Whitehorse, Yukon

Wednesday, March 29, 1989 - 1:30 p.m.

Speaker: I will now call the House to order.

We will proceed at this time with Prayers.

Prayers

Speaker: We will proceed at this time with the Order Paper.

Are there any introduction of Visitors?

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Phillips: I would like to take this opportunity to introduce and welcome students from the Takhini Elementary School Grade Five Enrichment Program and their teacher, Peggy Hanulik. Their visit today is part of their studies in understanding first hand how our Legislature works. I would like all Members of this House to join with me in welcoming these students here today.

Applause

Speaker: Are there any Returns or Documents for Tabling?

Are there any Reports of Committees?

Petitions?

Are there any Introduction of Bills?

Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers?

Notices of Motion?

Are there any Statements by Ministers?

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Library System - Improved and Expanded Services

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I am pleased to announce several initiatives that will improve and expand services in the Yukon’s library system.

In 1982, public service hours were cut back at the Whitehorse Public Library. Since that time, concern has been expressed by the public over the lack of morning hours. The recently appointed Whitehorse Public Library Advisory Board has also identified access to the library during the morning hours as one of its highest priorities.

In the coming year, the Whitehorse Public Library will open two hours earlier, at 10 a.m., Monday through Friday. This will provide greater access for the public, especially for children. School tours can once again be accommodated, as well as programming for pre-school children. The extended hours will also increase the use of the library for literacy tutoring.

As well as extended hours at the Whitehorse Public Library, library patrons throughout the Yukon will enjoy an increase in the number of videotapes and books. The library system will receive an additional $20,000 to purchase over 1,000 new books. These will include an updated atlas and dictionary for each community, and non-fiction books in a variety of subject areas. There will also be an increase in books for young children, and additions to the library’s collection of French books.

The opening in recent years of community libraries in Carmacks, Carcross and Ross River has increased the demand for magazines and newspapers. There has also been a steady increase in the cost of subscriptions. Consequently, an additional $5,000 has been added to the library budget for periodicals. This will allow the library to maintain all current subscriptions and add a periodical collection for the Ross River library.

Three years ago, the library introduced an additional service to its patrons throughout the Yukon - a collection of high-quality videos. Demand has grown steadily, to the point where several hundred requests for videos had to be turned down monthly. To help meet the demand for this popular service, an additional $5,000 will be allotted for the purchase of over 60 new videotapes.

Our libraries contain the works of a number of Yukon authors. There are also many other Yukon writers who dream of someday finding their own published works in our territory’s libraries. Starting in September, they will have some help in making that dream come true. The writers-in-residence program will offer counselling, critiques of manuscripts, writing workshops, and public readings for Yukon writers. The Yukon’s first writer in residence for a six-month term will be award-winning Northwest Territories poet Jim Green.

A good library system is vital to the life and growth of our communities. The increases in funding and services I have outlined will serve to make our good library system even better.

Speaker: This then brings us to Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re: Northern Oil and Gas Accord

Mr. Phelps: I have a question for the Government Leader. On 22 September 1988 an agreement in principle was signed on the Northern Oil and Gas Accord that laid the foundations for negotiations for a full accord. To date we have lagged far behind the Northwest Territories in negotiations. Can the Government Leader bring us up to date in what has been happening since September and where we are now?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: The first thing the Leader of the Official Opposition should know is that I am not the appropriate Minister for the Northern Accord. The Minister of Economic Development is.

The second thing the Leader of the Official Opposition should know is that there have been no substantial negotiations since the Accord was signed with Mr. McKnight. The Accord puts us in a negotiating position exactly identical to the terms of the Northwest Territories.

The third thing the Member should know is that there is a commitment of money in the Main Estimates before the House to provide for us consulting and research resources to maintain our position and to prepare us for those negotiations.

The fourth thing I should mention is that the new Minister of Northern and Indian Affairs has not so far indicated his readiness in terms of his own preparation or understanding of the issues to pursue the matter at this time.

Mr. Phelps: So am I to take it there have not been any meetings with the federal government since regarding this matter?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I should advise the Member that as of the swearing in of the new Cabinet I am not the Minister directly responsible. I have knowledge of the matter because there is an inter-departmental group involving deputy ministers on which departments for which I am responsible are represented. There has been communication with not only federal officials and the Government of the Northwest Territories but also people in the industry. I could not without notice document every occasion on which there has been contact or communication, but I can assure the Member that work has been proceeding at the officials level.

While I am on my feet I would like to table legislative returns to a couple of questions that were asked by the Leader of the Official Opposition yesterday.

Question re: Northern  Oil and Gas Accord

Mr. Phelps: Perhaps I could direct this to the appropriate Minister. Have there been any negotiations with the Government of the Northwest Territories regarding this Accord since September 1988?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: This past fall the Cabinets of the Yukon and Northwest Territories governments met and discussed, among other things, the Northern Accord. At that meeting they expressed their positions with respect to the Northern Accord and basically put on record where each jurisdiction stood on that matter.

Question re: Yukon/NWT offshore boundary

Mr. Phelps: This brings me to the issue of the boundary between Yukon and the Northwest Territories. As Yukoners know, the Government of the Northwest Territories is asserting jurisdiction north of the Yukon’s shore over the Beaufort Sea. In July of 1985, I put forward a motion of urgent and pressing necessity in this House on this issue. This motion was supported by all Members in the House at that time. Have there been any negotiations with regard to this boundary between our government and the Government of the Northwest Territories during the course of the last six or seven months?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I do not believe there is any disagreement on either side of this House in terms of the objective of clarifying the offshore boundary between the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. The point is that in law, the Northwest Territories has the offshore to the Yukon. That is something that we want to correct because it is an historical drafting error made, no doubt, by some Ottawa lawyer. The position of the Yukon Government on this questions is well known to both the Northwest Territories government and the Government of Canada. We believe the recognition by Ottawa of our interest in the Beaufort Sea in the accord documents signed last fall and referred to earlier by the Member, provides us with the foundation for expressing and asserting our interest on this matter.

We cannot call the discussions we have had “negotiations” per se, because the required change is to federal legislation and that can only be done by Ottawa. I am advised by Ottawa that it will not be done without substantial negotiations and discussions with all three parties.

Mr. Phelps: We seem to be going around in circles. The motion that was passed in July of 1985 was one of urgent and pressing necessity. It was forwarded by Mr. Speaker to the Prime Minister of Canada. Mr. Speaker received a reply from the Prime Minister indicating a willingness to sit down and negotiate and surely the lead role would have to be taken by this government. I am wondering why it would seem that nothing has been done.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: It is quite false and quite, I think, petty to assert that nothing has been done. The fact of the matter is that we have made a judgment and this is a judgment, I guess, about tactics and strategy that may not be shared by the Member opposite. We think that the best vehicle for advancing Yukon’s interest in this region at this moment, including the boundary question, are negotiations around the Northern Accord. Because that process, and the document that we have now signed with the federal government and the federal government has signed with us, acknowledges the legitimate interests of Yukon in the offshore area and allows us to talk about negotiating direct material benefits and management rights in that area as a prelude to reconciling the long-standing misunderstanding about our offshore boundary.

Mr. Phelps: The Northwest Territories negotiated the agreement in principle on the Accord. This government played catch-up. Is this government saying it is going to proceed simply to work on the Accord and not push the case in the meantime with regard to having the boundary clarified between Yukon and NWT so that we do have jurisdiction as a territory over the Beaufort Sea north of our coast?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: The Member made one assertion that I must dispute. The assertion was that we are playing catch-up. That is not true. The fact that there was an Accord signed in the Northwest Territories happened to be because there was a certain senior federal Minister in the Northwest Territories available to sign the document. When the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs arrived in Yukon, he signed a similar document with us. The Accord negotiations, I want to emphasize, are not the only means by which we are pressing our interests in this matter, but we have made a tactical judgment that at this moment they provide one of the best means for us to advance our claims in this area.

Question re: Yukon/NWT offshore boundary

Mr. Phelps: Does the Government Leader have any correspondence from this government to the Government of Canada or the Government of the Northwest Territories that would indicate that we are pressing a claim with regard to having the boundary clarified so Yukon may have clear jurisdiction over the Beaufort Sea north of our northern coast?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I cannot document, cite or quote correspondence between our governments, but I can remind the Member that there was a joint Government of the Northwest Territories/Yukon Cabinet meeting on the November 1 weekend. There have been meetings with the previous Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs and subsequent discussions on these questions with the new Minister and officials as recently as March 6. I will take the question as notice as to what correspondence is on the files and whether it is suitable for tabling.

Mr. Phelps: I am glad to hear there is some work being done. Could the Government Leader tell us what has been accomplished and whether the Government of the Northwest Territories is amenable to having the boundary clarified, as we have been suggesting all along?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I believe the present Government Leader of the Northwest Territories is very understanding of our position. He understands perfectly well the legitimacy of our claims in the area and our right to an interest in the benefits that may ensue from the Beaufort Sea and the need for us to share responsibility in the management of that area.

Mr. Phelps: We can then take it that the Government of the Northwest Territories will consent to a boundary definition that will extend Yukon’s jurisdiction into the Beaufort Sea north of the coastline? Is that what we are being told? I am very pleased if it is.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: If the Member opposite has put the question in the following form: did I think land claims could be settled this afternoon - it would be like asking the same question. This is a problem that is nearly 100 years old now. It is, in the best sense of the word, a constitutional problem. It is a very basic problem affecting our future. The Member opposite knows full well that you do not get people to change boundaries between jurisdictions in one meeting or one negotiating session. No previous government of this territory ever achieved that objective. I doubt if anybody will be able to achieve it in a very short time frame.

I believe we are making progress on the issue. I believe the discussions we have had with the Northwest Territories government and the national government are advancing our case substantially.

Question re: Yukon/NWT offshore boundary

Mr. Phelps: I am not looking for rhetoric or gamesmanship here. I am just trying to get some answers to some serious questions. We would like to know what is happening. So far, we have not been told anything except that people have been talking about it a lot. I was trying to clarify the deliberately evasive answer of the Member opposite, and I will try once again.

What is the position of the Government of the Northwest Territories in regard to having the boundary clarified so Yukon has jurisdiction, as a territory, over the Beaufort Sea north of our northern coast?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I believe the Member opposite knows it is not possible for me, since I am not a representative of the Government of the Northwest Territories, to speak precisely as to its position. I can tell the Member that, in meetings between our Cabinets, our officials and federal officials, we have pursued our claims in that area. The position of this government is well understood by the Northwest Territories government. It is not in the power of the Northwest Territories government to unilaterally, in any case, agree in the course of some meeting between us to propose to change their boundary, even if they were willing to. I suspect it would be the subject of some substantial political discussion in the Northwest Territories.

