Alberta Hansard — 22 March 1983, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 20, Session 1)

19830322

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

March 22, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 203 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Tuesday, March 22, 1983 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 9 Consumer and Corporate Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 1983 MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to intro duce a Bill, being the Consumer and Corporate Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 1983. The purpose of this Bill is to make amendments to a number of Acts administered by the department.

Last year the Registrar of Corporations' periodical was estab lished to accompany the Alberta Gazette with informa tion relating to the corporate registration process. Other statutes presently bearing a requirement for publication in the Gazette will be amended to allow the alternative of publication in that periodical. Additionally, Mr.

Speaker, amendments will be made to the Credit Union Act, to permit credit unions ex panded services to their members; to the Insurance Act and the Trust Companies Act, to expand the scope of their investments; and to the Condominium Property Act, to allow condominium corporations to be exempted from the application of the Business Corporations Act since they are already incorporated under the Condomin- ium Property Act. [Leave granted; Bill 9 read a first time] Bill 217

An Act to Amend the Ombudsman Act MR. LEE: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill 217,

An Act to Amend the Ombudsman Act. This amendment would provide the impartial investiga tive and advocacy services of the provincial Ombudsman to the citizens of any municipality where council has passed a resolution authorizing the same jurisdiction within its administration. [Leave granted; Bill 217 read a first time] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. M. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to file with the Assembly answers to motions for returns 131, 132, and 133, which were asked for during the Fourth Session of the 19th Legislature. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I wish to table with the Assembly copies of the annual report of Alberta Treasury for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1982. MR. DIACHUK: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the 64th annual report of the Workers' Compensation Board of the province of Alberta for the year ended December 31, 1981, as required by statute. The report was distributed to Members of the Legislative Assembly by memo on Sep tember 9, 1982. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MRS. LeMESSURIER: Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to introduce to you, and through you to members of this Assembly, 35 students from the second language class of McDougall junior high school, situated in the constitu ency of Edmonton Centre. They are accompanied by their leader Mrs. Maldonado, their teacher Mrs. Ritchie, and by Mr. and Mrs. Parra. They are seated in the members gallery, and I ask that they rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. MR. STEVENS: Mr.

Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce to you, and through you to members of the Assembly, a grade 9 class of 50 students from Manachaban junior high school in the town of Cochrane, the capital commu nity of the eastern half of Banff-Cochrane. They are accompanied by their teachers and leaders Mike Taylor, Dick Broatch, John Holstein, and Ginger Hisey. Their bus driver, Eric Reid, may or may not be in the gallery. Would they please rise and enjoy the welcome of the Assembly. MR. PAHL: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to introduce to you, and through you to members of the Assembly, 55 members of the grades 5 and 6 class from Sakaw elemen tary school. Under the supervision of Paul Ammann and Carolyn Myler, they are seated in the public gallery. For the information of members, Sakaw is Cree for "wooded area". Of course, like most new subdivisions, it's no longer wooded. But we have hopes that it will be again soon. I ask the class and their teachers to rise in the gallery and receive the traditional welcome of the Assembly. MR. FISCHER: Mr.

Speaker, it is my pleasure to intro duce to you, and through you to the members, Mr. Charlie Stewart, the former member, friend, and col league from the Wainwright constituency. Mr. Stewart has just returned from a big holiday in California, and he's sitting in the members gallery. When he rises, I would like everybody to give him a hand and welcome him. DR. BUCK: How was the fishing, Charlie? head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Hazardous Waste Disposal MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this ques tion to the hon. Minister of the Environment. On January 19, 1983, the minister issued a press release.

I'll very quickly summarize it: Analysis of samples collected at and around the Kinetic Ecological Resources PCB storage site at Nisku show that the site is secure and presents no danger to the public. Mr. Speaker, is the minister in a position to advise the

204 ALBERTA HANSARD March 22, 1983 House whether the sample results from the Vegreville environmental centre, on which the assertion contained in the January 19 release was apparently based, have been determined by subsequent samples to be inaccurate? MR. BRADLEY: With regard to the nature of the hon. member's question, is he questioning the validity of the samples? MR. NOTLEY: I would think that would come through, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps I can put it a little more clearly to the minister.

Were there subsequent tests conducted by the Department of the Environment on samples collected at the Kinetic site at Nisku? And did the testing on these samples indicate that the information on which this re lease was based was in fact inaccurate? MR. BRADLEY: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. MR. NOTLEY: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister in a position to advise the Assembly the reason for the government contacting a firm called Enviro-Test, to analyse a second set of sam ples taken from around the Kinetic site at Nisku? MR. BRADLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I have to take that ques tion under advisement. I am not aware of the second set of samples. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question. Will the minister give an undertaking to the House to table the results of all sample tests, either direct ly at the Vegreville experimental lab or farmed out to private consultants, on this particular issue? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, I will give an undertak ing to the House to provide the information with regard to all samples which were ordered by my department. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

Is the minister in a position to confirm that subsequent to this release on January 19, in which the department indicates that there is no particular problem or difficulty, there were at least two orders to clean up the site — after the release of this document which suggested that no leakage had occurred? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of any orders to clean up the site. I am aware that a voluntary clean-up took place. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Is the minister in a position to explain to the Assembly the reasons for the storage of the contaminated soil?

On the two particular occasions that clean-up occurred — after the department indicated there was no problem — why was this not stored in the warehouse but simply in the open, behind the warehouse? MR. BRADLEY: The hon. member is getting into some detail. I do not have any knowledge of this. I will check into it, and I will respond. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

Is the minister in a position to advise the Assembly what discussions the Department of the Environment has had with the Kinetic people concerning the financial viability of the company; whether we should continue to bring in hazardous things to be stored, in view of the financial difficulties of that particular concern; whether in fact we are not borrowing problems because of the financial shakiness of the company? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, I don't believe it would be proper for me to comment on the financial aspects of a company at this point in time. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question. I am rather amazed.

There was a fair amount of publicity given . . . SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's amazement may be amazing to himself, but it isn't part of the question. MR. MARTIN: Let me ask the minister if he is saying clearly that he's not aware of any further tests besides the Vegreville one, he's not aware of any clean-up of areas, and he is not aware that these clean-ups are being stored? Is this absolutely clear from the minister? MR. BRADLEY: I believe I answered that question. I was aware of a voluntary clean-up. MR. MARTIN: What are you aware of? MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question. MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps we could go on to the next topic. Pincher Creek Gas Plant MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, we will go on to the next topic. I would like to direct this question to the hon. Minister of the Environment as well. It flows from the meeting last night in Pincher Creek. Is the minister in a position to assure the Assembly — and I direct this not only to the Minister of the Environment but also to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources — that there was no contact between the ERCB and the government of Alberta with respect to this preliminary inquiry?

The commissioning of same apparently took place on Thurs day night, for tabling in the House yesterday. On Thurs day or Friday last week, was there any consultation, any suggestion or instruction that it occur, or any discussion about it occurring, between the government of Alberta and the ERCB? MR. BRADLEY: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

Is the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources in a position to assure the Assembly that the decision of the ERCB to conduct this preliminary analysis — very quick ly and very preliminary — was done totally by the voli tion of the ERCB and that there was no contact either between the minister's office, the Premier's office, the Minister of the Environment's office, or any other office of this government? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, I can only speak with respect to my own portfolio responsibilities.

I can advise the House that to my knowledge, there was no initiation of any particular study on the part of my department, and certainly not by myself.

March 22, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 205 MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Energy and Natural Resources.

In view of the fact that the dikes containing settling ponds have been known to break in the past and discharge effluent into Drywood Creek — apparently this happened two years ago — as a result of either discussions with departmental officials or a review of the ERCB report which was tabled, is the minister in a position to advise the Assembly how the government or, more particularly and more worrisomely, the ERCB can assert that no off-site contamination occurred or that there was neglig ible occurrence? MR. BRADLEY: The member originally directed the question to the hon.

Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. However, I am not aware of the dikes breaking. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Whether or not the minister is aware of the dikes break ing, unfortunately dikes occasionally break. Apparently this happened two years ago. My question to either hon. gentleman is: on what basis could the ERCB or the government of Alberta reach the conclusion that there is no cause for concern, when in actual fact there could well be drainage from the site if the dikes did break?

In fact, I am given to understand by local people that two years ago there was indeed a problem during a substantial spring run-off; dikes over flowed. What evidence does the government have, or from either hon. minister's discussions with the ERCB, to assure the government that in fact run-off from this site and contamination of adjacent areas is negligible? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, I have to have the specif ic to which the hon. Leader of the Opposition is referring.

I am aware — and I reported yesterday — that there was a 16-hour period in which there was discharge from the ponds into Drywood Creek during heavy flows. I advised the House of that. From the information I have, there is no reason for that to be of concern. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. What ongoing monitoring of Drywood Creek has there been, specifically for heavy metal con tent?

In view of the fact that the drinking water of Hill Spring is affected, has there been ongoing monitoring over the past number of years since this was apparently first brought to the attention of the government when they were in opposition in 1968, by the Premier? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. This is just debate, thinly disguised as a question. The hon. member is introducing all sorts of side issues. It appears that the question is simply being used as a vehicle for debate and, as Speaker, I have to be concerned about that.

I don't know which hon. members in the House would like to enter the debate; I can well imagine that there might be some. There might be some ministers who might like to present another side to the situation, in addition to the side the hon. leader is presenting under the guise of questions. It would seem to me that in most of these cases, these rather elaborately contrived questions could be asked simply and directly. In that event, the Chair would also be in a stronger position to deal with answers. As it is, I realize the hon. minister has refrained from debating any of these questions.

But if a question like that leads to debate on the part of an hon. minister, in fairness there's simply no way that that debate can be interfered with. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Cer tainly, I have always maintained that a little bit of lively exchange doesn't hurt. And I think you'll admit that that's been a consistent position that I've made reference to over and over again in the House. I certainly will rephrase the question. My point of order is simply this: if questions are going to engender debate, then with great respect to you, Mr.

Speaker, I think it is important that answers that might stimulate debate must be treated the same way. I raise this that we did not raise at the time because, frankly, I think a little bit of debate doesn't hurt. Yesterday when my colleague asked the question about guidelines, the Premier stood and talked about the federal leader of the NDP on oil rollbacks. Fine, I don't quarrel with that kind of interjection of debate.

But if the Premier is going to be able to get away with trampling on the rules of this House [interjections] I suggest that members of the oppo sition might be able to trespass softly on the area of debate. I simply offer that, Mr. Speaker. If we're going to have no stimulation of debate in a question, the same must surely be true in an answer. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Premier's interjection yester day, which is really all it was, was very brief. There was no chance to intervene. It came out, and it was there. He didn't continue with it.

I've heard similar interjections, in considerable numbers, coming from many hon. members, including the hon. Leader of the Opposition. There's no way the Chair can remove those words as if they didn't happen. It's when a thing is persisted in. There's always going to be something getting past the Chair, and lots of things have done so already this year. I really don't see that the hon. leader has a point of order. Had he had one, I should have preferred to have heard about it when the event happened. MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I suppose.

