Whitehorse, Yukon

Monday, April 30, 1990 - 1:30 p.m.

Speaker: I will now call the House to order. We will proceed with Prayers.

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE

Speaker: We will proceed with the Order Paper.

Introduction of Visitors.

Are there any Returns or Documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I have a number of legislative returns for tabling.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: I have for tabling a legislative return on fuel contracts.

Speaker: Are there any Reports of Committees?

Petitions.

Introduction of Bills.

Are there any Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers?

Are there any Notices of Motion?

NOTICES OF MOTION

Mr. Phelps: I give notice of the following motion:

THAT it is the opinion of the Yukon Legislative Assembly that the proposed companion resolution to the Meech Lake Accord addresses the major concerns that Yukoners have with the 1987 Constitutional Accord, in relation to the creation of new provinces, territorial representation in the Senate, appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada, and territorial participation in First Ministers conferences on aboriginal rights;

THAT the Yukon Legislative Assembly urges the Parliament of Canada and the legislatures of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland to ratify the 1987 Constitutional Accord, provided that Members of Parliament and each of the Legislative Assemblies have sufficient assurances from the discussions and negotiations between the First Ministers to firmly believe that the companion resolution will become law; and

THAT the Speaker forward a copy of this resolution to the Prime Minister of Canada, the 10 provincial Premiers, and the Government Leader of the Northwest Territories.

Mr. Brewster: I give notice

THAT this House urges the Minister of Community and Transportation Services to upgrade the roads into the Mendenhall subdivision to at least the minimum standard as stipulated in the Mendenhall Homestead Subdivision Study; and

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the leaseholders in the Mendenhall subdivision should be granted a two year extension to their leases in order to complete their homes in view of the fact that the poor road conditions into the subdivision made it extremely difficult to bring building material into the area.

Speaker’s Ruling

Speaker: Prior to calling Ministerial Statements today, I would like to provide the House with a ruling on the Point of Order raised by the Member for Whitehorse Riverdale North on April 24, 1990.

The hon. Member said that he felt that the ministerial statement given by the Minister of Education on the subject of the Education Act and the Teaching Profession Act did not conform to the practices of the House because, in his words, “it is obviously a second reading speech.”

The rule concerning Ministerial Statements is to be found in Standing Order 11(8) where it states: “On Ministerial Statements, as listed in Standing Order 11(2), a Minister may make a short factual statement of government policy.”

The only other direction to be found on this matter is in the second report of the Standing Committee on Rules, Elections and Privileges, which was presented to the House on October 10, 1979. One of the recommendations of that Committee, which was concurred in by motion of the House, stated: “That Ministerial Statements be made only on subjects of significance and primarily for the purpose of announcing new government policies.”

The House has provided the Chair no further guidance in either the Standing Orders or in Reports of the Standing Committee on Rules, Elections and Privileges as to what subjects may be properly covered in a Ministerial Statement.

The Members for Whitehorse Riverdale North and Whitehorse Porter Creek East argued that the statement given by the Minister of Education on April 24 does not conform to the intent of Standing Order 11 because it would more appropriately be part of the Minister’s speech on second reading of the Education Act. The Minister of Education and the Premier disagreed. The Premier stated, “He is making a statement on new education policy for this government.”

Our Standing Order 1 states: “In all cases not provided for hereafter or by sessional or other orders, the usages and customs of the House of Commons of Canada, as in force at the time, shall be followed, so far as they may be applicable to this assembly.”

The Clerk of the House of Commons has provided information that the House of Commons has no guidelines, beyond a broad rule similar to our Standing Order 11, governing what is considered acceptable for the content of Ministerial Statements. A review of precedents of the House of Commons indicates that, on January 28, 1987, the Honourable Michael Wilson, Minister of Finance, gave a Ministerial Statement on amendments he was proposing to the Income Tax Act. Also, on June 30, 1988, the Honourable Tom Hockin, Minister of State (Finance), gave a Ministerial Statement on amendments he was proposing to the Bank Act.

Given the direction provided to the Chair by Standing Order 1 to respect the usages of the House of Commons, the Chair must find that the precedents which have been cited lead to the conclusion that the Ministerial Statement given by the Minister of Education on April 24 was in order.

Speaker: Are there any Ministerial Statements?

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Establishment of a Curriculum Advisory Committee for Yukon Schools

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I am pleased to inform this House that a Curriculum Advisory Committee is being established to monitor the relevancy and appropriateness of courses and activities offered at Yukon schools. It is this government’s policy to monitor the curriculum offered in the territory’s 25 schools on a continuing basis to ensure that it is relevant, in both approach and content, to today’s students.

The establishment of this committee is particularly timely as fundamental changes to the British Columbia curriculum - which the Yukon, up until now, has followed with only a few variations - are now being developed and implemented in that province. There has already been some discussion about them in this House, and I will say to you again that this government has made no commitments at this point to formally adopt any particular element of the proposed changes.

The Curriculum Advisory Committee is a broad-based group that will meet at least three times a year. It will review curriculum proposals with the interests of the communities in mind. It will recommend changes to existing curriculum so it can better meet the needs and goals of Yukon education. The committee will suggest local curriculum that could be developed and implemented.