I would argue that we have been, prudently and effectively, pursuing this matter. I believe we have made more progress on this question in the last few months than we have in all the years that the territory has been in existence.

Mr. Phelps: Will the Government Leader not agree that if the Government of the Northwest Territories is amenable to clarification of the boundary that the Government of Canada would not hesitate in moving to take the appropriate legal steps to change the present situation?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I would not be so sure of that at all. Since Meech Lake I am not so sure that there are not some provinces that might not take an unwelcome interest in this matter and that is something that I would rather avoid.

Question re: Yukon Energy Corporation

Mr. Nordling: I have a question to the Government Leader with respect to the Yukon Energy Corporation. In its January Throne Speech, this government said that for two years residents and small businesses have benefited from a freeze on power rates. That is not true. I have looked at the 1988 annual report of the Development Corporation that was tabled recently and it appears to me that Yukoners will have suffered from the freeze to the tune of somewhere between $17,000,000 and $20,000,000 by the end of this month. This government has been overcharging residents and small businesses for electricity at almost $1,000,000 per month.

I would like the Minister in charge of the Yukon Energy Corporation to assure Yukoners that those profits will be returned to Yukon consumers of electricity and not be used to subsidize other Yukon Development Corporation operations.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I do not know whether or not the Member knows what he is talking about in his little speech. I am pretty certain that he does not. There is an agreement between this government and the federal government that provides that for two years following the transfer of NCPC’s assets to this territory there would be no change in power rates. They would be frozen. They would not go up and they would not go down.

The Member will also know that NCPC under federal ownership was previously proposing to make five percent annual increases in power rates. That did not happen. What was agreed to in the negotiations is that there be a freeze. The Energy Corporation is now before the Public Utilities Board seeking to reduce the power bills of people in the territory rather than increase them.

Mr. Nordling: The film maker on the other side has made a nice little speech. But my question was: will he assure Yukoners that the profits earned on this freeze that was negotiated by this government will be returned to Yukon consumers and not be used to subsidize other operations of the Yukon Development Corporation.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: The Member is asking a very confused question. The profits of the Energy Corporation that have been earned in the time of our operation are being returned to the consumer in the form of lower power rates. The other activities of the Development Corporation have already been the subject of some discussion previously in Question Period and will be the subject of some debate today in the House.

Mr. Nordling: I do not think the lower power rates are scheduled to start for a few more days. The justification for giving a monopoly to the Yukon Energy Corporation was so that users would only pay for the production of electricity plus a small rate of return for the company. The justification was not to finance other operations of the Development Corporation.

I want the Government Leader to assure Yukoners that this will be done and that that $17,000,000 to $20,000,000 will be returned to Yukon consumers.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: That is not a question; that is a representation. It is probably out of order on at least two grounds: one, he is proposing to discuss a matter that is under debate today, and; two, he is proposing to discuss a policy on power rates, which is currently subject to review by the Public Utilities Board. Neither matter can I therefore respond to.

Question re: Yukon Energy Corporation

Mr. Nordling: It should be clarified that the matter that is going to be discussed later today is the fiasco at Hyland Forest Products. I am not asking about that; we will get to that later. I am talking about the Development Corporation.

The second thing that should be clarified is respecting the Yukon Utilities Board. We know the Government Leader’s attitude toward the Yukon Utilities Board, because he wrote a little note and put it in everyone’s electric utility bill, saying that it was a political decision, that it was not up to the board. So we know what he thinks of the board and what power it has under this government.

My question to the Government Leader, the Minister in charge, is: I would like to know if the Yukon Energy Corporation has declared any dividend payment to the Yukon Development Corporation or transferred any money to the Yukon Development Corporation from its accounts?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: Let me first deal with the somewhat pathetic preamble. Let me just explain to the Member that it is the business of government and the business of Cabinet to make policy. This Cabinet has made policy in respect to rates. Based on that policy, the Yukon Energy Corporation has an application before the Public Utilities Board. The Public Utilities Board will hold hearings and pass judgment on that rate application, according to the policies set down by this government. Those rates will have judgment passed on them.

The question of dividends of the Energy Corporation to the Development Corporation and the Development Corporation to the government is, as I believe the Member knows, a matter of public record.

Mr. Nordling: If it is a matter of public record then I would like to hear it on the floor of this House. We know what happened with the Yukon Public Utilities Board. The previous Minister fired the board.

The Yukon Energy Corporation’s year end is December 31, and I would like to ask the Minister in charge if any money was transferred from the Energy Corporation into the Yukon Development Corporation and, if so, how much?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: The Member once again wants to know some detailed financial answers that he does not give notice to. The Energy Corporation is wholly owned by the Development Corporation and any transaction involving those two corporations will of course be filed before the House in the annual report of each corporation. That information will be public. The information from the previous year is public, as the Member knows.

Mr. Nordling: The year end of the Energy Corporation is December 31. I would think that the year end statement should be ready now. I ask the Government Leader if he will table it in this House to show that there is some honesty and openness in this government. On St. Patrick’s Day, virtually one year after year end, the Development Corporation annual report was tabled. It is unacceptable that we have ...

Speaker: Order, please. Will the Member please get to the supplementary question.

Mr. Nordling: We have to wait one year for financial statements and I do not think that that is acceptable. I would like the Government Leader to make a commitment to provide the year end financial statements of the Yukon Energy Corporation to this House and ...

Speaker: Order, please. Will the Member please get to the supplementary question.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: First of all, the Member should be careful not to mislead the House. The documentary evidence about the annual report was provided in photocopied form to this House during the last session, as the Member well knows. The only reason he did not receive the printed copy was because the printers had not yet finished printing it. He should not try to bamboozle or flim flam people with phony assertions such as the ones just made. The information - the dollars and cents and the numbers - was provided to this House by me in photocopied form at the last session.

Mr. Nordling: I would like to ask the Government Leader again very simply: will he provide to this House in the next few days, the year end statements of the Yukon Energy Corporation?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: The Minister responsible for the Yukon Energy Corporation and the Yukon Development Corporation will provide to this House the audited financial statements of the operations of both the Development Corporation and the Energy Corporation according to law.

Question re: Yukon Energy Corporation

Mr. Phelps: The Government Leader does not seem to want any questions asked about the sale of Hyland Forest Products today. That is why he has bootlegged his motion in so that it can be discussed tonight under cover of darkness. I do have a question that is not about Hyland Forest Products but about the Yukon Energy Corporation. I am wondering if the people who pay their electrical bills, the consumer of electricity in the Yukon, have been called upon to pay for the losses of Hyland Forest Products. Has that happened?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: No.

Question re: Labour standards, re Mr. T. Zagar

Mr. Phelps: I am pleased at such a clear answer. I have a new question. This is for the Minister of Justice regarding labour affairs, and in particular regarding a claim by a constituent of mine, a Mr. Tony Zagar. I wrote a letter to the Minister of Community and Transportation Services on October 20 of last year. I have received no reply. I have followed up by letter on January 20, 1989, and letter on February 7, 1989. On March 20, 1989, I wrote to the Minister of Justice and I enclosed all of the previous correspondence and the substantial back up material. I would like to know why I have not received a reply to my correspondence.

Hon. Ms. Joe: I have received the correspondence from the Member for Hootalinqua and I have asked for the information to be prepared for me just last week. It should be forthcoming. I have no idea why the Member was not responded to previously. He will be getting the information from my department.

Mr. Phelps: The people in the department were given copies of all correspondence and now my constituent is being required to go before the Employee Standards Court without the benefit of an answer to the fundamental issues raised in my correspondence. I am wondering if we can get an answer back this week, or at least prior to April 5, so that we can find out why he is being required to jump through these hoops without the benefit of any response to my inquiries.

Hon. Ms. Joe: I will make sure the Member has an answer before the end of this week.

Question re: Old Yukon College

Mrs. Firth: I have a question for the Minister of Government Services regarding the Old Yukon College renovations and child development centre construction. In the Capital budget debate in January of 1988, the former Minister of Government Services, Roger Kimmerly, was asked by the opposition, three times I believe, whether monies for the renovations for the Old Yukon College were in this budget. He replied twice, quite emphatically, that there was not money identified in the Capital budget of 1988-89. Just to reinforce that, the Minister was quoted as saying - this is from Hansard January 5, 1988, page 379 - “The reason why there is no multi-year cost projection is because we are not asking for the money for that project in this budget. The costing is not complete yet.” He also went on to say, after being asked where he was going to get the money, that they were not asking for the money in this budget because they did not know how much the project was going to cost. Yesterday, in Committee of the Whole, the new Minister of Government Services told this House that in that budget, the Capital Estimates of 1988-89, on page 46, there is a Public Works Capital Program where there are three activities shown in the Mains but no project detail and that $700,000...

Speaker: Would the Member please get to the question.

Mrs. Firth: ... had been set aside for that purpose.

There is an obvious contradiction. Can the Minister tell us which Minister is responsible for the misinformation that has been brought to the Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: There is no misinformation. The Member is citing Hansard quotations of the previous Minister that state that there was no money allocated in that Capital Budget for the Old Yukon College. That was correct at that time. The Member has to understand that the decision to renovate and place the Child Development Centre into the old college was taken after those statements were made. The decision was taken after the Supplementary was prepared that spoke to the end of period six, which is up to the end of September. There is no misinformation. The decision followed the supplementary gathering of information dealing with period six.

Mrs. Firth: We have two completely contradictory statements from Ministers. The previous Minister said that the money for the Old Yukon College renovations would be in the Supplementaries. That is from the same debate. The Old Yukon College renovations were not in the Supplementaries nor were they in the interim supply bill. Perhaps the Minister could tell us where his department officials got the legislative authority to proceed with this expenditure of money.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: The Member is mixing apples and oranges. The first allegation the Member made was that there were funds inappropriately directed for the college renovation. That is totally inaccurate. The authority for the expenditure is totally within the vote allocated in the budget. The Supplementary tabled covers the period to the end of September, and as the Member fondly quoted from Hansard, the previous Minister said there may be a Supplementary to follow on this later. We may well have an additional Supplementary to cover off the end of the year. That may well be the case. The Member accepted and agreed yesterday that the authority was totally within the vote authority and properly within the Financial Administration Act. There is no impropriety. The decision was taken properly and within the proper vote authority.

Question re: Old Yukon College

Mrs. Firth: I would like a new question. Let us look at the facts. There was supposed to be money in the Supplementary for it and there was not. The Minister came into the House yesterday and said that there was no money identified in the Supplementary Estimates for the two periods for this project. If there had been a reallocation of funds, legally, there should have been some identification.