The preceding question by the hon. member was addressed both to the Minister of the Environment and to me as the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. I would appreciate the opportunity to respond to the pre ceding question, if I might. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, in respect of that pre ceding question, I think it's important to draw the atten tion of the House and the hon. member in question to the press release issued by the Energy Resources Conserva tion Board.

It reveals some very important dimensions that may have been overlooked in the framing of the question by the hon. member. First, the press release makes very clear that the find ings of the Energy Resources Conservation Board are acknowledged as being their preliminary views. The board goes on to point out that given the concern of local residents, they felt it was important that they not with hold these preliminary views but, given the importance of the subject, make them available to the public.

I think it's also important to be aware that the Energy Resources Conservation Board goes on to state in their press release that their course of action from that point onward will be to complete this assessment, to prepare a report summarizing their views and recommendations

206 ALBERTA HANSARD March 22, 1983 and, after that work been completed, they will make it public. It is then the intention of the board to engage the services of well-qualified experts from the universities to assess the

interpretation of the Gulf study. These findings and conclusions will thereafter be made public. Mr. Speaker, when this matter is being discussed in the House, I think it's important to have a full understanding of the plan of action the Energy Resources Conservation Board has in place. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, without any preface at all, my question to the Minister of the Environment is: what monitoring has their been of Drywood Creek? And if there has not been any in the past, is it the intention of the government to undertake monitoring for heavy metal content? MR. BRADLEY: Mr.

Speaker, with regard to the specif ic, I will check in detail to find out what monitoring has been done at Drywood Creek. Yesterday, during the estimates of the Heritage Savings Trust Fund, I responded at some length with regard to the gas processing plant wastewater management stand ards and the requirement to have these effluents analysed. I referred in detail to the chemical analysis reports of the effluents and the types of substances which were mon itored, including a number of heavy metals and other substances.

Certainly, in terms of the independent evalua tion which I have directed of all the issues we've discussed to date, particularly my statement last Friday, monitoring at Drywood Creek would be included in terms of what that independent evaluation would be looking at. Sour Gas MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the final supplementary. MR. NOTLEY: . . . to the hon. Minister of Social Serv ices and Community Health.

Last night a resident of Hill Spring — which, incidentally, draws its water from the Waterton reservoir — reported, in that small community, an incidence of cancer 17 times the provincial average. My question is: what initiatives is this government going to take to undertake comprehensive health testing at all 60 sites where we have gas plants, but particularly where there are sour gas plants, in view of the fact that the two plants in question have more sulphur recovery equipment than many plants, which have no sulphur recovery equipment at all?

At this stage, will any initiative be taken by the department the minister leads to undertake proper testing of people who suffer health effects, especially in areas adjacent to sour gas plants? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Board of Health is awaiting the ERCB inquiry report referring to the Lodgepole situation before determining whether or not they're going to recommend any kind of long-range sour gas study. I've asked the Provincial Board of Health to prepare themselves for such a possible recommendation, however.

They have surveyed the available literature regarding health effects of sour gas and are working with the Department of the Environment, in terms of analysing the data available from the Lodgepole situation, to see if there are any preliminary ties between health effects that have been reported and the levels that have been identi fied by the Department of the Environment. They are also working with the Department of the Environment relative to the possibility of long-range, low-effect studies of sour gas on animals.

So they are taking a number of steps in anticipation of the ERCB report related to the Lodgepole situation. However, a decision to go into a long-term study will be held until that particular time. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Wainwright fol lowed by the hon. Minister of Economic Development, who wishes to add to a previous answer. Wainwright Community Centre Financing MR. FISCHER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct this question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It concerns the new Wainwright communiplex.

Has the minister given consideration to the Wainwright town council's request for a $180,000 grant to help finance this mini convention centre, which has been having financial difficulties? MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately we were not able to respond positively to the request by the town of Wainwright for funds in addition to the about $570,000 that I believe the town had already received through the major culture/recreation facility development program. Nothing further could be found for them. MR. FISCHER: A supplementary question.

In light of the Edmonton convention centre recently receiving a $20 million grant from the province and the fact that the $180,000 requested by Wainwright would be the equiva lent per capita benefit to the townspeople as the Edmon ton grant, could the minister explain why, in these times of decentralization, the dollars were allocated to Edmon ton and not Wainwright? [interjections] MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, decentralization is a very positive program that our government has worked on very successfully over the past 12 years. Certain aspects of that program have limitations.

The Convention Centre being built and almost ready to be opened in the city of Edmonton has a very important role to play in terms of diversification of our economy. There's no doubt that it will be the scene of conventions that will have national and international impact. For example, Medic '83 is one of those, which we expect to hold in the city of Edmonton near the end of May. That will bring people from all over the world to the city of Edmonton, tying in closely with the very important efforts of this government in the medical re search field.

The benefits of that convention will spill over to communities beyond the city of Edmonton, in terms of business opportunities and particularly in terms of tour ism opportunities. So it's a unique type of development that can't be duplicated in other communities in this province. MR. SPEAKER: I'm fully aware that the question of the hon. Member for Wainwright contained what might otherwise be considered debate, and I realize that on occasion I have intervened in similar questions. In fair ness, however, I think I should point out that the hon.

Member for Wainwright is a long, long way from equal ling the score of other members in that regard.

March 22, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 207 Film Festival — Cannes MR. PLANCHE: Mr. Speaker, last Friday the Member for Edmonton Norwood gave me an opportunity to re view the recent activities of the Alberta Motion Picture Development Corporation. Just as a little

preamble, they have now approved 12 fairly major film initiatives and funded six, so they're well under way for Alberta's film industry. More precisely, the question inquired whether or not several people from that development board were going to the Cannes film festival. Mr. Speaker, the answer is that there are two festivals going on in that French community, one in May and one in April of this year, one entirely devoted to international television marketing and the other to international film marketing.

While it is true that spaces have been booked for all the directors, there is not any chance that they are all going. They're all members of the private sector, and it had to be booked at that time. The chairman of the board advised me today that only some will be going. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question. You haven't quite answered it. How many, then? MR. PLANCHE: Well, I thought I did answer that, Mr. Speaker. I'll try to speak more slowly [interjections] in case the member can't hear that fast.

The spaces have been booked, but while all the members of the board are from the private sector, it's not clear how many can attend. Certainly it's not the intention that they will all go. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question. I guess we're into Conservative arithmetic. "Some" is not a precise number, in case the minister is not aware of that. So I take it that at this point — we're talking about taxpayers' money — the purpose of the junket . . . SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question. MR. MARTIN: Boy, they're a little feisty. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. [interjection] Order please.

Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat in the usual parliamentary manner when there appears, at least to the referee, to be some need to intervene. If he has a question and he would like to come directly to it, I'm sure we could deal with it. But if he wishes to indulge in some kind of

preamble, would he put a notice of motion. MR. MARTIN: On a point of order. He was debating; I'm just returning the debate. MR. NOTLEY: Agreed. Yes, he's inciting debate. MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. member thinks that an answer by a minister is out of order, the time to raise the point of order is when the answer is being given. MR. MARTIN: To the minister: can you advise as to the purpose of this junket and the approximate cost? Surely "some" is not an answer. MR. PLANCHE: Mr. Speaker, it's pretty difficult to give an approximate cost until we know how many are going.

The fact of the matter is that the whole film industry is in turbulence, with cassettes, pay-TV, and one thing and another. In order to make good-quality decisions as to what's appropriate for investment by this board, it's important that these people need to be well apprized of current market conditions. It's for that reason that some will go. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The answer is that he doesn't know. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

If the hon. member is going to insist on asking questions, if that's a proper description of it, in that fashion, I'm going to have to skip recognizing him once in a while. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question. Can the min ister advise whether or not the group is taking any samples of Alberta film or television productions to the festival? MR. PLANCHE: I didn't ask that question specifically; I'm happy to do that. The purpose of it is to assess what the market place readily will accept in the coming year. That board has a budget that was approved by this Legislature.

They're operating well within it, and part of their mandate is to understand marketing trends. That will be the reason for the trip. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, one last supplementary question to the hon. Treasurer. In this time of restraint, what guidelines, if any, have been put in place to govern or restrict publicly funded travel by senior members of the public service, or by government, its agencies, or Crown corporations? Are there any guidelines? MR. HYNDMAN: I suggest that be put on the Order Paper, Mr. Speaker. It's a very wide-ranging question. MR. SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Edmonton Nor wood with his question — I take it these were supplemen- taries arising from the minister's answer — followed by the hon. Member for Clover Bar. Computer Technology in Schools MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this ques tion to the Minister of Education. I refer to an Alberta Education information bulletin of January 28, in which it was reported that 1,000 Bell & Howell microcomputers were sold to Alberta schools for a purchase price of $2,517 each.

According to the contract with Bell & Howell, which the minister tabled in the Assembly in November 1981, the minister's department purchased the microcomputer systems for approximately $4,000 each. Can the minister indicate whether nor not this discrepan cy exists because not all parts of the original system were sold to Alberta schools? MR. NOTLEY: Supply-side economics, Conservative style. MR. KING: I would have to take the question as notice and respond to the hon. gentleman tomorrow. PWA Boarding Passes DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I have a very short question to the hon. Minister of Transportation.

This has to do with

208 ALBERTA HANSARD March 22, 1983 the scratch-and-win boarding pass you get from Pacific Western Airlines when you board. I'll just very briefly indicate that this contest is open to all residents of Canada, excluding residents of the province of Quebec. Is the minister in a position to indicate why the people of the province of Quebec are excluded from this competition? MR. M. MOORE: No, Mr. Speaker. DR. BUCK: Mr.

Speaker, can the minister indicate to the Assembly at some later date — or would he undertake to find out from Pacific Western Airlines — why the people from the province of Quebec are excluded from being involved in the competition? MR. M. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, the management of Pacific Western Airlines is under a board of directors and is at arm's length, if you like, from the government of Alberta. But I would be pleased to ask the chairman of the board of directors if he might be able to advise me, and hence I could advise the House on that particular matter. Natural Gas Rebates MR. MUSGROVE: Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Utilities and Telecommunications. The primary agricultural producers' natural gas rebate plan involves a rebate on over 300 gigajoules per year, which is considered the household use. I get a lot of concern from my constituents that 300 gigajoules is excessive. I wonder if this has in fact been proven excessive for household use, and are there any studies being done on it? MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, for some years now, we have had in place in the province a natural gas price protection plan for all customers.

During the fall of 1982, two specif ic plans were announced: one to aid senior citizens, and the other to aid primary agricultural producers. I believe the hon. member is referring to the portion of the plan aimed at primary agricultural producers, where a ceiling of 300 gigajoules is used to determine the starting point for the support, which is in addition to that which is already provided through the natural gas price protection plan. As I understood it, the question was: how do we arrive at the figure 300 gigajoules, and is it a fair figure or are we reviewing it?