The Department of Education is asking various organizations to nominate representatives to the Curriculum Advisory Committee, including the Yukon Teacher’s Association, the Council for Yukon Indians and the Yukon Science Institute.

It is our intent to assemble a group that represents a broad range of interests, yet has the same common goal of quality education for all Yukon children. While many of these groups have been consulted informally by the Department of Education in the past on curriculum-related matters, the Curriculum Advisory Committee will be the first opportunity for all these groups to formally advise the government on curriculum initiatives and changes. I anticipate it will be a productive relationship.

A very important component of the Curriculum Advisory Committee is the working group know as the Yukon Year 2000 Team. I told this House about this group briefly during the debate on the Department of Education’s budget, without referring to it by this name.

This seven-member team was formed in December 1989, and includes representatives from the Council for Yukon Indians, the Yukon Teachers Association, the Yukon Education Council and the Department of Education. It is led by Dr. Sheila Rose, the director of curriculum for the department. The team is actively monitoring and assessing the development and implementation of the new B.C. curriculum. It has already attended a familiarization workshop sponsored by the B.C. Ministry of Education, and has distributed the information presented at that event to all Yukon schools.

The Year 2000 team has visited, and will continue to visit, Kamloops as part of its mandate. The Kamloops School District is one of the first to begin implementing the new curriculum, and most school districts through B.C., not just the Yukon, are watching its progress closely. Most B.C. school districts are at approximately the same place we are. They are carrying out familiarization programs and identifying which schools, if any, should pilot part or all of the new curriculum, and when.

I would like to emphasize that Yukon has at least 10 years in which to decide whether to adopt and implement all, part or none of the new B.C. curriculum. It is a curriculum that is quite different from what you or I experienced as students, especially in its approach. It recommends that grades one through 12 be replaced by three programs: primary, intermediate and graduation. It dispenses with grades in the early years. It focuses on things like whole language programming, creativity and thinking skills.

The work of the Yukon Year 2000 Team will be essential in determining this government’s decision with respect to the B.C. curriculum. Combining its work with the many voices present on the Curriculum Advisory Committee is the best way to ensure that the best choices are made. I welcome the opportunity to involve more people in this process.

Just as the Education Act will ensure community control over schools, the establishment of the Curriculum Advisory Committee will promote the Yukon community control over core Yukon education.

Mr. Devries: In response to the Minister’s statement, I would like to say that we agree that the curriculum offered in Yukon schools should be continuously reviewed to ensure that it remains relevant. We support the creation of this committee to assist the Department of Education in performing that function.

I have, however, some concerns about duplication of efforts, as a distinction between the Curriculum Advisory Committee and the Yukon 2000 team is not perfectly clear to me. I hope the Minister will agree that the committee would be more broadly based if it included a representative from the business community, perhaps nominated by the Chamber of Commerce, or possibly the Chamber of Mines. The curriculum must address some of the more practical aspects of everyday living if it is to prepare our children for the world that awaits them upon graduation. A member of the business community can provide this important perspective.

The new B.C. curriculum certainly sounds interesting, with terms like “whole language programming” and “the promotion of creativity and thinking skills”. I just hope that we do not get away from the basics in our schools; the three Rs should still be the main ingredients of any curriculum.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I understand the points that the Member opposite is making. Just as a brief clarification with respect to the role of the general advisory committee and the Yukon 2000 team: the latter is largely dedicated to assessing the changes in British Columbia that were specific to the ministerial announcement respecting major curriculum changes resulting from the Sullivan report, a couple of years ago. The purpose of the general Curriculum Advisory Committee is to comment on and advise the department on the development of changes to curriculum that would better meet the needs of Yukon students, in the Yukon environment.

With respect to the quality of the curriculum and the quality of education generally, and the need to ensure that certain basics are taught, certainly that has been a hallmark of Yukon education, and I am sure it will remain a hallmark of Yukon education. Some of the things that are happening, however, in curriculum development, with respect to whole language programming, are exciting developments and should be considered as well. It does not detract, though, from the need to know certain basic things, as the children enter society as whole, and that will still be a focus of curriculum development, well into the future.

Speaker: This then brings us to Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re: Arts centre

Mr. Phelps: I have a question or two for the Minister of Government Services with regard to the arts centre facility.

Last fall this project was put out to tender. The lowest bid was $6.9 million. The project was re-examined after that tender was turned down and some cuts were made to the original design, and the project was retendered. The lowest bid this time around is $7.1 million, $200,000 more despite the design cuts.

Why did the project come in higher this time, despite the cuts made to design?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: That is the mystery we are trying to determine. As I mentioned last week, the Department of Education, in consort with the Department of Government Services, and some discussion with Arts Canada North, are discussing not only the character of the bids, but also what options are available.

The bids came in once again substantially over the targeted building construction budget. That is of a serious concern to the government. At the same time, while we want to build the arts centre - it has been announced on frequent occasions and discussed in this Legislature on frequent occasions - we still must respect the fact we have a construction budget that is part of an overall capital budget that is being squeezed every time Michael Wilson speaks. We still have to assess our options and we are actively doing that now.

Mr. Phelps: It seems to me it is being squeezed more every time this government retenders something.