I will wait until the Ministers have a conference.

There is no identification in the Supplementaries for this expenditure. The Legislature never voted on this particular expenditure of $700,000 for the Old Yukon College renovations. They never voted on that. In order for it to be a legal expenditure, it must be brought in as a supplementary. The Supplementaries have been tabled; we are in the process of debating them, and it is still not there. Is the Minister telling us that the $700,000 is going to be in a subsequent supplementary? Right now he has it identified in the new Capital Budget as a retroactive vote for $700,000 that is retroactive to the previous Capital Budget.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Speaking as Minister of Finance, I think the Member is confusing the discussion that the Members have in the House during committee debate with respect to projects that are slated for construction or for processing by the government at the time that the budget is laid before the Legislature. She is confusing that with the issue of vote authority that is provided by this Legislature for program expenditures within the budget. There is, obviously, a latitude within the Financial Administration Act for the government to reallocate funds within a vote in order to undertake certain projects. I am sure the Member knows that full well.

With respect to the Yukon College renovation, the vote authority and the total vote allowed for project work to be undertaken on this particular specific project this year, and, yesterday, the Minister of Government Services  identified that project as proceeding this year within the vote authority, within legal limit of the legislation. That is all perfectly acceptable and traditional in this House in dealing with our budgets.

Mrs. Firth: It becomes a very serious matter when the government cannot show where the authority to spend the money has been obtained. Perhaps the Minister of Finance can tell us where the legislative authority was for this expenditure of $700,000 for the Old Yukon College?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The vote authority is within the legislation. If the Member will read the Financial Administration Act and the budget bills, she will understand that the vote authority is within the legislation. In fact, there is the ability within the vote to manage the funding to allocate that funding from one project to another. It is a standard practice that is exercised by this government and previous governments, and it is explained to the Legislature during Supplementary Estimates, as the Minister of Government Services was doing yesterday.

Mrs. Firth: I think I understand the situation very well, and it is not a standard practice - maybe by this government - to transfer money the way it has been doing it. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if he would be prepared to refer this matter to the Auditor General for detailed examination as to the legalities of the expenditure of the funds.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I am quietly outraged at the suggestion that there is anything, whatsoever, illegal about the activities of this government with respect to this budgeting. The Member, obviously, does not understand what happened and clearly did not understand what happened when she was in government. I think that is tremendously unfortunate because it is providing information to the Legislature that is incorrect. Clearly, the vote authority, the legislation is available for anyone to see. The situation, as the Minister of Government Services explained, with respect to allocating funding within a vote to a particular project is clearly within the ability of the government. Not only is it not illegal, it is the traditional practice for the government to allocate funding within a vote, within the authority provided by the Financial Administration Act to meet the priorities of the day.

Speaker: The time for Question Period has now lapsed. We will now proceed with Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Based on the agreement between the House Leaders, I would request the unanimous consent of the House to proceed directly to Motions other than Government Motions, rather than calling Motions for the Production of Papers, and I would request the unanimous consent of the House to have the first four motions under Motions other than Government Motions called in the following order: item no. 4, motion no. 23; item no. 2, motion no. 21; item no. 1, motion no. 20; and item no. 3, motion no. 22.

Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

All Hon. Members: Agreed.

Speaker: There is unanimous consent.

MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS

Motion No. 23

Clerk: Item number 1, standing in the name of Ms. Hayden.

Speaker: Is the hon. Member prepared to proceed with item number 1?

Ms. Hayden: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Member for Whitehorse South Centre

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the Government of Yukon should consider establishing a Yukon child care advisory board that would include parents, child care professionals and representatives of licensed child care services from both rural and urban Yukon to:

(a) advise the Minister of Health and Human Resources on all matters pertaining to child care;

(b) encourage the development of quality child care throughout the Yukon so that parental needs are met; and

(c) act as an independent appeal board concerning decisions made by a separate monitoring officer of agency.

Ms. Hayden: Now that the Yukon Child Care Strategy has been announced and money is in the budget to carry out the strategy, it is important that we continue the planning process.

One of the requests made by Yukoners during the Yukon child care consultations was for a representative board to be established to advise the Minister on issues such as new legislation. I quote from the document “Working Together: A Child Care Strategy for the Yukon”, page nine, headed “Child Care Legislation and Program Delivery”, “Through the child care consultation process, Yukoners indicated their support for legislated changes to improve standards, resolve licensing and enforcement issues, provide for community and parent involvement, define the type and scope of services to be covered and upgrade staff qualifications.

“New legislation consistent with the child care principles and objectives will be established.”

A little further on, it says, “The Government of the Yukon will immediately consult with interested parties on a comprehensive new child care act for presentation to the Yukon Legislative Assembly in the fall of 1989; establish a new child care services unit in the Department of Health and Human Resources to support the growing child care system in the Yukon; and, into the 1990s, implement new legislation, including any new policy or program commitments created by the act.”

They also asked that a board be created to advise the Minister on the implementation of the strategy so that it is appropriate to the needs of each community.

They often referred to the expansion of the existing Day Care Services Board but the intent was to have representative members from each community. For example, most communities want parenting skills taught as part of their program. Many also see the very urgent necessity of setting up culturally appropriate programs, native language skills and after-school care. The aboriginal communities want child care that reflects their values. All communities want child care that meets the needs of families.

I quote from the consultation report entitled, “We Care: Yukoners Talk About Child Care.” On page 29, then Chief Albert Peter of Mayo said “There are other kinds of services or programs in communities that could be established that could assist, all directly related to families and children. Different kinds of components that could evolve in the future directly related to the community. It is a fine thread that holds everything together, and I think the government should at least be aware of a broader range of services that may be required.” And again, on page 31 of that report, the representative of the Yukon Federation of Labour said, “Parents must be assured of the opportunity to become involved along with child care workers in decisions concerning the operation and delivery of services”. On the same page, again Chief Albert Peter of Mayo said, “We see accountability being a two-stream system. One is that you are accountable to the people and the other is you are accountable to the funding agency. We understand and recognize the need for accountability mechanisms.”

In the same report and same page, Mike Nugent from Whitehorse said, “The Day Care Services Board is presently judge, jury and police of the child care environment. By definition, it is a regulatory board.” The Yukon Day Home Society representative said, “We would like ideally to change the make up of the Day Care Services Board as we feel that the current board should not have complete authority over day care services in Yukon.”

Alan Blysak of Mayo, on page 32 says, “We recommend that if there are day cares in the community there should be a representatives from that day care board on the Day Care Services Board”.

Denise Norman of Dawson City says, “Are there no community representative on the day care board?”

Speaker: Order please. I would like to point out to the Member that according to Standing Order No. 19(1) that it is not permitted to read from Hansard, or any written document, continuously.

Ms. Hayden: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The point I am making is that the request was made by people around the territory to have some changes either in the Day Care Services Board or in a board that would represent people from around the territory.

At the present time, the Day Care Services Board acts as a licensing and monitoring body. A Yukon Child Care Advisory Board that is made up of rural and urban Yukoners, parents, child care professionals and representatives of legitimate centres and family day homes could act as an independent appeal board concerning decisions made by either the existing Day Care Services Board or, under new legislation, a separate monitoring officer or agency. It would also act in an advisory capacity to the Minister.

During the child care consultation panel hearings, rural and urban parents and care givers, as well as the Yukon Child Care Association, the Day Care Services Board, and other groups and individuals all expressed support for some form of a Yukon-wide child care advisory board. It is my hope that this House will support them in their request. I summarize that request and that situation. The Yukon child care strategy committed the government to consult with interested parties on a comprehensive new child care act, and to work together with parents, care givers, employees and educators in shaping the future of child care services in Yukon.

This was in direct response to the consultation report “We Care: Yukoners Talk About Child Care” that included numerous recommendations relating to the Day Care Services Board’s role and the need for community input. A steering committee, working group, or advisory board of concerned rural and Whitehorse community representatives is needed to assist in the process of developing legislation and programming to ensure ongoing responsiveness to the needs of various Yukon communities and interest groups. This committee must be established immediately to meet the projected target date for legislation.

The Day Care Services Board was established in legislation in December 1979 to consider all applications for licensing for day care centres and family day homes and to conduct all necessary inspections to ensure ongoing adherence to regulations. The Day Care Services Board is made up of five members, and I believe they are all from Whitehorse.

The Day Care Services Board will continue to operate in its present role until new legislation is passed. It is a busy working board and plays an essential role at the present time in licensing, but cannot be expected to provide the broad input needed for the development of new legislation and programming.

I believe that we need a Yukon-wide child care advisory board to meet that need.

Mr. Nordling: I would like to thank the Member for Whitehorse South Centre for bringing this motion forward. By bringing it forward we get to debate this issue a week earlier than we would have. This motion is almost identical to a motion that I brought forward that is already on the Order Paper. Just to illustrate the similarity I would like to read my motion.

“THAT it is the opinion of this House that the Government of Yukon should establish a Yukon Child Care Advisory Board that would include parents, individuals in the child care business and rural and urban community members to advise the Minister of Health and Human Resources on all matters pertaining to child care.”

That same motion has been on the Order Paper several times before. It was first introduced by the Member for Riverdale South when she was the critic for Health and Human Resources. I know that this motion will pass unanimously. There is a slight difference in the motions, and that is why I know it will be unanimous. Our motion says that it is the opinion of this House that the government establish the board. The Member’s motion is that the government should consider establishing a child care advisory board. She should have made the motion a bit stronger, because, in her speech, she advocated the establishment of this board almost immediately.

The Member introducing the motion quoted from the findings of the child care panel. Those concerns and the need for this board was obvious before the panel was struck and began its deliberations. The need was also recognized that rural and urban representatives were needed on such an advisory board.

I hope that the motion brought forward by the Member for Whitehorse South Centre prompts this government into action, action that has been lacking for the past four years. I am pleased that the new Member has taken the interest and the initiative to bring this forward and, it is hoped, get things moving.

Child care is a big issue throughout the whole territory and the Yukon child care advisory board is certainly needed. I have no hesitation in saying that we will support this motion and look forward to the establishment of that board. Thank you.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: My interest in this debate is not only as a person who has some understanding of the education system in the territory, but also as an MLA who has been seeking a better child care service in the Mayo district for a considerable period of time. I realize that the motion in itself does speak primarily to the issue, and almost exclusively to the issue, of setting up an advisory board to the government with respect to child care matters. It also brings to mind the very significant child care issues that have been addressed and must be addressed in the future. I think that it is essential that the makeup of the board reflect the broadest range of interests in the territory, in order that there be flexibility in the programs established by the government, so that communities such as the Mayo community, or the Elsa community eventually, will have the kind of child care support that is their due.