Recalling the arguments of the then Minister of Utilities and Telephones, an average house hold in the province uses approximately 200 gigajoules of natural gas per year. Because the primary agricultural producers' program was not intended to be a supplement to the home heating costs but rather for other primary agricultural uses, it was deemed that we should settle on a figure above that which the average home would use. That allows us to eliminate the need to hire extra staff to determine the actual usage in a home, and all the other costs that would be associated with that.

So the program is aimed at those primary agricultural producers who use between 300 gigajoules and 10,000 gigajoules per year and is for each of the calendar years 1982, '83, and '84. Sour Gas (continued) MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, in the remaining time, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, flowing from the release by the ERCB of this report that the minister tells us was released to allay public concern.

Has the minister had an opportunity to discuss with the chairman of the ERCB the policy of the board with respect to permitting gas processing plants to be constructed in this province with out the installation of any sulphur recovery equipment? Has the government taken any position on this? Has there been any discussion with the chairman of the ERCB on that particular matter? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, I haven't had an oppor tunity to discuss that specific matter with the chairman of the ERCB.

As the hon. member would be aware, the ERCB is of course involved with the issuance of appro vals for gas plant construction, subject to various condi tions. It is frequently a condition of such approvals that proper, sulphur emission controls be involved in such a construction. Beyond that, I would have to say that that has not been a subject which has as yet been discussed in great detail by the chairman of the ERCB and myself. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to either the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources or the Minister of Social Services and Community Health.

Given the concern flowing from not only the Pincher Creek case but the many other cases in the province, at this stage has there been any consideration by the government of changing the mandate of the ERCB to insist that when a gas processing plant is constructed, the most up-to-date sulphur recovery equipment must be part of that process, part of that construction permit, as opposed to leaving it up to the ERCB to pick and choose whether or not a plant will have sulphur recovery equipment? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr.

Speaker, I would have to respond in a somewhat general fashion, by saying that the ERCB is staffed by people of high technical expertise. It has been the judgment of this government that they have the expertise that is necessary in assessing, in a particular gas plant situation, whether or not there is a need for a particular level of sophistication of equipment for mon itoring and controlling sulphur emissions. I think that has been the policy in the past. The ERCB has the technical expertise necessary. Beyond that, again I would have to get a more detailed response for the member. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question either to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources or to the Minister of the Environment. In the case of Inverness in the Peace River country, is the government able to explain to the Assembly why an okay was given to construct a plant without any sulphur recovery equip ment at all, when in the same area Shell Resources was examining the possibility of building a plant that could take in the Inverness gas, with proper sulphur recovery equipment being installed as part of the basic project?

Is this government going to amend the necessary legislation so that people in affected areas can have the assurance that the industry will get together and ensure that any gas processing plant that involves sour gas will have the most up-to-date technology available? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, I would have to take as notice the specific, detailed question, and the after ques tion as well.

March 22, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 209 MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of the Environment.

In view of the fact that the Department of the Environment gave the okay to the Inverness plant in July, when in April they were told by the Shell officials that a competing project would take in the gas from the same area in a plant with proper sulphur recovery equipment, why did the govern ment of Alberta give the go-ahead, the green light, to a plant that will spew all kinds of SO2 into the atmosphere when we another projected plant that will have the most up-to-date sulphur recovery equipment as part of the basic design? MR. BRADLEY: Mr.

Speaker, the hon. member is ask ing a question which predates my responsibilities in the portfolio. I'll undertake to review the specifics the hon. member has alluded to and report back. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Is the hon. Minister of Agriculture in a position to outline to the Assembly what specific initiatives the Department of Agriculture has taken to study the impact of the sour gas industry, particularly on the very sensitive soils in the Peace River region, where inadequate sulphur recovery could in fact jeopardize the productive capacity of the land?

Has either the Department of Agriculture or any other department of government commissioned any study on this important matter? MR. FJORDBOTTEN: I'll have to take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Social Services and Community health. The minister says that the government is awaiting the ERCB study on Lodgepole.

However, since there are 60 plants in this province, many of them without sulphur recovery equipment, has the government at any time given consideration to a proper evaluation of health impacts on people adjacent to those plants? Has the minister taken the kind of initiative that would involve sitting down with the Alberta Medical Association or the College of Physicians and Surgeons, for example, to see whether or not there might be co-operation with the profession, to work out a systematic way of conducting health studies of people who claim after effects or side effects of being adjacent to sour gas plants?

DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Lodgepole incident took place toward the end of November, so that's the first opportunity I had to look at the possibility of any kinds of studies. Certainly the Provincial Board of Health has been in contact with the College of Physicians and Surgeons and other medical groups, as well as local health units, throughout the entire process. My recollec tion is that there have been studies in the past. I can think of one that was done a number of years ago.

As I recall, the overall evidence is that in the long term, at low levels, no health effects can be ascertained or directly related to sour gas. MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. Could the minister give the House the results of the study last summer in the Glenwood-Hill Spring area, regarding health problems? DR. WEBBER: I don't recognize the study by the partic ular the hon. member has mentioned. However, I'll take that as notice, and see if I can find it. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary to the Minister of Social Services and Community Health.

In view of the concern expressed by Edmonton residents following the Lodgepole blowout, why is the government not planning to hold hearings in Edmonton specifically? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, it's the ERCB that is holding the hearings regarding the possible effects of that Lodgepole blowout. As a matter of fact, two medical people will be sitting on that particular board. Any resi dent of Alberta who wants to make a presentation to the ERCB in those hearings is free to do so. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question. I'll refer that question, then, to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources.

Why, specifically, are we not holding hearings in Edmonton. As he is well aware, at the time there was a lot of concern in the Edmonton area about health hazards? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, I respond to that ques tion by indicating that a pre-inquiry hearing has been held. It's my understanding that decisions that have been taken with respect to the conduct of the hearing have been arrived at as a result of hearing the input from the various representatives who attended that pre-inquiry hearing, who had a full opportunity to put forward their views.

Decisions are being taken on the basis of those representations. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question to the minis ter. Then what are the reasons they are holding it there rather than in Edmonton, or both? What determined where they would hold the hearings? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, I'm not in a position to comment on what reasons were involved in decisions made at that pre-inquiry hearing. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

In view of the widespread concern in the Edmonton area, would the minister undertake to contact the chairman of the ERCB and find out from him the reasons no ERCB hearing is planned for Edmonton? Obviously, this is a matter of some concern. Distance is involved. Certainly one should be held in Drayton Valley; no one quarrels with that. But would the minister undertake to contact the chairman of the ERCB to find out the reasons, and report back to the House? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr.

Speaker, I'm quite happy to undertake to have a discussion with the chairman of the ERCB, and report back to the Assembly the results of my discussion with respect to that particular point. I should go on to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that I take a very strong view of the quasi-judicial nature of the Energy Resources Conservation Board. I think it's impor tant that there be that arm's length relationship with government, if we are to continue to ensure that the ERCB is able to conduct its very important affairs in an effective fashion.

210 ALBERTA HANSARD March 22, 1983 ORDERS OF THE DAY head: WRITTEN QUESTIONS MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to deal with the numerous questions and motions on the Order Paper as follows. With respect to the questions, I move that Ques tion 129 stand and retain its place on the Order Paper. I might point out that following dealing with the remaining questions, I would like to move to dealing with motions for returns, relative to those which I move remain standing. MR. SPEAKER: We have a motion by the hon. minister that Question 129 retain its place on the Order Paper and stand over for another day. [Motion carried] 120. Mr. Notley asked the government the following question:

(1) On what day did the government receive from Thompson Lightstone and Company Limited of Calgary the results of that company's "Alberta Pub lic Opinion Study TL 3082", a public opinion study commissioned by the government for the purpose of determining Albertans' opinions on various aspects of the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund?

(2) To which individual in the government was the document comprised of the results of that survey delivered by Thompson Lightstone and Company Limited?

(3) What were the major factors on the basis of which the decision was made not to make the survey re sults public when they were received?

(4) What were the major factors on the basis of which the decision was made not to make the survey re sults public prior to October 5, 1982?

(5) What were the major factors on the basis of which the decision was made not to make the survey re sults public prior to March 11, 1983? MR. PAYNE: Mr. Speaker, for purposes of response to Question 120, I would like to read the following into the record, beginning with subparagraph (1).

(1) The report containing the results of the study was received in March 1983 from Baker Lovick Ltd., which firm contracted the study to Thompson Lightstone and Company Limited. Preliminary results were discussed in August 1982, and a draft report was reviewed in late November 1982.

(2) Hon. Bill Payne, Minister without Portfolio, re ceived the report and the results.

(3) It is within accepted practice to file such documents with the Legislative Assembly, and the Provincial Treas urer had made a commitment to provide the report on the results to the Assembly at its next sittings.

(4) The actual report on the results had not been received, as explained in answer to question (1).

(5) The same response as in subparagraph (3). 121. Mr. Notley asked the government the following question: What was the value, by category, of all special tax exemptions, deductions, credits, exclusions, preferential rates, and deferrals offered by the government through its tax system in each of the fiscal years 1980-81 and 1981-82, and for the first three quarters of the fiscal year 1982-83? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, in principle, the gov ernment is prepared to provide a response to this ques tion. However, I would make two notes on the record.

Firstly, because both personal and corporate Alberta provincial and federal tax systems are set up on a calen dar year time span rather than a fiscal year, the informa tion will be provided for the most recent year during which that information is available, which is the calendar year 1980. In my view, the categories which are mentioned would include personal income tax, selective rate reduction, the renter assistance credit, the small business deduction, the political contribution tax credit, the royalty tax credit, and the royalty tax rebate. 122. Mr.

Notley asked the government the following question: Is it the intention of the government to table returns in response to motions for returns 122, 126, 131, 132, and 133, adopted by the Legislative Assembly during the Fourth Session of the 19th Legislature and, if so, by what date will those returns be tabled? MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the first part of Question 122, the answer is yes. With respect to the particular numbers of the motions for returns, hon. members will note that motions for returns 131, 132, and 133 were tabled in the Assembly today by the hon. Minister of Transportation.

With respect to the other two motions for returns, 122 and 126, it is anticipated that they will be tabled by mid-April this year. 123. Mr. Notley asked the government the following question: What is the government's best estimate today of expected revenues generated and received as a consequence of the energy pricing and taxation agreement signed by the government of Canada and the government of Alberta on September 1, 1981, for each year to the end of the period covered by the agreement? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, the government will undertake to provide an answer to Question 123 as stated. 124. Mr.

Notley asked the government the following question:

(1) For the fiscal year 1982-83, and in each case, what was the annualized salary paid to each ministerial executive assistant employed in government service?

(2) For the fiscal year 1983-84, what is the estimate of the annualized salary to be paid to each ministerial executive assistant employed in government service? MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of the government to provide the information contained in part (1) of Question 124 as soon as that information becomes available at the end of the current fiscal year, which is very shortly.

