. MR. RUSTE: I want to assure the hon. member we are awake. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Leduc followed by the hon. Member for Camrose. MR. HENDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I find the information I want is contained in the Return No. 113, so thank you. Kootenay and Elk River Railroad MR. STROMBERG: Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. Minister of Industry and Transportation.

In light of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision to give the green light to the Kootenay and Elk River Railroad -- to begin building it -- would you lend support to the movement of grain on this railroad when the Fraser Canyon is blocked? MR. PEACOCK: Mr. Speaker, we would certainly consider that. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary Bow. Senior Citizen Housing MR. WILSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs.

Has the provincial government agreed to the federal government proposal of increased federal financing for senior citizen housing projects sponsored by non-profit organizations? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, we have not taken a position on that yet. Perhaps my colleague the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs may wish to add something. Department of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs MR. WILSON: Mr. Speaker, before he does -- on a point of clarification, I guess it would be -- would the hon.

Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs help us on this side of the House by outlining the policy that we should follow in directing questions to him or to alternate ministers of the government? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the question period is the time to do it. We discussed a bill on the department last night in principle. We will have an opportunity to discuss the bill in Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2624

May 2nd 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 41-15 complete detail -- all the clauses in it. Essentially, as I have said in the House three or four times before, the department is for the co-ordination of all the activities of the various departments of our government with other governments. However, we do not get in between the various departments and their counterparts in other governments. MR. WILSON: Just one further point, Mr. Speaker, on that.

Then in any involvement of the provincial government with the federal government we should direct the primary question to the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs, and then he farms it out if he doesn't want to handle it? Is that the situation? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, if that appears to be a reasonable way and if he would like to do it that way, we will do it that way. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview. Public Utilities Construction Contracts MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct this question to the hon. Minister of Telephones and Utilities.

By way of explanation, it has come to my attention that Calgary Power does not open its construction contracts to open bidding, but rather selects certain construction companies. My question to you is can the hon. minister advise the House whether or not the Public Utilities Board specifically takes this matter into consideration when setting a rate structure, as the lack of competitive bidding may mean that the company's construction costs are higher than would be the case otherwise? MR. WERRY: Mr.

Speaker, with respect to The Public Utilities Act, there is nothing in the Act or the regulations pertaining to the act that states categorically that a public utility must tender all of its contracts. I would think, though, in any rate application hearing before the Public Utilities Board, that the interveners that would intervene on behalf of a municipality or a rural electrification association would question certain features of such contracts, and the onus would be on the utility company to prove, in fact, that they did get a fair and equitable contract. MR.

NOTLEY: A supplementary question to the hon. minister. You didn't really quite answer my question, sir, with all due respect. My question was does the board take this into consideration as a matter of policy? MR. WERRY: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the board because the board is an autonomous body and is a quasi-judicial body and merely weighs evidence at any rate-hearing application. The onus would be on the interveners to ascertain and to question the utility that requests a rate-hearing, that they justify any contracts that are awarded.

If the interveners questioned any contracts, it would be up to the company then to justify the letting of those contracts and the Public Utilities Board would have to rule on the matter. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2625

41-16 ALBERTA HANSARD May 2nd 1972 Senior Citizens Housing (cont.) and CHMC Funds MR. SPEAKER: With regard to the last question asked by the hon. Member for Calgary Bow, the Chair regrets having intercepted a pass from the hon. Minister for Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs to the hon. Minister for Municipal Affairs, I believe it was. MR. RUSSELL: Could he repeat the original question, Mr. Speaker? MR. WILSON: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, as you outlined, it was a farm-out to the Minister of Municipal Affairs from the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, and the question was, has the provincial government agreed to the federal government's proposal of increased federal financing for senior citizen housing projects sponsored by non-profit organizations? MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of inferences, or I think incorrect conclusions in the question. I don't know specifically to what the hon. member is referring or if he's on another fishing trip or not.

I must say, though, I've been frankly quite disappointed with the allotment of CMHC funds for Alberta for the present fiscal year. As you know these haven't been officially announced. I did manage to obtain them from the local manager here in Edmonton in time for the estimates of my department, and they're down considerably from last year. There's a dramatic drop in the non-profit funds under

section 15, from $11 million to $5 million, so if you're referring to senior citizen housing that could be built under that

section of the act, I think we're all in for some rather strong disappointments because of the dramatic decrease in federal funds available this year. MR. WILSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister be making representations to Ottawa as to why the reduction, and attempt to convince them of the need in Alberta for an increase rather than a reduction? MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, the budget of CMHC, of course, is set by the House of Commons.

The matters to which the hon. member is referring will be discussed by officials of my department and CMHC and the Federal Ministry of Urban Affairs this week in Edmonton. Hopefully we intend to get some positive response out of those meetings, but those are being held across the country and are the ones that I referred to previously in the House as still being kept on a confidential nature. MR. HENDERSON: Supplementary on that, Mr. Speaker, regarding the question of CMHC funding of not only this type of project, but general availability of CMHC funds within the Province of Alberta.

Is the Minister of Municipal Affairs or some other minister responsible for overall co-ordination of the utilization of CMHC funds within the province in total? Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2626

May 2nd 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 41-17 MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, the funds are utilized through the programs carried out by the Alberta Housing Corporation and except for the sewage treatment loans which come under the responsibility of the hon. Mr. Yurko. It's really late on into the federal fiscal year when we receive any sort of indication as to what those funds might be. Now I indicated a moment ago my extreme disappointment at the drop in funds for Alberta this year, because we made every effort last fall to make sure that Alberta's '71 allotment was completely used.

That was $41 million and we did just exceed that figure. The total figure has dropped to $34.5 million this year, and they have stipulated where the drops and where the increases should be in certain specified programs within that. For instance, the allotment for student housing has gone up, but for public housing it has gone 'way down. It's that kind of thing that's concerning us. ORDERS OF THE DAY head: MINISTERIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, as all members are, of course, aware, the matter of foreign investment has been a subject of concern throughout the province, and as all members are also aware, the federal government today has taken a position on this matter which is of importance to Alberta. Members are cognizant of the fact that the federal government has been looking at a screening process of new foreign investment into Alberta, and some hour and a half ago, or less than that, the statement was made in the House of Commons, and concurrently the Prime Minister delivered to me a letter.

The letter is confidential but the attached documents are not. Enclosed with the letter was a statement on foreign direct investment which, because of the nature of the economy of Alberta, it is in the interest of all members to have repeated here. I am going to ask the hon. Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs to do so. I also received from the Prime Minister today the bill that was tabled in the House of Commons, and the document entitled Foreign Direct Investment in Canada. Some other copies are on the way.

It is our intention to arrange to have this statement distributed during the course of the afternoon to all members, so they can have an opportunity to read it -- although it is merely a

summary statement. Insofar as the bill is concerned, I think that is of considerable interest to members. We will try to make some arrangements in that regard as well. As the hon. members are aware, there is a Select Committee of the Legislature which has been requested to assess the economic consequences of any proposed new federal restrictions upon investment within Alberta, whether by way of legislation or otherwise. The plan -- and I certainly think the proper course of action of government -- is to refer this entire matter to the legislative committee.

I have a copy of a notice here that there is an attention by Mr. Koziak that the committee will be meeting tomorrow afternoon at 2:00 o'clock. It would be my hope -- and I am taking this opportunity to communicate to them -- that they might give some consideration to an interim report with regard to Item C contained within their terms of reference. That is an assessment of the plan and legislation by the federal government. It seems to us, that as a government we certainly have a responsibility to take a look at the constitutional legal aspects involved in the document.

But beyond that, I think since there has been a reference to a Select Committee of the Legislature representing members on both sides of the House, we shouldn't go Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2627

41-18 ALBERTA HANSARD May 2nd 1972 further. But I think the hon. members would be very interested because of its extreme importance to have the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs bring this statement before the House. MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, this is a statement made by the hon. Herb Gray today in the House of Commons. These are his own words I will be reading. "Mr. Speaker, I should like at this time to announce to the House of Commons, the government's decision to review foreign takeovers of Canadian businesses.