With respect to the education system, specifically, it is clear that, increasingly, there are issues that overlap between the traditional child care issues and those support services that are traditionally provided by government, from kindergarten through to grade 12. I think that it is absolutely essential that, as discussion takes place in the many years to come, proper articulation of any support that the government might provide from time to time, with respect to child care service and certainly the support that it will inevitably provide to the education system, be coordinated.

In recent years there has been a demand for services placed on the government, which the government, to some extent, has been able to meet. To probably a greater extent, the government has not been willing to meet demands for services in pre-school and after-school programs. At the same time, clearly, the government has been trying to improve the services provided for child care around the territory, and it is essential that the programs that are provided, either through day care support or through the public system, be coordinated so that, firstly, there is no overlap and, secondly, that the traditional and necessary roles and responsibilities that the government has with respect to both matters be coordinated properly.

In some communities it has been considered that the Department of Education should respond to pre-school needs. These needs have been identified - at least so far - as those affecting children who enter the school system at kindergarten primarily with language problems. They are unable to participate, even in a structured kindergarten program, because they lack an adequate knowledge of the English language. For that reason, primarily, the government has undertaken, in those cases where there is an identified problem with respect to language skills, a pre-school program. Although it is to a limited extent that the government does provide the service, there is and has been some confusion between what is pre-school and what is ultimately day care.

There have been discussions in the Legislature before about the proper and appropriate role, for not only the education system, but also the subsidy support that government provided for day care. The creation of a public advisory council on day care will go some considerable distance to resolving the conundrum that people are facing with respect to determining the respective roles and responsibilities of education, of health and human resources, of government, of public and of parents for the provision of services. I think that is a worthwhile objective in the long term.

The Department of Education has, to the present, discussed briefly with the Education Council, another body that has been created to advise the government on specific education matters, the issues of preschool and after-school care, to determine what the ultimate appropriate role will be for government in those two fields.

The government, as a matter of interest, has a policy that allows the use of school buildings for pre-school and after-school care, if it is supervised on a volunteer basis, if the space is available for students and if there is school committee support for the endeavour. That policy has provided considerable benefit to parents and children, but nevertheless the division of responsibility between the public school system and a day care program remains to be defined precisely. I am hoping that the Education Council and the child care advisory board can jointly discuss those matters from their particular perspective, from the school committees’ perspective and from the various interests that would be represented on a child care advisory board and recommend solutions to the government for the long term.

With respect to the role of the Yukon College, I realize that it has been brought up during the child care hearings that were undertaken recently to determine the appropriate role of the college and the college board in assisting the child care system. Clearly, it is appropriate for the College Board and a child care advisory board, if such a board is properly constituted, to determine the role of the college with respect to the necessary training for child care workers and to help determine what is a proper certification for those workers.

As Members will know, the board has already responded to that initiative to assist the child care services around the territory with the implementation of an Early Childhood Education Program at the college to undertake the training of child care workers. I believe the next initiative will be to try outreach within that program to reach those communities that will not have easy access to the central college facility.

Those issues that I have mentioned, as well as one other I will mention, I consider to be important as a legislator. The other issue is that of standards. I realize this, too, came up at some length during the child care hearings around the territory. It is an important one for any child care advisory board to address, perhaps jointly with the College Board, in the coming years.

I believe standards are particularly important, on a personal level and from a public policy level, for a variety of reasons. I will just briefly mention that I would feel that it is essential that parents receive some assurance that services that they seek for the purposes of child care are, in fact, secure and dependable. Ultimately, in an otherwise buyer-beware marketplace mentality, it would be a difficult proposition for me to accept that the children might be, in some way, caught in the middle between those who want to sell a service and the parents who want the service provided. The parents seek child care and expect that their children will be in a secure environment. They should have every reason to expect that environment to be safe and secure. It is often the case that problems can occur but, at the same time, it takes time to identify them.

There are numerous examples of situations which have arisen where the standards have not been met and the parents, and ultimately and most importantly, the children, have suffered as a result. So I think this is another area where a properly constituted child care advisory board would have a very significant role to play.

Speaking to the composition of the board, I feel quite strongly as a rural MLA that the interests of rural Yukon have, until very very recently - and I hope in the near future, will be much better served - not been well served by the child care system. Clearly the eccentricities of various communities have not been respected and ultimately whatever child care service the government has provided in the past has not been evenly applied across the territory.

I believe, at the same time, that in many respects the services provided to the urban areas are better provided, though there is clearly work to be done there. Certainly in the very small communities the services are next to non-existent.

I would hope that the child care advisory board in its ultimate make up would not only respect that there is a difference between the urban centers and the more rural centers, but also between the rural centers, because every community, of course, has its own character, its own makeup, and ultimately will have its own priorities. I think it is absolutely essential that flexibility be a hallmark of programing, to recognize individual community needs.

I think at this point it would be wise to put in a bit of a plug for the Mayo pilot project in the delivery of social services, in that that project itself is a very significant step in the right direction to encourage a proper, community-based determination of priorities for that community and, given that there is potential for this project to perform well, I would hope that the child care advisory board would again, along with other public bodies that are constituted to advise the government, consider community determination as being a desirable feature of programing that this government or the federal government might provide in the future.

From an education perspective, I do support the creation of a board. I do feel that there are issues that are of significant importance to both the education system and to the child care system that must be resolved ultimately in their detail. My belief is that a child care advisory board will serve those interests quite well.

As a rural member, if the board is properly constituted, which includes community interests, I feel, again, that the rural communities will be well served by this initiative. If that means that there be other community representatives or regional representatives represented on the board, then I would believe that that is the appropriate sort of make up for the board.

I also believe that it is absolutely essential that people within the child care industry, as providers of the service, be represented on the board because they, after all, are a significant partner and it would be inappropriate to leave them out.

Having said that, I support the motion and I am looking forward to working with the Minister of Health and Human Resources and with the child care advisory board on those matters that not only affect education but affect communities.

Mr. Joe: I am going to support this motion. What we see today in the communities is a need for child care. Recently, a child care centre opened in Pelly Crossing. The Selkirk Indian Band received its licence on March 1 of this year. There are up to 15 spaces for children from the community. Right now, it is being used by eight children. This centre opened because the Yukon government made a contribution. It gave the community the support it must have to fill a community need. This was made possible through the Capital Development Program. The operating costs are being provided through parent fees and the O&M grants provided by this government.

In Carmacks, a child care centre was opened last October. Once again, it is being done by the Indian band. They fixed up some trailers with a grant from the Local Employment Opportunities Program and, now, there is a place for parents to take their children during the daytime. In this centre, there are nine spaces. They, too, get their operating costs paid for by parent fees and the grant from the Government of Yukon.

The reason we need child care in these small communities is just like anywhere else. Parents are going to work or going to school. If they do not have a good place to take their children, then they cannot go to work or they cannot go to school. People need to work to put food on the table. They need to go to school to upgrade themselves or get training so they can help their community prepare for the future.

Last year, we saw the child care consultation panel visit every community. They went to Pelly Crossing and to Carmacks. This panel heard many things, and some of these things are being discussed here today with this motion.

The motion calls for an advisory board to be set up. One of the things this board would do is act as an independent appeal board where organizations or people can go to get a review on decisions that the government officials make about child care facilities.

People need a place to go. If a bad decision is made and if we pass this motion, this is what would happen.

The motion gives this board a second specific job - to encourage the development of quality child care throughout the Yukon, wherever parents need assistance. That includes places like the communities in my riding. Maybe this should be the job of the government, but we are talking here about a board of parents, professionals and representatives of licensed child care services - from both the rural areas and Whitehorse. We think they should be the ones to do this.

The third thing this motion refers to is that the board would give the Minister of Health and Human Resources advice on any matters about the subject of child care. I think that in the future we will need this kind of board.

It was only last fall that the panel went around and did its work. Then the government came out with its response and position. Now we see a lot of new money in the Budget for child care, and there will be legislation at a later date to bring in the changes that have been talked about.

So there has been a lot of discussion about child care recently. But what about the future? I think we need a strong and active advisory board to keep up the good work.

Right now, there is the Day Care Services Board. We need to change this to the jobs we are talking about with this motion.

This way, the people in the communities will have a voice all the time that can speak to the Minister about child care concerns. Mahsi cho, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Phillips: I am pleased to see this motion before us today and I would like to commend the Member from Whitehorse South Centre for bringing this forward. However, I have to agree with my colleague from Porter Creek West that it appears to parallel a motion that he introduced to this House and has been on the Order Paper for some time.

I also respect and recognize the genuine feelings of the Member from Whitehorse South Centre and her background in this field and I am pleased to see that that Member has brought this motion forward today.

I would like to talk about the politics of this Legislature and something that can become very frustrating to Members. Several times, in the past three and one-half to four years, the Member from Riverdale South and the Member from Porter Creek West have raised this very same issue almost word for word as the Member for Whitehorse South Centre’s concerns. Each time the side opposite, because it was this side’s idea, played politics with the children of the territory.

For three and one-half years, the previous Minister has sat on her hands and done very little. Just recently, the Minister announced a policy after three and one-half years of consultation. I might add that today we have the very same motion that has been asked in Question Period in this House probably no less than half a dozen times.

I think that is a bit of a shame. I think we should quit playing politics with the people of the territory and seriously look at motions, resolutions, questions or suggestions that come forward from every Member of this House, look at the merit of those suggestions and try and implement the good ones. We should do things that are going to assist the people of the territory instead of just playing politics with it like the side opposite has done for three and a half years.

I am going to be supporting this motion today in the hope that, finally, now that the government is here trying to convince the people of the Yukon that is it their idea, they will act.

Ms. Kassi: I rise to speak in support of this motion sponsored by my friend, the hon. Member for Whitehorse South Centre, not only for political reasons, however. I have some very good reasons with respect to my community. I want to speak to this motion from the point of view of my village but first I want to note a couple of differences between the motion before us today and the motion on the Order Paper by the Member for Porter Creek West. One big difference that I see is that the other Member’s motion refers to child care as a business.

I and the people in my community have to wonder how can child care be a business. In most places in the territory, child care centres are non-profit operations and that is the way that it should be. They have to operate within a budget and look at things like revenue and expenditures but they are not businesses, yet, in some places like Whitehorse, we see child care centres run as businesses. The way it was put in that motion, however, the child care advisory board would only allow people on that board from the child care business. What about representatives from other kinds of operations, such as non-profit centres run by Indian bands or day care societies?