With respect to part (2) of Question 124, the govern ment will not be in a position to provide an estimate as requested, because it would require the government to make predictions as to who might occupy positions for a fiscal year ending over a year from now. Therefore, we are not prepared to answer that part of Question 124. 125. Mr. Martin asked the government the following question:

(1) For each of the fiscal years 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981- 82, and 1982-83, what were the total salary and expenses paid the chairperson of the Alberta Racing Commission, pursuant to the discharge of his duties

March 22, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 211 in that capacity?

(2) In each of the above-noted fiscal years, at how many meetings of the Alberta Racing Commission did the government-appointed chairperson attend and act in that capacity, and what were the dates of those meetings? MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, I accept the question, and wish to table a response. 126. Mr. Martin asked the government the following question:

(1) Has the board of review commissioned to review the operation of the Child Welfare Act and the Social Care Facilities Licensing Act (commissioned on March 19, 1980) been given a fixed date by which time it must forward its report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and, if so, what is that date; and, if not,

(2) When does the government expect the board of review's report to be forwarded to the Lieutenant Governor in Council? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to respond to that question right now. The answer to 126(1) is no, there is no fixed date by which time the Cavanagh Board of Review must forward its report. The response to part (2), when to expect the report, is that it won't be available for the spring session, but we do expect it for the fall session. 127. Mr. Notley asked the government the following question: In each of the fiscal years 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981-82, and 1982-83: (

a) How many meetings of the board of directors of Syncrude Canada Limited were attended by the Member of the Legislative Assembly appointed by the government to sit on the board? (

b) What were the dates of those meetings? (

c) What expenses were incurred by the member in the course of his attendance at those meetings? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, the government accepts and will provide an answer to Question No. 127. That question will be answered by including reference to the participation of the member in question on the manage ment committee as well as the board of directors of Syncrude Canada; also with respect to the participation of the member on the board of Northward Developments Ltd., as these are all interrelated.

Finally, with respect to item (c), the question will be answered by dealing only with those expenses for which the member was reim bursed by the government, of course. 128. Mr. Martin asked the government the following question:

(1) What, thus far, has been the cost to the government of the administration of the province-wide volun tary comprehensive examinations?

(2) What formal studies have been completed for the purpose of determining what the cost to the gov ernment would be of administering a regime of province-wide, compulsory examinations for those students leaving Alberta's secondary schools? MR. KING: The government accepts Question No. 128. 130. Mr. Martin asked the government the following question:

(1) For the fiscal years 1979-80, 1980-81, and 1981-82, in each case, what was the quantity, expressed in litres, of product originating in the Republic of South Africa purchased by the Alberta Liquor Con trol Board?

(2) For the fiscal years 1979-80, 1980-81, and 1981-82, in each case, what was the cost, expressed in Cana dian dollars, of product originating in the Republic of South Africa purchased by the Alberta Liquor Control Board?

(3) For the fiscal years 1979-80, 1980-81, and 1981-82, in each case, what was the quantity, expressed in litres, of product originating in Chile purchased by the Alberta Liquor Control Board?

(4) For the fiscal years 1979-80, 1980-81, and 1981-82, in each case, what was the cost, expressed in Cana dian dollars, of product originating in Chile pur chased by the Alberta Liquor Control Board? MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, I accept Question No. 130 and wish to table the response. 151. Mr. Martin asked the government the following question:

(1) What was the total number of full-time permanent female employees of the government of Alberta, by division and in management, as of the following dates: (

a) March 31, 1981, (

b) March 31, 1982, (

c) March 1, 1983?

(2) What was the average salary for all employees re ferred to in (1), by division and in management, as of the following dates: (

a) March 31, 1981, (

b) March 31, 1982, (

c) March 1, 1983?

(3) What was the total number of full-time permanent male employees of the government of Alberta, by division and in management, as of the following dates: (

a) March 31, 1981, (

b) March 31, 1982, (

c) March 1, 1983?

(4) What was the average salary for all employees re ferred to in (3), by division and in management, as of the following dates: (

a) March 31, 1981, (

b) March 31, 1982, (

c) March 1, 1983?

(5) What was the average salary for all permanent full- time female employees of the government of Alberta as of the following dates: (

a) March 31, 1981, (

b) March 31, 1982, (

c) March 1, 1983?

(6) What was the average salary for all permanent full- time male employees of the government of Alberta as of the following dates: (

a) March 31, 1981, (

b) March 31, 1982, (

c) March 1, 1983? MR. STEVENS: Mr. Speaker, the government is pre pared to accept Question 151 and will respond. There is a qualification, which I have discussed with the Member for Edmonton Norwood. The date in subsection (

c) in each of the six sections in the question will be March 31. That would make it consistent with all the other ques tions and make the information more readily obtainable. head: MOTIONS FOR RETURNS MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, if I may now deal with the motions for returns. I move that motions for returns 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 138, 140, 141, 142, 143, 145, 146, 148, 149, 159, 160, 162, 163, and 164, stand and retain their places on the Order Paper. [Motion carried] 136. Mr. Notley moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing all audited annual reports of Syn

212 ALBERTA HANSARD March 22, 1983 crude Canada Limited provided to the government in accordance with its role as an equity participant in the Syncrude project for the years 1981 and 1982. MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move that Motion for a Return No. 136 be amended by deleting the words "and 1982". Speaking to the amendment, the rea son is simple: the government cannot provide information it does not have. [Motion as amended carried] 139. Mr. Notley moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing:

(1) The raw data, and analysis thereof, collected on behalf of the government by Thompson Lightstone and Company Limited of Calgary as a result of that company's undertaking a public opinion study in the summer of 1982 concerning various aspects of the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund, and re ferred to by the company as "Alberta Public Opin ion Study TL 3082";

(2) Any and all correspondence between the govern ment and any of its agencies and Thompson Lights tone Company Limited of Calgary, dealing primari ly with the above-noted public opinion study;

(3) The cost to the government of the study and result ing analysis, and the account or fund out of which that cost was paid. MR. PAYNE: I would like to move an amendment to this motion for a return, initially to subparagraph (1) of the return, so it reads as follows: The report submitted to the government as a result of Thompson Lightstone and Company Limited undertaking a public opinion study in the summer of 1982 concerning various aspects of the Alberta Her itage Savings Trust Fund, and referred to by the company as "Alberta Public Opinion Study TL 3082". Mr.

Speaker, the reason for this amendment is simply that it would be inappropriate to table raw data which will eventually form part of a public report; the analysis requested is in fact contained in the report. Mr. Speaker, I further move an amendment to sub paragraph (2), inserting at the beginning of its present wording the following phrase . . . MR. SPEAKER: I don't know how many amendments there are going to be, but perhaps we should deal with them one at a time. [Motion on amendment carried] MR.

PAYNE: I further move an amendment to subpara graph (2), inserting at the beginning of its present word ing the following phrase: "Subject to the concurrence of other parties to the correspondence". I believe this amendment is a traditional qualification placed on mo tions for returns that deal with government correspondence. [Motion on amendment carried] [Motion as amended carried] 144. Mr. Notley moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing any and all transfers of money from the government of Alberta, its departments, or agencies to: (1) the Western Barley Growers Association,

(2) Flax Growers Western Canada, (3) the Palliser Wheat Growers Association, (4) the Alberta Canola Growers Association, (5) the Alberta Wheat Pool,

(6) Unifarm, (7) the Christian Farmers Federation, (8) the National Farmers Union; and including in all cases: (1) the nature of the transfer of money (e.g. grant, fee-for-service, etc.), (2) the dollar amount of the transfer, (3) the date at which the transfer was effected, (4) the program or agency under which the transfer was authorized, for the period April 1, 1981, to Decem ber 31, 1982. MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move an amendment to Motion for a Return 144. In the second paragraph, where it says "(e.g. grant, fee-for-service, etc.)", following that paragraph, I would like it deleted. MR.

SPEAKER: Am I right in understanding that pro posed amendment as eliminating what's in brackets, or the whole of (1)? MR. FJORDBOTTEN: It would remove the words that are in brackets, Mr. Speaker. [Motion as amended carried] 150. Mr. Martin moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing, in each of the fiscal years 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981-82, and for the first three quarters of the fiscal year 1982-83, the cost of administering the collec tion of health insurance premiums pursuant to the Health Insurance Premiums Act (R.S.A. 1980, c. H-5). [Motion carried] 147. Mr.

Martin moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing, in each case, the weekly landing and take-off totals for each local airstrip in which Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund moneys have been invested for the period since the respective airstrip's opening to March 1, 1983; and, in each case, the amount of money invested from the Heritage Savings Trust Fund in the respective airstrip. MR. M. MOORE: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to move an amendment as follows: the motion to be amended by stroking out the first line, ending with the word "local", and replacing it with the following: In each case, the landing and take-off totals on record for each provincial . . . The reasons are that, first of all, we do not have the information requested by the hon. member on a weekly basis. We have totals; hence the requirement to remove the word "weekly".

Secondly, the insertion of the words "on record" is to provide us with an opportunity to answer the question, taking due note of the fact that there are some airports where we don't have the records, and they will be identified in the answer. Finally, the word "local" has been changed to "provincial", because in our terminology there are several different kinds of airstrips or airports. They are community airports, provincial air

March 22, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 213 ports, and federal airports. Provincial airports, for the most part, are the ones where Heritage Savings Trust Fund dollars have been expended in terms of terminal construction. I think that will meet the spirit and intent of the request by the hon. member. [Motion as amended carried] 152. On behalf of Mr. R. Speaker, Dr.

Buck moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing a full status report on development and operation of the Elec tric Energy Marketing Agency, showing: (1) progress in establishment of fair and equitable who lesale power rates for Albertans, (2) progress in assuring the most efficient use of power sources throughout Alberta, (3) progress in the reduction of the rate of increase to Alberta consumers in their electric energy costs, (4) progress in development of strategy for purchase of power from outside Alberta, (5) progress in development of strategy to allow the continued operation of utilities companies in the most efficient manner, (6) number of persons employed to administer and op erate the Electric Energy Marketing Agency, (7) total cost of development and operation of the Elec tric Energy Marketing Agency from its inception to February 28, 1983.

MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to recommend that if the House gives unanimous concurrence, Motion for a Return No. 152 be transferred to Written Questions. [Motion carried] 153. On behalf of Mr. R. Speaker, Dr. Buck moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing details of all travel paid by public funds for Members of the Alberta Legislative Assembly, members of executive council, and ministerial assistants, for the period January 1, 1983, to January 31, 1983, inclusive, showing:

(1) Dates of departure and return for each trip;

(2) Destinations;

(3) Total cost for each journey, including transporta tion, accommodation, and entertainment;

(4) List of persons accompanying principal traveller. [Motion carried] 154. On behalf of Mr. R. Speaker, Dr. Buck moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing identification of all government personnel who accom panied Premier Peter Lougheed to the Western Premiers' Conference in Swift Current, Saskatchewan, on February 2, 1983, showing in each case:

(1) Cost for transportation, accommodation, and all other expenditures for each individual listed;

(2) Total cost incurred by the Alberta delegation to the 1983 Western Premiers' Conference. MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move that Motion for a Return 154 be amended by adding the words "paid by the government of Alberta" following the words which conclude each of subparagraphs (1) and (2). The reason, of course, is that whatever cost might have been incurred by people in their own private capacity should not be the subject of a return by this Assembly. [Motion as amended carried] 155. On behalf of Mr. R. Speaker, Dr.