I wish also to table a background document on the general subject of foreign investment. While Canada has generally welcomed foreign investment over the years, we have adopted a number of measures to foster and protect the national interest. Foreign interest in banks and other key financial institutions has been limited by law. Our broadcasting facilities, newspapers, and magazines are subject to specific laws which effectively keep them under Canadian control. During the past decade we established voluntary guidelines for good corporate behavior by foreign businesses operating in this country.

This government has also set up the Canada Development Corporation to help develop and maintain strong Canadian control of businesses. The Tax Reform of last year contains several measures deliberately designed to encourage Canadians to invest in their own country, rather than abroad, and to encourage the growth of Canadian-controlled businesses. And the government has announced the intentions concerning the production and trade of uranium. Parliament will now be asked to add an important new measure to these policies.

Foreign companies seeking to buy out or take over an existing Canadian business above a certain size will be required to demonstrate that the purchase will result in significant benefit to Canada. The government is introducing legislation to establish a review process under the authority of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.

In general terms, the purpose will be to examine all proposals for takeovers of Canadian businesses, to approve those that on balance will be of significant benefit to Canada, to negotiate with the proposed acquirer in those cases where he can reasonably be expected to make a greater contribution to Canadian development, and to refuse to allow those takeovers that would not bring significant benefit to Canada. Foreign investment plays an important role in Canadian development, but it brings with it costs as well as benefits.

While there are a variety of opinions among Canadians about the balance of benefits and costs of foreign direct investment, there is certainly no disagreement that foreign investment should work in the interests of this country. Takeovers are the form of foreign investment least likely to add significant benefits to the Canadian economy. The extent of foreign control of a number of industries in Canada is large enough to make the acquisition of more Canadian businesses a matter of concern to the government and to Canadians generally.

If takeovers created only problems it would be a simple matter to deal with them. They could all be blocked. But takeovers can be of benefit to Canada, and it was this fact that persuaded the government that as a general policy a review process is preferable to other approaches, such as a designation of additional key sectors or mandatory Canadian shareholders. This decision, of course, does not rule out entirely the possibility that other approaches might be required at some time in the future.

A takeover review process is more flexible in its Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2628

May 2nd 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 41-19 ability to take into account both the benefits and costs of a foreign acquisition. Through its operation it would permit the negotiating of better benefits for Canada and increase the level of economic activity in Canada. Most other industrialized countries, even with lower levels of foreign ownership and control, have some kind of mechanism to ensure that foreign takeovers are in their national interest. Our review process will be familiar to the international business and investing community.

In order to clarify the government's intentions, I shall now describe the review process and how it will be administered. A foreign investor -- and that includes any enterprise which is foreign-controlled -- will be required to file notice of any proposed takeover of a business with assets valued at more than $250,000, or with gross revenues exceeding $3 million. Investors will be required to provide relevant information with the notice. The investor may also take the initative to make specific commitments to the government concerning undertakings which would bring benefits to Canada.

The government will then consider the proposed acquisition taking into consideration, these five factors: (

a) The effect of the acquisition on the level and nature of economic activity and employment in Canada (

b) The degree and significance of participation by Canadians; (

c) The effect of the acquisition on productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, product innovation, and product variety in Canada; (

d) The effect of the acquisition on competition within any industry or industries in Canada; and, (

e) The compatability of the acquisition with Canadian industrial and economic policies. The assessment of the proposed transaction will be made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who will then make the appropriate recommendation to the Cabinet. If the takeover is clearly of benefit to Canada, the government could then formally allow the acquisition. If, on the other hand, the Minister is unable to recommend this course, he would take steps to negotiate with the investor with a view to increasing the benefits to Canada.

This negotiation might then result in additional undertakings which would permit the government to allow the acquisition. But if the government still considered that the takeover would bring no significant benefit to Canada, it would not be allowed. This decision would be taken only after a thorough examination including the opportunity to make full representations. The process is designed to ensure that the government will make its decisions with a minimum of delay. Written undertakings by the purchaser will be binding.

The government will be authorized to take action in the courts to ensure that they are observed. There will be appropriate penalties for failing to file notice of a proposed transaction. The legislation will not, of course, apply to takeovers by Canadians -- that is, acquisition of control of firms in Canada by Canadian citizens ordinarily resident in Canada -- or by landed immigrants who have lived here six years or less, or by firms which they control. Some companies have a very large number of shareholders, some Canadian, some foreign.

Such companies would be able to apply for an advance ruling in order to determine their status as a Canadian-controlled company, or otherwise. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2629

41-20 ALBERTA HANSARD May 2nd 1972 with regard to control, it is proposed that the acquistion of less than 5% of the voting shares of a corporation whose shares are publicly traded will not, by itself, be considered to constitute control; nor will the acquistion of less than 20% of the voting shares of a corporation, whose shares are not traded publicly. There will be a presumption that ownership of voting shares above those levels will constitute control. But this presumption can be rebutted.

Acquisition of more than 50% of voting shares automatically will be considered acquistion of control, as will a takeover through the purchase of substantially all the property used in carrying on a business. We shall encourage international organizations to pursue the study of multi-national enterprise and foreign direct investment with a view to co-operative international action. To this end we shall be examining whether specific Canadian initiatives might be appropriate.

Our objective, as Canadians, which is to exercise greater control over our domestic environment, cannot be achieved by exclusive reliance on a takeover review process. As part of its reponse to this issue the government will continue to develop positive policies to encourage Canadians to participate more fully in the development of their country and to encourage the growth of Canadian sources of capital, technology, and management.

Our policy is designed to ensure that this country continues to develop as rapidly as possible in a way - which is consistent with Canadian needs and aspirations, and which safeguards our vital interests." I'll table these with the House, Mr. Speaker. MR. STROM: Mr. Speaker, this has been a rather lengthy report and at this moment I don't intend to directly comment on it. I think it would be rather remiss to try and make any significant statement.

I am interested in knowing whether or not the provincial government was contacted prior to the statement being released by the federal government, whether or not there was any input. I am also interested, again, in knowing whether or not this completes the big book that the hon. Premier held up, if that will be available to us as members. I understood that it would be and I certainly will be looking forward to reviewing it.

I take it from the statement that has been given that a bill will be introduced to the Federal House of Commons and I would also take it that there would be opportunity for further input if, in fact, there was some input on the part of the provinces prior to the bill becoming law. I am not sure whether I clearly understood the hon. Premier in the point that he made when he suggested that he would request the chairman of the committee to make an interim report, that would in turn possibly be made available to the federal government; or will it be only to the provincial government for our consideration?

I don't have anything further to add at this time, Mr. Speaker, but those would be some of the concerns that I would have. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have the leave of the House to respond to the hon. Leader of the Opposition by way of clarification. HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2630

May 2nd 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 41-21 MR. LOUGHEED: First of all with regard to the document 'Foreign Direct Investment in Canada,' we will do our utmost to have copies made available to all members, but in any event we will certainly have them made available to the office of the Leader of the Opposition within a matter of hours. I might say I was wrong in my comment. I was just passed a note that when we were making our statements apparently these remarks were being made in the House of Commons. With regard to the matter of input, yes, the answer to that is clearly yes.

During the First Ministers' Conference which in our view was, unfortunately, a closed meeting last November. Both during the period when other members of the delegation were with the Prime Minister and later, the matter of the question of foreign investment and a screening process was, in fact, discussed and we made certain of our views known which are very close to the views expressed by myself in the Budget Speech. The latter question which was raised by the hon. Leader of the Opposition I believe had to do with the Select Committee.

