May 15, 1996 Alberta Hansard 1871 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Wednesday, May 15, 1996 1:30 p.m. Date: 96/05/15 [The Speaker in the Chair] head: Prayers THE SPEAKER: Let us pray. Dear God, author of all wisdom, knowledge, and understand- ing, we ask Thy guidance in order that truth and justice may prevail in all our judgments. Amen. Please be seated. head: Introduction of Visitors MR. ROSTAD: Mr. Speaker, it's with great pleasure that I introduce to you and through you to the members of the Assembly a delegation from Alberta's twin province of Kangwon, Korea, led by Vice-Governor Nam Dong Woo.

Alberta holds in high esteem its sister province relationship with Kangwon, the first twinning of this kind undertaken by our province. In fact, it's been in existence for 24 years. During discussions that I had earlier today with Dr. Nam, we reaffirmed the value of the relationship and pledged to make it stronger by encouraging economic interaction between our provinces. Dr. Nam and his delegation will be focusing primarily on Alberta's approach to tourism development as this is an area of high potential in Kangwon. I can attest from personal experience that Kangwon is a beautiful part of Korea.

Later in the week they've planned a tour through the mountains, which includes meetings with the tourism industry in Jasper and Banff, as well as being exposed to our strengths in high tech and research development. I'd ask that the party stand and receive the acknowledgement of the Assembly. head: Tabling Returns and Reports THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Environmental Protection. MR. LUND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to file with the Assembly five copies of Alberta's Walleye Management and Recovery Plan. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St. Albert. MR. BRACKO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to table a letter signed by 1 10 St. Albertans. They're concerned about the state of health care in our province. They're opposed to any further cuts. They're very concerned about the cuts in continuing care facilities, and they want to make sure the Capital health authority is properly funded. There's also a copy for the Premier. Thanks. MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, during question period on May 13 questions were taken on notice on my behalf.

I am pleased to table responses to these issues pertaining to health care transfer payments and health restructuring specific to physiother- apy and payment for corrective helmets. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. MR. SAPERS: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. With your permission today I would like to file with the Assembly four copies of a document entitled Working with Communities to Develop Health Care We Can Trust.

This is the report on the Alberta Liberal caucus Dialogue on Health, which took pl ace over the last year, and documents their concerns about the state of chaos and confusion our health care system has been thrust into. MR. WICKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table four copies of a letter addressed to the Minister of Health requesting her consider- ation in providing “the necessary medical services for young Peter Jang.” head: Introduction of Guests THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View. MR. HLADY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's my pleasure to introduce to you and through you today 40 guests from the Forum for Y oung Albertans. These young Albertans are from across the province and represent many constituencies here today. Their group leaders are Paula Dubyk, Dan Popp, and Tanya Hrehir chuk. I'd like to ask them to please rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, it's with great pleasure that I introduce to you and through you to Members of the Legislative Assembly Mr. Claude Ryan. He is sitting in your gallery today.

He is the former leader of the Quebec Liberal Party, a former minister in the Bourassa government, and a distinguished and active advocate for a unified Canada. He is here to speak tonight at our Canadian Unity Forum, as he did last night. Tonight's forum is at Grandin school at 7 p.m. I ask that he rise in the gallery and receive our welcome. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lacombe-Stettler. MRS. GORDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to introduce to you and through you three individuals seated in the members' gallery: Brig Anderson, who's from Vancouver; Kay Brown, who hails from Lloydminster; and Anna Louise Kirton, who is a constituent of mine from Stettler. Anna Louise is very involved in the Stettler drop-in centre and is the author of the column that the club produces for the weekly newspaper. I would ask that they rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands- Beverly. MS HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm pleased to introduce to you and to the Assembly three women who keep the Edmonton-Highlands-Beverly constituency office going at full steam, one of the best in the country. They are Susanne Glenn, who oversees the operation, Leona Parnell, and Isabelle Gratton, who is our bright STEP student. Please rise and receive the warm welcome. MR. WICKMAN: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to introduce to you and through you to Members of the Legislative Assembly 46 grade 6 students from St. Augustine school who are visiting us today touring the facilities. They're accompanied by their teachers Mrs.

Louise Rogucki and Ms Juliet Letawsky and two parents, Mrs. Sharon Ferguson and Mrs. Barb Iwaniuk. They're

1872 Alberta Hansard May 15, 1996 in the public gallery. If they would rise and receive the warm welcome of the House. head: Oral Question Period Seniors' Report MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, the Premier promised Albertans open and honest government. Another example of promises made, promises broken. To the Premier: how is it open and honest to shred a million-dollar seniors' report and then try to cover it up? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, this is no longer even recent history; this is ancient history. The Liberal leader's colleague the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar tabled that particular report almost three years ago in this Legislative Assembly. Further copies were tabled in this Legislative Assembly yesterday. I will explain once again. It was the opinion of the minister of the day that the report was unreadable, that it was bureaucratic. She undertook to consolidate that report to make it readable. It was released publicly. The rest of those documents became surplus. I will point out once again: there is not enough room in this city to store all the documents that are surplus to our needs. Now, I will reiterate, Mr. Speaker.

Perhaps there will be a lot of empty space in the Langevin building when the Liberals vacate that building after the next election. 1:40 MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, why did the Premier promise in this 1993 election brochure to continue his support for seniors while shredding the document that outlined his real agenda? MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding what was in that brochure – well, I'll say withstanding what was in that brochure, the people of this province said that we would like to elect I think it was 52 Conservatives and 31 Liberals. In other words, they lost and we won. MR. MITCHELL: Mr.

Speaker, how is it open and honest when the Premier says that the minister for science and research ordered that the documents be shredded and she denies it? MR. KLEIN: I don't recall saying that. I don't know who delivered the actual order. I indicated to the press that I'll try and find out. The minister herself says that she didn't issue the order. People in my office say that they didn't issue the order. I didn't issue the order. I've checked back . . . [interjections] Just be quiet. Will they please button their lips, Mr. Speaker. It was alleged that I saw the document.

The document apparently came to cabinet in November of 1992. At that time I was out of the cabinet loop. I had absolutely nothing to do with cabinet because I was running for the leadership. Release of Government Documents MR. MITCHELL: The Premier and his cabinet colleagues set up consultations, pay for committee reports with taxpayers' money, and then routinely ignore them and keep them secret. To the Premier: is it open and honest not to release the KPMG manage- ment audit of the maintenance enforcement division in his government? THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General. MR.

EV ANS: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. We've had the maintenance enforcement program in Alberta for 10 years. We in this province were the first to initiate a maintenance enforce- ment program. I have asked for an internal review of the maintenance enforcement program for our department so that we can improve the very best program that we have in the country, and we are continuing to work on that. MRS. SOETAERT: So you can ignore it. Y ou've been ignoring it, Brian. Speaker's Ruling Interrupting a Member THE SPEAKER: Hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St.

Albert, the Chair would remind the hon. member that the Chair has said that if the hon. member persists in abusing the rules of this Assembly, some steps are going to be taken. We do not have to have chirping comments for every question. The hon. member better remember that, or she's going to have a little holiday from this Assembly. Release of Government Documents (continued) MR. EV ANS: Well, just to conclude my comments very briefly, Mr. Speaker, an internal document that we're working on will prove to improve the system that we have now in this province, the best system in all of Canada. MR.

MITCHELL: To the Premier: is it open and honest govern- ment to not release the Forrest/Gunter report on health funding? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, I believe this was raised last week. I informed the Assembly at that time that I have not received the report. In fact, I met with the two chairs of this committee about a week or 10 days ago to talk about the progress of it, indicated to them that we were most anxious to have this report. I can assure you that there will be nothing in that report that I will not want to share with this Assembly. Until I have the report, it will be extremely difficult to release it.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, to the Premier: is it open and honest government to continue to suppress 20 pages of documents regarding the Premier's Multi-Corp activities while he was in the Far East? MR. KLEIN: I understand that matter is being reviewed right now, Mr. Speaker. Again, history, almost old history. Openness and Honesty in Government MR. MITCHELL: Is it open and honest government to misrepre- sent the results of the government's own human rights poll by 30 percent in order to shore up the government's ill-conceived position in this policy area? MR. KLEIN: Mr.

Speaker, I'll tell you what it's about to be an open and honest government because I like to talk about this a lot. It's open and honest when you stand up and say to the people of this province that we are going to eliminate a $3.4 billion deficit and do it. It's honest and open when we say that we're going to put in a program for the orderly pay-down of the debt and commit surplus dollars to accelerate that payment and do it. It's open and

May 15, 1996 Alberta Hansard 1873 honest when we say that we're going to produce quarterly reports relative to the well-being of this province and report to the public on a quarterly basis and do it. That's open and honest. Mr. Speaker, it is also open and honest when we say that we will consult with Albertans and th at we will listen to Albertans. We have consulted with Albertans and we have listened to Albertans relative to the future of this province.

Over 70,000 Albertans told us what their dreams and their desires are for the future of this province, and we will take those comments and those thoughts into consideration as we prepare for the future. That is a promise, and that's what it is all about in terms of keeping promises: promises made, promises kept. MR. MITCHELL: Is it open a nd honest government, Mr. Speaker, when the Premier promised to increase education funding and turned around and cut it? MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr.

Speaker, it was open and honest when we said that we were going to restructure the education system and take as much as we possibly could from administration and put those dollars into the classroom. It was open and honest when we said that we were going to equalize payments throughout this province to give kids an equal opportunity for a decent education in this province. Seventy-seven percent of communities in this province are now receiving more funding. It was open and honest to have a good hard look at ECS, the kindergarten program, and to restore the funding to that particular program.

That was open and honest. MR. MITCHELL: Is it open and honest for the Premier to say that health care spending has skyrocketed out of control when Alberta spends the lowest per capita on health care of all the provinces in Canada? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, it was open and honest to say that there was too much administration in the system, too much overlapping in the system, that there were abuses taking place and overuse of the system.

To take 200 health jurisdictions in this province and reorganize those health jurisdictions into 17 was open and honest and in accordance with our commitment to reduce administration. To really challenge the health authorities to cut down on overlap and duplication was open and honest, and the health authorities have been doing a tremendous job in meeting those challenges. To put in programs to combat the just horrendous amount of wasted drugs that go down the drains or go to Swan Hills during the annual roundup was open and honest. All the programs that we have put in place are open and honest.

The only thing about this that is not open and honest is the Liberal tactic of going around this province and spreading fear amongst the population. That's the only thing that isn't open and honest. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-North Hill. 1:50 Electric Power Generation MR. MAGNUS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A year ago I introduced legislation in this Legislature on behalf of the Minister of Energy and the government of Alberta to restructure Alberta's electricity industry.

At the time there were concerns expressed by some small power producers who felt that they may not be able to compete effectively in the new structure. The new electrical structure has been up and running for several months now. To the Minister of Energy: can the minister indicate whether the new structure is in fact accommodating the small power industry? MRS. BLACK: Mr. Speaker, as members will remember, we introduced the legislation last spring for the change of deregula- tion of generation within the province of Alberta.