What is the Minister really saying in response to my first question? Is he saying the present bids are under suspicion by this government as not being the true local cost with reasonable profit?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: We are asking the same question that the Member has just asked. I did not suggest to the Member that because he asked the question that the bids were under suspicion. The question just asked was with respect to the reasons why the bids remained $1 million over budget despite the fact we had reduced the specifications by some $250,000 between the two tender periods.

Clearly, there is a desire to find out what happened - reasonable question to put to officials - and we are going to be seeking the answers. As I mentioned before, we had an estimate done by reputable, professional cost consultants with respect to the cost of the arts centre, and had those figures double checked, and that is the reason we had cause to retender the project.

We also, as the Member noted, reduced the specifications by $250,000 to make every effort to ensure that the bids came in on target. As Members know, they did not, and we will try to assess why that happened.

Mr. Phelps: I had a concern with regard to the nature of the cuts that were performed after the initial tenders were rejected by the government. I would like to know whether most of the cuts were on items such as fire protection devices that could and probably would be added to the project later.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Firstly, the cuts were all discussed thoroughly with Arts Canada North to ensure that the priority listing for potential cuts was respected.

Secondly, as a general rule, items that could be included later were items that were considered worthy of cutting at this time, because the option to reincorporate them would be there for future art centre corporations to consider.

I am not aware of any cuts that would jeopardize fire patrol procedures or mechanisms at the art centre. In fact, I would think that, generally speaking, any cuts to the art centre would ensure that proper safety equipment remained.

Question re: Yukon arts centre

Mr. Phelps: Another concern that I have with regard to the decision to retender is that it really does show a lack of faith in the bidding process itself and a lack of respect for local contractors. The government used southern consultants, as the Minister has just said, to provide an independent opinion about a fair bottom line. One of those consultants based their opinion on Toronto prices. They say that right in their letter to the department.

Why would this government prefer to use estimates based on Toronto rethar than local contract bids?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Firstly, it is important to point out that there are no professional engineering cost consultants locally that I am aware of. That is the reason we went outside to see what could be provided to us.

The cost consultants were the same cost consultants who estimated the other major building projects we were doing in Yukon at the time and were coming in with estimates that were very close to the actual bids being provided for the various projects. We had every reason to believe the art centre would be no exception.

Our approach was to get independent, private sector bids on the art centre from people who had experience providing independent costing bids on other buildings. The Department of Government Services did note, as the information I have provided the Members opposite entailed, one cost consultant based their estimates on Toronto prices but took that into consideration in terms of assessing our understanding of what the cost would be of that particular project.

Mr. Phelps: That is passing strange. The cost consultant I am referring to, UMA, stated their price would be accurate within three or four percent. If you take four percent of their estimate, which is $6,450,000, and add four percent, you come up with $6.7 million, which is only $200,000 below the initial lowest bid. In view of it being so close, despite the fact this was based on Toronto prices, why did the government turn down the first bid of $6.9 million before cuts were made to the facility, which the Minister has said ought to have cut the cost down by $250,000?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I would caution the Member not to use selective information in presenting a particular scenario before the Legislature.

The UMA Spantech cost suggested the figure would be in the $6.4 million range, plus or minus. The plus might have been the $6.7 million, but the minus might have been $6.1 million, which was identical to the BTY cost consultant’s projection.

The UMA Spantech bid also incorporated a contingency fee, which was considered to be high. I do not have the figures in front of me, although I did pass the information out last week, but I think it was in the neighbourhood of $250,000.

In any case, in assessing the reports of BTY consultants and UMA Spantech, we felt the bids were high in the first round. That was our belief at that time.

Mr. Phelps: The government paid good money to these consultants to come up with an estimate of a fair bottom line. Given the measure of accuracy used by the department itself, the top range on their figuring could have been $6.7 million - only $200,000 below the lowest local bid.

The letter to the Department of Government Services states, “Time has not permitted us to do the depth of local market cost analysis that we would like to have performed.” In view of all these things, I am at a loss to understand why this government rejected the lowest bid - which was only $200,000 above the range suggested by this consultant. I would like to know if the real reason for rejecting the bid was simply because the government had budgeted only $6 million and must have been somewhat shocked by the consultant’s report?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: If I am going to take the UMA Spantech words as gospel in all cases that I think we should reflect on the fact, as the Member mentioned, then clearly, if they say they had not done a thorough review of Whitehorse market conditions we should consider that an element in assessing their advice. They also say, and I quote from the letter that I have provided for the Members already, “It has been our experience that Whitehorse very traditionally runs 10 to 15 percent higher than Vancouver and 20 to 25 percent higher than Edmonton. Both these factors support our decision to use Toronto pricing as a fair measure of what one should expect to see in the Whitehorse market.” They developed their estimate on this basis, having performed similar work in the past and understanding what the character of previous projects of this size have bas in the Whitehorse area.

The point to be made is that we did do the very responsible thing by having both BTY - and we should not neglect to mention them on occasion, as they are also cost consultants - and the UMA Spantech do a review of the bids for the arts centre. We assessed that the construction budget of $6.1 million was a realistic projection for the lowest bid for the centre. The bids were a million dollars out. Clearly, something was wrong and that was the reason why we retendered.