Buck moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing the total cost of Premier Peter Lougheed's February 1983 mission to New York, London, and Zurich, including expenses incurred for transportation, accommodation, entertainment, and other expenditures. Identification of the person or persons who accompanied Premier Peter Lougheed, including all expenditures incurred by each. MR. HORSMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I move that Motion for a Return 155 be amended by adding the words "paid by the government of Alberta" following the word "expendi tures" in paragraphs one and two, for the same reason as in the preceding motion. [Motion as amended carried] 156. On behalf of Mr. R. Speaker. Dr. Buck moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing:

(1) Total amount of office space leased or rented by the government of Alberta, including the annual costs of leases and rentals as of February 28, 1983;

(2) Total amount of space leased or rented in Edmon ton by the government of Alberta which was occu pied on February 28, 1983;

(3) Total amount of space leased or rented in Edmon ton by the government of Alberta which was unoc cupied on February 28, 1983;

(4) Total cost per month of all space leased or rented in Edmonton by the government of Alberta on Febru ary 28, 1983; (5) information requested in (2), (3), and (4) for the city of Calgary;

(6) Information requested in (2), (3), and (4) for all centres in Alberta except Edmonton and Calgary. MR. CHAMBERS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to accept mo tion 156, amending it however by striking out "space", where it occurs in paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), and substi tuting "office space". [Motion as amended carried] 157. On behalf of Mr. R. Speaker, Dr. Buck moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing:

(1) Total amount of indebtedness, principal, and inter est on loans and/or guarantees approved by the Alberta government for Faith Farms Limited, to February 28, 1983;

(2) Total amount of principal and interest repaid by Faith Farms Limited on loans and/or guarantees approved by the government of Alberta to February 28, 1983. [Motion carried] 158. On behalf of Mr. R. Speaker, Dr. Buck moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: Total cost of all government of Alberta advertising for each month from July 1, 1982, to February 28, 1983, inclusive, for each of the following media:

(1) Television,

(2) Radio,

(3) Daily newspapers.

(4) Weekly newspapers,

(5) Periodicals and magazines,

214 ALBERTA HANSARD March 22, 1983

(6) Public billboards, and Total cost of government of Alberta advertising paid to Baker-Lovick Limited for each month from July 1, 1982, to February 28, 1983. [Motion carried] 161. Dr. Buck moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing:

(1) The amount of each individual grant made under phases 1 and 2 of the Nutritive Processing Agree ment between the federal and Alberta governments for the 1981-82 fiscal year and the 1982-83 fiscal year to March 1, by category of commodity processed.

(2) The names and locations of the firms receiving each aforementioned grant.

(3) The estimated capital expenditures on which each grant offer was made. [Motion carried] 165. Mr. Notley moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing:

(1) In each case where a royalty tax credit with respect to oil or gas produced in Alberta was given or approved: (1) the name of the company receiving the royalty tax credit, (

b) the total dollar amount of all royalty tax cred its received by the company, (

c) the period over which the company received the royalty tax credit(s), over the life of the royalty tax credit program, from 1974 to date.

(2) In each such case known to the government or any of its departments or agencies: (

a) the name of the company which engaged in a selling of some of its assets apparently for the purpose of qualifying for more than one pay ment under the royalty tax credit program, and the number of payments for which the com pany thus qualified and the total dollar amount of those payments, (

b) the name of the company which divided its operations in such a way as to qualify for more than one payment under the royalty tax credit program, and the number of payments for which the company thus qualified and the total dollar amount of those payments, over the life of the royalty tax credit program, from 1974 to date. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in urging the defeat of Motion 165. The motion calls for the revealing of confidential, in this case, corporate income tax records.

I believe that is a matter of worry, in fact of very deep concern to Alberta companies and to Albertans as individuals, who have felt in the past that there is a continuing tradition, protected by law, of privacy with respect to income tax records, their own and those of others. The royalty tax credit itself, Mr. Speaker, can be debated when the amendments which I have indicated are brought forward.

But hon. members know that the Cor porate Income Tax Act of this province and the personal Income Tax Act, both of which have been and are laws of this Assembly, provide that all income tax information such as the kind requested here is confidential. Indeed every corporate and every personal tax Act in Canada, those of the 10 provinces and the federal government, provides that degree of protection. The entire tax system, Mr. Speaker, depends on the privacy and confidentiality of the tax records of individu als and corporations.

The principle, of course, applies not only to such matters as the royalty tax credit but also to the small business deduction, which is a tax deduction that thousands of small companies in this province use. They would be, I am sure, dismayed if they were to feel that there was any likelihood of those records being made public. As well, those thousands of renters in the province who have applied for the renter assistance credit would be at risk if the principle involved in this motion were put forward. I therefore suggest, Mr.

Speaker, and urge the Assem bly to protect the long-standing tradition and custom, protected by law, of the confidentiality of income tax returns. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a few comments to Motion for a Return No. 165. First of all, we're really talking about a program that the Provin cial Treasurer, in his update, indicates is going to cost in the neighborhood of $680 million. That's a lot of money. I realize that there has been a long-standing practice that income tax records should be confidential, so a person who benefits from a tax credit may not have his name disclosed.

On the other hand, a person who benefits from a direct expenditure of the government of Alberta sooner or later will have his name disclosed. As a matter of fact, public accounts will identify, name by name, all the people who receive direct expenditures of one kind or another. Whether it be a little plumbing firm in a small town or a major corporation, money which is expended by the government of Alberta will eventually be reported in the public accounts of this province. Mr.

Speaker, it will be the intention of my colleague and me to rephrase the question to at least find out whether, without breaching the confidentiality in naming companies, we can determine the number of operations where there have been subdivisions under this particular program, so we can have some idea of the dimension of the problem that we see, at any rate. But I would simply say to the members, Mr.

Speaker, that one of the problems with the whole approach of special tax conces sions, whatever their nature, is that whether it is money directly expended or taxes foregone, the fact of the matter is that there is the same hole in the provincial Treasury. Mr. Speaker, one of the problems we have to face is that where there would be a direct expenditure in the form of a grant — and we've had information in the past with respect to direct grants — there would be no ques tion about this motion for a return being accepted.

But with respect to a royalty tax credit, we have the govern ment suddenly being able to use the confidentiality of income tax records to evade, in my judgment, the infor mation about very large amounts of money, which the public has a right to know. I simply serve notice to members of the Assembly, Mr. Speaker, that it will be our intention to rephrase the question and bring it back in such a way that we will be able to find out how many. Perhaps we can do it by category.

But I think it is fundamentally important that Albertans have a clear understanding of the dimension of the problem which the government itself, in August 1982,

March 22, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 215 found that it had to deal with. How successful they were in dealing with it awaits more information. While this motion for a return, with the composition of the House, is undoubtedly not going to be accepted, I simply serve notice that the quest for information which is basic to this motion for a return will go on.

The minister in question, the Provincial Treasurer in this case, should not be sur prised if several days down the road we have a slightly rephrased motion attempting to at least find out the information with respect to the operation of the program, which I think the public has a right to know. [Motion lost] MR. SPEAKER: Before going on to Motion 203, I was just going to express some concern about the reading of answers to questions on the Order Paper.

Subject to other views that there might be on the point, it seems to me it's governed by Standing Order 32(2), which says: The minister or member to whom the question is addressed shall hand the answer to the Clerk of the Assembly, who shall cause it to be printed in the Votes and Proceedings. I don't know whether there are other considerations that I'm overlooking, but I just mention that to the Assembly so we may have it in mind the next time we are dealing with questions that have been placed on the Order Paper.

May I just add, too, that apparently it would seem — I certainly wasn't around when these Standing Orders were first drafted; they may go back to 1916 or before — that Standing Order 33 recognizes that to some extent, be cause there's provision there for a question requiring a very lengthy reply. Presumably the idea is to make it unnecessary to print a very lengthy reply in the Votes and Proceedings. It would seem to me that 32(2) and 33 perhaps fit together in that way. MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, on your point of order. The government recognizes the concern expressed by the Speaker relative to the questions.

It was felt that very brief questions could be appropriately recorded by Han sard and appropriately inserted in Votes and Proceedings. But we will take your admonition to mind and, in the future when dealing with these matters, take into consid eration your concerns and the rules as you've correctly pointed them out. But when very brief replies are made, we felt it was unnecessary to provide lengthy written responses. MR. SPEAKER: Without wanting to prolong this small point, it seems that perhaps we are within the spirit of the Standing Orders if the answers are read and tabled as well.

I wasn't aware that they were being tabled or handed to the Clerk. My observation, to the extent it went, was that the answers were being read instead of the tabling. But if both are being done, then I suppose we can't complain about the Standing Orders. head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 203. Moved by Mr. Szwender:

Be it resolved that the Assembly urge the Attorney General to adopt the policy that in a case involving assault on a spouse, where it is considered that there is sufficient evidence to commence a prosecution, that it be commenced by the Crown and not by private prosecution. MR. SZWENDER: Mr. Speaker, I ask consent of the Assembly to amend Motion 203. The proposed change in the motion has been passed around to all members. I move to amend Motion 203 by adding the words "ri gorously enforce" and dropping the word "adopt" from the original wording. MR.

SPEAKER: As I understand it, a motion by a member to amend his own motion is subject to unani mous consent. Does the Assembly agree that the hon. member may amend Motion 203 in the manner he has suggested? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: It is so ordered. MR. SZWENDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The mo tion that I am about to begin debate on is a very timely issue of utmost concern throughout Canada but especial ly magnified in Alberta in the last 10 years, due to the large number of out-of-province migrants who have come to settle in this province.

Many of these individuals and families came to Alberta to take advantage of the eco nomic prosperity of this province. But due to the econom ic downturn in the last 18 months, many of the new comers are among the unemployed or underemployed. Statistics for the motion for the year 1982 are still largely unavailable but, by past experience, we can only antici pate an escalating problem in relation to wife beating. We must come to grips with this problem immediately. As all members have read the motion, I would like to just clarify a few things in particular with the amendment.

Originally the wording of the motion could have led members to believe that the police were not in fact doing their job in enforcing the issue of wife beating. It's an extremely difficult problem to tackle and has been at tempted at various levels, probably in all assemblies of the country, as well as in Ottawa. By adding the words "rigorously enforce", we are trying to clarify the position that the police are doing their job.

In fact, by introducing this motion to the attention of the Attorney General, what we are hoping to do is have a uniform method of application throughout the province and, more impor tantly, to bring a greater public awareness of a rising and existing problem in our society. Many jurisdictions have been applying the law. Again, the law that we are questioning here is wife beating. In any terms we would like to interpret it, it is still common assault.