I might say that Alberta is the only jurisdiction in all of North America to have deregulated the electrical industry. This came into effect on January 1 of 1996, and I can say that as a result of this new structure there is an opportunity for everyone to compete on the generation side and to enter into the transmission pool. Right now we are faced with a situation in the province where we have an overabundance of electricity, but the competitive model that is in place is open to everyone whether they're small pr oducers or major producers. THE SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MR. MAGNUS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Many of the small power projects not only deliver power but do it in an environmen- tally friendly way. Because of this they're known as green power. To the same minister: how is the Alberta government supporting green power? MRS. BLACK: Mr.

Speaker, in the province again we've led the way across Canada for having programs that have in fact sup- ported renewable energy programs, such as our SW AREI program and our small power producers' program, whereby we encouraged people to investigate alternative measures for delivering electricity from different fuel sources other than the traditional means of coal and natural gas. These programs have been most successful, and today I'm able to say that over 100 megawatts of power have been allocated to small power producers. In fact, they are producing today into the grid quite successfully.

As a result of those programs I'd like to also say, Mr. Speaker, that some of the small power program producers have been recognized in different jurisdictions and have now been able to take their programs and put them in place in other countries and have been recognized for the work that they've done here in Alberta. I'm very pleased that they were developed in Alberta. The technology was developed here, the people were trained here, and now they're able to go into the global market arena. MR. MAGNUS: Mr.

Speaker, to the same minister: if there's no immediate demand for new power within Alberta, is there the ability for small power projects to develop here to supply power to other jurisdictions in Canada and the United States? MRS. BLACK: Clearly, Mr. Speaker, Alberta is positioned now to be the leader in the interconnect into the integrated system throughout North America.

Through the opportunities from free trade and NAFTA, Alberta's competitive model will have the opportunity to lead our power producers, whether they're small or large or renewable or traditional means, all the way through the interconnect through the United States and across Canada. One thing that's very important is that because of the competi- tion model that is there, it provides a low power cost to Albertans and puts us into this competitive arena where we in fact are best positioned to compete not only north/south but east/west.

As we move into that arena with our surplus power and our linkage to the interconnect, we could in fact go east/west and compete against even Crown corporations on either side and all the way through the United States and all the way through to Mexico.

1874 Alberta Hansard May 15, 1996 That model is available, and it applies to not only the large investor-owned utilities but to the small power producer as well. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. Human Rights Legislation MR. DICKSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Too many Albertans are still denied a job b ecause of their skin colour. Too many Alberta women still experience sexual harassment at their workplace.

Now, almost two months ago I'd introduced a set of 16 amendments to our human rights law to do what the Premier's own task force had recommended; namely, to make the Human Rights Commission in Alberta independent, to give that commis- sion the tools to be able to combat discrimination and intolerance. Last night the government belatedly accepted only two of the 16 amendments. My question this afternoon would be to the hon. Premier.

Now that the Premier finally admits, albeit tacitly, that his own Bill doesn't do the job, why will he not accept all of the amendments, all of the recommendations from his own handpicked task force? Speaker's Ruling Anticipation THE SPEAKER: Hon. member, this Bill is scheduled for committee study later today and therefore does offend the rule against anticipation. Human Rights Legislation (continued) MR. DICKSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm anxious to avoid Standing Order 23.

My further question would be this to the hon Premier: how many more normal Albertans have to tell the Premier that his Bill is wrong and that his government agenda is wrong before he'll listen and act? MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, we are listening. Y es, some people have expressed concerns relative to the Bill, and those concerns have been heard. The minister and members of Calgary caucus at least met with the Dignity Foundation. I understand that numerous members of this caucus have been meeting with various members of ethnic and other cultural and multicultural groups. So we have been listening to the people.

Of course, there are some other people who simply have no opinion whatsoever on this Bill. I was in Ponoka last night speaking to a combined meeting of the chamber of commerce and the Rotary Club and stood there for I guess it would be about a half an hour answering questions, and that question wasn't raised at all. So it is of concern in the minds of some, and it is of lesser concern in the minds of others. MR. DICKSON: Mr.

Speaker, since this Premier has been promising action in the human rights area for at least three years, will the Premier at least undertake that the Assembly will not adjourn for the summer until each of the Liberal amendments has been fully debated and voted on? MR. KLEIN: Is he really saying that with a straight face? Does he really want to stay in here all summer, Mr. Speaker? Who in the world . . . [interjections] Well, you do? Fine. Mr. Speaker, lookit; we have gone some distance to introduce amendments, which will be debated, and I can't really talk about those today.

We have made I think a concerted effort to meet with people and to hear their concerns relative to this piece of legislation. Just because all Liberal amendments are not accepted doesn't mean the Bill is wrong. I mean, these people are not perfect. Their thoughts and their ideas are not perfect. I mean, if we accepted everything the Liberals wanted us to do, this province would be in absolute chaos. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Community Development wishes to augment. MR.

MAR: Just as a supplement, one of the examples of the types of amendments that the Liberals have been on record as saying that they would like debated is whether we should protect people based on their criminal records. Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't think any Albertans are suggesting that that would be an important thing to do, but those are the types of amendments that we have to deal with. So accordingly, while we may make some changes to improve our legislation, I don't think anybody is suggesting that it would be a good idea to include protection from discrimination on the basis of criminal records.

THE SPEAKER: Order. [interjections] Order please, hon. members. The hon. Member for Lethbridge-West. 2:00 Y outh Employment MR. DUNFORD: Boy, my timing's always good; isn't it? Mr. Speaker, on this Monday past I was asking questions of the Minister of Advanced Education and Career Development, and I will continue that today. I asked about youth employment for the summer, and in his answer he talked about the StatsCan statistics dropping from 1 1.9 to 1 1.1. What that tells us, of course, is that that's the number of youth that are looking for work.

I w onder if we could ask the minister to advise us if we have any accurate numbers as to the youth that have simply dropped out of the job scene and are not seeking work at the present time. MR. ADY: Well, Mr. Speaker, I just want to be clear that all of the Alberta employment and unemployment statistics are derived from the Statistics Canada labour force survey. This survey is conducted monthly, and b ecause it's a sample, it is not 100 percent accurate. Not every person in this province is polled. It's a sample.

However, Canada's labour force survey is ranked as one of the world's most accurate surveys, so we believe that it's relatively reliable. We're encouraged by the change in youth unemployment over the past year. In April of 1995 Alberta's youth unemployment rate was 14.2 percent, Mr. Speaker. By April of 1996 the rate had fallen to 1 1.1 percent, and that's the lowest rate in Canada. This clearly shows that Alberta's employment opportunities for youth are improving.

Y outh participation rates, the percentage of young people who are involved in the labour market, along with youth employment levels have both increased the past year. Y outh employment has increased from 208,000 in this province to 224,500 by April of 1996, so it's an increase of 16,500 in Alberta. I think that the Alberta advantage is working for the youth as well as others in this province. THE SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MR. DUNFORD: Y es. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Given that

May 15, 1996 Alberta Hansard 1875 governments are not very skilled at creating jobs, what is this government doing to assist the private sector to create jobs for young people? MR. ADY: Well, Mr. Speaker, we continue to look for ways to improve existing programs and services for youth, whether provided by the province or the federal government, in order to enhance their opportunity to find and retain meaningful employ- ment. Recently I a nnounced our a nnual launch of the 1996 summer temporary employment program.

It creates 5,000 jobs in our province for our young people, and it also provides them valuable experience so that it w ill help them in the future when that program is exhausted for the season. I've also previously announced the establishment of four federal/Alberta service delivery centres, one of which is specifi- cally designed to provide employment-related services for youth.

Our department continues to provide career counseling and employment preparation assistance for our young people through our network of career development centres and through a toll-free telephone number called the career information hot line. So we have services there for our young people, and obviously we do have some improvements. THE SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MR. DUNFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister support a task force made up of members of this Legislature and young people from Alberta in bringing forward recommendations to assist youth in gaining meaningful employment in this prov- ince?

MR. ADY: Mr. Speaker, although our youth unemployment in this province is the lowest in Canada, we do continue to seek improvement, and we recognize that youth unemployment and underemployment continues to be a serious concern for Albertans as long as there are any unemployed. Advanced Education and Career Development is providing leadership in development of a provincial human resource strategy, and youth-related issues will certainly be an important component of that. The development of the strategy will reflect the views of youth and MLAs as well as other Albertans.

We want to ensure that young people have current information about changes in the economy and the workplace and can gain the skills and knowledge they require to fully participate in the economy. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Whitemud. Workers' Compensation Board DR. PERCY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Three points regarding the WCB fund. First, the basic rate structure of the WCB is not actuarially sound. A $331 million operating surplus is confirma- tion that the rates are too high and amount to nothing more than a payroll tax. Second, the VIP program is performance based.

It is built into the rate structure. It is a rebate. It does nothing to address the basic fact that the basic rates are too high. Third, the performance pricing review currently under way is again linked to performance and leaves the basic rate structure un- changed. My questions are to the minister responsible for the WCB. Will the minister tell this House when there will be a review of the basic rate structure of the WCB and a lowering of the rates faced by small business? MR. DA Y: Mr.

Speaker, you know, I rarely have done this because the need hasn't arisen, but I'd like to extend a personal invitation to the Member for Edmonton-Whitemud before he departs from the Liberal caucus to join me on a tour of WCB and to sit down with the chairman of the board, the people who represent small business there, who are very excited about the developments towards small business, and the people who represent the unions, who are very excited about the ongoing improvements at WCB. I'd like to take him around to meet the industry task force, which has direct input into ongoing improve- ment at WCB.

I'd like to take him to the chambers of commerce with members of the WCB board and do a little tour and possibly go through my file of letters from both workers' associations and employers, saying: good work on the ongoing improvement. I don't know where he gets his information, Mr. Speaker. There is constant review of the rate structure, and there has been a constant decrease in the rates charged to employers. Now, I know it doesn't get widely reported. I've asked our friends in the media why they don't report that. It is announced very often; it's announced around the province.

The feelings are very good on that. Maybe because it's not on the front page of his favourite newspaper every day, he doesn't see it. I know he's very creative in his questions. In his next question, would he indicate to me if he would accompany me on that tour? DR. PERCY: I'll repeat the question for the hon. minister. Why is the minister sitting on a $241 million fund balance that properly belongs to the businesses that pay the rates? Why don't you do something about that? MR. DA Y: Mr.

Speaker, again, I am excited to report that every one of the last three years since the unfunded liability – that's the bankrupt position of the WCB – was retired, every year again another surplus. Every year the question gets put to the industry stakeholders and to the representative workers: what do we do with the surplus? Every year an answer comes back that has resulted in a number of things. It has resulted in premium decreases to all of the employers. It has resulted in ongoing premium decreases. It has resulted in more benefits to the workers.