My comments -- so that I can be as clear as I can -- I was suggesting rather than requesting to the chairman and to the committee when it meets tomorrow, to give some consideration to whether or not, because of the nature of the fact that it is a proposed bill, to provide an interim report with regard to that item that sets forth the Select Committee's responsibility -- being Paragraph C -- in the hope that perhaps the Legislature, but at least the government if the session is recessed, would have the benefit of the committee's views so that we might make these views known to the federal government.

If the conclusion by the Select Committee tomorrow is that they do not think that that's a practical request, then the government will have to reassess its views in terms of making an input in the matter. MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, I’m very pleased to announce for the information of all members in the House today that, effective May 1st, our government has introduced a new Cash Management procedure. This procedure will allow the Alberta Government to gain in excess of $1 million in interest per annum.

As I mentioned earlier, the procedure was effective May 1, 1972 (which was yesterday), and the remittance of all major government revenues will be made directly to the Treasury Department. In the past, cheques of major amounts were first remitted to departments for processing before being passed on to the Treasury Department. This practice resulted in a loss of interest of a major magnitude due to the time lag between receipt of the cheque and deposit in the province's bank. The introduction of the central cash management, Mr.

Speaker, will result, as I mentioned earlier, in the province either maximizing interest earnings -- and should provide in excess of $1 million additional interest revenue -- or a reduction of interest expense of a similar amount during the current fiscal year which will be ending on March 31, 1973. head: QUESTIONS 188. Mr. Barton asked the Government the following question which were answered by Dr. Horner as indicated:

(1) Does the government support the location of a rapeseed plant in High Prairie; if not, what alternative locations are being considered? Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2631

41-22 ALBERTA HANSARD May 2nd 1972 Answer: The government takes the position that it supports the location of industrial plants in areas based on local considerations and industry consideration. Government cannot and should not indicate the precise location of industrial plants.

(2) What evidence is available to support the need for three rapeseed plants in the Peace River Bloc? Answer: The need for additional rape seed plants will, of course, be evaluated on the question of the rape seed oil market and the meal market to economically support them.

(3) Does the government support the concept of a number of rapeseed plants in the Peace River Bloc, or one centralized rapeseed plant? Answer: The government's support of a variety of industrial plants will depend on their economic viability. MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I move that Question No. 190 be made a Motion for a Return, seconded by the hon. Minister of Agriculture. MR. SPEAKER: Having heard the motion, do you all agree? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. An Order of the Assembly was therefore issued for a Return showing: 1.

What industries have received offers from DREE under the Special Area Agreement Incentive Plan since the program was initiated? 2. How many industries have specified that they would rather have established elsewhere in the province than in the Special Area, but have located in the Special Area because of incentives? 3. S ince the inception of the Special Areas Program, how many visits have the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs and the Minister of Industry and Commerce made to the Lesser Slave Lake Special Area? 4.

How many HRDA meetings has the Minister, of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs held with HRDA Ministers to discuss the Special Area Program since September 10, 1971? 5. How many meetings has the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs held with the HRDA staff to discuss the Special Area Program in Lesser Slave Lake since September 10, 1971? 6. (

a) What was the total 1971-72 budget for the Lesser Slave Lake Special Area Program? (

b) How much was the provincial share? (

c) How much was the federal government share? (

d) How much was returned to the General Revenue of the province? 7. (

a) How many students were trained at the Grouard Vocational Training School under the Special Area Program during 1971- 72? (

b) What was the total cost of the program? Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2632

May 2nd 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 41-23 (

c) How much was payable by the province? (

d) Who administrates the Grouard School? (

e) To what extent does the Federal Government interfere and direct the educational program? 8. (

a) What is the Opportunity Corps in the Special Area? (

b) What are the details of its program? (

c) What are the results of this program to date? 9. (

a) What were the findings by the Ministers, Hon. Dr. Hohol, Hon. Mr. Adair, and the Hon. Miss Hunley, from their visit and observations of the Lesser Slave Lake Special Area Program? (

b) Were any written reports made to the Minister or to Cabinet; if so, would the Government table same? 10. Does the Government know how many federal government officials are stationed in the Lesser Slave Lake Special Area to administer the Special Area program; if so, how many? 11. (

a) How many provincial or local projects proposed under the Lesser Slave Lake Special Area Project have been overruled by Federal officials (

i) since September 10, 1971, and (ii) since the initiation of the Special Area project? (

b) Who is responsible to design the projects in the Lesser Slave Lake Special Area? 12. (

a) How much money can be claimed from the Federal Government for the third year of the Special Area Agreement? (

b) Are these expenditures covered in the 1972-73 Estimates? 13. (

a) Have negotiations between the Federal and Provincial Governments taken place since September 10, 1971 to discuss the Lesser Slave Lake Special Area Program, specifically? (

b) Have any dates been set for future meetings? 14. How long did the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs meet face to face with the Hon. Mr. J. Marchand on his last trip to Ottawa? 191. Mr. Barton asked the Government the following question which was answered by Mr. Adair as indicated: How many programs are presently proposed by the Metis Association of Alberta as to Part Three of the ARDA Agreement? Answer: (

i) There were no programs, as such, submitted by the Metis Association. (ii) The Metis Association of Alberta drafts and finalizes some of the submissions of specific projects on behalf of the Metis Sector. MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that Question 193 be made in the form of a Motion for a Return. MR. SPEAKER: It has been requested by the hon. Provincial Treasurer, seconded by the hon. Minister of Education that Question No. 193 be made an Order for a Return. Do you all agree? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2633

41-24 ALBERTA HANSARD May 2nd 1972 An Order of the Assembly was therefore issued for a Return Showing: Having regard to the answers provided to Question 170 and Question 180, (a)

(1) With reference to Mr. Farran under January 28, 1972 what is the place, or places, of destination involving the mileage of 360 miles?

(2) What hotel or hotels were used? (b)

(1) With reference to Mr. Moore, on what dates was the mileage compiled in Items 1, 2, 3, and 4?

(2) Please name the place, or places, of origin and destination. (c)

(1) With reference to Dr. Paproski under January, 1972, what is the place, or places, of origin and destination involving the mileage of 1560 miles?

(2) What are the dates and the name of the places visited?

(3) What is the origin and the destination and the name of places visited involving 1625 miles?

(4) What is the origin and destination of the air travel?

(5) What places were visited in December, 1971 involving mileage of 1200 miles?

(6) What places were visited in February, 1972 involving 900 miles?

(7) What places were visited in March, 1972 involving 600 miles? 176. Mr. Henderson head: MOTIONS FOR A RETURN proposed the following motion to the Assembly, seconded by Mr. Miller: That an Order of the Assembly do issue for a Return showing:

(1) Copies of any Government of Alberta reports or studies directly financed over the past ten years by the Government of Alberta relating to the export of water to the United States from streams that do not normally flow out of Alberta into the United States.

(2) Copies of any correspondence relating to the authorization of such studies.

(3) The cost of such studies. [The motion was carried without debate or dissent.] MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table the answer to Motion for Return No. 176. 187. Mr. Clark proposed the following motion to the Assembly, seconded by Mr. Taylor: That an Order of the Assembly do issue for a Return showing: Copies of all correspondence from municipalities or associations indicating their consent or otherwise, prior to the cancellation of the Alberta Provincial-Municipal Fiscal Commission. [The motion was carried without debate or dissent.] 189. Mr.

Taylor proposed the following motion to the Assembly, seconded by Mr. Ruste: Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2634

May 2nd 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 41-25 That an Order of the Assembly do issue for a Return showing:

(1) During 1971 (

a) How many convictions in Alberta were there under

section 115 (

a) of the Wildlife Act? (

b) How many of the fines levied were in the maximum amount of $300? (

c) What percentage of the fines levied for the said offences were in the maximum amount?