Question re: Yukon arts centre

Mr. Phelps: That is my very point. They were not a million dollars out. They were $200,000 out in the first round, using the margin of error that is incorporated into this report.

I am suggesting that this government set its figure at $6 million and more or less ignored what their own consultants had to say about the fair bottom line price. I would like to know how much the government paid UMA Spantech to do this report that they so conveniently ignored when the bidding was completed the first time round.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The Member is speaking absolute and utter nonsense, at this point. As I have indicated, the Member is very being selective about the information that he is bringing forward. As I indicated, the BTY cost consultants - I presume the Member has absolutely no respect for these particular set of consultants because he has not brought them up once in this discussion - had projected that the cost would be $6.1 million. The UMA consultants have projected $6.4 million with a plus or minus figure. The Government of Yukon assessed that when a bid comes in at $6.9 million, it is extremely high, based on the information that we have received before, especially considering the character of the estimates and also knowing the fact that these people hd been experienced in assessing the market conditions here before.

We were acting quite consistently with the advice we were receiving from our consultants - both BTY and UMA - and, consequently, did make decision to retender, I believe on reasonable and sound information.

Mr. Phelps: The Minister speaks about nonsense. How can he stand in his place and utter such garbage as he has just uttered in response to the last question? Here we have a situation where they pay good money to a consultant who says that the fair bottom line could be around $6.7 million. They decide that the actual bid of $6.9 million is too high. They decide to cut the project, to the tune of $250,000 and then they stand there and act as though....

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

Mr. Phelps: ....when at the next round of tendering, the bids come in higher. After the cuts, the lowest bid comes in at $7.1 million.

I am just wondering how the Minister can suggest to the Yukon public that what they have been doing is reasonable.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I think we have determined that the Member has zero respect for BTY consultants or Trehearne Yates Consultants, who have provided the professional report and opinion on the costs of the arts centre. I think that, given the fact that the Member has not mentioned that company that also provided a report and that UMA provided a secondary report, speaks volumes.

Firstly, the UMA reports suggests that the basic costs will be $5.3 million, general expenses and contractors’ fees would be $636,000, a contingency of five percent on top of that would be $297,000 and cash allowances would be $250,000: to bring it to a expanded total of $6,448,000. Now, because they say that they have not done a full market analysis, we could be out plus or minus, which means that, quite easily, if we had followed the Member for Hootalinqua’s logic, it could have been $6.1 million, and that would be a reasonable estimate, too. The Member chooses only to pick on the $6.7 million figure because that is the only figure in this whole range of figures that even comes close to suiting this Member’s argument.

The figures from BTY show that there was a $6.1 target. The backup figures from UMA Spantech were $6.4 million. We anticipated that the $6.1 million was reasonable. When the bids came in at $6.9 million and then $7.1 million, we were understandably concerned about the estimates. In the first instance we retendered. Now, in the second instance, we are considering our options.

Mr. Phelps: We have now two situations of an open tender, and fair bids coming in from various contractors. I asked the Minister, who keeps trying to rely on the other consultant, BTY, which of these consultants was closest, BTY or UMA on each occasion? One was within $200,000 and the other was out by $1 million, it would seem on the facts we have before us.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The point of the matter is that firstly, I am not only responding to BTY’s, but also UMA’s, and I am taking objection to the Member’s interpretation of UMA’s cost projections. I am using all the information and the Member is dealing with partial information.

If getting close to the lowest bid is what we take as the bottom line, then both were not right. If what they were doing was trying to estimate what is a reasonable construction price in the Whitehorse market, they might both have been right.

The Member’s question is a loaded one, and I have answered it as best as I can.

Question re: Yukon arts centre

Mr. Phelps: Here we are. I do not know if he is going to retender again and get a higher price after he cuts another $250,000 off the arts centre, or exactly how he wants to waste the taxpayers’ money.

Firstly, I would remind the Member that he did not answer the question. How much did he pay for these consultants from outside to give us an estimate based on Toronto prices that he feels are far more accurate than what local contractors use in determining whether or not they can make a profit when bidding on a structure such as the art centre.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The Member is refusing to understand the character of the bids, so I am not going to pursue it any further. I will just let the Member wallow in his ignorance.

With respect to the costing, the BTY bid was part of the overall contract with, I believe, the architects, but I will check that.

The UMA Spantech cost was $10,000, I believe.

Mr. Phelps: Would the Minister give us an undertaking because we are quite concerned about the escalating costs. The government took back the project and cut $250,000 from the design. The costs then came back $200,000 higher. Will he undertake not to cut $1 million from the design, because the taxpayer of the Yukon cannot afford to pay $1.8 million for this art centre.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: That is certainly a cute question. I would like the record to show that the Member has a big smile on his face.

We took the extra effort to try to bring this project in on budget by cutting various design features of the arts centre in concert with ACN. Nevertheless, the bidders have not only accommodated that cut of $250,000, they added $200,000 to the lowest bid. I do not take it as an absolute first principle that the lowest bid is always the best bid, as the Member seems to. As I indicated before, we are assessing our options to determine whether or not this project can go ahead at all, and we are trying to better understand the bids that were presented both the first and second time.