Other provinces have also attempted to decrease . . . [interjec- tions] Y ou know, they shriek and scream when it's good news, Mr. Speaker. They just can't stand it. Other provinces, in some cases, have actually tried to improve their financial business by lowering the benefits to workers. Other provinces have done that by going from 90 percent of net of their salary down to 80 percent. The WCB in this province has not done that. It has increased benefits to workers and has continued to decrease premium rates to businesses. Again, Mr. Speaker, this year another surplus is being reported.

The same process will go forward, lowering rates once again. It's the same challenge we have here with our provincial budget. We report a surplus and immediately we say: do we lower taxes? This has happened every year with WCB. DR. PERCY: I'm glad to see that the minister says that it is a tax and he's considering lowering it. Mr. Speaker, how can the minister be so ill informed as to realize that the fact that year after year he has to pay rebates back to small businesses and the fact that the fund presently has a $241 million surplus are evidence that the rates are too high?

They're not actuarially sound, and the WCB is a vacuum cleaner sucking money out of the pockets of small business.

1876 Alberta Hansard May 15, 1996 2:10 MR. DA Y: It's a very strange way to say: “Congratulations. Y ou've done a good job.” But, still, I'll take it as a compliment. He's exactly right. Every year there's a surplus, the only one in Canada for the last three years, and every year – now, I'm going to say it a little slower so he can grasp it. Every year small business . . . DR. PERCY: Tell it to small business, Stock. Y ou're taking money out of their pockets. MR. DA Y: Y ou know, in basic about grade 9 debating class you're told that you can always tell when someone's lost the debate; they begin to shriek.

That's what has happened over here. [interjections] Mr. Speaker, above the shrieking I will continue to say that because of good management and industry associations lowering injury rates, every year now for the last three years a surplus has been reported. Every year the question goes out to small business, to manufacturers, to all business, and to labour associa- tions saying: “We have a surplus. This is wonderful. We have a surplus. What should WCB do?” Every year the answer comes back: a variety of approaches, which are followed and have been every year.

One of the responses was: lower premium rates; lower the charges that business is paying. The rates continue to come down every year. Another thing that is addressed and has been addressed is benefits to workers. The pension plan of those who are disabled for life has increased. The maximum amount of earnings that can be insured has increased. Ongoing COLA adjustments every single year. This is such a good-news story I just can't stop, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fish Creek. Seniors' Report (continued) MRS. FORSYTH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We've heard a lot in the last couple of days about the seniors' report Looking to the Future. While the opposition talks about the shredding, I'd like to talk about the document. That report was the result of extensive public consultation with seniors and seniors' groups right across the province, including seniors in my constituency. This government has said that the major changes we have seen in seniors' programs in the past three years were based on the consultation. Now, it's pretty clear to me that this govern- ment . . . [interjections] THE SPEAKER: Question please, hon. member. MRS. FORSYTH: Mr.

Speaker, I thought I was allowed three sentences. Now, it's pretty clear to me that the government could not make the claim if the results of public consultation were not available somewhere in one form or another. What has been called into question is the . . . [interjections] THE SPEAKER: Hon. member, will you please get to your question. MRS. FORSYTH: My questions are to the Minister of Commu- nity Development. Recent criticism from the opposition suggests that the government suppressed the 164-page report because it showed spending on seniors was declining.

Does this mean spending on seniors in fact did not need to be . . . [interjections] THE SPEAKER: Order please. [interjections] Order. I would like to hear the question, and I'm sure the minister would like to hear it, too. Would the hon. member please ask her question in a succinct manner? MRS. FORSYTH: Does this mean spending on seniors in fact did not need to be cut? MR. MAR: Well, Mr. Speaker, I did have difficulty hearing the question, but maybe I can ask her to repeat it again with a different

preamble. Mr. Speaker, I have taken a look at the document that was tabled in this House yesterday entitled Looking to the Future: A Discussion Paper on an Agenda for Older Albertans. I want to lay to rest this issue that was raised by the hon. member with respect to the levels of spending on seniors' programs. Mr. Speaker, in examining this report, there's a number of different things that are contained within it. Just quoting from the executive

summary here, it says that “it is a well known fact: Alberta faces a rapid increase in the number and pr oportion of older persons in its population.” One can go through many portions of this report and look at page 55, as an example: “Scarce resources need to be re-allocated and targeted.” On page 72 it says, “By the year 2000, expenditures on seniors would increase 30.1%.” By the year 2015 at current levels the amount of money that we spend on seniors would double. Mr. Speaker, one of the graphs that was not included in the final report that has been referred to by many different people is figure 7.

These figures relate to the period from 1984 to 1990. It is true that graph 7 did demonstrate that the per capita spending on seniors did go down a little bit, but figures 8 and 9, if you look at those, show that, for example, in the area of home care, 19 percent was the increase in home care expenditures. If you look at figure 9, it shows that the overall percentage of spending on seniors' programs went up. Mr.

Speaker, it's clearly demonstrated throughout this report, in many pages in this report, that in fact there was a demonstrated need to re-examine seniors' programs, which were considered to be very good but very, very costly. THE SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MRS. FORSYTH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Were the opinions of seniors deleted in the shortened version of the report, as the reports charge that the government did not conduct an open and honest consultation process? MR. MAR: Well, Mr. Speaker, the first thing that I wish to raise in answering this is with respect to the issue of the cost of this report.

Y ou know, the hon. Leader of the Opposition today suggested that somehow this report cost a million dollars, but in examining the books of public accounts from the years 1991-92 and '92-93, the entire budget for the seniors' directorate at that time was in aggregate $1.4 million. So it's very, very incorrect to say that the cost of this report, its preparation, was a million dollars. Was the research a waste, Mr. Speaker? Absolutely not. Y ou

May 15, 1996 Alberta Hansard 1877 know, many of the findings that were contained within the discussion papers and within the text and recommendations in this report formed many of the bases and principles that we used to reform seniors' programs in the province of Alberta. If you look through this document, you'll find that

chapter 4 of this document focused on the consultation process with seniors, and the results and recommendations are contained in the 36-page report. That was the shortened report that was ultimately used and found to be much more readable than this larger report, although there is much in the larger report that was found to be useful for future reference. THE SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MRS. FORSYTH: Thank you. Well, then, did the government waste money on a report that never went anywhere? MR. MAR: Well, Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is clearly not.

Y ou know, this document was one of a number of documents that we used. It did not sit on the shelf, it was not a waste, and it was not destroyed either. We looked at the Bowker consultation that took place in 1993, the extended health benefits consultation that took place in 1995, and other consultations that have taken place both in this department and with the Department of Health. This has been a very, very valuable document as a starting point. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. Long-term Disability Program MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Labour points his finger at provincial employees insinuating that they're abusing the long-term disability plan. What he doesn't mention is that this government's poor management of the long- term disability program has placed the benefits fund in a liability position. That's only two sentences. Can the minister tell the taxpayers: what is the amount of the unfunded liability that they are on the hook for? MR. DA Y: Mr. Speaker, clearly that has nothing to do with the Department of Labour.

I don't have those figures in front of me, but if she wants to send it over, I'll try and find the appropriate avenue to get that answer. MS LEIBOVICI: It's unfortunate that he's the one talking about the government employees abusing the plan and he doesn't even know what's in the plan. Perhaps the Provincial Treasurer can explain – and hopefully he's learnt the lesson given what's happened with the government employees' pension fund. Why does government continue to funnel the investment income from the management long-term disability plan – I'm saying it slowly for you – into the general revenue fund? MR.

DINNING: Mr. Speaker, I will have to get the answer for the hon. member. I don't have the numbers or the information at hand today. MS LEIBOVICI: He doesn't know either. Well, I'm sure that the taxpayers would like to know where the millions of dollars are that this government has collected with regards to the long-term disability program, and now that program is in a liability position. If you'd like to tell the taxpayers, they'd love to hear it. 2:20 MR. DINNING: As I say, Mr. Speaker, I don't have the numbers at hand.

I can assure hon. members and especially those Alber- tans in receipt of funds through the long-term disability fund that those funds are secure, that the payments to those people will continue to be paid. But I can advise hon. members that if we were to take the Liberal way, this government would in fact be bankrupt. We couldn't make those same kinds of assurances. They're promising to spend over a billion and a half dollars that we don't have.

They would prefer that we deficit finance the operations of the government and drive this province deeper and deeper into debt, and that's something that we on this side of the House will not do. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Cypress-Medicine Hat. Public Consultation on Fiscal Policies DR. TA YLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Y esterday the Provin- cial Treasurer tabled the results of Straight Talk, Clear Choices, a survey that asked Albertans' views on what to do with the savings from our reduced debt load.

In my constituency, where we are going door-to-door with our own survey, it is very clear that my constituents want a reduc tion in personal tax. Further, they clearly do not want money put back into programs that feed big government and big bureaucracies. Rather, they take the sensible approach that money is best left in their back pocket where they control their spending. Question 1. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. DR. TA YLOR: Thank you, hon. members. Was there a clear message expressed by Albertans in their responses? MR. DINNING: Well, Mr.

Speaker, indeed, I think we got a very balanced reaction from Albertans when 35 percent of the respondents said: pay down the debt. Another 30 percent, when given the option of pay down the debt, targeted spending, and tax reduction, said to us: we'd like a combination of all three. So I think that the member and his constituents are represented in that group as well as the other 8 percent of Albertans who said specifically that their top priority was reducing taxes. Twenty percent of Albertans said that their top priority would be further spending, especially in the areas of health and education.

So I can say to the hon. member that I think he and his constituents can find their voice in the notion that 30 percent have said a combina- tion of all three, 8 percent saying reducing taxes. Now I think we've got a very balanced view from Albertans. Probably about half said yes, they like the plan that we had put out that called for a good payment on the debt, as well as half going to tax reduction and half going to targeted spending. So as I say, I think there's a balanced view there, and we certainly look forward to the debate that's going to ensue over the days and weeks ahead.

THE SPEAKER: Supplemental question. DR. TA YLOR: Thank you. Does the Provincial Treasurer recognize that by the nature of the response and the sampling techniques in Straight Talk, Clear Choices, he has a selective result?

1878 Alberta Hansard May 15, 1996 MR. DINNING: Mr. Speaker, we've never pretended or sug- gested that Straight Talk, Clear Choices was the definitive, scientific method of finding out what Albertans have said. Y ou know, the hon. member across the way has just told us, going door-to-door as he does regularly in his constituency – he's a very, very good representative that way – listening to what his constituents have to say, that they want a personal tax reduction.

But to suggest that 61,000 Albertans who took the time to respond somehow ought to be discounted, that some 34,000 who actually wrote letters and some 20,000 who took the time to pick up the phone and tell us their point of view – we can't discount their view. That, combined with what hon. members on both sides of the Assembly are hearing from their constituents, gives us, I believe, a very good balanced view about what Albertans want to see by way of reinvestment. DR.

TA YLOR: When will we see implementation of a decision, and will this decision take into account other sources of informa- tion such as the survey of my constituents? MR. DINNING: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the hon. member just again that if he looks at the survey, the only response that had a majority, a majority favourable opinion – all the others were under 50 percent. Over 50 percent of the respondents said that they liked the tax plan. They like a reduction in personal income taxes. They like the employment tax credit. They like the elimination of the surtax, the fl at tax.