However, because of the complexity, because of the fact that it is usually of a domestic nature and diffi cult to ascertain all the evidence, sometimes the police are left uncertain as to which way to proceed. But there is no question that this problem, as I mentioned before, is on the rise. I would like to present a number of arguments in order to bring as much evidence and factual information as possible to the members of the Assembly. I would like to start by referring to an

article in the Edmonton Journal, as recently as Friday, March 18, considering the need for shelters for women who had been victims of wife beating in the community of Sherwood Park. Sherwood Park, I think, claims to be a middle or upper income residential area. It's euphemistically termed a bedroom suburb. It's managed to largely avoid multiple-family dwellings and has rather established a reputation as an elite community. Yet statistically in 1981, which is the most recent, there were 124 complaints concerning wife beating in Sher

216 ALBERTA HANSARD March 22, 1983 wood Park alone. Of these 124 cases in the community of Sherwood Park, only two were successfully prosecuted. It is evident by this one simple example that these cases are not being uniformly prosecuted and are not being suc cessfully dealt with in the courts. As I mentioned earlier, this is a complex issue, and it's difficult to determine where to begin. I suspect there are a lot of views as to the problem at hand. Maybe we could begin by briefly speaking about the victims themselves.

I've used the term "wife" because, statistically, 99.9 per cent of marital disputes in which a spouse is beaten involves the wife. Very, very few cases come to the atten tion of the courts in which the husband has been the victim. Certainly, the word "spouse" has been used in the motion so that it applies equally in either case. Why is this such an important issue at this time? As I've mentioned before, because of Alberta's unique situa tion in having attracted so many transient, migrant la borers for so many years, we have a lot of social problems that have arisen from that type of population.

The facts aren't always available specifically for Alberta. Many of them have to be ascertained for the whole country and then applied to [Alberta]. For example, last year 500,000 Canadian women — 10 per cent of women married or living common law — were battered by the men they lived with. If we assume that Alberta has approximately 10 per cent of the nation's population, we're looking at approximately 50,000 Alberta women who are being victimized by what we call wife beating. Statistics go on and on. About a quarter of the divorce requests filed by women were on the grounds of physical cruelty.

Eight of 10 women seeking shelters in transition homes in Canada had been beaten while they were preg nant. One of three residents in homes for battered women had been beaten weekly or daily. I think these statistics themselves verify our concern today. What sources of information are we looking at? Mr. Speaker, I've primarily used a study done for the House of Commons by the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, chaired by MP Marcel Roy, which was completed and submitted in May 1982. It's entitled, Report on Violence in the Family: Wife Batter ing.

Much of the evidence is substantiated by case studies in various transition homes throughout the country, eight in particular, which were studied by a number of acade mics and professionals who collected the evidence of which reports we have the results. Mr. Speaker, before I go any further, I would just like to make a brief comment on the response of the House of Commons when this report was originally presented. I must say that it was a shameful spectacle to view the way our House of Commons responded when questions about this report were brought up during question period.

NDP Member of Parliament Margaret Mitchell raised a ques tion to the Minister of State (Status of Women), Judy Erola, on the question of battered wives. Certain mem bers of the House sniggered, made derisive remarks, and there were various jokes. As such, the whole issue was not taken nearly as seriously as it should have been by those members. In fact, it took three days of prompting before there was unanimous approval to apologize from some of the members as to the remarks they made.

I think that in itself — that the elected members of our House of Commons did not seriously respond to the issue at stake — is an indication that maybe all of us as Canadians should take a more serious look at this issue. I'd like to go into the nature of wife battering itself. Possibly we should define the term wife battering. As I mentioned earlier, we're talking about common assault. The Criminal Code is extremely clear on what common assault, or assault causing bodily harm, is. If you're accosted and physically contacted by anyone on the street, that is sufficient to lay charges of assault.

Yet within the confines of a home, it seems that this law is completely disregarded. If we're questioning what you mean by assault, is it enough to just slap a wife with an open hand? Is it not serious enough if you only slug her lightly, or should we say a gentle kick? In none of these descriptions can we ignore the fact that an assault has taken place. Again, I'd like to emphasize my primary purpose for standing here and speaking on this issue today. That is, in my opinion, assault is assault; a mar riage licence does not give a spouse the right to break the law, as seems to have been the case in the past.

Let me return to the question of wife battering. Some members may sit here listening and feel that, once in a while, a husband may push his wife, tell her to return to the kitchen sink or the children are making too much noise, and urge her with some kind of physical contact. But the results of the studies we have at our disposal indicate that this problem of assault is of a far more serious nature. I've already mentioned that great numbers of women who seek shelter in transition homes are pregnant women, many of whom said they had been brutally kicked in the stomach during their pregnancies.

It seems that the period of pregnancy often brings out the most hostile reactions in males, due to a number of emotional transitions that may be taking place.

I'd just like to make reference to a very complete study done on wife battering and bring out some more statistics that would assure members that when we talk about wife battering, we're not talking about a simple push or slap, which alone is unacceptable; we're talking about much more serious physical attack. 31% of transition house residents who were asked how regularly they were beaten, answered that they were beaten weekly or daily, 26% were beaten at least once a month. It seemed almost like a ritual that somehow these unfor tunate individuals had to be beaten to keep their place.

Three of the [transition] houses also asked their resi dents how many times in total they had been beaten before. One house reported that 84% of its residents had been beaten at least eleven times before they finally sought shelter. The other two houses found that almost all their residents had been beaten many times before. In about one-third of the cases, medical treatment was required and received. That in itself is a clear indication of the seriousness. Four houses queried their residents about medical treatment.

Between 30% and 36% of the women asked, responded that they had required medical care [after beating]. In another study of a sample of 100 women, these results were recorded: All had received the minimum of bruises, but 44 had also received lacerations of which 17 were due to attack with a sharp instrument such as a bottle, knife or razor. Twenty-six [of these women] had received fractures of nose, teeth or ribs and eight had frac tures of other bones, ranging from fingers and arms to jaw and skull. Two had their jaws dislocated and two others had similar injuries to the shoulder.

There was evidence of retinal damage in two women and one had an epilepsy [attack] as a result of her in

March 22, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 217 juries. In 19 cases there were allegations that strangu lation attempts had been made. Often very difficult to prove as well, unless medical diagnosis is made. Burns and scalds occurred in eleven and bites in seven cases. All women were attacked with the minimum of a clenched fist, but 59 claimed that kicking was a regular [added] feature. In 42 cases, a weapon was used, usually the first available object, but in 15 cases this was the same Object each time, eight being . . . with a [belt] buckle.

Before I get into too much of this, I think the picture of the nature of the problem becomes evident. Just as a final addition: Of 107 reported murders in immediate families in Canada in 1975, the wife was killed by the husband in 49 cases, but the husband was killed by the wife in only 8. This did not involve firearms. This involved some other method of homicide. So, Mr. Speaker, again I think it's evident that we're talking about crimes committed in a public place, in a public building. Even in a pub, I have seen fights erupt over minor brushing against someone, followed by charges of assault.

Yet here we have vicious attacks on supposedly loved ones going unprosecuted by the various police jurisdictions. The final issue that should be considered in the impor tance of prosecution is that, in most cases, wife beating happens on a frequent or repeat basis. It would be fortunate if we could believe that a husband in anger or in a fit of emotion struck his wife, repented, and that was the end of it. But, Mr. Speaker, the sad truth is that this very, very seldom happens.

Normally the wife is the victim of repeated and continuous beatings, and this is why it is so important that the law prosecute these people to make them aware that their actions will not go unattended. In the last four years, of 805 cases dealt with by the women's shelter, Edmonton WIN House, in only one case — that's one out of 805 — was there a situation where a woman returned to the home and violence did not recur. So I think this clearly emphasizes the need to point out to these individuals that their actions will not be tolerated.

And it's obvious by the repeat performances, by the repe titions, that these individuals have to be dealt with in a severe way. If I could just briefly compare the attitudes of wife beating to that of child abuse — they may not be very good parallels, but I think we realize that in this province Social Services and Community Health wields a tremen dous amount of power whenever there is suspicion of child abuse. Anonymous phone calls can be sufficient to have health care workers, social workers, check out the possibility that a child has been abused.

In recent months we heard of some very prominent cases that have gained a lot of attention, where parents have had their children removed for cases of what could honestly be described or interpreted as discipline. Yet when we're talking about wives or women who are victims of insensitive husbands, we're talking about constant beatings and abuse. Mr. Speaker, let me ask the members of the Assembly what they would do if, just walking along the street, they came across an individual, a man, beating, hitting, accost ing, or dragging a woman.

How many of us would consider it none of our business and walk idly by, ignor ing this? I think, as dutiful citizens, we would all consider it an important action to get involved. But what if the reply of the individual, of the male, was: get lost; it's none of your business; she's my wife. Why should that matter? Why should it matter that because a woman happened to be married to this individual, he should have the right to call her "my wife", as if he was referring to a canine, and treat her as if the law did not apply in this situation? Clearly we cannot allow this situation to go unattended.

I'd like to briefly refer to the type of men who engage in wife beating. Are these really men? I only refer to these individuals as men to identify gender. In the chauvinistic sense of the word, a real man would hardly violate the code of chivalry, which obviously prohibits preying on the weak or helpless but defends them and their rights. Who are we talking about? Are we talking about hairy beasts with loin cloths, jumping around on their haunches with clubs? Unfortunately, we're not. We're talking about individuals who live next door, individuals we work with, individuals we may be totally unsuspecting of.

Who are these mental pygmies, these neanderthals? We're talking about cowards, Mr. Speaker, engaging in very cowardly acts. It would be fortunate if we could believe that it happens in isolated cases, that the perpetrators of these crimes are people of lower incomes, people with poor educational backgrounds, people who, possibly because of poor family backgrounds themselves, are accustomed to this type of behavior. But the sad truth of it is, through the various studies I have cited, that it is not only these individuals who are involved in what we call wife beating, who are victimizing their wives.

Of cases reported, only 25 per cent involved husbands who were unemployed. The other 75 per cent were gainfully employed, about half of whom would consider themselves in the frame of re ference as laborers. However, there is one particular set of facts that were especially disturbing to me, Mr. Speaker; that is, in a study done in Manitoba, it was found that wife batterers were disproportionately represented in three occupations -- truck-driver, police officer and [medical] doctor.

This may indicate individuals who are used to being authority figures, but certainly we could hardly call them individuals who come from lower income, poor educa tional backgrounds or are insensitive to the plight of their fellow human beings. In conclusion, we must realize that wife battering is not restricted to lower income groups, but that women in middle and upper income groups are often victims as well. The only thing is that quite often these women in the middle and upper income brackets feel a much greater social stigma in reporting this.