Question re: Yukon arts centre

Mrs. Firth: With respect to the same issue, as the Minister just said, the question still remains whether the art centre is going to be built or not. To be very basic about it, the Minister has four options. He can tender it again for a third time, which would be very rare. That is the 30 days that the Minister talks about waiting to make a decision. He could downsize the project more, although that did not work out the last time; the costs went up. He could find more money and proceed with it, but I do not know if the Minister wants to do that. He would be feeling the squeeze of all the other groups that want more money. They would immediately be on his doorstep. The last option is to cancel the project.

Those are what his options are. We do not need a 30 day waiting period, unless he is going to be retendering the project. When are Arts Canada North, the contractor and the rest of the Yukon public going to know whether or not this project is going to proceed?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: We did leave a clause in the tender document that said we would make a decision within 30 days. That is a standard feature of those documents, and that gives the owner the opportunity to assess options.

The Member gave the potential for four options. I just listed out three other options the Member had not even considered. I will not speculate about them. All I will say is we are assessing options. With respect to whether or not there will be a decision on the arts centre, it will be made within a 30 day period, as is allowed.

Mrs. Firth: Surely the Minister is going to be giving us more information than just saying, “You have to wait for 30 days.” When he is reviewing the options, surely he is going to be providing us with more information with respect to what the options are.

I would like to follow up on a question I asked the Minister last week. Has the business incentive policy, the rebate proposal, been taken into consideration now? When I asked last week, it had not. We would like to know what additional costs that is going to put toward the project.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: With respect to the business incentive policy and the rebates listing, and applying that policy to the arts centre, it is not currently determined what rebates, if any, will apply to the arts centre.

As the Member is familiar with the business incentive policy, in February of this year, a new policy with a labour component was introduced. That was the current application of the business incentive policy.

In other words, as indicated by documents I tabled and the detail I provided to Members, a labour component could be applied on a rebate basis for construction projects. Should the arts centre be awarded and constructed, upon completion, a rebate would apply for a labour component, according to how the contractor would have achieved the scales that are set out in that policy.

With respect to materials, which the Member is raising, the committee that is setting the list of rebate items is meeting currently. They will be reviewing items for placing into the rebates listing. I will be taking a recommendation from that committee as to whether the actual rebates materials would apply on this project, were it to go ahead.

Mrs. Firth: The government does not even know what they are doing. They expect the public to be informed, they expect the contractors to be coming in with accurate bids. They expect these independent consultants’ reports to be extremely accurate and they do not even know what they are asking people for.

Either the policy is going to apply or it is not. Is this new policy going to apply to the new arts centre or is it not, and when is the decision going to be made with respect to that particular issue?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: I do not think the Member was listening to my answer. The policy clearly applies now to the labour component. In other words, when the Arts Centre was put to tender, it was under terms of the new policy. The old policy was history. The labour component does apply. I just explained to the Member that with respect to the materials rebate portion of the policy, it has not come forward from the committee as to what items would apply.

Secondly, the committee will be making a recommendation to the government as to whether materials which are struck now in April or May or June as part of the business incentive policy will apply retroactively. That has been made clear to contractors. They are aware that the only application of the business incentive policy is a labour component. That is what can be calculated now.

Question re: Visitor reception centre

Mr. Phillips: I have a question for the Minister of Tourism. It is regarding the new visitors reception centre. At the TIA conference the Minister announced that the visitors reception centre would be built at or near the airport and along the Alaska Highway. He also said at the time that it would be open by 1992, which does not leave us very much time. The estimated future costs in the 1990 future projects budget is $3,466,000, of which only $25,000 is allocated to be spent this year. In light of the Minister’s announcement that the facility be open in early 1992 for the tourist season, does he have any plans to bring a supplementary into this House in the near future so that construction can be accelerated on this project?

Hon. Mr. Webster: Clearly, if the project is to proceed and be completed on time for the celebrations of the Alaska Highway in the spring of 1992, it would require a supplementary budget appropriation for this year. I should inform the Member that I mentioned in that TIA speech that it was proposed at that time and it is presently before Cabinet for consideration.

Mr. Phillips: Since the Minister is planning to accelerate the project if he gets approval from the other Ministers in Cabinet - many business people in the tourism field are extremely interested in what the facility will look like inside and out - will TIA and others in the tourism industry be allowed to view the plans before the final decision to proceed with construction is made?

Hon. Mr. Webster: We will be seeking some input from concerned parties on the very matter the Member has raised, on both interior and exterior design.

Mr. Phillips: My final supplementary deals with the issue of narrowing down the time line on this. When would the Minister like to have a set of plans ready for the industry to look at? Time is essential and they should be looking at it in the very near future. It is going to be very difficult for people in the industry to look at these plans in the middle of summer. Are they going to be available before the tourist season starts in the next few weeks?

Hon. Mr. Webster: No, I cannot make a commitment that they will be ready that early, but I can assure the Member that in keeping with our tight time schedule, the people of the industry who certainly do have an interest in this matter will be required to provide their input during the summer months. I am sorry that is the way it works out in order to keep to this tight time frame, but they will be consulted.