So I think, as I say, that the hon. member can take stock and that his constituents, I believe, are well represented in the results. Last night we had an open meeting of the standing policy committee on financial planning, under the leadership of the MLA for Calgary-North Hill, Mr. Magnus. He led us through a meeting. We even had a representative from the Liberal Party. There were members there from the private sector who were there to listen to the debate that ensued. We'll have another meeting again on the 29th of May.

I expect that by that time we'll have found some recommendations that we would then approve and send along to the Premier by June 1. Further decisions will then ensue from there, including Budget '97, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mayfield. Trucking Regulations MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you, Cypress- Medicine Hat.

As part of the government's policy to reduce costs, the department of transportation started a partners in compliance program which requires the members of the trucking industry to monitor their own mechanical safety on their vehicles while specifically restricting department staff from inspecting those vehicles while on the road. As a result of an accident which has sent a small boy to hospital, a trucker is now facing charges of failing to maintain a vehicle. Clearly self-regulation does not work. My questions are to the minister of transportation.

How does the minister know that these trucks under this program in fact are safe? DR. WEST: Mr. Speaker, we do and will continue to monitor these trucks. MR. WHITE: Mr. Speaker, my next question, then, is simply this: how many hurt children does it take for the minister to admit that this self-regulation is simply not working? DR. WEST: Mr. Speaker, the track record of the trucking industry in the province of Alberta and their accident rate and the fitness of their equipment will stack up against any jurisdiction in this country. MR. WHITE: Mr.

Speaker, then how does the minister justify his position versus the position of the Edmonton Police Service, who say that when they inspect vehi cles coming into the city of Edmonton, they find that 75 percent of those fail your tests? DR. WEST: Would the hon. member please submit that informa- tion to my office if he could? Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, of all the accidents that take place on our highways involving trucks, driver error is the majority of the reason why there's a problem, driver error on both factors: those going into the trucks and the trucks themselves.

Mechanical failure is a minimal cause of accidents. This is a very unfortunate accident. We'll continue to monitor the trucking industry, but for the thousands of tonnes that are transmitted on our highways each and every day, again I say that our track record will stack up against any other jurisdiction. THE SPEAKER: The time for question period has expired. The Chair hasn't received any notices of points of order. head: Orders of the Day head: Written Questions MRS. BLACK: Mr.

Speaker, I move that written questions appearing on today's Order Paper stand and retain their places. [Motion carried] head: Motions for Returns MRS. BLACK: Mr. Speaker, I move that motions for returns appearing on today's Order Paper stand and retain their places. [Motion carried] head: Public Bills and Orders Other than head: Government Bills and Orders head: Second Reading Bill 214 Victims of Domestic Violence Act THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands- Beverly. MS HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Domestic violence within families is often a hidden social problem that creates untold damages to the lives of partners and parents and particularly children. Few victims want to talk about it. [interjections] THE SPEAKER: Order. Hon. members, lower the volume of background noise a little bit. Hon. member. 2:30 MS HANSON: Thank you. Adult victims are embarrassed. Children feel powerless, confused, and sometimes guilty. Because of this, perpetrators often continue to make their lives, the lives of their families, miserable for many years, sometimes causing

May 15, 1996 Alberta Hansard 1879 severe injuries and even death in the process. Regretfully domestic violence against partners, whether male or female, and children appears to be on the increase in Canada and I believe in North America. The Alberta Council of Women's Shelters reports a total of 1 1,500 women and children admitted to shelters in Alberta in 1994, and that's an increase of nearly 28 percent since 1992. It takes courage and determination for a parent to flee their home with their children, often only with the clothes they are wearing.

Leaving the home and belongings as a result of domestic violence also means leaving the support of families and friends at this time of crisis. Mr. Speaker, there are two civil remedies available at the present time to victims of domestic violence. The first one is a restraining order, for which the victim can apply to the Court of Queen's Bench as part of a civil action against the abuser. Such action may be by way of petition for divorce or statement of claim for assault and battery, but the duration is only three months, and then the victim must return to court for a further order.

Although the Minister of Justice has removed the $200 filing fee, the cost of the restraining order including legal fees is anywhere between $1,000 and $2,000 b ecause it's usually the case that a victim of domestic violence requires more than just a restraining order. Therefore, under the present system it's necessary to incur filing and legal fees in order to apply to the court for other orders such as possession of the home or maintenance, that sort of thing.

The second remedy currently available is to apply to the Court of Queen's Bench under the Matrimonial Property Act for exclusive possession of the home, but this only protects the spouse from unwanted contact at home. As well, the court is not required to consider the applicant's personal safety or the respondent's past behaviour. A matrimonial property action must be initiated in conjunction with a divorce pe tition, and thus the filing fees alone are $410, I believe. Mr.

Speaker, Bill 214 was developed in recognition that victims of domestic violence are generally in crisis, and they require a system that provides relief, that is simplified and less costly. In the Bill that we are debating today, the safety of the family can be ensured through a protection order which provides immediate protection for the victim. Either the Provincial Court or the Court of Queen's Bench is able to grant a protection order, and this means that both urban and rural victims will be able to apply easily. The protection order under this Bill may include a number of provisions.

It would include restraining the abuser from commu- nicating or contacting the victim or members of the victim's family or from going to where the victim lives or works or goes to school. The order can give the victim exclusive possession of the home so that people are not homeless in a case like this, and it can order the abuser to pay compensation to the victim for monetary losses suffered as a result of abuse, such as lost earnings, medical bills. The order can specify custody and access to children as well as support, and this speeds up the process.

It also gives support to people on a fairly timely basis rather than having to wait, and it eliminates having to go back to court every three months to get a restraining order. Under Bill 214 a protection order can be ordered immediately, but it is not effective until the abuser has had notice. The protection order can remain in place for up to three years, rather than three months, and that's a crucial element of this Bill. Three months is simply not long enough, and it's too costly.

The court may also issue a warrant of entry where there is concern that a person is unable to act on his or her own and is suffering from domestic violence. The warrant authorizes entry into a building to examine the situation and, if necessary, to remove the victim. Mr. Speaker, the law institute in Alberta has pointed out that protection orders need to be, in their words, cheaper, easier to interpret, be enforceable, and they need to be drafted with greater awareness of the real needs.

I understand from conversations with some members of the government that they have questions and concerns regarding certain clauses, and I would certainly be willing to entertain amendments in that regard. I believe that it is time that we as legislators recognize that domestic abuse is increasing and that the existing laws and procedures do not serve victims well. I urge all members on both sides of the House to support Bill 214. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-North Hill. MR. MAGNUS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On occasion a private member's Bill is introduced in this Legislature that warrants careful consideration irrespective of party lines and in fact transcends politics. In my opinion this Bill does that. It's a Bill whose intent I certainly agree with. I believe that several of the recommendations within the Bill are necessary to help address the issues of protection and financial responsibility that arise during a violent domestic dispute.

The court's ability to grant victims of violence exclusive occupation of their residence, monetary relief for the children, and temporary custody of the children to the nonviolent party will go a long way toward protecting the victims of family violence. All too often victims of violence are further victimized by being forced to remain in dangerous situations because they don't wish to leave their children or they're unable to leave because financially they can't remove themselves from the situation.

This Bill will prevent victims of violence from having to leave their home, children, and community, to remain safe from harm. I have some problems with some aspects of the Bill. I've talked to the member who has introduced the Bill – and I commend her again for introducing the Bill – and with the conversation we are having, I'm hoping to see some remedies within the committee stage of this Bill, including increasing the maximum fine and the time of the jail sentence, but I'll get into that a little later, Mr. Speaker. I have some problems with

section 2(1)(k). It's a provision recommending – and it is a recommendation only by a judge – that the respondent, or abuser, r eceive counseling or therapy. Call it a philosophical difference, but frankly I simply don't believe that forced counseling or therapy is effective in any situation. Rather than forcing a perpetrator to seek counseling, I believe the courts can encourage the abuser to seek counseling through an incentive process, and that incentive is fairly dear.

If you've lost access to your children, your s pouse, and your residence, not to mention you're responsible for the funds that will be used for dental care or any other abuse that you've inflicted on the abused person, you'd be willing to consider counseling, I would think, to get your life back on track. If you're not willing to consider that counseling, you should not be allowed to re-enter that situation. I'm sure the process would be more beneficial for all involved if the individual is a willing participant in their own rehabilitation. On another note, Mr. Speaker, the Bill states in

section 5 that

1880 Alberta Hansard May 15, 1996 it's an offence to fail to comply with terms of a protection order. I've mentioned it already. The $1,000 and four months I agree is a princely sum and it's a long time to spend in jail. But, on the other hand, in extreme cases, serious, serious cases, it's not long enough and the fine is not large enough in any way, shape, or form. We're talking about abusers here that go into a family home or their home, I suppose, and are inflicting this kind of violence and abuse on the other parties in the home. It's simply not enough money. This can boil down to death, maiming.

Y ou name it; it can happen within this situation. That isn't a big enough fine considering the fines that we have put into a number of Acts in the last three years since I've been in this Legislature. 2:40 One other concern I have with the Bill relates to the definition of cohabitants.

When we're talking about cohabitants, the definition within “cohabitants” includes “persons 16 years of age or older . . . residing . . . in the same residence as the victim.” Since we already have a Child Welfare Act and a Y oung Offend- ers Act, I don't believe we need to address this age gr oup, and it's not necessary to have this

section in the Act. If a young adult 16 years of age is impacted by domestic violence either as a victim or as the perpetrator, the current legislation is adequate to deal with them. I would again like to commend the hon. Member for Edmonton- Highlands-Beverly for the economic onus that this Bill puts on the perpetrator, the respondent in this case. The Bill has provisions for the perpetrator to be removed – removed – from the residence and requires that they “pay emergency monetary relief to the victim” and their children to support them.

It also requires the respondent to pay “for monetary losses suffered” as a result of “domestic violence, including loss of earnings or support, medical and dental expenses . . . and legal expenses.” Mr. Speaker, this is impressive when you consider that currently much of this is provided within women's shelte rs in this province today. Women's emergency shelters provide victims and their children with places to stay, medical and dental treatment, nonprescription drugs, food, and child care services amongst many other things.

I had a very long conversation, I might add, with the chairman of the Sheriff King Home in Calgary, who just happens to be my oldest friend for about the last 35 years, and it was interesting to hear the number of things that he agreed with within this Bill, which was, frankly, most of it. I would hope that the caseload at women's shelters would decrease with the passing of this Bill. In 1994, 5,267 women and 6,336 children were accommodated in women's shelters in Alberta. Another 2,364 were provided shelter in hotels or motels. We spent $8.1 million; 93 percent of that went towards shelters within this province.