(2) During 1971 (

a) How many convictions in Alberta were there under

Section 115 (

b) of the Wildlife Act? (

b) How many of the fines levied were in the maximum amount of $300? (

c) What percentage of the fines levied for the said offences were in the maximum amount?

(3) During 1971 (

a) How many convictions in Alberta were there under

Section 115 (

c) of the Wildlife Act? (

b) How many of the fines levied were in the maximum amount of $500? (

c) What percentage of the fines levied for the said offences were in the maximum amount? [The motion was carried without debate or dissent.] 192. Mr. Dixon proposed the following motion to the Assembly, seconded by Mr. Buckwell: That an Order of the Assembly do issue for a Return showing:

(1) The names and addresses of all individuals, consultants, advertising or public relations firms hired or awarded contracts with the provincial government or its departments or agencies, since September 1, 1971, showing the terms and costs of each contract, allowance, or remuneration covering same.

(2) The names and number of public tenders submitted for provincial government advertising and public relations services indicating the amount of each bid, and the name of the successful bidder. [The motion was carried without debate or dissent.] head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 1. Moved by Mr. Henderson, seconded by Mr. Clark:

Be it resolved that a statutory obligation be placed on all provincial marketing boards to guarantee a fair share of the Alberta market for the small agricultural producer. (Adjourned debate) DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, the last time that this resolution was before us, I made some brief general remarks.

This afternoon I would like to deal with the resolution in some detail; having regard to marketing boards generally, and to outline in some detail the philosophy of this government in relation to agricultural marketing; how the marketing board fits into this concept, where the question of the processing industry fits, the relationship of our general approach to the increase in the processing industry in rural Alberta. I'd like to Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2635

41-26 ALBERTA HANSARD May 2nd 1972 say something later on with regard to the government's approach to location of some of these plants, and in general make a fairly full statement this afternoon in regard to some of the problems and the policies that are involved. As I have said before, Mr. Speaker, and just to recap very briefly; if we accept the philosophy that in agricultural marketing generally we have to accept the expansionist philosophy, then we have to be willing to get out and look for markets for our products so that agriculture can in fact expand and grow and prosper.

If we accept the other side of that coin or the opposite view, that in fact, we should just try and artificially raise prices to the producers, put barriers around our boundaries whether they be federal or provincial, then surely agriculture will die and so will rural Alberta with it. So, very clearly, Mr. Speaker, our approach in this area is one that we would look for ways and means in which we could expand markets and in which we could, in fact, take the products out of the surplus position in our storage areas -- whether they be sheds or cold storage lockers -- and move them to markets of the world.

Surely one of the real things that has hurt us in the past is that we, in a very difficult selling position -- if our buyers know that we have huge surpluses of this, that and the other thing -- immediately make the price effect apparent, and it reflects in the prices that our farmers receive. There are a number of other areas of course, that one could discuss in regard to the general philosophy of marketing.

I would like to report to the House generally that I met at noon today with members of the Canada Department of Agriculture in their pilot project, known as Project 75, in which a small group of research people and others in the Canada Department of Agriculture are doing a concentrated review and pilot project in taking a commodity through the entire food system from the producer to the consumer, and getting the input of the variety of people and organizations and governments along the way to see if they could improve the marketing of our produce by this systems approach to the food systems in our country.

Both my department and that of my colleague, the hon. Minister of Industry and Commerce, are involved in the meetings that are going on today as well, this afternoon -- and it might be interesting to the House generally to note that this is the first meeting that Project '75 has had with any province, and that they have chosen Alberta because of the attitude that we have exhibited, and the direction in which we have headed in regard to our marketing thrust in that area. I don't intend, Mr. Speaker, to review any further the question of the organization in the department, I think that is fairly generally known.

I do want to stress, though, that any approach to marketing has to also consider the total concept of agriculture and that we have to be concerned initially, and -- from the start -- keep our objective in mind. Our objective is to improve the income position of our farmers. We shouldn't lose sight of that objective as we go into this marketing thrust. We intend, in this marketing thrust -- as I have already stressed -- to work very closely with the Department of Industry and Commerce in relation to both the domestic and the export role.

I have already announced in the House the number of grants we have made to a variety of commodity organizations. We will -- as I said in a response to a question previously -- be making additional grants as time goes along to other commodity organizations, and perhaps to the same ones that have already received some grants, if they come up with the kind of projects that are worthwhile and if the results are gratifying.

In addition to the grants that we are making to these commodity organizations, we are making available the resources of our department, that of the publicity bureau and the Department of Industry and Commerce to all of these marketing groups or boards or commodity groups, in regard to their own promotions, both here and at Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2636

May 2nd 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 41-27 home, and the rest of Canada, and abroad in the general market areas. Additionally, our new

section in the department of new product development will work closely with, not only the university groups who are also active in this area, but with the commodity organizations. I might say here, Mr. Speaker, that we have already set up a food processing advisory committee composed of the university people, the industry, and our department to be available to a variety of commodity groups or commodity organizations to improve them in their product development, and to improve the processing of some of the products as we go along. Additionally, Mr.

Speaker, we have made available -- in a technical way -- assistance to the commodity groups for improvement in processing and all are aware that Bill No. 50 is before us in the Legislature a bill which will provide substantial help in regard to processing in rural Alberta. I want to say here, Mr. Speaker, in regard to the question of plant location; the one thing that can hurt the entire program pretty severly, is if we get into the severe and niggling competition between towns and areas as to which town should get this plant or that plant.

In my view this isn't a government decision, but should be left to the aggressiveness and ingenuity and ability of the various towns and communities in Alberta. As far as I am concerned, I am not going to get into battles between this town and that town as to where any processing thing should go. I feel very strongly, Mr. Speaker, that if all that a larger town can do is to go and try and steal an industry that a smaller town has already got, then that town had better wrap it all up and quit trying. I feel that this has to be particularly stressed.

In addition to this kind of basic technical and promotional assistance, Mr. Speaker, we are talking, of course, about pretty substantial assistance to the commodity marketing boards in relation to domestic markets, and in relation to the export market. We intend to do this on a commodity basis as far as we can, because I think that's the way it fits in best. I'd like to, then, Mr. Speaker, just review -- because the motion talks about a statutory obligation of marketing boards -- to review in some detail, as we see it in regard to the various commodities, and to begin that review with the question of eggs.

My hon. friend for Olds-Didsbury showed interest during the question period, so I might say that the question of the Cal-Ed situation has been relatively public knowledge since the annual meeting of the Alberta Egg and Fowl Marketing Board some week or ten days ago, in which it was pretty well generally known that they were in negotiation with Cal-Ed for its purchase. As I said briefly in the question period, Mr. Speaker, the reason that we have gone along with the Egg Board's acquiring this facility is simply to allow a marketing opportunity for our producers -- particularly the smaller ones.

We see Cal-Ed operation as a central facility here in Edmonton, and we are encouraging the Egg Board, along with assistance from the provincial government, to first set up receiver stations on a commission basis in a variety of communities throughout Alberta to re-establish a marketing opportunity for the smaller producers throughout Alberta. The Cal-Ed operation, of course, will be primarily centred in Edmonton, and if there is a demand, a similar or smaller facility might well be set up in southern Alberta to provide that kind of marketing opportunity.

It isn't the government's intention to get into competition with private enterprise any time that private enterprise is doing a good job. Quite frankly, the situation -- as my hon. friends across the Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2637

41-28 ALBERTA HANSARD May 2nd 1972 way I'm sure are aware -- with the egg industry just hasn’t been good in the past two years. Something had to be done. I mentioned before in this House that we have asked the Egg Board for, in return for the support we are giving them in this matter, to take the lead in establishing this first receiver station, so that in fact, grading stations will reopen in a number of communities in Alberta and that they will become the first receiving station. In any case, they will funnel product into the Cal-Ed plant.