I support the proposal put forward in this motion today where the child care advisory board would have representatives from among parents, child care professionals, and representatives of licensed child care services, including tribal councils, family day homes, et cetera, from both the communities and Whitehorse.

In Old Crow we do not have a child care centre right now. There used to be one in the community hall but it was difficult to run and the hall was needed for many other purposes. What we need in Old Crow is a facility for a proper child care centre. We see a big problem in Old Crow with a shortage of proper facilities. For instance, a recent example was how we wanted to establish a day home in the old police station in Old Crow, but the police will not turn over that facility to the community. They have two huge new, nice buildings, but they will not let the community have the old one.

Like so many other communities, my village needs a good quality child care service. What we had before was an elder and a young person providing the service. The elder would care for the children in terms of their culture, the elder would speak to them in their own language, and help them learn and play some traditional games, and they ate traditional food. The young person would take care of the children’s physical needs and do all the running around.

The community spoke very well about child care when the panel went on its tour of the territory last year. At this point, we have had enough direction and talk. What we need is more action, and I am glad to see the steps being taken by this government, and the support from the Members opposite for the new funds in the budget. I hope they will support the new child care act that we will see later before this House.

One concern of mine is continued community input. Sometimes I think that we have enough committees and boards; what we need is more action. With this motion, I understand that it can be as much for the future as for today. We could see this motion being put into legislation down the road, or the Minister could set it up in the near future to give him ongoing advice on this major issue for Yukon parents. It is very important that the choice of child care service lies with the parents. For example, if a parent chooses extended family care for their child, they should have the right to seek funding subsidy for that.

This motion talks about how a job of the board would be to encourage the development of quality care throughout the Yukon so that parental needs are met. This is the kind of backup needed by the bands and other people at the community level. In many places we have community resource boards or tribal councils with social programs high on their list of priorities. As long as we have good community representatives on this board, the views of the communities will be heard, and the Minister will be advised by the board to take the necessary steps to get things done and to assist them.

There is another area we need to look at as well. That is the special needs we see arising in our communities with our young children today. I hope our child care workers will have the training they need to deal with special needs children because there are a lot of them. We need special education teachers in the schools and people properly trained in our child care centres. Our children need to be provided with personal skills training from an early age so that they have the confidence to go forward in the future in a society that is not based on their culture. Young people come to Whitehorse for school from Old Crow, and they need to arrive with more confidence in their abilities and not just to cope but to do well in this society. They also need training in their own culture and language, in hunting and trapping and living off the land so they can go forward as people confident and proud about their cultural heritage.

This motion talks about the advisory board being established to advise the Minister on all matters pertaining to child care. To me this is an area that must be looked at. What we need to provide where we have child care services is proper care in terms of special needs children and good cultural training by involving elders and others to give the support and background to child care centres. These are important for aboriginal people.

One thing pointed out to the child care panel was the need to have care givers who are culturally aware. If they are not native and they are raising native children, for instance, what are their views on hunting and trapping. We cannot have an animal rights activist telling native children that hunting and trapping is wrong. That does not reflect our values or our view of the world. I hope this kind of problem will not occur and that cultural awareness will be part of the training care givers receive. What I can see is that if problems like this arise, the child care advisory board, as outlined in this motion, could be an agency to go to for support.

It is vitally important that our tribal councils be viewed as self governing and that they develop our new child care policies within their respective communities.

With that, I will end my remarks. Mahsi Cho.

Mr. Lang: As some Members from my side have indicated, the motion before us is basically the position that our caucus and the Progressive Conservative Party has taken for quite sometime. It is not new to us and we are pleased to see the interest being taken by the side opposite, and I want to commend the new Member for Whitehorse South Centre for bringing it forward. I hope the new Minister will act upon the recommendations of the motion that comes out of this House. So often we see motions being debated with common agreement or consensus reached and then no action is taken after the House is prorogued. I should point out that there seems to be quite a period between sessions.

I hope to see this board negate a lot of the problems we have seen in the past, namely the attempt at surveillance of family day homes in the Whitehorse area. It was very unpleasant a couple of years ago when homes were put under surveillance by the department. People and families were photographed, people were phoned, and unlisted numbers were purportedly obtained through other government departments, and people were being quizzed on what was going on with respect to certain family day homes in the community.

I find it sad if that is the kind of society we are living in. I want to raise another point that I hope is not taken lightly, and that is the question of standards. I heard the Member for Mayo speak of standards almost propagating a maximum level of standards for the running of family day homes and day homes. We have to be very careful about the guidelines and standards that are being required by government with respect to the question of people being prepared to bring children into their homes. We have to be realistic, and we also have to take costs into consideration.

We can get to the point that, if we get our standards so high, nobody can afford to provide that kind of service except for a chosen few who have already been set up. They will then have a monopoly on the market and, subsequently, costs for the consumer will rise. It is a fine balance we have to achieve in encouraging people to provide this service.

When I talk about standards, the other area is the question of education and the requirements of the child care workers. I hope we do not forget that the most important job an individual can do is to raise their children successfully. I am talking as a parent. As far as qualifications of departmental staff or staff in the family day homes are concerned, I would like to think that one of the major criteria would be selecting one who has already raised a family or who is in the process of raising a family.

It bothers me when I hear of people who are in this line of business, and they have not raised their own family. All of a sudden, they are telling you and me how we should be raising our children. At the same time, they leave their job and go home and do not have children to contend with for the rest of the day. In our haste to deal with the problem, we should not overlook that as a major criteria for qualifications of individuals in this area of work.

I am dealing with Whitehorse primarily. I can think of one individual in particular who successfully raised between eight or 11 children, who are living and working in the territory and raising their families here. At the same time, there is some question as to whether that individual can run a family day home. In that respect, I question the propriety of government even intervening with somebody who has such high qualifications. They should not even be questioned.

There is one other area I would like to speak to, and that is the question of financing. There is a limit to the public’s ability to pay, no matter what the service is. In this particular case, it is the question of day care. I believe that our responsibility regarding subsidy is for those who need it. If the government’s position is that ultimately we are going to be subsidizing people who are making, as a couple, between $80,000 and $100,000 a year, I strenuously object. If that is the policy, we are going to be in a lot of trouble financially down the road.

First of all, I do not think the government can afford it and, secondly, I believe that it is fundamentally wrong.

If both parents make that conscious decision to go out and join the work force and are fortunate enough to have the credentials and the ability to bring in a wage of that kind then they can pay the direct cost of this kind of service being provided.

Another important point I want to leave Members with is: let us not lose sight of the importance of the spouse who decides to stay home to raise their child. We should not be looking at our day care system as an incentive for both parents necessarily to go to work. I think, in general terms in North America - not just Canada and not just Yukon -, to some degree, intentional or otherwise, the spouse who has made the conscious decision to stay at home is looked down upon, and that is wrong. They should be looked up to, because that spouse, who stays at home, is performing one of the most important tasks that society can ask of anyone in preparing our young people for the future.

I want to conclude by cautioning the government in implementing its day care program that we do not forget and do not degrade the importance of the family and of the spouse who decides to stay home and foregoes some of the material things that they would otherwise have and also, we cannot forget, are fortunate enough to be able to stay home, because in some cases one cannot. We should be doing everything we can to make it a viable option for at least one member of the family to stay home if they wish. If we go too far, we are going to find it too easy for parents to say to the state, “Here you take my children; you raise my children.” The ultimate end is that there is no longer a family and that is not how this country was built.

Hon. Ms. Joe: It has been interesting to note some of the comments that were made from the other side of the House in regard to child care in the Yukon. I did take objection to some of the remarks that were made by the Member for Porter Creek West in regard to nothing being done for three and one-half years. I would like to let this House know that there is a history of day care in the Yukon and that history goes back to the time that our present Government Leader, when in the Opposition, was trying to implement some kind of a day care program in the Yukon.

Finally, in November of 1979, the Progressive Conservative government at that time enacted day care legislation that defined day care centres and family day homes and established a licensing mechanism. The Day Care Act was brought into force in May 1980. In 1981 the Progressive Conservative government implemented, by regulation, a day care subsidy program for low income eligible users of licensed day care facilities. That was the extent of the day care program in the Yukon. From 1981 on, nothing happened. They were in power from that time until 1985. They mentioned here today that there has not been anything done in day care in the Yukon in the last three years, and that is not true.

During our period of time in the Opposition, we heard many concerns from many people, from many communities, including Watson Lake and Haines Junction, that there was a lack of day care facilities in those communities. As a matter of fact, other concerns were that the cost of day care was too high and that the regulations did not comply with some of the things they wanted in the communities. It took from 1981 to 1986 before there was any change made in the child care program in the Yukon. At that time, we approved and updated new regulations for family day homes and family day care centres. That was following consultation with people who were concerned about these things for the last three years. That was a start.

This will be in Hansard so if the Member is not here, it does not matter.

In 1986, this government implemented an operational and maintenance grant to assist with the operating costs of licensed day care centers. At that time, the day care centres were having problems with keeping the centres opened from month to month. Again, in 1986, we increased the subsidies for eligible users. We are always talking about eligible users: those people that require the funding to get by from month to month. That is exactly what we did.

We even went further than that. We implemented a Capital program that allowed new centres to either start up or to enhance existing day care centres. That was a change in the day care program.

All of these things were taking place during the last three and one-half years. It has been said on the other side that nothing happened and that we were playing political games. We were not playing political games; we were doing something that was absolutely necessary for child care in the Yukon.

There was still much more to be done and we recognized that. We kept hearing from people that there were things that had to happen in day care. There was a need for a full time, Early Childhood Development program. We listened to those people when they told us that certain things were necessary.

The Yukon 2000 process was very helpful in many ways to a lot of people. As a result of that we received a letter from the Yukon Status for Women Council cosigned by the Yukon Teachers Association, the Victoria Faulkner Women’s Centre and the Canadian Congress for Learning Opportunities for Women.

They voiced their concerns in telling us that throughout the Yukon 2000 process, women stressed that child care was an important economic and social issue affecting women’s participation in the economy. They echoed the concern about the affordability, accessibility and quality of child care in the Yukon. They strongly urged us to consider that it was a high priority and critical issue. Their specific recommendations were listed and they asked us to address affordability, accessibility and the quality issues, among many other things.

That was a group of four organizations that contacted us. We also heard from the Yukon Day Care Services Board. They were concerned that there were things that could be improved in the day care program. We listened to those. We listened to an individual who said that she greatly appreciated the government’s efforts to create a climate favourable to the establishment of a full range of child care options. She was having a problem herself because she was not able to take part or take advantage of any of the child care options because she was running a family day home. She also expressed the need for a full time Early Childhood Development course.

There were many people who talked about the family day homes not being eligible for funding. That change was also made.