What the hon. member is proposing in her Bill has potential to shift the burden off the taxpayer onto the perpetrator, where it belongs. Alberta's a leader in terms of the work being done to relocate women and children who are at serious risk of being killed by their abusers. Currently protocols are being drafted by the office for the prevention of family violence to be used when this extreme measure is needed. In my opinion a situation should not be allowed to reach that point, and I believe that this Bill has potential to help save those situations. Mr.

Speaker, if I may, I would like to close with a personal comment. As I look around this room today, every single one of us in this room knows somebody, whether we're related to them – it may be a brother; it may be a sister; it may be a wife; it may be a mother; it may be coworkers. Think about it. Every single one of us in this room knows somebody that is abused in this province today. I lost a sister on September 22, 1989. It is something that has affected my family for many, many years.

I won't go on about it, but it was the worst case of abuse that I've ever heard of in my life, and my sister lost her life for it. I hope that every member in this room thinks about their sisters and their mothers and their relatives and their coworkers when they're voting on this Bill. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MR. HENRY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and to the Member for Calgary-North Hill, thank you as well. I don't know any words in this debate that can bring more focus and convince people more that they should support this particular Bill. Mr.

Speaker, I would like to commend the Member for Edmonton-Highlands-Beverly for not only bringing this Bill but doing all the work prior to that and convincing MLAs on both sides of the Legislature that this is an important issue that must get on the agenda. For the public record: although members here understand the process, I'm not sure all members of the public understand that there are sometimes 50 to 100 private members' Bills, and there's an estimate of about 20 Bills that actually get dealt with in a session.

I don't want to say that there's a contest, but there is a process by which caucuses sit down and determine which Bills are a higher priority and should actually get on the agenda and actually get voted on. The Member for Edmonton- Highlands-Beverly in my caucus was instrumental in convincing myself and my colleagues that this had to get on the agenda and had to be dealt with in the legislative session and couldn't simply be put there for the record. I thought back to when we first talked about this Bill, the Member for Edmonton-Highlands-Beverly and I, about a year ago.

When I first decided to run for public office – and we all have a million reasons why we run for public office. We do our own soul-searching. It seemed to me that about five and a half years ago, when I made the decision, I said that if I were to do this with my life for a while, there were two things that I needed to really focus on: one thing was focusing on children growing up in poverty, and the second issue was focusing on domestic violence.

I was convinced at that time and I remain c onvinced that if we do nothing else in our tenure in this Legislature except meaningful things to address those two issues, our time and our contribution would have been worth while here. We talk about the victims of domestic violence, and I think all members will agree that in any situation the children are among the victims. It doesn't matter whether the child is the one who's receiving the physical blows or whether the child is watching the mother or father receiving those blows. In either case, in my view, that is abuse in terms of the child.

We all know there's nothing more we can do than to provide hope for our children, especially those children who seem to have no hope for the future. The Member for Edmonton-Highlands-Beverly has described this Bill and what it will do and what the potentials are, but I wanted to speak to a couple of issues that I've certainly seen as an employer. I've dealt with employees who have lived in abusive relationships and with friends, I daresay, and colleagues. Quite often I think we need to understand that when an individual is in an abusive relationship, that can seem all-entrapping.

It is often that the individual is trapped in that situation. There are two lives for that individual: one when they go home and the other when they go out, to the rest of the world. Not always but often the

May 15, 1996 Alberta Hansard 1881 person who is being abused is sent out to earn the livelihood for the family, so it is crucial for them and their children to retain that livelihood.

What is it about our workpl aces and what is it about the kinds of environments that we all create in our work- places that people who are abused in the sanctity of the home come to those workplaces and often have to try to pretend that nothing is wrong and often try to hide the fact that they are being abused or that their children are being abused from the people that they should be able to trust, their co-workers and their employers?

Working in mental health in this province, I also know and I've seen in my time a positive trend, I believe, in employers address- ing issues of violence in the home in the workplace se tting through employee assistance programs, thr ough employers learning how to intervene when they believe an employee is being abused in their home and learning how to help that employee get the strength and support they need to leave that situation.

Often people who are abused go to work or go to school and their biggest fear is not going back to the home and getting abused again but having the abuser show up at the workplace or show up at the school and essentially blow their cover and make it more ugly and, because of attitudes that we have in our society, potentially put those jobs at risk or put the social security that comes with that job, the relationships, at risk. We also have to know that most of us are uncomfortable dealing with violence. Most of us are uncomfortable dealing with people who are in violent situations.

We have in our head: why doesn't he or she leave? Why do they put up with it? That's the first question that often comes into our head. For most of us we would rather not deal with those unpleasant- ries. We'd rather not engage. Quite often what we do – and we've seen it over and over; I'm sure all members have seen it, and I've seen it in the workplace that I used to be responsible for – is that once the fellow employees find out that someone is being abused, all the social contacts are very quickly cut off. “Oh, we don't want to get messed into that one.

We don't want to interfere.” But there is a trend where we are trying to become more educated and we are trying to make sure that people who are in need of protection get that protection. 2:50 I believe that in terms of legislation in this country and in this province we have not gone nearly far enough. There is absolutely no excuse for violence. There has been a recent trial that all members of the Legislature have watched in the media and whatnot that reflected spousal abuse.

I don't want to comment on the outcome of the trial or as to which party, if either or both, was the victim or the perpetrator, but one thing that does continue to haunt me, Mr. Speaker, is that in all the publicity, in all of the interviews, neither partner who inflicted abuse on the other has ever expressed public remorse for that. That to me is the saddest part. It seems to me that that's the public question that we should be asking in situations like this. We should be saying: “Violence is wrong.

Violence will not be accepted, and the state, the government – provincial, federal, or otherwise – will move in and deal with perpetrators.” We know that violence breeds violence. We know the majority of men who abuse their wives saw their mothers abused or indeed were abused themselves. We know that. This is not news. We know that.

The one thing that we can do to stop violence is to use all forces in the law and all the means available to us to draw a line in the sand and say to perpetrators, “Violence against another person will not be tolerated in our society.” We often get on the ideological right and left sides of issues, and one side in this House calls the other one too hard and the other calls the other one too soft, but I think this is one issue that we can all agree on.

Violence should not be tolerated, and we should come down very, very hard on those and send a very clear message that we have tolerated too long in our province and in our country. I don't particularly fault this government b ecause I believe all 10 provinces and the federal government and the territories could all do more in this regard. I hope that all of us work towards this.

I also wanted to particularly focus on the provision in the Act that would allow authorities to enter into a place when they see that there's potential for abuse or where they suspect or have good reason to believe that there is abuse happening. That will be especially useful not just in terms of children, especially preschool children, but also in terms of elder abuse. We need to focus on that more and more as more of us live longer and become more dependent upon others to care for us.

The fact of the matter is that in North America we're not going to have the same ratio of institutional care that we've had in the past and more of us are going to be in our homes and more of us are going to be more vulnerable. We all know, Mr. Speaker, you and all members will know that the vast majority of individuals looking after their parents or their spouses will take that care very seriously and provide dignity for that person and provide quality, loving care. We've all seen examples. I remember when my grandfather became quite ill and for several years was at home.

A member of the family stayed home with him and cared for him in the home, and he never had to see an institution. Families have done that and continue to do that. But in those small minority of situations where the vulnerable person is taken advantage of, is abused or neglected, we need to have a way to get in there, even if the owner of the home or the primary support person doesn't want you in there, if we've got reason to do that.

Now, one of the things that may come up in this Bill – and it has come up when I've discussed this issue with some individuals – is: “We don't want the state to have all sorts of powers. We don't want the police just running in there. We don't want Joe Blow just banging on the door and saying, `I think you're abusing your kid and I'm coming in; I think you're abusing your mother and I'm coming in to look.'” That's why this particular Bill requires any such order to go to the Provincial Court or the Court of Queen's Bench. Goodness knows, Mr.

Speaker, and as an officer of the court you will know that our court system is not perfect. It is far from perfect, but for those many members of this Legislature including myself that have experience with other judicial systems in other parts of the world, we have the best judicial system in the world, not perfect by a long shot, but it is the best, and there is a check and balance there.

I think we've gone a long way in cleaning up the judicial appointment process in our country, and I feel I have no option but to put my faith in those who are appointed to the bench to weigh the evidence in front of them and make a responsible decision and know when it is that the evidence is there that we should move in and force entry, essentially, or in the other instance move in and move a perpetrator out of their home. This Bill will go a long way to help stabilize families for children.

The standard practice, if I can put it that way, is that when an abused person leaves their home with their children, quite often they leave with nothing except the shirts on their backs. They leave their furn iture, the children's toys, the children's homework back in the situation. If we really believe that in our society children must come first, that we must put our future generation first, then we must make whatever intervention

1882 Alberta Hansard May 15, 1996 has to happen as minimally disruptive for those children as possible. I know the Minister of Family and Social Services, when he's doing child welfare protection, often will say that we have to have the least intrusive means possible. So be it on this. We must make children's lives as stable as possible when we're intervening in an abusive situation.

That's why we need the court to have the power to move in when there is an abusive situation, when the evidence is clear, when a judge has reviewed that evidence and has said, “Y es, there is abuse going on and the perpetrator must be removed.” In that way, the children with that custodial parent can stay in those familiar surroundings and can try to pick up their lives and have less disruption than is the case now.

In addition, I don't know how many times I've sat with a woman who has been beaten or who has been threatened or who has been pushed around, and when she says, “I'm going to leave” or “I'm not going to put up with this anymore,” the response from the abusive spouse is frequently, “Y ou go, but you leave the children behind.” Mr. Speaker, we all know that parents want to stay with their children. We all know that often parents will stay in an abusive relationship, if nothing else, to protect the children from getting abused.

We must be able to give the court the power to award custody immediately, until our judicial system can fully kick in and a court with full evidence and psychological assess- ments, if necessary, and social workers' assessments can deter- mine what's in the best interests of the children. Mr. Speaker, I know that there are other members in this House who want to speak to this Bill. My plea to all members in this Legislature is, as the Member for Calgary-North Hill said: let's put aside our partisan hats. God knows, we spend too much time in this Legislature wearing them, I believe.

Let's put aside our prejudicial hats, in terms of partisanship. Even if we don't like a particular

section of the Bill, let's get this Bill into commit- tee. Then we can do some more work on it if we need to amend sections, clear up some

definitions that people are uncomfortable with. But remember the principle of this Bill. The principle of this Bill in my view is that children and families should not have to put up with an abusive situation, and it is incumbent upon us in the government to ensure that the courts and the police system have the tools to be able to mo ve in on abusive situations and protect those who are being abused. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Cross. MRS. FRITZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm speaking today, as well, in support of Bill 214, that was brought forward by the Member for Edmonton-Highlands-Beverly, which is titled Victims of Domestic Violence Act. Y ou know, although we've been asked to put aside our partisan hats, so to speak, I really don't think it's necessary to do that. I think that we from both sides of the House can agree that victims of domestic violence should be protected, which is exactly what this Bill does. I quite frankly really do commend the member for bringing the Bill forward.