The non-table quality product will be diverted by the board to the breaker plant at Two Hills. I've also asked the Egg Board, in trying to put the entire package together with regard to the egg situation, to put a maximum quota into effect to make additional quota available to the smaller producers as soon as it's economically feasible to do so, and to be very cautious about allowing any integrated operators any increase in quota.

This they've agreed to do and we hope that this will resolve the egg problem and will make available opportunities for some of our smaller farmers to increase their egg production as part of their farming operation and at the same time stop us from getting into a severe surplus situation. Additionally, in regard to the eggs, Mr. Speaker, there will be amendments brought forward to The Marketing of Agricultural Products Act to allow the Egg Board to fully take

part in the national agreement under the national Agricultural Products Marketing Act of the federal government -- or Bill C176 -- which now has restricted supply management to the eggs and poultry industry. These amendments will be necessary and will be brought forward very shortly to the House so that the Egg Board can join with the other provinces in, hopefully, sharing the domestic market. I want to make it pretty clear here, Mr. Speaker, that at no time does the government agree with the idea that we will share any export market on the basis that the domestic market is shared.

We have made that very clear to the new chairman of the national Products Marketing Board, Mr. Babey, and that, in fact, our agreement is contingent upon the fact that this applies to the domestic market only. I might just say in regard to eggs, generally, of course, there isn't any real hope that we will be exporting eggs in the shell state. Some poultry producers have taken exception to what I have said, because they say, "Well, there is no hope of exporting shell eggs, so why are you all hot and bothered about the question of sharing the export market?" Clearly, Mr.

Speaker, there are two very important factors here. One, it would be a precedent, and secondly, frankly, the poultry people haven't scratched the surface on the new product development -- the question of egg melange, the question of dried egg powder, the whole question of the provision of protein in egg form and in some manufactured form to the protein-short areas of the world. Certainly, this is an important and economical way to get protein abroad and into these areas. Additionally, if I might, Mr.

Speaker, move to the other part of the Egg and Fowl Marketing Board, we have a situation in Alberta where the poultry operator who wants to turn over his flock has a very serious problem in getting rid of the fowl at the moment, because we do not have any facility that will process them on an economical basis. We do have also some problems in that the condemned rate on these birds has been very high as far as using them for meat is concerned -- up to 40 per cent. So we have a problem in veterinary medicine as well.

But we are hoping the Egg and Fowl Marketing Board will have a look at this down the road, once they get straightened around in the other operations. Hopefully, they could provide a killing facility which wouldn't have to be very large, but which would be appropriate to get a return to the producer for his fowl. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2638

May 2nd 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 41-29 In the past couple of years some of these poultry people haven't paid the freight for the birds that have been sent in. I think this is particularly a problem that we have to work on together with the Fowl Board, and we intend to do that. I want to move to the turkey situation, Mr. Speaker. As I have announced in the House before, we have a resolution from the Turkey Board in regard to the question of vertical integration and the availability of quota to smaller producers.

I have set up meetings for later on in the spring after the session is over for those integrated producers who are now involved with quota in both the broiler market and the turkey market, to initiate discussions as to how and when these people will be getting out of primary production and making available that kind of quota for our smaller producers. In addition to that, we are willing to work with the turkey people particularly, in developing new products and helping them increase the sales of their product, both on the domestic market and on the export market. Mr.

Speaker, I had one firm come around the other day with a product they are making in Calgary -- one of the products they are making -- called Turkey Jerky. I recommend it to my hon. friends -- it is excellent -- it is more than 50% protein, and is very tasty indeed. They have a new package coming out. At the moment they are using -- with the production of Turkey Jerky and Beef Jerky -- something like half a ton of meat a week. This kind of thing will expand the opportunities for our turkey growers. One firm alone in the United States is selling something like $10 million worth of Jerky a year.

These are the kinds of new things we have to do if we are going to expand our marketing and production opportunities for our people in these areas. I might say again here, that in the broiler, turkey, and chicken area particularly, is where we need to really improve our process food situation because at the moment you can't buy a chicken pot pie made in Alberta out of Alberta chicken. You can't buy a TV dinner that is made in Alberta. We are concerned about that, Mr. Speaker. We have a food industry research survey under way now by Acres Limited.

As I mentioned earlier we have a new food industry advisory committee, which is composed of university personnel, research people, and industry, being available to the commodity groups and the formulation of this role in this area. My department, and particularly my gals in the Home Economics Department stand ready to help any of the commodity groups to develop their product, to help them devise promotions to help entrepreneurs who would like to get into the food service business and this area to improve this situation pretty drastically, hopefully, in the near future. I was in Medicine Hat not long ago, Mr.

Speaker, and I threw the challenge to that community that they were ideally situated to do much more than they have in the past in the processed food industry, having available to them the vegetable industry on their doorstep, which is a real important adjunct particular to the TV dinners. This kind of thing certainly would seem to me to be a natural for that area. Certainly any area that shows some initiative, it seems to me, as the demand for this kind of food continues, the opportunities for secondary industry, and processing, and therefore marketing for our farmers, is very substantial.

I want to move then, Mr. Speaker, to the situation with regard to hogs. As I've said before in the House, we've taken certain steps that have improved the marketing opportunities for our smaller producers. The names on the manifest have been withdrawn, we have given the Hog Board the right to withdraw hogs without notifying the packers, we intend to have changes in the Agriculture Marketing Act Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2639

41-30 ALBERTA HANSARD May 2nd 1972 which would allow the hog board, if it sees fit, to pool on a daily basis, so that they would be completely fair to the smaller operators and the operators that live at some distance from the marketing centre. In addition to that, we have been working very closely with the Hog Board in conjunction with industry, on pilot projects in relation to markets for pork products particularly in the Far East and we have one under way at the present time. I'm not at liberty at this time to disclose the nature of the operation.

I hope too, as soon as the first shipment has arrived and is in good shape, that we will be able to make an announcement in that area. At the same time we have been having discussions with, of course, Mr. Rickaport. That ball game is now up to DREE, and they are investigating. I understand that in that regard he made the initial application to DREE in the last two days, and that DREE is now giving it their consideration. And I would say that, in response to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, and the hon.

Member for Fairview-Spirit River, that one of the hog people from Alberta will be going to the Philippines in the near future with assistance from the department. In addition to that Mr. Speaker, at the present time, three members of the Hog Board and one member of my department using funds that partly were lent from my department and other funds put up by the producers themselves are in Europe to study marketing techniques and facilities there. Certainly we have something to learn from the Danes in relation to marketing pork products, and we hope that we will be able to do just that.

In addition to that, the personnel from my department are looking at other things besides pork products, particularly the granulated potato situation and the availability of markets in certain other areas in relation to agricultural products generally. Very briefly then, Mr. Speaker, that is the situation with regard to hogs. I'll come, later on, to some remarks with regard to some general questions about credit as it relates to marketing opportunities, and then some general remarks in regard and marketing boards to commissions, and the other commodity groups and their approach to government.

I might then move on the the question of the Sheep and Lamb Commission. As my hon. friends know, this has been set up. A provisional board of directors have met and are in the process of getting together. I've been impressed by the response of people generally throughout the province. Certainly the people in the central area around the Olds, Ponoka and Three Hills area have, on their own initiative, done a great deal of work already in regard to a lamb killing facility. He hope that they will get in touch with the Sheep and Wool Commission, and we will certainly give them all the help we can in this regard.

I might say, Mr. Speaker, that in this area the traditional complaint, of course, has been that we don't have a good marketing facility, and we don't have a good killing facility, and therefore we can't get our chain stores and other grocery and meat markets in Alberta to sell lamb. Frankly that's only part of the story, and part of the story is that we haven't had any continuity of supply. He haven't had enough supply to make it worthwhile for people to, in fact, go into a real marketing promotion.