They would rather go about it their own way; maybe they have means available financially to leave the home and seek divorce either on those grounds or on other grounds. Obviously people of lower income are not as well educated in dealing with these problems themselves. But it doesn't matter; a beat ing is a beating. As I was saying in conclusion, we have to consider that if the women themselves helped authorities, we could probably come to prosecute these cases much more suc cessfully. But in most cases, the woman tends to blame herself, at least in the beginning.

Even when the police are called, usually on a complaint from the neighbors or maybe even one of the members of the family, the police arrive and very, very seldom do they actually encounter the beating or the assault taking place. As such, they must go strictly on their own observations or depend upon the witness or testimony of those present. Usually

218 ALBERTA HANSARD March 22, 1983 that involves the wife. Normally the police try to calm the situation down. Again there is a lot of problem with educating the police into believing that this is not strictly a domestic argument, but is also a strict breach of the law. However that may be, what usually happens is that, in anger, the woman will agree to file an assault charge, and the police will file a report. But the real problem comes in the convictions. A day or so later, the husband may become a little bit repentant; he may sober up.

He may try to make up with his wife, and usually he manages to convince his wife not to appear in court and testify against him. So it's very difficult to get convictions. In the jurisdictions in Canada, particularly in Manito ba and some communities in Ontario, the police are finding a much greater success rate of indictment by getting sufficient evidence from the police report or the testimony of the investigating police officers, even if the wife at a future time refuses to appear or changes her mind about appearing in court as a witness.

Again, this is something that the Attorney General's Department should seriously consider in our own province. Where do the solutions lie? Well, I have four solutions that we may consider. First of all, as we mentioned before, prosecuting men engaged in wife beating should be pursued by all police jurisdictions on an equal basis. This is where the Attorney General's Department would come in very importantly. Society should change its atti tude. It is not just a private family affair, which many men maintain at the present time. Assault is assault, and we should recognize it for that fact.

Wives should not have to be made to testify in cases against their husbands. A police report, police observations, and police evidence would be sufficient to obtain a conviction. Public awareness: a much greater program of educating the public must be undertaken. Many women believe that they are the only victims of wife beating, and so in shame they hide their case. But we know from statistics that at least 10 per cent of women in Canada are victims of wife beating, so women should realize that they are not alone and that they can find support from our society.

Schools would be another important starting point in educating this society. Another group that may find this possible is Crime Stoppers, where anonymity is guaranteed, where neighbors could possibly report cases of assault, wife beating. Proper funding for transition homes. We realize the difficulty in finding funding for everything.

But the prob lem is that 45 per cent of Canadian women live in areas without access to a transition home, especially in rural areas, where a woman may have no opportune way and may often have to go into another jurisdiction which feels that it is not responsible for a woman coming from another community. So no minimum level of poverty should be necessary to gain admittance. Any woman should find access, and the government, as well as private groups, should endeavor to find the proper funding to facilitate the help and need of these unfortunate people.

Finally, number four, the police should be more capab ly trained to deal with assault without shrugging it off as a family dispute. We realize that it's difficult, and the police have many duties. But possibly by upgrading and educating the police in this problem, they would be able to deal with it much more efficiently. An excellent example is the Vancouver police force, where a specially trained group of police officers is on duty during the hours when most assaults take place, and that's between five o'clock and midnight. This squad is sent out to homes whenever that type of complaint is made. In

summary, Mr. Speaker, I think the important thing is that we have recognition of this problem by all members and, secondly, a change in attitude for all members of our society, both men and women. MR. MARTIN: First of all, I'd like to commend the Member for Edmonton Belmont for bringing this issue up. It certainly is appropriate at this particular time. I think he did an excellent job of laying out the problem. Knowing this Bill was coming up, I gave a call to the Attorney General's Department in Manitoba, because they've recently — I think three months ago — realized that they had a serious problem in Manitoba.

He did issue a directive, very much following this motion, to the police and Crown attorneys to crack down on assault on spouses and, wherever possible, to commence prosecu tions. Talking to his executive assistant today, they feel it's really too early to determine how successful the program is. I'm glad the Member for Edmonton Belmont talked about spouse assault, because two women have been charged in Manitoba since they started this. The reasons they looked into it: they saw that they had a problem; of course, they were getting pressure; and finally the government there did react to the pressure.

One of the things they looked at, of course, was the federal report that the hon. member referred to. But there is a very interesting pilot project in London, Ontario. I don't know if the hon. member has seen that. This is money that the Ontario government put in to look into the problem and to see what would happen if they did increase prosecution. So they brought it out as a pilot project in Windsor, very much following the amendment the member is talking about. The totals that have come out of that are very interest ing. For instance, in 1979 only 3 per cent of the total assaults on spouses were prosecuted.

I expect our average without prosecution would be somewhat similar to Wind sor. In 1982, after a directive of this sort, where the police were told to move in and prosecute wherever they could, 88 per cent of the cases were prosecuted. So it went from 3 per cent to 88 per cent from 1979 to 1982. Now the results — and again we'd have to go and monitor these ongoing in Windsor — are very interesting. As a result, when spouses were talked to later, 62 per cent said that assaults on them were either significantly re duced or terminated.

So obviously in that case — they came to the conclusion in Windsor, at least, that the police prosecuting and the Attorney General's Depart ment pushing prosecutions did have an effect. So the Manitoba people have gone into this since then. They are encouraged. When I talked to the executive assistant, there certainly were more cases being prose cuted. They certainly don't have the results that they do in London, but time will tell, in a year or two, how successful the Manitoba program has been. One thing they did say, and you can't blame the police — the hon.

Member for Edmonton Belmont has talked about it — is that if you talk to any policeman, the thing they hate doing most of all is interfering in a family dispute. I understand there are statistics that indicate when police get shot. The time they get shot most often is interfering in domestic disputes. So it's not an easy prob lem for them. In Manitoba they recognized — and the police brought this up to them — that they have problems. What they have done is given the police resource contacts. These are people, psychologists, that the police can get hold of.

March 22, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 219 Because as the hon. Member for Edmonton Belmont indicated, the men who are assaulting women are the ones who have problems. Often they realize it at a certain point. Rather than the police just hauling them away, they're trying to give them resources where they can seek help themselves. This is information that the police have and make accessible to people. In Manitoba they just formed what they call commit tees on life abuse. These committees generally are of battered spouses, but with some professional people like psychologists and social workers.

Of course their role is to advise the government, but also to be involved for people. As the hon. Member for Edmonton Belmont pointed out, most often these women want to leave, and then they back off. If as MLAs you've had cases, you'll know that it can be very frustrating. In one case I know of in Edmonton that's been in touch with our office, she's backed off about four times. If we had a committee like this, we could put her in touch with it. It's people who have actually gone through this and know exactly what she's going through. They have also set up a series of what they call safe homes.

It's similar to WIN, but they've gone into it in many more instances across the province so that women like this, who are scared to begin with and just don't know what they should do, have a place looked after by the committee on life abuse where they can go and know they will be safe. The other thing they've done there, similar to what we've done — and we've done some excellent work in child abuse in this province with the hotline — is that they have a volunteer hotline for assault on spouses. They're trying a number of programs in Manitoba.

It would be interesting to monitor them and see how they work in a year or two. I support this private member's Bill and hope the Attorney General will take a good look at it, because I think it is a good first step. If the experience of just prosecuting — if I can go back, if the experience of Windsor, Ontario, has any bearing on what we're doing in Alberta, I think it would be very significant. I think the Member for Edmonton Belmont did an excellent job showing the problem. As he put it, I think we have to get away from these crimes.

In the House, we've talked about rape and wife battering and recognize that assault is assault is assault. The point we're making is that whether you're assault ing the person you're married to or living with, or whether one male is assaulting another, it is still assault and should be treated in that regard. If we follow the motion the hon. Member for Edmonton Belmont brought in, I think this would at least be a first step in curbing a very serious social problem we have in this province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. NELSON: Mr.

Speaker, I would also like to con gratulate the Member for Edmonton Belmont for bring ing this issue forward in the House. I would like to make a few comments relative to this issue. First of all, I'd like to give a little background history relevant to the policing of battered women in Calgary. Some 15 to 20 years ago the police did lay charges against spouses who battered their wives. However, there seemed to be some difficulty in concluding these cases and changes were made to the policies of the police depart ment, apparently at the direction of a senior judge be cause of no-shows.

Many women would not follow up their charges or come as witnesses. Also, at the time they were not subpoenaing witnesses in attending to the co urts. In many cases, the charges were dropped altogether by pressure from the family or because of a change of heart in pursuing the charge. However, over the last number of years the incidence of wife beatings has become astronomical and, to say the least, of very, very large concern to the community at large. Much pressure has been placed on politicians and others to see a correc tion of this incidence.

To follow through, in the latter part of last year the Calgary police commission did change their policy, where in fact the police have returned to charging wife beaters. In the interim between 15 to 20 years ago and last year, the charging of the husband was left up to the wife. Of course in many cases, after a period of cooling down, the wife did not pursue that charge.

The police in Calgary may charge the participant in one of two ways: firstly, by issuing an appearance notice for an assault deemed relatively minor — at the time of the police attendance, one participant in the assault is encouraged to seek additional or other accommodation, at least temporarily, until a resolution of the problem is corrected — or by an immediate arrest by the attending officers if it is felt that the assault or violence would continue on the woman.

In both cases now, the participants in the assault — both the person being battered and the person doing the battering — are subpoenaed to appear in court. Addi tionally, pictures may be taken of the injuries of the battered woman as evidence. Where there are no visible injuries, the police will endeavor to take the battered woman to a hospital and get a statement from a doctor as to the extent of those injuries. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, some years ago the Calgary police department placed a crisis unit as part of the ongoing service to the needs of the public.

The reason for the unit was to assist police in dealing with social problems they run into on a day-to-day basis in efforts to deal with domestic concerns. It gives them some profes sional assistance, cooling off the circumstance to which they were initially called, and frees up police officers to do other duties. In Calgary, police training emphasizes crisis intervention of domestic problems. I must say that the police service in Calgary does a commendable job under difficult conditions in dealing with the many, many social/domestic concerns they have to deal with in the community. Mr.

Speaker, some 20 per cent of all Canadian homi cides are the result of one spouse killing the other, more in particular — as has already been mentioned — the man killing the wife. I ask, why should women and children live in fear of a husband or a man who continu ally threatens their existence by either a beating or a killing? Why should society, led by those people who represent all the people of the province, not give proper protection and identification to women and children for their needs and concerns about being beaten up by a bully? Yes, a bully; a cowardly, gutless wonder.

Much of our culture defines wife beating as a private individual concern and problem, not necessarily a crimi nal assault. What's the matter with our society? Are we as government too darned chauvinistic to identify common problems of women and children? If a man assaults a person on a street, that is a criminal assault. Why is it not a criminal assault when the same animal may go into a home and beat up his wife and kids or, for that matter, maim them for life or kill them? I suggest "animal" because that is exactly what many of these people are. There are some suggestions that women do not proper

220 ALBERTA HANSARD March 22, 1983 ly protect themselves and children to change the situa tion. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately many women tend to be intimidated and overly dominated by a spouse. Fear of losing that traditional model of the family, foregoing for her and her children some comforts and necessities, is usually on the mind of the battered female. Sudden initia tives on her part to separate a relationship either in the short-term or permanently become a very, very difficult task to undertake. Where do they go?