It may appear to be a very simple Bill, but in reality when you read it and when you read it over and over again, which I've tended to do with this Bill, it's really quite powerful. I think it's an excellent initiative. It's actually one of the best I've seen come forward on this whole area of domestic violence since being an alderman as well as an MLA. 3:00 Mr. Speaker, over the past two and a half years the issue of community and family violence I believe has received consider- able debate in this Chamber, whether that's been in our estimates or Bills or motions or whatever.

I really think that we collec- tively as politicians recognize the gravity of the situation of violence against women and children. Bill 214, I believe, is offering a practical solution to an existing situation that hopefully will result in the safety of Albertans who really do find them- selves, as we heard, in the very tragic situation of domestic violence. Bill 214 has included the area of physical violence, and I think it's the first time in legislation that the area of emotional abuse has been included. I know that we all have our own

definitions when we think of what physical and emotional abuse really mean. The definition of physical abuse appears to be straightforward, and I've heard both members mention their

interpretation of physical abuse, and people add to that. They may not, you know, include exactly the same things as they speak of physical abuse. I know that we've often heard that it includes being beaten, kicked, punched, burned, threatened, even shot by a person that you have lived with or are currently living with. Sexual abuse is a form of physical abuse. Sexual abuse I believe is abuse, whether it's being coerced or threatened or forced to engage in unwanted sexual activity.

In fact, tragically, statistics show that one in four women will be sexually assaulted at some time in their lives, and half of those women will be sexually assaulted before the age of 17. I know we've had the Member for Calgary-Fish Creek bring forward an important initiative in the Legislature as well that's resulted in a recent task force being formed to deal with sexual abuse of our young women that are younger than the age of 17. Two in 10 women will be assaulted in an intimate relationship, and at least 50 percent of the children in homes will likely become perpetrators or victims of violence later in life.

I can see that that's why the member has brought forward a protection order which deals with domestic violence. It deals with it directly in the home. It is a very serious problem, Mr. Speaker. Y ou know, Mr. Speaker, I also think it's really commendable that the Member for Edmonton-Highlands-Beverly included the area of emotional abuse. I realize that there's a definition within the Bill, but I really would ask that the member look at expanding that definition.

She may wish to include constant criticism, ridicule, and even, I believe, isolation from the family, friends, and co-workers, which can lead to impaired psychological functioning. Often emotionally abused people, women and children, live in constant fear and suffer very high anxiety. They suffer from helplessness and depression. The whole area of abuse, whether it be physical or emotional, as we've heard, is about domination, power, and control of one human being over another. This Bill asks that we protect people who are victims of violence. As I said, it's simple but it's powerful.

It takes an existing violent situation and offers what I believe to be a very practical and cost-efficient way to deal with that situation. I recognize that some members of the House may be concerned about the public expenditure that's required to implement this Bill, and I'm sure we'll hear that in some debate later on today, especially the public expenditure in the areas of justice and social services.

I truly believe that the majority of victims of domestic abuse are helpless and that at times there is a responsibility of society, and this is one of those areas where society should respond even if that is, as I said, a public expenditure requiring that response of society. So, yes, this Bill will cost money, but I don't think that that cost should be overstated but, rather, that

May 15, 1996 Alberta Hansard 1883 we should have a sensitivity to protecting Albertans who are battered and abused both emotionally and physically. Mr. Speaker, as I read through this Bill, I thought it was almost unfortunate that we can't include the area of economic abuse within the context, because we've heard that discussed as well in the whole area of abuse, physical and emotional. There are other areas, but I wish economic could have been discussed in the context. It's not there, but I believe that if it were, it would show real leadership when it comes to assisting people who are being victimized.

We hear more and more situations, especially of our elderly who are experiencing physical, emotional, and economic abuse without much recourse. In fact, our elderly more than any other group believe in the sanctity and privacy of the family unit and of the home, and they'll not talk about the isolation that they're experiencing because of their economic abuse. Too often, as was said earlier, society tends to look the other way.

I know that as a government we're addressing, I think, that whole area of elder abuse through the 1-800 line, that the Member for Calgary-Currie has often put forward to the Legislature, to caucus, and to members of the public. She has been looking at initiatives, and the 1-800 line does help to address that. Also, there are many gaps that I think exist within our current system, and those gaps allow violence to continue.

I really think that linkages must occur not just between agencies and organizations but also between government departments responsible for justice, social services, health, community development. The linkages must occur between all levels of government, whether they're provincial, federal, or municipal. The protection order as outlined in Bill 214, as was said earlier by the initiator of the Bill, is an immediate step, and it's an immedi- ate step in more ways than one. It's an immediate step that I believe will assist in actually beginning to fill in the gaps that I mentioned earlier. Mr.

Speaker, I'm going to take a moment to address the relationship between violence against women and children and pornography. I believe that it must r eceive further debate than what I'll say with just touching on that today. I still think it's important to highlight. The Alberta courts have recognized that pornography does have an effect on attitudes and behaviours that lowers women's equality rights. Our primary source of pornogra- phy, as we know, is from the United States.

Sadly, the largest consumer of pornography is young males between the ages of 12 and 17 years; 35 percent of those young males expressed a particular interest in watching sexually violent scenes of rape, torture, and bondage. A shift has occurred in our society – and we're all aware of this shift – where homes are empty during the day because both parents are working to make ends meet, and our young people are renting pornographic videos from operators who do not ask for identification because they're interested in the almighty dollar.

They take these pornographic videos home to watch, and many of those videos have not been screened by our censorship board. They're less costly than having that young person go to a movie, but at least the movies and the theatres are screened by the censorship board,

whereas the videos are not. Many teens are not mature enough to have control over their choices. They don't realize that watching these terrible forms of violence really affects their overall attitudes and behaviours and that it can, quite frankly, affect how they deal with their siblings and their parents within the home. That relates back to what's before us, victims of domestic violence. They in essence are victims as well, the boys that are renting the videos. When we look at the area of prevention, simple measures in that regard I believe would be of assistance.

They're victims of violence but in the sense of a societal contribu- tion towards that with what happe ns with the operators of these video stores I think not being responsible. This Bill also, Mr. Speaker, will provide a way to improve the lives of Albertans that are victimized in their homes. 3:10 I've read this Bill, as I said, a number of times, and I do have some concerns. I was pleased to hear the Member for Edmonton- Highlands-Beverly say that she would listen to the concerns today and then hopefully she would res pond to those in debate or as amendments could be put forward in second reading.

I want to say that my concerns, although they are important, are relatively minor. To begin with, it was mentioned by the Member for Calgary-North Hill, but it would seem to me that

section 1(b)(

i) is in conflict with

section 1(b)(iii). The way the subsections are worded indicates to me that children living in the house who are older than 16 years of age are not considered a part of the family, when really

section 1(b)(

i) is all-inclusive, where “cohabitants” is identified as “residing together in a family relationship.” If you look at 1(b)(iii), it says: Persons 16 years of age or older who are children of the victim and who are currently residing, or who normally reside, in the same residence as the victim. That's relatively one and the same, but I know that sometimes when people write things in Bills, they do that to actually strengthen the Bill. Perhaps that is what you were l ooking for. I don't know, which is why I would ask you to please address that.

Also, when you go to the next page, page 2 – when I was reading about “forced confinement,” I was really looking at what forced confinement is. As I said, we often symbolically have our thoughts when we read things, and I would l ook for a specific definition in legislation. For example, I wondered if forced confinement would include a child or teenager who's confined to their room as a form of punishment and what that could lead to. If you would look at that as well, please. Also, I had a concern with the definition of a “specified place,” which was listed in 2(1)(c), and that was on page 3.

I wondered how you would list that, if you would actually have that listed in the protection order, and how you would go about specifying that there, if it would be possible for multiple locations to be looked at, and how regular attendance at that specified place will be determined. For example, I think of the woman who goes to the hairdresser, whenever, once a month, or goes to a certain gymnasium or takes their pets to veterinarians or whatever, how you would list that area in the protection order. Also, in reading over the Bill, I have a concern, as I said, that the

definitions aren't broad enough. I haven't gone right through and highlighted every one of those though, because I know that in hearing the debate today, you will go ahead and look at that. The Member for Edmonton-Highlands-Beverly had indicated she would look at some amendments hopefully in second reading. Mr. Speaker, I also think the sponsor of the Bill has made the scope of it wide enough to not include just women who have been abused but also to include men and children, siblings, seniors. It's all-inclusive, and we mustn't lose sight of that. I am able to support the intent and the direction of the Bill, but at the same time, I do have apprehension concerning the limited scope of the

definitions which I listed earlier.

1884 Alberta Hansard May 15, 1996 Aside from those concerns, Mr. Speaker, I feel strongly about this Bill. It is a good pi ece of legislation. Quite often in this House legislation comes forward to us, and many of us don't take the time to actually read through it and think about it b ecause we're all very busy and we have so much legislation that does come forward. I have read this legislation. I've read it a number of times, and I strongly support it, and I would also ask that my colleagues support it as well. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. MR. SEKULIC: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I join in debate today on Bill 214, Victims of Domestic Violence Act, and I rise today because I'm so encouraged to hear the comments from my colleagues on both sides of the Assembly. In fact, I don't think there was a single word that I would disagree with that the Member for Calgary-Cross presented in her points in debate. I have the same questions in terms of the development of the Bill. However, I know that we can address many of those issues as we progress on and at the principle stage.

I know that we all share a concern for the well-being of Albertans, particularly when the concern regarding their well-being is focused on violence that they may face, be it in their homes or in their workplaces. My experience with this – and today we've heard in debate some of the members relating personal experiences – that I have to relate is as recent as last week when I had a constituent call my office with a concern. It was about domestic violence. It was three children in the custody of a parent who had a history of abuse, sexual abuse, in fact had a conviction.

Nonetheless, there must have been an error in the system. Somehow there was a glitch. These children fell through the crack and were pl aced back in the custody of the abusive parent. It appears that the abuse had resurfaced, and there was a need to remove these children from danger.

I have to say that it's not that often that I do come forward and commend the government for some of their positive actions, but that morning when I received that call – it was just before question period – I committed to the constituent that I would do everything in my power to ensure that these children would be safe by that evening. I came into this Assem- bly and during question period I wrote a three-page letter to the hon. Minister of Family and Social Services, and in fact I copied one to the Minister of Justice.

I have to commend the Minister of Family and Social Services, because as a result of his actions and as a result of the work of his staff, those children are safe. So, Mr. Speaker, there are times when . . . AN HON. MEMBER: He's a good guy. MR. SEKULIC: I'm not discounting that at all. He did his job, hon. member, and I commend him for it. I have to say that what the minister does require – because I do believe he is well intentioned – are the tools to continue to intervene only when required to protect the safety of individuals from violence.

I know there are examples that many of us will share where there are successes and where there are tragedies, but what we are speaking about here is the development of an additional tool for the government, be it this minister or any other, to utilize to ensure safety. One of the arguments that may be raised against this Bill, as my colleague for Calgary-Cross has put forward, is the monetary issue. At some point, Mr.