And so again, here is one of those times when you can't just go in one direction, but you have to take the whole with you. So we're trying in Sheep and Wool Commission to develop programs, not only in the marketing end, but also in regard to production. We hope in the very near future to change our guaranteed loan programs so that, in fact, we will have a separate program for each commodity; and in that regard, we intend to Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2640

May 2nd 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 41-31 change the sheep loan program so that a portion of that money, of the $10,000 that's now available throughout the province for breeding stock, that a portion of that -- 40 per cent -- can be used for buildings and/or rams and equipment. In addition to that we have made a major grant to the Sheep and Wool Commission to look at the possibility of setting up a scouring plant in Alberta for all wool.

Fully 50 per cent of the weight of the wool that is shipped from Alberta to the scouring plants in eastern Canada are dirt and debris and we could cut our freight in half with just a scouring plant. We're hopeful that down the way we can do more than that, that in fact we can go the next step forward into carding and the other secondary industry that then might come with the kind of numbers that we're talking about. Again even in the wool industry, Mr. Speaker, it depends on the whims of society and whether or not the kind of clothes we wear have some wool in them.

Experts in this area tell me that wool is coming back, Mr. Speaker, because of the double knit -- don't ask me how that's hooked in there but that's what they tell me. We're also hopeful that Mr. Olsen, the federal Minister of Agriculture, will have another look at the question of dropping the deficiency payments on wool. They were dropped so suddenly last year that people, in fact, didn't get their cost of shearing back for their wool. I've made several representations to the federal minister in this regard. The Wool and Sheep Commission have passed a resolution to that effect.

I'm hopeful that he will listen to a little bit of reason in this area, because we as a province are doing more to promote the sheep industry than anyone else in Canada.

He have suggested to him that, in fact, rather than cutting the deficiency payment off completely as he has done, if he feels that it has to be done that it should be done over a period of years so that this would allow us time to build our industry, to improve our facilities for scouring wool, to look into the question of the lamb pelt situation, to develop facilities in which these could be usable, and tying it in with a lamb marketing promotion. We can, in fact, do a substantial amount in this area, and hopefully without any thought of surplus for a number of years to come. It's interesting to note, Mr.

Speaker, that in general the lamb population in Australia and New Zealand is down, and that the production of mutton and lamb there has gone away down. One of the real problems, and we'll have to look at this, is not only do we need facilities in relation to killing of lamb, but we need facilities in which mutton can be utilized in the processed meat industry much more than has in the past, so that the older ewes and livestock can be used in this area. We think there's a real exciting challenge here in the sheep industry for Alberta.

We invite the farmers of Alberta to get to know these animals, and to develop a really thriving family farm operation using some of the newer techniques that have been developed in Alberta, at Fairview. We have some of the real knowledgeable people in Alberta about this. One of them, Mr. Jones, is away on leave of absence in England at the moment. We're hopeful that on his return he will be a real asset to us in this area. If I could then go on, Mr. Speaker, and talk about the question of the Cattle Commission in relationship to government.

About question of the Horn Tax Fund -- and the representations that have been made to me by one or two members in this regard -- I would like to say to the hon. members, initially, that the question of the removal of The Horn Tax has, of course, got supporters on both sides. I have letters on file though from major feed lots in this province who have told me, in fact, that horns didn't cause any damage to meat. I've got letters on the other side that tell me how much damage they cause. Surely though, Mr. Speaker, the marketplace Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2641

41-32 ALBERTA HANSARD May 2nd 1972 should be the taxing authority, in effect, and government has no need to be putting on nuisance taxes on this agriculture industry. I want to suggest that if the packers or the feed lots in fact think that horns are bad that they will, through the marketplace, cause people to do a better job of dehorning than they have in the past. Certainly the figures show that there hasn't been any change in the number of cattle with horns being marketed over the past several years. Therefore, Mr.

Speaker, I stand by the decision to remove this nuisance tax and to allow the assessment of this situation over a two-year period. There is at the present time something like $1.6 million in the Horned Cattle Tax Fund. It would be our intention to have discussions with the Alberta Cattle Commission and other organizations as to the utilization of this fund.

I'm going to suggest to them that, in fact, what happens is as follows; That we look into the matter of investing this fund in long-term securities which would return a reasonable rate of interest that would give us something in the neighbourhood of about $150,000 a year to earmark for special projects within the industry. This would allow us to undertake a variety of projects for the cattle industry from the interest alone and leave the total fund intact, or as capital, that would continue to produce this kind of interest and money for projects on an annual basis.

One of the areas that we're going to have to look at in this regard is the question of the subsidy that we pay -- as a province -- to the cattle breeders to move cattle to the Royal Winter Fair in Toronto. We'd like to continue that because it is an important part of their marketing process. But I want to suggest that we could consider taking some portion of that interest from the Horned Cattle Tax Fund to allow for this kind of exhibition work.

In addition to that, of course, we'll be having some detailed discussions with the Alberta Cattle Commission in relation to their work and their promotion of cattle products. All the members are aware of the Kobe beef experiment. I think it's pretty well generally accepted that, in regard to this area, we should be shooting for the market in Japan. In fact, not only the Kobe beef market but also the ordinary or the Canadian product market is at a price level above the Australian level -- which will be acceptable to them.

There have been a number of discussions with the Japanese in regard to additional beef going into the Japanese market. These are on a continuing basis. The news report that some of the larger feedlot people in Alberta who are interested in developing killing plants along with their feedlots, have been talking to the Japanese in regard to a sustained or continuous supply to provide for that market. We are encouraging them and helping them in any way we can to enter that market on a continuing basis. Those deal with the major products, Mr. Speaker.

I could go on and talk about the vegetable situation and the honey situation which as my hon. friend from Athabasca pointed out the other night -- is in pretty good shape at the moment. We hope that it continues to be and that the markets remain there. So far as the vegetable people are concerned, we are interested in helping them in any way that we can to get an ever-increasing portion of the Alberta market for the vegetables that we know we can raise, particularly in the Brooks area.

I've had my people down there looking at their plant and their product is good; though some of their financing has been a little precarious. We hope that we can help that out, and that we can give them the kind of situation which will make their operation viable, by which they can give a return to Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2642

May 2nd 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 41-33 their producers so that they will continue to stay in the vegetable industry. Then if I might just conclude, Mr. Speaker.

I have a few general remarks with regard to the question of, firstly, that in relation to each of these marketing boards or commodity groups, we would hope to develop a guaranteed loan program that would have more to do with the tying in of marketing opportunities for the farmer in an operating credit way, or in a special way; and, secondly that the Agricultural Development Fund would in fact then be for longer-term credit in relation to capital land purchases and capital buildings, as opposed to shorter-term credit that the guaranteed loan program would be used for.

I'm having a little bit of static coming back from the banks who are suggesting that if we're not careful we'll plough rural Alberta under with a load of debt. I want to emphasize again, that we are very conscious of this, and that we feel that these credit programs have to be tied to a marketing opportunity. Of course, as I said when I started out, the entire area has to be dealt with -- and you can't just separate one from the other. There are a number of areas that deal with marketing boards more particularly, and with the commissions.

And the question of whether or not the people who serve on these boards, and also on the marketing council, shouldn't be a greater percentage of producers. In certain instances, I think consumers also should be on those boards. We intend to make changes in The Marketing Act that will also allow for that, so in fact we can have consumers on the Marketing Council, the central agency, and we can have additional producers on that board.

I think we should give consideration also to changes in The Marketing Act allow for the members on the commissions in the various areas to be elected, so that people in all areas of the province can have some say as to who these commission board members will be. That generally, Mr. Speaker, but not completely, deals with the whole question of marketing and marketing boards. I didn't touch on the dairy situation -- because I've done that on a previous occasion -- or -- some of the other specialty areas such as rapeseed and coarse grain.