We had day care workers and day care users who voiced many concerns. The Women’s Directorate presented to us a list of concerns and the Family Day Home Society from Riverdale South also wrote me a letter and expressed a number of concerns that they had.

That was just a small part of the involvement from people who were concerned about child care facilities in the Yukon. We even had a copy of the Progressive Conservative proposed policy on child care and it was very interesting. It asked for the coordinating and consultation process and talked about many good things as well, so the concerns were there.

As a result of all of that, on November 10 we announced that a consultation panel - it was mentioned before by the Member for Whitehorse South Centre - would hear the views of the public on the green paper called “Future of Child Care in the Yukon”. It outlined a number of principles and they are very familiar to everybody in here.

Those principles included quality, parental choice, accessibility, affordability, comprehensive child care, government responsibility, accountability and non-profit versus profit. They said at that time that that consultation process was not necessary, that it was not necessary at all because we already knew everything that we had to know about child care. Well, that was not so, and was said to us by many people out in the communities. We knew that there were more views out there. We knew that the people in the communities and in Whitehorse did have some concerns. They wanted to let us know what those concerns were. They wanted to let us know how we should make day care better in the Yukon.

The child care panel listened. They listened and they listened well. Not only during the time of the hearings were we listening to the people, but the people out in the communities were learning something about the day care program. So it was two fold; they were able to start taking advantage of programs that were already in existence, because they were told them and, as a matter of fact, the applications were starting to come in for funding to build new day cares or to upgrade them.

I ended up going down to Watson Lake to open a day care down there and I attended with the Member for Kluane the opening of a day care there. I also opened one in Riverdale South.

Information that was not readily available was taken to the communities by the day care panel, because it had that information. So it was two fold. It was not just a hearing but it was also an information distributor as well.

We received the report back from the panel. It was entitled “We Care: Yukoners Talk About Child Care”. From that, a strategy was developed, called “Working Together: A Child Care Strategy for the Yukon”. Those two documents were sent right across Canada to all of the other jurisdictions and I have had, and I am sure that the present Minister of Health and Human Resources is also getting, responses back from that commended us on the fact that we were able to follow such a process here in the Yukon, and to get the kind of input that we did, and that we actually allowed Yukoners to consult.

We recognized that the objectives of the working strategy could not be realized without the continued involvement of the parents and the care givers and the community organizations.

They made it very clear to us that they had to play a very important role in the shaping of the future for child care in the Yukon. I think that this motion before us today that was introduced by the Member for Whitehorse South Centre is really important in that it meets the needs that Yukoners are expressing. We have to have this kind of an advisory board that will represent different organizations.

I do support the motion; it is not exactly the same as the one as the Opposition had, but it is one that had been done by a member of the panel that went out and got the information. I am very pleased to be able to stand here and support it. I look forward to a lot of other good things happening on the day care issue, but, certainly, a lot more has to be done, and we are very proud of what we have been able to achieve.

Mr. Devries: First of all, I am very pleased to see this motion presented by the Member for Whitehorse South Centre.

I must admit that five years ago I was probably very anti- day care. Being from the old league, we raised our children on a very minimal income. I can still remember going to the grocery store and having to turn down a pair of gloves and wear a pair of smelly old socks on my hands all week for a box of Fleecy fabric softener or whatever goes in the wash with the diapers, but that is not what we are here to talk about today, but it is just so you understand where I am coming from.

It was not until I started to consider political life that I became aware of the needs in this area. Since then, I have softened considerably, and I am in favor of child care to a certain extent.

During the election campaign I had the privilege of being presented with the policy paper on child care and I used it. After I read it, I was in agreement with it and I used it quite regularly during my election campaign. It was very well received by my constituents and could be one of the reasons why I am standing here today.

As the Minister of Justice mentioned, Watson Lake does have some child care facilities, and they have been very well used up to this point. They are greatly appreciated by the people who use them, but, again, they are not adequate in that now the complaints I hear are that the kids are stuck down in the basement all the time. Perhaps some more planning could have gone into it, and a facility above the ground might have been better in the long term.

I agree with the Member for Porter Creek East that it is very important that someone on this board that we are thinking about forming represents the parents who decide to stay home and look after their own children. I truly believe that if my children had gone to a day care facility, they would not be the top quality kids that I feel we have raised. I am not saying a day care facility could not raise top quality kids, but I think parents have much to contribute to the raising of their children. It helps to develop their character. I am afraid that if we get too much into day care, we will develop children who turn out somewhat institutional in nature, and all develop the same way of thinking. What makes Canada such a great place is that every person has a diverse way of thinking. We could all turn out to be NDP or Conservatives. We would not have two political parties.

I really liked the words used on the brochure that I passed around during the election. It says, “safe, suitable, affordable, accessible child care”. We must keep that focus in mind. Above all, as elected representatives, we are held responsible for our actions, and people today have to be held responsible for their actions. It takes an action to produce a child, and this is an action that should not be taken lightly. I will support this motion, and I thank the Member for Whitehorse South Centre for presenting it.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: I, too, want to rise in support of the motion. Earlier in the debate, I was nearly provoked into rebutting the Member for Porter Creek East and his newfound philosophy on day care. I recall the debate in 1980 and 1981-82 on child care subsidies and the Member’s almost hostile opposition to government involvement. It is a rather contradictory change of heart in the Member.

Principally, my interest in entering the debate is to comment on the child care initiative in my community, whose activities would be tremendously encouraged by the creation of the proposed board outlined in this motion. The proposed board, as stated in the motion, would not only advise government on policy matters and be an appeal mechanism, but it would also provide an avenue for support to communities involved in child care. Coming from a rural community, that is most important.

In the aspect of providing support to communities wishing to become more involved, or even to begin to become involved, in child care is a difficult exercise at the best of times. The community of Faro has been something of a model community in the creation of a child care facility. Prior to 1985, there was a functioning child care centre in the community, but it was not until the reopening of the mine in Faro that the initiative there became something of the model I refer to.

Initially, the society that was created began its operation in a church basement. However, it was shortly afterward, through the support of the municipal council, that a building was leased and the service was provided at that site. It was something of a very innovative initiative that was taken because of the flexible nature of the program it provided. The centre there spoke to the needs of the community, which, in some respects, were very unique. It offered extended hours, largely because of the shiftwork in the community. In practice, that flexibility proved to be very popular.

At the same time, it combines the child care service with a structured nursery school for three and four year olds. That, too, is quite an innovation. It provides numerous learning experiences in the educational climate for children. The staff at the centre is certainly to be commended for its initiative.

It is not without the support of the services outlined by the Minister of Justice that the community of Faro received some benefit.

I have already indicated that the municipal council helped provide a facility by working out a lease arrangement on a federal building. This government provided some $36,000 to renovate and equip that centre. A further grant was made last year. The centre can accommodate up to 30 children. It receives operation and maintenance support from the Department of Health and Human Resources on an annual basis.

At the same time, it requires additional funding and the community conducts a number of fund raising exercises. It is something of a struggle. The initiative, effort and desire to have it is there and it is a lot of dedicated people who make it happen. The creation of a board as outlined in this motion would go a long way to helping government not only speak to policy but to provide the kind of support that rural communities need to maintain the services that virtually every speaker in the House has already outlined as necessary.

In light of the various initiatives that have been taken by this government in child care facilities and the creation of the services in various communities, we have to address the various problems that still exist. I am certainly not suggesting that all child care facilities are trouble free, as the Member for Watson Lake noted.

In speaking as a constituency MLA, I recognize the effort in the mining community of my riding. We are faced with the situation of possibly needing 24-hour care because of the shift work nature of the community. As more children are utilizing the facilities, we are talking about the need for more staffing, more salaries and more operating costs. We would like to pay the highly dedicated staff the kind of salaries that are necessary for the quality care that is expected. We try to attract the people who parents want to see running the day care centres. We have to provide some avenue to support that. The board would provide that avenue.

There has to be continuing access to professional and other forms of assistance to the communities operating these day care centres. We have to ensure that training continues to be available wherever needed. I support the motion and the creation of the advisory board. It speaks to a large extent to the rural community. It will provide that mechanism, that focus or avenue for action to improve the facilities in those rural communities.

I think these communities and the operators will be provided with a means to raise child care concerns with this government and speak out for the issues that face the centres. It should provide a forum where we can discuss globally and specifically the various issues that are coming forward. It will give the government a clear path for the kind of consultation that has already been demonstrated and must continue for quality care.

In conclusion, I add my support as a constituency MLA to the motion and certainly see this as a major step forward for rural communities to address the child care issues facing them.

Hon. Mr. Webster: I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to this motion this afternoon. It is an exciting time for child care in the Yukon. The government has made specific commitments to address child care needs of Yukoners. New programs are underway and new legislation will be drafted to ensure that accessible, affordable and high quality child care is available to Yukon children for years to come.

A child care advisory board would be an appropriate body to further the fine work done by my colleague, the Member for Whitehorse South, and the Child Care Consultation Panel, which she chaired.

Just as it was important to hear from Yukoners about what changes were needed to ensure good child care services in the Yukon, so will it be important to have parents, professionals and people from both rural and urban Yukon keep us on the right track as we develop the programs and draft the legislation that will make many of the recommendations of the “We Care” report a reality.

I appreciate the broad terms of reference that are proposed for a child care advisory board, that is, to advise on all matters pertaining to child care. As Minister of Renewable Resources, I benefit from the advice from several boards and committees that have a mandate to advise and comment on departmental issues.

Good public representation on such bodies, with sound advice received from them, does much to make programs, policies and legislation more responsive to the needs of the people whom we as politicians are elected to serve. There are few government initiatives which cannot benefit from the common sense advice of a group of people who do not spend all their time seeing things from a governmental or administrative perspective.

As a parent, I know that child care is a little different than wildlife management. I am sure that an advisory board will be just as valuable to the Minister responsible for child care as the Wildlife Management Board is to me as the Minister responsible for wildlife.

The second part of the board’s proposed mandate, to encourage the development of quality child care throughout the Yukon so that the potential needs are met, is particularly pertinent to those of us who make our homes in rural Yukon. After all, child care is not an urban phenomenon. There are proportionately as many single parents and working couples in Dawson who have child care needs as there are in Whitehorse.

When the Child Care Consultation Panel visited Dawson, it was pointed out that there are no community representatives on the Day Care Services Board. As Dawsonites told the panel, rural communities have special and unique problems not experienced in Whitehorse. Those of us who live in the communities should not be forgotten when programs are planned and legislation is prepared. Therefore, I think that this motion, which calls for both rural and urban representation on the board and for encouragement of quality child care throughout the Yukon, makes a lot of sense. It recognizes Yukon’s realities.