Speaker, when it comes to our own homes and one of our family members is under threat, be it for health concerns or any other type of physical or emotional threat, we will extend as far as we can to ensure that they are safe and well. I think we as a government, as a collective conscience of those we represent, have the same onus here: obviously to ensure the safety and the primary focus while implementing such principles, to do it at the least cost and in the most effective and most efficient manner.

I certainly would hope that those who would argue against cost would suggest likewise with other core programming. We know it must be delivered. That's not the question anymore. The question is how we deliver it. We can get beyond that if we get the principle passed into committee, and we can assess the Bill at that stage.

When I was in university, one of the courses that I took, expecting that some day I would age, was a gerontology course, and I learned something that up to that point, I have to quite frankly admit to you, I didn't realize was as large of a concern as was statistically shown to me to be the case, and that was the abuse of elders. In every different, I guess, environment, be it in centres where they're cared for or even by their own families in their own residences, the type of abuse that they were subjected to wasn't merely physical, although that appeared to be the largest type of abuse.

There was also monetary, Mr. Speaker. I saw some evidence of this when I worked at the Alberta Hospital Edmonton many, many years ago as a high school student, but it just had never sunk in that this was as prevalent as it was in society. So when we as those elected to represent our constituents come forward with ideas, I would think that we would have an honest exchange of information across the floor. 3:20 We take a look at another group in society which is affected many times because they are more vulnerable by circumstance, and that would be the disabled.

All too often statistics aren't put forward in the media because it may not be an issue that is the hot button or the trigger that would sell newspapers. Nonetheless it's there; it's prevalent. I think once again as elected officials we have a responsibility to voice even for those that don't have the strength of other segments of society.

The broadest category, of course, is that in any one of our constituents' homes you have i ndividuals who are faced with violence, and although it's not every household – I'm not trying to impress upon the Legislature that that's the case – there are many vulnerable people, and we do owe them some degree of, I guess, representation greater than that which we would afford them in the financial areas. MR. DUNFORD: Peter, don't hurt my bear. Don't hurt my bear. MR. SEKULIC: I hear some comments coming from across the way, Mr. Speaker. I'd respond to them if only I could hear them. Huggy Bear has to speak up.

It's interesting that there's such a socialistic name to such a right-wing member. They call him Huggy Bear. Mr. Speaker, in closing my comments today, I want to remind members that we are debating purely the principle of the Bill. I can see some difficulties in terms of now carrying it to the implementation stage, but those are the areas that I think as a collective – that term scared some people in here – we can address at Committee of the Whole. So I would encourage all of my colleagues to take a look at this Bill purely in terms of the principle which it is attempting to achieve. I think that if they

May 15, 1996 Alberta Hansard 1885 look at it purely from that point of view, they too will support this Bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Bow. MRS. LAING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, would like to congratulate the Member for Edmonton-Highlands-Beverly for bringing Bill 214 into the House for debate. I'm very pleased to say that Bill 214 is a Bill which I am able to support in second reading. I do have a few concerns with Bill 214, but most of them are minor and I think perhaps can be corrected with amendments when we get to the Committee of the Whole. The first involves

section 9 of the Bill, relating to the warrant permitting entry. Under

section 9 a warrant is issued by a court which authorizes the person named in the warrant to (

a) enter, search and examine the place named in the warrant and . . . (

c) seize and remove anything that may provide evidence that the cohabitant is a victim. The “person may [also] remove the cohabitant from the pre- mises.” What is unclear to me is whether a court order is needed for entry. Something that I would like to see included in the Bill is a definition of who can be named on the warrant mentioned in

section 9. Should it be a police officer, a social worker, a crisis team, or can it be the neighbour next door? The provision allowing the person to remove evidence from a potential crime scene would lead me to believe that it is implied that it would be a police officer. However, I would like to see this clarified in the Bill. The Bill also ensures that the vic tim is able to stay in their residence and the abuser is forced to leave. I think this is an excellent idea.

Although we have some excellent shelters and programs in place, to run from your own home to find safety in a strange place can certainly be very stressful. Making legislation so the abuser has to leave would certainly reduce the stress that the victim feels and be especially, I think, good for the children. I'm concerned about how we can ensure that the victim can stay in the residence. How can we protect them from further aggrava- tion from the abuser? A protection order is not a wall, and there's nothing physically preventing the abuser from returning.

A lot can happen in the five or 10 minutes that it takes the police to arrive at a residence after an emergency call has been made. Perhaps a provision calling for an upgrade of the victim's residential security could be included in the Bill, and this could be something as simple as the changing of the locks. If a person has already suffered because of the actions of another, it would be cruel to bring them into unnecessary contact with one another again to prolong the suffering.

It may take some creativity and perhaps a change in procedures, but there must be a way to prevent the victim from having to come into contact with the abuser. Our justice system by nature tends to be more reactive than proactive, and we don't set out a law for everything simply because there's no way that legislators like ourselves can possibly anticipate all the bad things that people can do to each other. They certainly are in the minority, so we'd be punishing the majority for the sake of the minority. Instead, decisions made by judges are based largely upon precedent. Mr.

Speaker, in most cases the victim suffers from the effects of the abuse committed against them for much longer than the criminal is penalized. Is that fair, or is that just? The way I see it, we can remedy this situation by simply imposing much longer sentences or by reducing the effect of the abuse on the victim. In the case of assaults, the body requ ires time to physically heal. This is time lost from work and normal routine. It may be costly as they have to hire child care workers. The victim suffers in a case emotionally and also economically.

Emotional injuries may never heal and maim victims for the rest of their lives. Death, of course, is permanent. While the victim can be reimbursed for time lost from work, there are many other things which are irreplaceable and which may be impossible to attach a price to. It would be preposterous to think that any amount of money could ever bring back the life of a loved one or ease the emotional trauma which has been inflicted upon the victim and his or her family. Many children are raised without a parent because of abuse, and they also have the tragedy of the court cases and the consequences that follow.

So they are a victim in two ways: they are damaged by the abuse, and then they also lose their parent. As well, Mr. Speaker, it's rare that the victim alone is affected by the abuse. Friends and other family members often feel the pain and suffering inflicted upon them by domestic violence. As legislators we should ensure that the victims and their families receive the counseling and support necessary to help them recover their lives and their futures. Mr. Speaker, fear is an epidemic among victims of violence. It denies victims sleep, causes them to change their habits and routines.

It sometimes prevents them from continuing a normal life. They do not feel safe, and they live with the fear of being victimized again. I brought a similar Bill to the House last fall, and the ideas behind my Bill 214 are similar to Bill 33. It asked for victims of crime to be treated fairly, with dignity and respect throughout every stage of their involvement with the justice system. Since this time, we've seen some very encouraging recognition of the need to ensure that victims are properly treated and cared for in their dealings with our justice system.

The first principle of that Bill and the context from which everything else in the Bill is to be interpreted is that “victims should be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect for their . . . dignity and privacy.” This means that those working with victims in the criminal justice system should remember that they're dealing with real people who may have gone through some very traumatic times and may still be suffering because of a crime committed against them. It's essential that we're aware of that and sensitive to this fact, and we see this principle again repeated in this new Bill 214.

Another important aspect of the Bill is communication of information. There are already many services available to victims of crime and violence, but they are of no help if the victim is not made aware of them. Victims must have access to and be advised of programs available to them, such as social services, health care and medical treatment, counseling, and legal assistance. We do have some excellent initiatives currently in place, and among these are the police-based victim assistance units that have been set up across the province.

These volunteer groups are trained by the police and provide victims of crime with informa- tion, assistance, and support during investigation and court proceedings. This is very valuable help, and it should be available to anyone in the province no matter where they live. There are currently 49 police-based victim assistance units in existence to provide services in a number of different areas of our

1886 Alberta Hansard May 15, 1996 province, and these programs provide victims of crime with information, assistance, and support during investigation and court proceedings. Most police-based units have received f unding through the victims' programs assistance fund. Depending upon the seriousness of the abuse, victims are encouraged to provide the court with an impact statement. This can give the judge insight into th e suffering that the victim has had to contend with. 3:30 On April 18 the Department of Justice announced its strategy to deal with serious and violent crime.

This strategy was developed in connection with the RCMP and the Alberta Association of Chiefs of Police. Many of the initiatives dealt with violent crimes perpetrated against Alberta citizens in general, but several of these initiatives will benefit the women who are victims of abuse. These initiatives include maximizing the time in custody served by serious and violent offenders; emphasizing crime prevention, family violence, and victims' services; and providing guidelines for the Crown in seeking conditional sentences, as they are included in pending amendments to our Criminal Code.

In order for violence against women to end, abusers must be held accountable for their violent actions and the justice system must respond to violence against women as a serious crime. Intervention programs are available for assaultive men and sex offenders, and many of these have been very helpful and very beneficial. In October of 1990 family violence policing initiatives were introduced by the government to address the crime of spousal abuse. Because it represents over 92 percent of s pousal abuse cases handled in the criminal justice system, the initial focus was on wife abuse.

The initiatives looked at five key areas: enforce- ment, police training, victim support, public awareness, and research. Since that time, initiatives have also been expanded to include the entire criminal justice system including policing, prosecution, and correctional services. Counseling services for victims of domestic violence and for perpetrators of this type of violence have come under Alberta Health since 1991.

There is at least one counseling program in each of the regional health authorities, and these c ounseling programs are funded through Alberta Health via the Provincial Mental Health Board funded agency grants. There are some very good-news stories on the domestic violence front, and there is an increased emphasis on prevention and education, which was the focus of the Alberta Advisory Council on Women's Issues entitled Desperately Seeking Cer- tainty. This was released in the past fall. I agree with this direction. Prevention should definitely be the focus.

Prevention should be placed wherever possible in education and in treatment programs. However, in the meantime, Bill 214 gives victims in abusive homes a tool with which to escape from their situation and regain control of their lives. No one deserves to be victimized. Family and Social Services believes in this also.

The program philosophy of women's shelters states that all individuals have the right to security and protection under the law; they have the right to live free of assault, abuse, and violence, and no individual should have to remain in a violent or abusive situation because there are no alternatives; all individuals have the right to make their own life decisions. Apparently the Member for Edmonton-Highlands- Beverly believes in this as well, and I congratulate her for that. I will be supporting the hon. member's Bill in second reading.

I feel that the intent and the direction of the Bill is one that will contribute to making fearful lives of many Albertans manageable again. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: Further? The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. MRS. BURGENER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I didn't realize that there weren't going to be other speakers in support of the Bill from the House. Mr. Speaker, I too would like to rise today to speak in favour of this Bill, and I'd like to open my remarks with some commen- tary from the Calgary women's shelter.

I was invited last week to attend a fund-raiser on their behalf, and it was quite an interesting demonstration of both moral and financial support within the community of Calgary. In 1974 the shelter opened its doors in response to a growing awareness in our community. Women needed a safe place to escape from the violence occurring in their lives and the lives of their children. Mr. Speaker, what began as a crisis service for women has grown to an organization that has served over 60,000 women and children since its inception.