I would like to, before I conclude with an amendment to this motion, talk just briefly about the work of the Alberta Grain Commission, and what it is working at. We have referred it, initially, a couple of primary considerations; the primary consideration, of course, of being knowledgeable about the transportation system and the blocks that can occur in regard to moving grain to our customers. We've also asked them to have a look at the coarse grain situation and to consult with our neighbouring provinces as to mechanisms by which there might be a stabilized price put into effect for coarse grains.

They are dealing with a whole variety of areas and I am very pleased with what they have been able to do so far. We're looking at the question of joint prepared feeds which I think has perhaps the greatest opportunity for expanded markets than any other area. We'll be able to encourage production of our coarse grains in the near future because of the ability to export more coarse grains as a prepared feed.

I think there are markets in the northwestern United States and California that we haven't scratched before and one of the good things about those markets is that they can get there without going across the mountains and running into some of the problems that we've had in that area before. Additionally there are a number of trucks that bring other produce from those states into Alberta and are available for this. We're looking at this particular market very intensely at the moment. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2643

41-34 ALBERTA HANSARD May 2nd 1972 The Grain Commission is also looking at the situation with regard to rapeseed, particularly from the viewpoint of the Alberta producer. We are hopeful to have some developments in that area in the very near future. We then, Mr. Speaker, moved in a variety of areas with the primary objective being that we wanted to provide a marketing, and therefore, a production opportunity for all of the farmers of Alberta.

We agree in a policy way, that vertical integration is not in the best interests of the people of Alberta and that we should negotiate with the people who are now in vertical integration those who have been vertically integrated from the top down -- to allow them to move out of the primary producing area and reserve it for the farmers of Alberta, and the production opportunity that that involves. We have made the initial steps in talking to some of the industry in Alberta in this regard.

I can assure the House that the response that I have got so far, from these companies, has been one of complete co-operation, that they intend to move in that regard. Hopefully -- and I know this isn't one that would be solved easily -- as we solve it we may be able to make quota or production opportunities available to our smaller farmers. So, Mr.

Speaker, in regard to the outline that I made with regard to marketing boards and marketing generally of agricultural produce in Alberta, I would like to move the following amendment to the motion, seconded by my hon. friend from Banff-Cochrane, the Minister of Highways, that all of the words after "that" in the motion be struck out and be replaced by the following; "Be it resolved that the government take all steps necessary to ensure a marketing opportunity for all agricultural producers." MR. COPITHORNE: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part -- MR. HENDERSON: Would the minister . . .

I would like to ask the hon. minister one question before we leave his comments. I didn't want to interrupt him in the midst of his very informative presentation. Starting back at the beginning of his comments today -- on the question of the Egg Board -- would the hon. minister advise as to whether the cost of the operation of receiving stations is going to be borne wholly by the Egg Board, or is there going to be some input from his department into that expenditure? DR. HORNER: No, I said, Mr. Speaker, that with the primary or central operation of Cal-Ed we expect the Egg Board to, in fact, run that at a profit.

The primary receiving stations that we hope will be established throughout the province -- and hopefully they will be the start, in fact, of a series of farmer's markets throughout the province for a variety of produce over the next two or three years -- will have to be supported by the government. MR. HENDERSON: Will have to be? DR. HORNER: Yes. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, could I just ask a question of the hon. minister? Would he comment on the matter of eggs from outside the province, and Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2644

May 2nd 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 41-35 what percentage of them are being used in the Alberta market today, and at what price? DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, if I might just . . . the Manitoba egg situation -- and let's call a spade a spade -- that is where they are coming from. The intensity of the problem has lessened with the National Egg Marketing Plan coming into effect, it should pretty well disappear. We have had a real problem because of the price of Manitoba eggs. The prices have firmed in Manitoba and this has allowed us a little bit of breathing space.

We intend to see to it that all eggs marketed in Alberta, pay at least a portion of a marketing fee towards the surplus removal program, the marketing program. But we wouldn't put a barrier at our boundary in regard to those eggs. I might say, though, that we intend to do a number of things to aggressively market Alberta eggs in Alberta, including the provision that the Alberta institutions will be buying Alberta eggs, probably from the Egg Board. MR. COPITHORNE: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to second the amendment to this motion, firstly because I did enjoy the hon.

Minister of Agriculture's speech in outlining to the House the number of small ways in which he is pointing out the opportunities that are available to agriculture and the opportunities through new directions which are being created for agriculture. I am going to deal in a somewhat different field which was brought to the hon. members' attention in the House as being something very startling, early in the session, by those on the other side. Mr. Speaker, when they found that there was a great emergency with the situation in grain handling, not only in this province, but at the bottle neck of the west coast.

This, Mr. Speaker, I might say, has been in existence for a long time. As a matter of fact, I have been interested in this part of the field for at least 12 to 15 years and every time I have visited the west coast I have particularly taken note of how the grain handling was taking place in that area, and the progress that was being made. And each time that I looked into this particular situation, it seemed very similar.

It seemed that there were ships waiting in the harbour for grain that wasn't in the port to be loaded, or there was too much of some kind of grain in the port which there was no orders for, and just a general confusion and very poor use of the facilities that we had. Just prior to the election last July, the Premier and I took a trip out there and I will tell you of the information that we discovered on that particular trip to the west coast. There were several ships in habour, and at one of the major elevators out there there was a million-ton capacity vessel in harbour being loaded.

It was about three-quarters loaded, without any more grain in Vancouver not only in that particular grain handling facility, but in all Vancouver. MR. HENDERSON: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I'm not necessarily concerned about the minister's comments, but the resolution is specifically aimed at provincial marketing boards and I suggest when we're discussing the question of the federal grain marketing business in the port of Vancouver, it isn't pertinent to this particular resolution. I think there might be another resolution on the Order Paper where the minister could make this speech.

But it's out of order so far as this particular resolution is concerned. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2645

41-36 ALBERTA HANSARD May 2nd 1972 DR. HORNER: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker. What the Member for Wetaskiwin-Leduc says is only partly right. This amendment specifically talks about marketing opportunity for agricultural producers -- all of them. And I want to suggest to you and to the House that what the hon. Minister of Highways is talking about now is very important to that marketing opportunity for all agricultural producers. MR. COPITHORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It seems that every time I start to give the hon. members on the other side some useful information, they think that it's a point of order.

Naturally, if they had been listening for the last several years, they may well have not been in that position over there, enjoying the picture on the wall that they face. Mr. Speaker, if I might continue from where I was so -- the word has been prompted to me -- rudely interrupted, I shall continue. I think, Mr. Speaker, that we had a million-bushel capacity vessel three-quarters full with no grain in the port of Vancouver to continue filling it, and there was no assurance that there would be grain arriving shortly to fill it.

Some of the ships in the bay were being charged demurrage, because they too expected to be loaded and there was no grain of the qualities that they wanted. I'm not saying, Mr. Speaker, that there isn't a lot of grain shipped through that port, because upon our findings, with 20% of the grain handling facilities of Canada, we are shipping more than 40% of the grain that is exported from Canada through those facilities. Those facilities were operating at about 65% of their capacity, so you see, Mr. Speaker, there is lots of room for improvement in the handling of those products in that area.

If we were able to take full advantage of the world markets that are available and the facilities that we have in this area, just in the Vancouver area alone, certainly all of our farmers here in Alberta would have a greater share of the market to sell their products. However, there is definitely a bottleneck of one type or another in the handling of these grains. There is a great controversy right now about the erection of inland terminals and the cleaning of the grain inland. He hear the argument that there is a hot market at the west coast for screenings and this is justly right. But, Mr.

Chairman, if this grain were cleaned inland and the screenings could be fed to an increasingly enlarging beef industry here -- because strange enough, the screenings are of a very high food quality and just as high or even higher than good grains. We could be selling good grains to those market opportunities that we have, particularly when screenings bring approximately $30 a ton at the west coast. There is another point, too, Mr. Chairman. If the screenings were taken out here, it was estimated by the Harbours Commission people that the efficiency of handling would be increased by as much as 30%.