How do they survive, especially where there has been much movement of many people from other parts of this country, and they have nobody here? Women also fear retaliation of the removed spouse wherein greater violence may happen to that wife or child. It is evident that many times women leave their spouse because of being battered or otherwise, and men become vindictive and wish to pursue and continually harass and batter that spouse. Why don't women come forward and say to the police or the courts, I have been beaten? Unfortunately many women feel embarrassed. And yes, they have pride.

They don't want the world to know that they have been beaten. Where are women's rights and where do we put their dignity? Do we place them under the table? If such is the case, let's re-evaluate that position, get them on top of the table, and make these women proud to be a part of our community again. We continually suggest that the police have to go in and clean up messes. Many times the police go in and they are unprotected. Unfortunately most of the assault cases — and I think we should address that word "assault" because it is common assault — are heard in a family court rather than in a criminal court.

The existing laws are seldom equitably applied. I think that in bringing this forward, the hon. Member for Edmonton Belmont has brought an issue that our Attorney General will undoubtedly review, and maybe review the legislation. Maybe we have to put some teeth into our laws. If it is a federal jurisdictional problem, we need to lobby our MPs and ensure that they also put forward the views of these poor battered women and/or children. Many of these women who are being beaten are not necessarily of the lower income range.

It is so far- reaching in our community that the financial situation is not necessarily a factor. These beatings do not happen in an instant. It is usually an issue that has developed over a period of time within the household, or there has been a number of batterings during a period of time. What are the solutions? Mr. Speaker, I don't have all the solutions and I'm certain that all members in this House do not have all the solutions. Possibly collectively and intelligently, with some feeling towards this concern, we may be able to develop those solutions to assist these people.

We have a great opportunity to do so here. We may be able to develop options for the courts to address when a guilty finding is made. We may be able to develop better programs to deal with women's issues of this nature. We may be able to develop programs to deal with the economic security and independence of the battered woman. Maybe we should treat battered women's com plaints similar to those of child abuse, because they cer tainly have a common place. More shelters for these women are a necessity, especial ly in our larger urban communities.

Here's where the planning of our communities comes into place, because in some cases the way we plan encourages this sort of thing just by the social atmosphere we create. In some of these urban areas, we don't create family homes; we create jungles. People's attitudes become cannibalistic through those jungles we create. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I would just like to en courage our members to have our Attorney General re view this legislation and his directions to our various police departments and commissions in the province.

The women of this province, as in other parts of this country and/or the world, need protection from those people that I've called cowardly, gutless wonders. These are the peo ple who feel they have to go out and beat women and children to feel as if they are a man. I suggest to this House that those people are not men; they are cowardly, gutless wonders. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. GOGO: Mr.

Speaker, rising to speak to Motion 203, the first comment I'd make as a member whose now entering his third term is that I continue to be impressed with the calibre of people Albertans send to this Legisla ture to represent them. We have the Member for Edmon ton Belmont, a man elected for the first time, who obviously believes that he's reflecting the views of con stituents in sponsoring a motion like this that's so impor tant in society today.

Then we have two other members, the Member for Edmonton Norwood who has added to the debate, and particularly the Member for Calgary McCall who has spoken so eloquently as to how he perceives the problem. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin discussion some what at odds with the comments made by the mover of the motion.

First of all, he indicates that two of the three largest single categories who are guilty of this act of abuse, assault, or battering of wives are indeed the very people who, according to all the evidence — and heaven knows, there's no end of evidence — these battered women turn to for help: the policeman on the one hand, and the medical practitioner on the other. What hope is there if the very people they turn to are the primary cause of the assault in the first place? Perhaps members should think very deeply about that.

In reading the evidence published by the committee of the House of Commons, I don't know where that leaves the truck driver. One should be a little patient in accusing the truck driver without perhaps recognizing the evidence or the incidence of what happens while he's away from home. I don't know. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make the observation that the Member for Edmonton Norwood pointed out that there's evidence indicating that one in every 10 spouses — I think he said wives — is the victim of assault, assault being a hostile or violent attack on the body.

I've read studies subsequent to that that say one in three. I do think, Mr. Speaker, that one has to be very careful about accepting evidence. If indeed it's one in three, then 3,000 of the 9,000 female voters of my constituency of Leth- bridge West are battered, and I have some difficulty reconciling that number. However, without arguing as to the numbers, there's no question that the figures are impressive. They're impres sive to the point that one would think anything, any problem, where 10 per cent are affected should get priori ty.

If that's not true, then we're sure wasting our time talking about unemployment in Canada which, since it passed the one in 10 mark, has been a number one priority with many political parties in Canada. Mr. Speaker, I'm sure there's no question in the views of all of us, in the eyes of all Albertans, that citizens, married or not, must be protected, should be protected, and have the

March 22, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 221 right to be protected from assault on the body. Surely there's no question about that. When do these incidents happen? That might be impor tant. I don't see it in the evidence, but I believe the majority happen in the home. They don't happen in public. I think if one looks at some specific cases of those who are admitted to WIN House in Edmonton — which, as members may be aware, stands for "Women In Need" — you find invariably that alcohol is involved in almost all the cases. I haven't heard a comment today on the results of alcohol.

I haven't heard any comment about the fact that we generate a quarter of a billion dollars profit. Is that a factor? I think we should reflect on that. I think we should be reflecting on the causes and not just the act. I think we should reflect on the symptoms of the causes and not just the results. How significant are booze and doctors' prescriptions, the Valium and the Librium and the rest of them that alter people's minds? I don't think it's sufficient only to consider the fact that people beat people.

We're not particularly proud in Canada to have incar cerated the highest number per capita in the western world. I don't think we're proud of that. Does that mean that we have good law and order? I think it means we have effective police forces. It may say something about the number of laws we put on our books. There are some people who believe that if the law doesn't work, make a new one. Looking back, I think we all have experience of when it was illegal for 16-year-olds to smoke. We know what happened to that: a law that's not respected because the law is not enforceable. Mr.

Speaker, I don't like to harp on alcohol. It seems to me that in some people's views I become associated with the subject. The fact remains that every Albertan over 15 in this great province of ours drinks 799 bottles of beer a year. That's a fact. After dinner we may throw our food scraps in the garbage, but I question whether we ever pour any booze down the drain. In other words, when we sell some 50-odd million gallons of booze, with respect, Mr. Speaker, I think it's consumed. And when it's consumed, certain things happen to the human body and mind.

I think the results of that indeed affect the subject we're talking about. There's no question that if one looks at matters such as unemployment, it becomes a very difficult, traumatic time within the family. A man who's accustomed to going to work day after day has the respect of his family and others. Once he loses his job, he certainly loses a high degree of respect. There's strong evidence indicating that those with alcohol problems are prepared to lose their house or family, all their assets, but the most dramatic thing that affects them is the loss of their job.

So one can appreciate that when a man loses his job he loses a tremendous amount, and many things can happen. I think one can begin to understand why, through tough economic times, there's a dramatic increase not only in the incidence of breaking and entering, theft, and rob beries, but in physical abuse of other people. A case was made that only one in four of the battering cases is the result of unemployment or connected with unemployed people. I don't care if it's one in 10. It's too many. Reference was made that how could anybody on Jasper Avenue not interfere with someone beating someone else.

I remember like yesterday some 30 years ago on a street in Toronto — Yonge Street, I think; one of their pure streets — outside a pub where a man and woman were fighting. A friend of mine came upon them. We were with the military and we were in Toronto on some parachute exercise. I recall vividly what happened. This veteran of World War II, a super guy, went to break it up. He was six months in hospital with a frac tured skull and multiple concussions that only high, spike heels can inflict. He tried to break up this incident that he viewed as battering.

Not only did he suffer dramatically through a long period of hospitalization, but indeed he was sentenced to 18 months in jail for helping. One should be very cautious, and begin to recognize that while it may be noble to interfere, one should be very careful for one's own sake. Fortunately in this province we have the Crimes Compensation Board and, if one can justify that a crime was committed, there could be some compensation. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take a moment to look at our society to try to understand the symptoms and the cause of the problem. We're in the instant society.

I would venture to say that in three-quarters or more of all the homes in Alberta, the first action that's taken upon enter ing the home is turning on the television set. It's to try to get into that other world, that fantasy world. People aren't real anymore. We put a man on the moon, we talk to him, and we bring him home. In Calgary, one of the greatest cities in North America, I suspect not five out of 10 people know their next-door neighbor. Is it any wonder we've become an impersonal society?

It's like a fellow named Joe — some of you may have heard this before, and I ask your indulgence — who was married, had eight children and three jobs; it was all he could do to support them. He said to himself: my gosh, if we have another youngster, that's it, I'm finished, I'll do away with myself. By and by his wife informed him about what she thought was good news and he thought was bad news: a ninth child was arriving. There he is out in the woods, a noose around his neck, standing on a box, and about to step off, when a little voice in his mind says: Joe, are you sure you're hanging the right man?

I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that sometimes we're prepared in our anxiety to resolve what we view as an individual and societal problem and want the government to solve that problem. We now have one policeman for every 550 people in this city. We equate it with the same number of physicians. Lethbridge is one in 700. The inference is that if we're prepared to have one for every 200, we'll solve the problem. Well let's go to the people and ask them for another $200 on their house taxes, because that is the saw-off. If we expect, Mr.

Speaker, to have more and more people available to solve what I believe are essen tially community problems, society problems, not only do I think that's the way to go, but let's have the courage to go out to the people and say, pay for it. I don't think we're prepared to do that. Certainly our municipal politi cians aren't — at least not this year. What is the role of our society, Mr. Speaker? I think it's interesting to spend a minute and view that. I attend four school board meetings in my community a year as a citizen — a budget of some $20 million and 7,000 stu dents in one district.

I'm the only one there. I'm the only one attending. If that's not apathy, Mr. Speaker, what is it? We've all heard the saying that one fellow said to the other: do you realize that the two biggest single problems in society today are apathy and ignorance; what do you think of that? The other fellow said, I don't know, and I don't care. That, I think, is indicative of many people's attitudes. We've reached the point where we think gov ernment can solve everything. Mr. Speaker, I've had the opportunity as an Albertan and a member of this Assembly — I look at the trends. I

222 ALBERTA HANSARD March 22, 1983 look at the Gaming Commission report just published: some S200 million gaming. That's not lotteries. Lotteries are something else. The profit of lotteries is $16 million; never mind what the gross is. That tells you about peo ple's priorities. Some 1,300,000 voters spend about $550 a year in booze. Does that tell you something about our priorities? I am t

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19830322
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L20 S1 19830322 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	fb5d1dc3f1bd2129c653d317278cf2781012a060

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