Today this shelter provides not only a safe environment but helps women and their families begin the process of re-establishing their lives, lives free from violence and abuse. The shelter provides a 24-hour crisis service, counseling by experienced professionals, and linkages back to the community. The outreach program s upports women in transition and their children after a shelter stay. As well, the shelter offers a men's crisis service to counsel men while their partners are in the shelter and to promote safety for their families.

The intent is to provide accessible, effective intervention in a continuing effort to end domestic violence. Mr. Speaker, the nonabusive futures program provides group counseling services in schools and agencies to help adolescents change their attitudes towards the acceptability of violence and to relate in new ways that promote healthy relationships.

I highlight this particular commentary not to the exclusion of many of the other successful programs that exist all across this province to address this issue but simply to identify the fact that the community has firmly embraced its res ponsibility to assist victims of domestic violence, and Mr. Speaker, it is our legisla- tive responsibility to do likewise. As I said initially, I'm pleased to offer my support, and I congratulate the Member for Edmonton-Highlands-Beverly for this initiative. I would like to just make a brief personal observation on behalf of all of my colleagues.

I'm not so certain that those in the real world outside the Legislative Assembly have an understanding of some of the issues that cross the desks of the MLAs on a daily basis, and perhaps one the most riveting and one that we feel most hopeless about is the issue of domestic violence. When those calls come through, we are grateful for opportunities to assist them, whether it's from a local commun ity service, a shelter, a food bank, or the various ministries of social services or Justice. Mr.

Speaker, I say that because I think there's a demonstrated understanding in the room this after noon that we do have a knowledgeable awareness of this issue and do not treat it frivo- lously, and I'd like to share that on behalf of my colleagues, because on occasion MLAs aren't rec ognized for some of the social knowledge base that they have. Also on a personal level, I have a very deep concern that we have misused and lost the ability to talk about the word “inno- cence,” and innocence is a very precious treasure of our youth. Mr. Speaker, we're often very quick to criticize our young people

May 15, 1996 Alberta Hansard 1887 when they behave in unacceptable social fashions or when they don't perform in school, but when they have lost their innocence and when they have lost their ability to be youthful because of such serious situations like domestic violence, then we have to show them our support. This particular initiative does single out our need to be responsible in this fashion. Family violence is any behaviour by one family member against another which may endanger that person's survival, security, or well-being, and this may include emotional or psychological abuse.

It could also include economic abuse and physical abuse or neglect. Mr. Speaker, what forms of family abuse have in common is that they represent an abusive power and a violation of a position of trust. Again speaking of our young people, to me one of the most significant elements of the validity of this Bill is that domestic violence does abuse those positions of trust. Bill 214 provides victims of domestic violence with a way to obtain protection with a court order against cohabitants. I think it's clear that this particular initiative is taking those victims and putting them in a protective environment.

Such violence has significant impacts on our society. I've mentioned our young children, Mr. Speaker, but their age and domestic violence are inseparable. This can occur right through to their college days. We have to look at the impact of that violence not just on the children and their own social development but as accelerators on the impacts to the success of our education system, the need to use our health care system. We have a growing concern about the mental health of our commun ities.

Domestic violence speaks at the heart of each one of these issues, because it destroys the ability for members of our families to actually utilize those services in a more productive way. We are all very cognizant of the issues with young offenders, and we're all very concerned about initiatives like gun control legislation. Mr. Speaker, violence is not something that just happens. It has to be observed; it has to be taught; it has to be learned. We have to look at the core of that which occurs in these domestic situations.

We do have an outpouring of support in all aspects of reform in this area, and therefore I would like to just speak a little bit about some of the initiatives that have been mentioned earlier today, not just only on the pros titution issue but on issues like pornography and violence and gun control. We're looking at racial issues where violence is manifested in societal ways, and sometimes that is also learned in the home. We know certainly there are mentoring programs with respect to drug abuse and alcohol abuse, and these, Mr. Speaker, are very strong educative programs which assist us.

So I'm wanting to share the responsi- bility for this issue not just w ithin the Legislative Assembly but also with the community at large, and quite frankly the commu- nity has been a leader on this side of it. 3:40 It's been mentioned a little earlier the issue of elder abuse, and certainly that has been one that has surfaced. Some of the information on elder abuse is quite surprising. Elder abuse is the maltreatment of an elderly person by a family member or a close associate.

It may include the in fliction of physical injury, but it also includes restraint, financial exploitation, threats, ridicule, insult or humiliation, forced isolation, or forced change in living arrangements. It may also include neglect or failure to care for the individual, whether it's intentional or not. Mr. Speaker, I do have to compliment some of the initiatives through community development.

I know the 1-800 line has been spoken to a little earlier, but as recently as the opening of this spring Legislature, in the Speech from the Throne and also in the budget discussions and the Premier's address on television in January the issue of elder abuse and the need to find ways to address that in a more public way have been supported by this government. So I compliment the minister for his support in that area. In one study that was done with respect to elder abuse, 4 percent of seniors reported they receive some form of maltreat- ment by a family member.

Material abuse was the most preva- lent, followed by chronic verbal aggression, physical violence, and neglect. Unresolved family conflicts or abusive family interaction patterns are often at the root of elder abuse. The common view of older people as feeble, forgetful, and dependent weakens inhibitions against abusing them. Stress is often listed as a particular contributing factor to abuse, especially in those families caring for a dependent elderly person. The Kerby Centre has a social services department, and it documents cases of elder abuse. They recently went through a major review called Synergy II.

That Synergy program featured that some of the more significant elements of domestic abuse occurred between children and their parents, and Mr. Speaker, this was not something that was anticipated when they looked at their original process.

I would like to just highlight at this time that some of the work that's going on now with the co -ordination of children services through the Minister of Family and Social Services is an initial process to perhaps break that circle of violence and abuse so that where we do have children in home situations that are not productive, we do include the family in the fabric of that solution and hopefully build relationships that will not lead to continuing abuse as our children age and grow into more appropriate adult relationships. As a society we need to start to take preventative action.

We need to reduce the possibility that abusive behaviour is even an option among families. By working together in our communities, I'm certain we can reduce family violence. We do have some concerns about victims' rights in the fact that not all victims of domestic violence, publicly or even privately, will acknowledge the situation. Reporting violent crimes is never an easy thing to do, and often feelings of guilt and shame get in the way. Statistics show that in about 35 percent of all domestic violence, the police are asked to drop the charges. They don't show up at court or refuse to testify or lay charges.

Women are often afraid of reprisals. They're afraid for their children, and they're afraid of economic repercussions. Mr. Speaker, we can't take that situation lightly eith er. If we're going to break this cycle, we have to support the court process that allows women or men or children who are involved in these domestic situations to be supported. In the 1993 report Portrait of Families in Canada, Statistics Canada reported that 43 percent of adult female victims of violence known to the police were victimized by a marital partner. This, Mr. Speaker, is compared to only 3 percent of adult male victims.

I don't say that to minimize the abundance of domestic disputes and violence against males, but it is a factual and supported statistic that we can't ignore. One Canadian survey estimates that 15 such assaults occur for every 1,000 women age 15 and over, and this number escalates to 38 assaults for every 1,000 women who are separated or divorced from their spouse. Here in Alberta women are victims of violence by their partners at an alarming rate. In fact, our province has the second highest percentage of women who have

1888 Alberta Hansard May 15, 1996 experienced violence since the age of 16, next to our neighbour British Columbia with 59 percent. Mr. Speaker, it doesn't matter which province. It is a shocking statistic. I would like to touch briefly on the effects on our mental health process with respect to this particular issue. While the Bill speaks to an appropriate use of the domestic restraint, et cetera, through its legislation, in fact we do have other supporting elements that must be recognized.

In an action committee against violence progress report from the mayor's task force a question was referred to our Mental Health Board, whether or not this initiative was one of their mandates. Y es, it is. Because emotional well- being is an aspect of mental health. I'd like to just mention, Mr. Speaker, that Alberta Mental Health was looking at the issue of how they could s upport diminishing this situation.

It was recommended that they encour- age it as a pilot project to trai n therapists to work with male survivors of childhood sexual abuse in order that programs for this sector of our population could be commenced and built upon at the earliest possible date. That was the recommendation. The Calgary Women's Emergency Shelter was given $80,000 for promoting healthy, nonviolent relationship programs, to imple- ment and evaluate a program for 15- to 18-year-old males and females who are at risk of perpetuating violence or abuse in their relationship, and this program operates in schools and agencies.

I think it is important to draw in all the segments of our commu- nity that deal with that. Also in the recommendations was the mandate of Mental Health as it applies to the emotional well-being of the clients of Mental Health. I just bring that information on behalf of that particular initiative. This Bill speaks very carefully to the fact that domestic violence is not a gender-specific issue. It's about abuse that is exploiting positions of trust, and those trusts and those relationships vary across the gender and the age within our families.

The ramifica- tions to our social fabric in not recognizing the potential of abuse to our young males as they mature in society cannot be trivialized. We are certain and we are knowledgeable that a healthy hetero- sexual relationship, wherein males and females interact – that particular situation demonstrates to our young people roles and norms and mores for their own behaviour. We cannot diminish that particular family significance. So, Mr. Speaker, if we don't include opportunities to support men in the issue of domestic violence, we would be remiss.

I believe it's at the Sheriff King Home where they have some of their counseling now for domestic violence. The abused women of course have some segregated shelter, but the abusers, the male partners, are now invited to come on-site and share in the counseling process. Again, this builds on the issue that we have to deal with this situation holistically. I've spoken briefly about the sensitivity within our court system and within Justice and social serv ices to this very, very difficult issue. We have some very significant concerns with respect to policing, and some of those have been spoken to.

I know that answering a 91 1 call for domestic violence is beyond – how can I say it? Normal policing policies are not anticipated because we're not dealing with hard-core criminals. We're often dealing with highly charged, emotional, violent situations that quite often are affected by alcohol and drug abuse. Mr.

Speaker, I would also like to recognize, then, the role of AADAC in this particular initiative, because if we don't educate ourselves and our families on the appropriate use of alcohol and the devastating effect of drugs, et cetera, and other substances, this leads to abusive behaviour, but it also leads to the potential for date rape and things like that which can diminish self-esteem and then become the foundations of violence and sexual abuse in a relationship.

We have to have the opportunity to rec ognize within our society that educati on on some of the initiatives that can condemn us to further abuse has to be addressed. 3:50 My colleague from Calgary-Cross spoke about pornography. Mr. Speaker, we cannot and should not ever hide from the enormous social impact that pornography has had with respect to our families and, as a consequence of that, to violence and violent behaviour. It goes beyond videos. It has a lot to do with what we see demonstrated on our televisions and in our film world, in our art, and in our literature.

It behooves all of us in dealing with domestic violence to recognize parental responsibility in screening that kind of material, and I put that out again to reinforce the fact that this is a social initiative that needs responsibilities from all members of society. Unfortunately, the outcomes of domestic violence don't change as easily as we can change the laws. Men and women and children do get hurt. Some even die because