That is a great saving in itself, and points out the inefficiency of the systems we are now using. It is understandable why some of the major elevator companies and grain handlers are taking exception to this suggestion, because up to this point they have received these screenings at a very nominal margin of profit to the farmers, in fact, no profit at all, and an expense of shipping it out there. It has been kind of a free- gratis gouging that the farmers have been getting because of such a policy.

With the abdication of the railways' responsibility at so many points in Alberta, certainly, we have to rely more and more all the time on truck handling of grain to the terminal points. At this point it can be cleaned and graded as to the percentage of protein it Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2646

May 2nd 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 41-37 contains. The order could be sent in trainload lots to the west coast, ready to be shipped. Perhaps we could even update our shipping out there with a little imagination, such as using hopper cars, going over top of the hold of a ship and dropping their grain in. This isn't an impossibility, and would certainly have a great deal to do with reducing the cost of handling grain at that seaport base. But the same old war goes on; there is a great deal of conflict of interest between the grain handling people and the farmers.

I think until that is recognized by the federal government, the farmers are going to continue to be in a plight. Also comes the Port of Churchill -- the hon. Member for Drumheller well knows the little organization that has fought for years to justify the stand that farmers have wanted to ship more grain through that port; but there seems to be a continual ceiling on the amount of grain that can be handled through that port.

Not particularly because maybe it couldn't handle more grain -- because, as I understand the situation -- it only works on one 8-hour shift a day for the shipping period through the Port of Churchill, which is a very short time of about four months. Even that is cut short because of rules and regulations that no one seems to know why they exist, but they are there. The farmers also have to be docked one and one- half cents a bushel, as I understand it, for the grain that goes through there. This is really a difference of price between what it costs to ship it through the Great Lakes ports in that area.

So actually the farmers have been gouged over the years for the shipping of their grain, whether it is to the east coast or whether it is through the west coast, simply because we are sold a bill of goods by conflicting interests in the grain handling area. This has existed for as long as I have been looking at the situation and that goes on now for about 15 years. I don't believe that we have ever had access to the available markets that have been opened to the people of Alberta.

Certainly, if we took full advantage of these markets, then we wouldn't need to really worry about whether everyone got a fair share of the market, because if you are producing 15% protein wheat, and there is only a limited amount of it, you can sell that amount, whatever the amount may be, whether it is 15 or 19 or 13 or 12 percent, or whatever was required. I think that our whole resources would have to be mustered in order to supply that type of market and we could use the terminals just to temporarily store grain for the ships as they were coming in to ship abroad.

But instead of that, since I have been sitting here in this House in the last five years, there have been times when we have missed markets that were available to us because our shipping wasn't efficient, and because our shipping wasn't ready to take advantage of situations that occurred. Mr. Speaker, it is only I think about two years ago or three years ago, when the United States grain handlers were on strike.

There was an ample market for grain throughout the world that could have had access to, but we were unable to supply that market because we were tied hand and foot in our shipping facilities both at the Great Lakes and at Vancouver. So I think the amendment that the hon. minister has made is a good one, and I urge that every member support it. MR. HENDERSON: Mr.

Speaker, in considering the amendment, I think the only really basic question so far as the amendment, as compared to the original resolution, hinges on the question of whether the hon. minister and the government is of the opinion that they have the necessary statutory authority to carry out the commitment that they have made so far as providing the market for the products of all producers, large and small. The basic purpose of the resolution Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2647

41-38 ALBERTA HANSARD May 2nd 1972 initially was to try to provide the assurance that the small producer is being looked after. It appeared in a number of instances, and I think the discussion of the Egg Marketing Board today is pertinent to this point; and it has also happened to hogs that the boards themselves are dominated by the larger producers, and the small producer often finds his interest not being adequately looked after by the board.

I am pleased to say I will be able to support the hon. minister in the action that he has taken thus far in dealing with the problem of the egg situation, as well as the action they have taken to eliminate some of the obstacles and to equalize the opportunity for small producers of hogs to market their products on terms competitive with the larger producers. I therefore suggest, Mr. Speaker, that I have no reservations about supporting the amendment.

The only question I think that must be gauged or judged is whether the government, the minister, has the necessary statutory authority to back up his actions in the field of dealing with the marketing boards. Apparently the hon. minister believes that he does have the necessary authority. Such being the case, Mr. Speaker, I certainly can support the amendment. MR. BUCKWELL: Mr. Speaker, taking

part in this debate, I believe both the original resolution and also the amendment are worthy of note, but the amendment says that we will take the necessary steps to ensure a marketing opportunity for all agricultural producers. This has nothing to do, as far as I am concerned, with the orginal resolution. I would have to begin by congratulating the hon. minister in the run down that he has given all the agricultural products this afternoon, and his hopes and aspirations for marketing in the future. The assistance that he has given to the commodity groups has been very necessary, and very welcome.

The grants to agriculture in the forms of credit are also to be commended. But I think most of you who have read today's Edmonton Journal, right at the bottom of the page, there's a farmer from the Peace River country who admits quite frankly that credit has been too easy to get and has been the downfall of many farmers. They are offered money, at a reasonable rate of interest, they borrowed heavily and then were unable, because of marketing conditions, to meet their financial obligations. In turn then some of them have lost everything they had.

When we talk on the amendment that we take all necessary steps to ensure a marketing opportunity for all agricultural producers, this is a worthy goal to keep in mind. When we realize that at the present time there are some 1,442 farmers in the Peace River area alone, in June 1971, who are in arrears for their FFC payments; we realize what a serious situation we face in Alberta. We are talking about the marketing of all agricultural products. I'm asking now -- what do you mean by a fair share of existing markets?

We have egg boards, we have broiler boards, we have turkey producers, we have milk producers, we also have hog boards, and cattle producers. I think, as we said before in this House, at the present time our productive capacity is about maybe 75% of what our total production could be. Our productive capacity in this province alone, with its great diversification of products, is a tremendous thing to behold. We could produce about twice what we are producing now if we had markets. But what has happened today is that the small producer is left with the gleanings.

Because of the marketing boards in the present situation, and because of the type of product that most of these marketing boards cover -- they are in the main mass-produced -- they are very perishable. I'm not at the moment talking about grain, but I'm talking about eggs, poultry products, milk. These products Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2648

May 2nd 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 41-39 cannot be stored for any length of time under refrigeration, otherwise there's no return left, it's all taken up in storage. So what of the small producer? What do we mean by a small producer? We talked early in this session about the family farm and when we actually get down to the definition of a family farm it covers 95% of all the farms in Alberta today. So we're talking then right back to our amendment. We take all necessary steps to ensure a marketing opportunity for all agricultural producers.

But we also find -- and this may be rehash of what has been said before -- that in our marketing boards a very few producers, for example on the broiler board, control the production of the total broiler production of this province. Then where's the extra market for the small producer. Unless we find markets of a considerable quantity -- I'm saying a market of say 25% increase in one given year -- where are the small producers going to come? If we're going to find markets, say for example, with an increase in annual production of say, 5%, this can be absorbed by the existing producers.

They must have this to stay in business, to meet the inflation and the costs of their production in this inflationary period. So where does the small producer come in? We're concerned today that we must have a share for these small producers and these small producers are what I would say, are the marginal farmers. Their only hope left is to get a share of a market, over and above the big producer. The big producer has protected himself with the Marketing Board.

I'm not knocking marketing boards per se, but I do say that those who belong to the marketing boards, particularly in these perishable products, have a high percentage of capital in return to their investment invested in their industry. Therefore, they have to be protected under certain conditions. But they are able to absorb any increase at the present time of any market that is available. The hon. Minister of Highways spoke about the marketing of grain. And it has had its ups and downs. At the start of the session we couldn't get wheat out there; boats were waiting; the railway system, because of weather, was