Question re: Tagish Kwan Corporation

Mr. Nordling: I have a question for the Minister of Economic Development with respect to the Tagish Kwan Corporation. The government loaned the corporation in the neighbourhood of $400,000. I believe the Minister said it was simply to assist with cash flow problems. One of Tagish Kwan’s major undertakings is a large apartment block on Centennial Street in Porter Creek West. The apartment block is not complete and I have not seen any work being done in the last week or so. Can the Minister tell us the status of the corporation and whether or not it is bankrupt or on the verge of bankruptcy?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: As the question raises the issue of the Centennial Street project I would like to provide a response. The information provided on the media at noon is quite accurate, in that the Centennial project is affected by the activities of Tagish Kwan at this point. The Yukon Housing Corporation has undertaken an agreement by which, through a turn-key operation, the construction of a 17 unit apartment unit would be done by Tagish Kwan. The closing date of that agreement was April 25. A request was made for a week-long extension. That expires on May 3, and is for an internal restructuring of financing and the rescheduling of a completion date for the project. That is currently taking place and we are waiting for the results on that.

Mr. Nordling: My question is to the appropriate Minister. I would like to know how much financial involvement the government has in Tagish Kwan and what security we have for our money.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: I believe that again I can answer, to the best of my knowledge. As indicated, during budget debate in the House, by the Minister for Economic Development, there was a $400,000 loan to Tagish Kwan in relation to the Centennial Street project. In addition to that, I believe there is $1000 spent by Yukon Housing in respect to the agreement that was struck for the Centennial Street turn-key project. That would be the extent of the government involvement on that project, to Tagish Kwan.

Mr. Nordling: I do not believe that my question was answered. I would like to know what security we have for the money that we have loaned. My impression that we are somewhere down the line and if there should be problems, the government could stand to lose the money. Perhaps the Minister of Economic Development could tell us the conditions of the loan and the security that we have.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: With respect to the specific issue of security, I prefer to take notice and get back to the Member. As I understand, it was part of a financial arrangement a number of months ago. I am sure that appropriate security was secured. I would prefer to take notice of the specifics of that and get back to the Member.

Question re: Alcohol ban in Old Crow

Ms. Kassi: I have a question for the Minister responsible for the Yukon Liquor Corporation. The Vuntat Gwich’in have passed a band council resolution requesting the banning of alcohol from the community of Old Crow from May 1 of this year to July 15. Would the Minister tell me if he intends to act on this request?

Hon. Mr. Webster: I intend to act on the request but not on the resolution as it is presently worded. The intent of the resolution was to request the Yukon Liquor Corporation to stop shipments to the community of Old Crow for a certain period of time. I spoke with the chief, Roger Kay, this morning, to get his interpretation of that resolution, and he agrees that the resolution in its present form does not quite accurately reflect what the community wants, so he has suggested that he would come forward with another resolution with the intent of stopping shipment of alcohol to the community, for a specific period of time.

Question re: Mendenhall subdivision

Mr. Brewster: On December 11, 1989, I asked the Minister of Community and Transportation Services about the conditions of the road into Mendenhall subdivision. The Minister responded by saying, “I have driven through Mendenhall and can fairly say my recollection is there is some ditching on some of the roads. If the Member recalls, one portion of one of the roads is a roadway constructed to a former CNT repeater station, so this was a fairly well-built trail.”

Since the road the Minister is speaking of is 5.1 kilometres from the Mendenhall turnoff, how did the Minister use the CN repeater road to get to the Mendenhall subdivision?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: I am not sure I completely followed what the Member was asking. I believe he was trying to call me up on a reference to a particular road that does not exist in the subdivision. My memory of the debate escapes me. It is possible I may have used the incorrect reference, to have called it a CN tower road, or by some other name. I do stand corrected on my inappropriate reference, if that is the case, but I certainly travelled through the subdivision. I saw what roads have been put in place by this government. I have seen the condition of all the roads, and I have seen the roads that have been in place in and around that subdivision for some time.

I only recently corresponded to the Member with respect to a specific lot problem and access and I verified that part of that subdivision was in place quite a number of years ago, prior to the establishment of the homestead subdivision this government undertook.

I hope I have answered the Member’s question. It escapes me as to precisely what he is seeking.

Mr. Brewster: Of course, he has not answered my questions. He never does. He goes around and talks political. I do not think he even knows where Mendenhall is.

For the edification of the Minister, I have some photographs of the Mendenhall road, which I will pass to him. They clearly show the so-called roads are nothing but a muddy bog. It looks like something you would find at Vimy Ridge after the heavy bombardment.

Is this slough supposed to be the minimum standard road promised in the homesteader policy?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: If the Member wants to debate Mendenhall roads in Question Period, that is fine by me. I am quite prepared to repeat many of the things I have told the Member during budget debate.

The Mendenhall roads were constructed at a minimum standard. The homestead policy calls for a minimum standard to be established. The minimum standard can be determined by a number of interpretations but, fundamentally, the interpretation is that it must be accessible at least by a portion of the year at least by a four-by-four. That could establish a pretty poor condition.

We went in to Mendenhall last year and spent close to $20,000 upgrading portions of the road. I am sure the residents in the subdivision who gained from the improvements we undertook do appreciate it. If the Member is telling me there is additional work to be done, then he should say so. From his tabling of a motion today, I gather we are going to be debating this on Wednesday, and I will certainly be better prepared if the Member wishes.

Mr. Brewster: After he looks at the pictures I can show him some colour ones that show it a little better.