If people are to have faith in the fairness and responsiveness in the Yukon child care system, they should have an opportunity to appeal the decisions of the system to a board that they feel is capable of understanding their concerns. A board composed of the members proposed by this motion - parents, child care professionals and representatives of licensed child care services from both rural and urban communities - is adequately constituted to inspire confidence in those who might have cause to question the decisions made by the Day Care Services Board or any future authority established by new legislation.

I think that the Day Care Services Board has felt compromised by the overwhelming rules imposed by current legislation that make it policemen, jury and judge. It would welcome the existence of a child care advisory board to which decisions could be appealed. In closing, I thank the Member for Whitehorse South Centre for moving this motion. It reaffirms this government’s commitment to consultation, responsiveness, accountability, and I am pleased to support it.

Mrs. Firth: I have to rise today to respond to this motion as I have some opinions about child care that probably, in a sense, reflect a lot of comments that have been made today. I have to say, after sitting listening to the debates that have been presented from both sides of the House, I cannot believe that, as politicians, we are participating in this somewhat clinical and sterile debate, talking about quality and education and things that are going to happen and how efficiently they are going to run or not run, and how efficiently or effectively they have run or not run in the past, when all the time we are talking about children here - about kids and about their parents and about the relationship between children and their parents and the people  who are going to give care to those children when they are not with their parents.

I suppose I do not have a reputation for being the one to come to the House to make a lot of emotional representations; however, I really have to ask myself what we are doing when we badger back and forth as to who did what in 1981 and who has done more since 1981 or 1979 or whatever the dates were that Members brought in here when they talked about the history of child care services in the Yukon. Really, the issues we are discussing here today are happening here and now and issues about what is going to happen in the future when it comes to child care services. The two speakers who impressed me the most this afternoon with their presentations were, of course, the Member for Watson Lake who gave a very honest personal opinion about how he felt about child care services and the Member for Old Crow who, in a sense, made a plea to her own government to say, “Perhaps we, as people, know what is better for our children than you as government.” I think that was the message in the comments that the Member for Old Crow made, because she got up and talked about the extended family and extended family care.

This government, her government, is not supporting that concept if it comes to giving subsidies or giving assistance or support to that kind of service. They are doing it in the context that they have indicated that they are not prepared to support any kind of unlicensed facility or unlicensed kind of child care service that is going to be delivered to the public.

I can appreciate that the bands, as the Member for Old Crow says, would be considered non-profit organizations. We, on this side of the House, in the philosophical context, have never disagreed with support for that kind of service. In fact, I think that the main difference between the points of view on this side of the Legislature as opposed to the ones of the government are that our first choice, philosophically, and our first principle, philosophically, and first belief, is that parental choice supersedes anything else when it comes to determining what kind of child care services should be provided for the public of the Yukon.

I think that is reflected in the policy principles that the government presents in their “Working Together: A Child Care Strategy for the Yukon.” The first child care policy principle is quality care. Second to that is parental choice. As Mary Jane Jim of Whitehorse stated in the “We Care” presentation that was made, “Yukoners Talk About Child Care”, “What my grandmother might teach my children is what I consider quality care.” She is saying that it is not up to the government to determine what quality care is, it is up to me as a parent. That is a principle and philosophy that is very strongly held by this side of the Legislature. That does not come through loud and clear from the government, because the government never talks in terms of child care services unless they are licensed, non-profit, and are giving a quality care that is a service maintained by basic standards and programming staff/child ratios, staff qualifications, health, safety and nutrition. It says nothing about the parent determining what quality care is.

All through the public presentations that were made, the message constantly comes through that it is the parents who feel they are the ones who should be determining what quality care is. You have to ask yourself what kind of function the government should have when it comes to the delivery of child care services. Are they going to have a controlling, determining, attitude where they are going to dictate to parents what quality care is and how many people there should be, who is qualified to look after children and who is not? According to the documentation that has come forward from the government, we feel that is the direction the government is taking. A lot of members of the public feel that also.

We have had the Member for Whitehorse South Centre bring forward this motion to the Legislature. I think a very similar motion has been presented at least twice before, espousing the same principles. The Member for Old Crow made the comment about how our motion only wanted child care businesses, and the advisory board would include parents, individuals in the child care business, and rural and urban community members to advise the Minister.

Surely, we can afford all the child care delivery services the title of “businesses”. I cannot think of any child care service operations presently that are considered to be non-profit, other than the ones that are assisted by the city. I believe one of them is called Purple Stew, and it is subsidized by the city. When it comes to child care centres like Carol’s Playcare, Mickey Mouse Day Care, the Love to Learn Day Care and the family day homes, I would say all those services are considered to be profit oriented and operate on that basis. This government’s policy is to exclude those kinds of services and any new services starting up that are profit oriented, so all the child care services that are delivered in the Yukon are considered to be non-profit. If that is going to be the case, then all child care services that are going to be delivered are going to be subsidized by the government. Perhaps that can account for the $8.9 million the government intends to spend over the next four years, and the forthcoming annual operating budget for child care services in the Yukon of $5 million. I believe that is what this government plans in the area of child care services.

I would question that and I hope that the government will consider waiting to get the child care advisory board on stream before rushing into anything. I would certainly be interested in seeing some of the plans that they are making, other than the political commentary that I have heard during election campaigns about how the service that the present government is going to provide is going to do all kinds of miraculous things like double child care spaces, and so on. I would like to see some hard facts about that.

The motion that we are debating today regarding child care services, and specifically the child care advisory board, is interesting in that this was a suggestion that was made to the former Minister of Health and Human Resources by the Family Day Home Association, approximately two or maybe even three years ago. They asked if they could have representation on the present Day Care Services Board.

I believe they were denied that representation or just not responded to by the former Minister; I think that a non response is the correct answer. That suggestion was made some time ago. We brought forward this recommendation and I asked questions in Question Period and during budget debates as to whether or not the Minister would consider this kind of approach in establishing this kind of board. Her colleague has already stated that he found that these advisory boards are very helpful. I do not think that we had to have a whole consultation process for the Minister to have said, two or three years ago, yes, we think this is a good idea, it can be helpful, and maybe we should look at appointing an advisory board to the Minister regarding child care and the delivery of child care in the Yukon.

What it takes is not two or three years of the Opposition bringing forward a reasonable suggestion, a reasonable alternative, a constructive alternative; it takes a new Member on the government side, who has been around the territory, to come forward with a recommendation that a child care advisory board be established. If that is the only way that we are going to get anywhere, I guess that we are going to have to perhaps suggest more motions to the Member for Whitehorse South Centre to bring forward, so that we can do some more constructive things for the people of the Yukon and for the kids of the Yukon.

I agree 100 percent with the principle and with the concept of having a child care advisory board. It is a position and a principle that we have been bringing forward to this Legislature for the last three and one-half years. There has also been representation from the community that we move in that direction. There has been representation made by the outlying communities, which have wanted to participate in this kind of structure.

I am a bit concerned about the wording of the motion, where we are referring specifically in the government’s motion to child care professionals and representatives of licensed child care services. I think that there are several, if not a lot of, people in the community who are providing legal, yet unlicensed services. The example that the Member for Old Crow cites about the extended family is a perfect example. There is no opportunity for them to be heard.

I am concerned that appointments to this board be available to people such as those mentioned by the Member for Watson Lake, people who are at home raising their own children. There needs to be some representation from those kinds of individuals as well.

I have always felt very strongly that the government should act as a facilitator or as a support system, but should not be the body that determines all of the rules, or determines all of the guidelines, or says what quality is and is not, or goes out and gives the impression to people that their children are only safe if they are in a licensed, non-profit organization or facility that abides by these standards and therefore reflects this quality.

It has been shown that the best services are not necessarily those coming from licensed, structured, quality, educated, care-giving people. Just as good a child care service can be provided by grandmothers or committed parents. We need different kinds of facilities and different kinds of structures. That was the representation made by Betty Davidson in Dawson City in “We Care: Yukoners Talk About Child Care.” Betty Davidson said, “The day care service has to be adaptable and has to fit the needs of the kids who are going there. I think certain kids do well in a structured situation but there are a number of kids who need to be kids who need to play and who would not do well in a structured environment. A day care or day home providing child care has to be adaptable to the needs of the children within the centre.”

Perhaps we will hear from the Minister about some of the plans in the area of day care and child care services, and he can reassure us that it is not going to be as clinical, sterile and government run, determined, structured or controlled. I hope we are going to get some indication that parental choice is going to be maintained and parents will not be intimidated into thinking that, if their children are going to the lady next door who does not have a licence or three childhood development courses, she is not going to be able to look after the children as well as someone in a facility with the qualifications I have just mentioned.

We are here to give parents support. They have to make decisions that are very traumatic and stressful about where they are going to send their children to be cared for while they are at work. Many of them are in a position where they do not have any choice. I hope this government has some feeling for those people and would not say you have to have hired people being paid so much an hour with an early childhood development course, you can only have this many children per worker, or else they will not be getting quality care, the children are going to suffer, something dreadful can happen, and all the rhetoric we have heard. We have been hearing this for the last three years and throughout the election campaign.

I would opt for a practical, realistic and supportive approach from the government, recognizing the responsibility of the parents in choosing the child care, with recognition that it is the parents who determine what quality the child care is, and that we would provide financial support to those who need it, and ensure that the support is going to those people who need it, that we do not embark on a new program that will eventually eliminate options and choices for parents. I have concerns that options will be eliminated with the program the government seems to be interested in implementing. Profit-oriented options will be eliminated because the government is not prepared to provide financial support in the form of subsidies and there will be no assistance in the form of subsidies if people send their children to extended families, or they will be forced to send their children to a licensed facility with the government stamp of approval on it.

Just to sum up, I am going to be supporting the motion. I have expressed my reservations and concerns about the fact that we are only allowing professionals and representatives from licensed child care services on the board. I would like to see parents and independent people on the board who have interests and good options and opinions to offer.

I would like to see a continued support for the profit-oriented child care services, because I feel that, in so doing, we are offering supports and increasing the options to the parents who have to make these very difficult choices about where they are going to send their children.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I thank the mover of this motion. It is an excellent opportunity to discuss day care policy as we have been doing this afternoon. We have not had a really substantial debate on the question in this House for some time. Notwithstanding the indications all around that this motion will pass without great opposition, there do appear to be some very substantial differences of opinion among Members, which have been noted, particularly on the issue of licensing for profit day care. There were other differences as well, including those points of view articulated by the Members for Watson Lake and Porter Creek East as well as a profound ambivalence about this motion expressed by the Member for Riverdale South who just spoke.

I would like to begin by putting this motion in its proper context. In the context of this motion is the very substantial commitment that this government has made to increasing the funding of day care, the number of day care spaces and improving the quality, accessibility and affordability of day care for Yukoners wherever they live.

In January of this year, the former Minister for Health and Human Resources, my colleague the Member for Whitehorse North Centre, introduced the child Ccare strategy that we are determined to pursue. That strategy was in response to the recommendations gathered by the child care consultation panel, ably chaired by our colleague, the Member for Whitehorse South Centre.

In the estimates before the House, Members will have noted, there is a very substantial new financial commitment to begin to implement the strategy in the coming fiscal year. There will be 1.4 million new dollars. That will bring the total amount of expenditure on an annual basis for day care in the territory to a sum of $2,300,000. In a moment, I am going to put that in context, at least in the context of changes I have seen in my 10 years in this House.

First I just wanted to mention that, as well in the coming fiscal year, we are providing capital funding to the Child Development Centre, which is an initiative that has been the subject of some debate already in this House, and will allow the Child Development Centre to move to a new location and to provide services for special needs infants and preschoolers throughout the Yukon. This is something I am persuaded is very much required.

The expenditures we have forecast over the next several years, in order to double the number of day care spaces, is quite substantial. In the life of this government, we could spend close to $9 million - $8.9 million has been estimated - if the forecast demand for day care is as has been predicted. The government currently spends $900,000 a year on day care. By the time the child care strategy is fully implemented, the investment will be substantially larger than that.

This investment will make some lasting improvements to the child care services. This is not, as I had occasion to say some weeks ago, a one-shot injection of money. It is a financial commitment to a plan and a goal. My colleague, the Member for Whitehorse South Centre, has pointed out that, when we came into office in 1985, less than $200,000 a year was being spent on day care. I have been here long enough to remember it, as have some other Members of the House. The Member for Faro and I were here in 1978 when there was not a single penny spent on day care by the Government of the Yukon Territory.

The Member for Riverdale North was talking about some of the gamesmanship that goes on here. I have been on the receiving end of some of the stratagems of the side opposite during my time here. I can recall when one of the first motions I ever presented to the House, calling for day care funding, was met with a response almost like Scrooge, that there were plenty of foster homes and that the government was doing a good job of day care. There was no evidence that day of any understanding of what the Opposition was talking about at all.

I moved several motions on the subject of day care. I made the point then that, for many families in the territory, quality day care was absolutely necessary. I well understand and appreciate the point made by the Member for Watson Lake about the pride families take in nurturing and looking after their own children, but there are literally hundreds of families in this territory with only one parent. If those single parent families are not to be clients of the Department of Health and Social Services, they must work. Most of those people want to work. They want to be contributing members of the community. Unless and until there is quality day care in the community, they cannot enter the work force.

In the past few years, we have had the good fortune in this territory to have an improving economy with increasing numbers of job opportunities. There were positions available to people, but people could not take advantage of those positions if there was no quality day care.

The cost of living in the north is such that many families require both adults to work in order to make ends meet - to pay the mortgage, provide for their children and operate a vehicle. The jobs that were created were sometimes not being filled by local people because there was not adequate day care. I believe the proliferation of unlicensed and substandard - in some cases - day care operations that emerged was a market response to the demand for day care. The Member for Riverdale South is shaking her head, but I believe that was the response.

I have an opportunity to respond to the problem of somebody receiving money to look after children who does not meet certain standards and the consequences to society of that, and possible consequences to the children, which can be very serious.

I will come back to that later. The fact of the matter is that we are in a contemporary society, in a community where the multi-generational family is now the exception rather than the rule. Good day care is absolutely essential. As someone who stood in this House alone in the late 1970s arguing for day care funding and had my motions amended and defeated by the government of the day, I am pleased and proud of the fact that we have come a hell of a long way in 10 years. We have come so far that in a recent election campaign the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Conservative party, said that not only would they do what the government had proposed in terms of funding, they might even do more. This a party, which 10 years ago, opposed any funding for day care at all.

In fact, it is interesting the response of the government in 1978 and 1982 initially was not to respond to our demand for funding with funding, but they responded with the establishment of standards. That is a matter I find of great irony when I think of the recent speech of the Member for Riverdale South, because it was the Conservative government of the day that said, “We must have standards. We cannot have young children in care in situations that are unhealthy or socially unaccepted or too crowded or where there is a large number of children under the care of people who are not qualified or adequate to this task.” That was a decision of the Conservative government of the day. The debate then moved on to, in fact, providing for, I think they were called “meet the standards grants.” The first funding that was provided was to, in fact, meet the standards which had been laid down by the government.

The situation has improved considerably to the point now where I think we can argue, based on the statements by the Leader of the Official Opposition in the recent campaign, that there is a broad public consensus about not only the need for day care, but the desirability for the funding of same by the government, the regulation of the same by the government and the need for, to speak particularly to the motion before us, a means for providing ongoing advice and support from parents and professionals and day cares in the making of policies in this field.

The strategy that we are embarked upon will see a new child care capital development program that we hope will see the creation of a hundred new day care spaces and perhaps see as many as 10 new programs in the coming fiscal year. There is an enriched child care subsidy program that provides more financial assistance to parents, and I think the subsidy program is to provide support for parents in need, and I think most Members are in favour of that.

We also want to improve the services to special needs preschoolers through the Child Development Centre. I think that is something for which there is public support.

The Minister of Education mentioned that a few weeks ago the full time Early Childhood Development Program began at Yukon College, and we are talking about a mobile early childhood resource centre that will bring practical and culturally sensitive training to workers outside Whitehorse.

The new operating subsidy program to increase child care workers’ wages and control user fees will begin. I want to say something about that because that is absolutely essential in my view. When I looked at the economic situation of day care centres in Whitehorse in 1978, most of them were nominally parent-run co-ops. Most of them were not businesses. They were parent-run co-ops. But, in almost every case, those day care centres were managed and run by their staff. In one day care, which I encountered, the total wage bill for the two full time staff members was less than $20,000 a year. In fact, I recall it was very much less than $20,000 a year. The reality in that situation was that the government was not subsidizing day care in the territory, but the day care workers were. These were qualified people who were subsidizing day care in the territory.

Work has begun on a new child care act and the formation of a new child care services unit. Part of that legislation will be the design of a new child care advisory board. I want to tell the House that it will be done according to the terms of this motion, and the new body will be included in the child care act.

I also want to say, in response to the Member for Riverdale South who expressed the concern that parents might not be included, because she kept referring back to the wording of the motion that talks about child care professionals and representatives of child care services, I do not see that as an exclusiveness because the list begins with the term “parents...from both rural and urban Yukon” and I read the motion to mean parents as well as the other named parties.

The motion talks about advising the Minister, encouraging the development of quality day care and it talks about acting as an independent appeal board concerning decisions made by some separate monitoring office or agency. I think those are laudable goals. I also want to say to the Members opposite and to my own colleagues, and in particular to the Member for Whitehorse South Centre who moved this motion, that the government is committed to continuing to consult with interested parties about the act and to work with the parents and the care givers and the employees and educators in shaping the future of child care services. We are doing this in direct response to the consultation report, which included numerous recommendations relating to the role of the Day Care Services Board and the need for community impact.

Mr. Speaker, you chided the Member for Whitehorse South Centre for reading extracts into the records, so I will not do that. Comments were made throughout that consultation about the desirability of parents being assured of an opportunity to become involved along with day care workers. Comments were also made about the problem of a centralized committee in Whitehorse relating to community concerns and the need for accountability to parents. It was also reiterated time and time again throughout that hearing that the government does have a role as a regulatory body. Even the members of the existing Day Care Services Board itself insisted that it should be restructured and that we should have a mechanism in the new act to deal with offenders. People did want to see the Day Care Services Board act as an independent appeal body, and they thought that government employees could be dealing with questions of licensing and inspections and monitoring. The feeling was that the administration of child care services should be done within the government and that there should be competent public employees who would do that and that those people who wanted to make application for licence or for registration could do so directly to the government. The board would provide advice to the Minister and operate as an appeal service.

I do want to remind Members that the board, as it is now structured, was established in legislation in 1979 under the previous government. Its job was to consider all applications for licensing day care centres and family day homes and to conduct necessary inspections to ensure ongoing adherence to regulations. This is not the heavy hand of the socialists or the big brother state laying down this law. It was the law as introduced and as passed by the previous Conservative government.

I want to pay tribute to the Day Care Services Board as it is presently constituted, including Barbara Ballantyne, Jan Horton, Gayle Miller, Iris Comeau and Debbie Mauch, because those people have been doing very important work. Until such time as a new board is established, they will have to continue to operate. They do play an essential role in law, and they will be able to provide us with valuable advice as we restructure the board and develop the act.

The activities they are engaged in now involve reviewing and making decisions on applications, and they do conduct inspections on licensed facilities to ensure the requirements of the law are being met in respect to program administration, staff and health and safety requirements.

We had some suggestions that surveillance the board was initiating was somehow odious, that it was somehow wrong for the government to try to have people comply with the law. The law was passed by the House, and I believe it was passed with the intention that it be enforced. I believe the programs we have now introduced will provide a very effective incentive to licensing and to compliance with the regulations. We have to understand there may be, for the sake of the health and safety of kids, for the sake of the well being of kids, and for the peace of mind of their parents, a need, from time to time, for the government to take actions against people who are operating beyond the law.

I want to state this quite clearly now that, as the Minister of Health and Human Resources, it will be our intention to bring forward legislation that makes it quite clear that we will enforce the regulations and the rules that are set down in that law.

The board meets regularly and makes recommendations to the Minister about matters and conducts workshops aimed at improving quality. As it exists now, no matter how flawed its structure, the board does provide a useful service. We think the role should be changed, according to the recommendations of the consultation plan. We think it should be restructured according to the recommendations of the motion here before us.

I want to say sincerely to the Member for Riverdale South that the question of quality and the question of choice are central to our concerns. She tried to make much of the fact that quality took precedence over choice in our hierarchy of values about day care. If there is no quality day care available in communities, there may be no choices for parents, especially single parents who want to go to work. The lady next door may be a perfectly satisfactory arrangement for looking after your children at a certain stage but, if the lady next door has 10 or 12 kids in a basement in an unsatisfactory arrangement, neither this government nor any other government in Canada can find such a situation acceptable and will not, nor will we sanction or turn a blind eye to such an arrangement, especially if that arrangement is being run as a business for profit - in other words that is the end purpose of the service, rather than care to the children, which we think should be the principal purpose of a day care.

Choices will have to be made not only by parents but, also, by the comm