Does the Minister accept the challenge to come with me to the Mendenhall subdivision to view the condition of the roads first hand and talk to the people there? The Minister should bring his hip-waders. I can assure him he will not get lost this time but maybe he had better bring his lunch this time because maybe he will not get back out.

It is not funny.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: The question is a fair one. The Member is inviting me to go out to Mendenhall. On many occasions I have visited community organizations and individuals and groups who have requested a talk about an issue. I know my officials have spent considerable time in Mendenhall. As I have indicated already, we have spent money upgrading the roads. I have been to Mendenhall and I am quite prepared to go again if the Member is requesting it, as long as he can assure me I do not have to drive with him.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Speaker: Government Bills.

GOVERNMENT BILLS.

Bill No. 29: Second Reading

Clerk: Second Reading, Bill No. 29, standing in the name of Mr. McDonald.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I move that Bill No. 29, entitled Education Act, be now read a second time.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Education that Bill No. 29, entitled Education Act, be now read a second time.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The Education Act before us will in all likelihood guide education in the Yukon for at least the next 10 years. It replaces the School Act, which now governs Yukon schools. This act does not represent change for the sake of change but this act does respond to the changes in the Yukon and the people over the past 15 years, since the School Act was last amended.

The people of the Yukon today want a greater voice in the operation of their schools. They want to be more involved in developing and choosing the curriculum. They want to see stronger ties between the school, the family and their communities. The people of the Yukon today want their children to have stronger ties to Yukon history and culture and especially to the Yukon environment.

Above all, the people of the Yukon today want the student to be at the centre of our education system. They want our education system to recognize and meet the unique and special needs of each student. They want our education system to be one that develops the whole child, including the child’s intellectual, physical, social, emotional and cultural potentials, to the extent of his or her abilities so that they may become productive, responsible and self-reliant members of society.

You saw an earlier version of this proposal, the draft Education Act in December of last year. That document was released in order to serve as the touchstone for the final round of public consultation. When we discuss Bill No. 29, you will see how the Education Act incorporates and reflects the many views and suggestions received in response to the draft Education Act.

I look forward to debate because the Education Act is unique, and the process to arrive at it was unique. The Education Act is truly representative of the hopes and aspirations of the Yukon people, their hopes for their children, and their hopes for an education system that meets both individual and community needs.

Literally thousands of people were involved in shaping the Education Act. There were hundreds of meetings: meetings in community centres and schools, in staff rooms and in band halls. There were dozens of bilateral meetings for special groups, groups like: the Roman Catholic Church, l’Association des Franco-Yukonnais, special education interest groups, Home Educators Association, the Council for Yukon Indians, the Yukon Teachers Association and the Principals and Vice-Principals Association. There were ad hoc committees, task force hearings, joint commission hearings, private discussions, and as I said before - and it is not an exaggeration - literally thousands of people were involved.

It is difficult to quantify the effort and energy involved in developing this legislation. What I do know is that this government and I owe a tremendous debt of thanks to the people who contributed to this process.

Let me describe to you now the work that was undertaken to reach this point. The Education Act officially began back in 1986 with a process to identify problems with the education system. What we found was that while the system served many students very well there were others who were missed completely. For example, we knew that children in urban schools who had supportive parents could do very well, but there were children in some schools, especially rural schools, who had very poor chances of making it past grade eight for a variety of reasons. Needless to say, this was unacceptable.

In August of 1986, this government and the Council for Yukon Indians agreed to form a three member joint commission that would identify and explore the barriers that prevented some Indian adults and students from participating in training, schooling and employment and to develop recommendations to overcome those barriers. The Joint Commission on Indian Education and Training visited all Yukon communities to gather firsthand the experiences and opinions of Yukon aboriginal people on education. Chairperson Bob Sharpe and commissioners Judy Gingell and Linda McDonald met with people at public meetings, in small groups and individually. Powerful emotions were unleashed during this process. It was not just enough for us to look for solutions; it was critical that we understood how we had arrived at a point where many people felt the education system had failed them and their children. Early on, it became clear this government would have to redress this severe alienation through respect and attention to aboriginal cultural values. We had to develop a system that would encourage real and effective participation by aboriginal people.

At the same time the Joint Commission launched its work, the education act task force was beginning its work too. In September of 1986, the government established a steering committee to oversee the development of new educational legislation. This is where the process began to change and to evolve into the extensive exercise and participatory democracy that it has become. We knew the solution to the problems encountered by Yukon children and parents, especially those of native ancestry, would not be shouldered by the education system alone. Many people would have to be involved - a partnership. In a sense, this was how the underlying philosophy of the Education Act, Partners in Education, arose.

The key to developing an education system that would meet the disparate needs of Yukon students was to go to the people and work with them to develop a system that fostered and encouraged partnership. They identified the stakeholders, the parents, educators, and native people.

When we started what would eventually become the education act task force, we ensured the members of the steering committee would be representing those interest groups and organizations involved in specific aspects of the Yukon’s education system. Represented on the committee were the Yukon Teachers Association, the Department of Education, the Council for Yukon Indians and the Yukon Education Council. This steering committee oversaw the development of option papers that dealt with all educational matters. These were distributed to the public and became the starting point for public meetings held to discuss education, and education legislation.

The steering committee developed a consultation plan and the working arrangements for the education act task force. The task force was assembled: Brian Morris, chairperson of the Jeckell school committee; Mary Easterson, of the Council for Yukon Indians; Bob Nardi, of the Yukon Education Council; Marilyn Norby, of the Council for Yukon Indians; Paul Nugent, of the Yukon Teachers Association; and Fred Smith, of the Principals and Vice-Principals Association.

The education act task force travelled to every Yukon community. It met with parents, teachers, and former students, with elders and people who had no children in school but who still had a keen interest in education in the Yukon. It was surprising to see the support given by former students of this process. For example, Diane Strand, a Haines Junction resident, had no children of her own in school, but had gone through the Yukon school system. She was so interested in helping to develop a new Education Act that she organized a task force meeting in Haines Junction and it had the largest turnout of all of the meetings attended by the task force.

What the task force found was that there was support for what is going on in education in the Yukon. The task force meetings were not seen as an opportunity to criticize the system; people felt we had a system with good elements but that it needed changes. They wanted a system that would not just keep up with the rest of Canada but would in fact lead the country. They wanted a system that would provide an education that is relevant to children, that would build on their own experiences. They wanted a system they could participate in. They wanted local control. They wanted to have options, whether in the content of local curriculum, the length of the school day, the format of the school year, or control over funding to meet local priorities.

At about the same time as the education act task force was presenting its findings and recommendations, the Joint Commission on Indian Education and Training, or Kwiya, as it was by then known, was doing the same. Chairperson Mary Jane Joe and the commissioners, Benjy Clethro and Nelson Ireland, found that education is as much a part of the natural heritage of Indian culture in the Yukon as it is a part of the heritage of people with other ancestral cultures. In their hearings, they found that what Indian parents wanted was not just a system they could participate in and local control and options. What Indian parents wanted in particular was a contemporary education system that accepts the cultural traditions of Indian people.

In its final report, Kwiya identified the critical role education plays in culture and heritage and the pride and self-development that arise out of that. The name of that final report, I would like to note, was Towards a New Partnership in Education - partnership, not separate schools. This was the bottom line. Throughout the public hearings held by both Kwiya and the task force, the issue of whether there is a need for a separate education system to better meet the needs of First Nations students was raised. What both groups found was that parents want their children educated in a common system, not divided along racial lines, but they also want - even demanded - a system that respects those differences and accommodates the needs that arise from these differences. What the Education Act does is enfranchise Yukon First Nations. They are part of the system and they are in a position to ensure that the system does what it must to meet their needs.

Following the reports from Kwiya and the task force, the Department of Education then prepared a White Paper, which was released to the public in September, 1988. It is entitled “Your Child’s Future: a New Plan for Education”. The White Paper, or action plan, was laid out in two parts. One was a proposal for the new Education Act; the other was an action plan for partners in education.

This is where the consultation process truly took on a life of its own. The White Paper generated good discussion, but people wanted more detail. They wanted the blueprint. A drafting committee, representing the major stakeholders in the Yukon’s education system, was struck to write the Education Act. It was promised that, when a draft was ready, the public would be able to review it, and a final round of consultation would be held. The document that emerged, the document you have before you today, will be one that truly represents the will of the people.

The Yukon education system must prepare people for life in the Yukon and for life outside of the Yukon, too. People do not want to become economic captives here, but neither do they want their children groomed for a lifestyle that does not exist here. Needless to say, the drafting committee realized that it would be a difficult task to write legislation that would meet these demands.

I would like to take the opportunity now to thank the members of that committee for their dedication and hard work, and for achieving the almost impossible, from the representatives from the Council for Yukon Indians, Sharon Jacobs and Ingrid Kelleher, to the representatives from Yukon Teachers Association, Ken Taylor and Denise McLennan; to the representatives of the Yukon Education Council, Carl Rumscheidt and, especially, John Hoyt; to the representatives of the Principals and Vice Principals Association, Dave Hobus and the ever present Fred Smith, to the committee’s legal counsel, Judith Anderson; and to the dedicated Department of Education staff, who supported the whole enterprise.

What has been accomplished is the development of legislation that responds to the needs and aspirations of Yukon people, as well as the legal and constitutional changes that have occurred over the past 15 years. The Education Act fully recognizes the implications inherent in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and deals with them accordingly with provisions concerning freedom of speech, corporal punishment and optional education, just to name a few.

These people have helped develop legislation that respects the Yukon Indian land claim agreement. It respects court decisions on special needs, some of them quite recent, on special needs. In turn, it respects the fact that times will change and calls for a review within 10 years after proclamation.

I would be stretching a point to say that the extensive consultation process we have gone through was deliberately planned in its detail from beginning to end. While this government knew we wanted to consult with the people of the Yukon, it was the people of the Yukon who encouraged us to consult so thoroughly, to be patient, and to get it right.

The consultation process also made many opportunities for people who had not spoken to each other and did not understand each other to learn more about the many varied and legitimate interests in education that exist in the Yukon. The process itself, and not just the legislation that is its product, encouraged tolerance of differences.

Over time, what has evolved has proven to have been the right way to go about developing the Education Act, and touches upon all of us in the Yukon. The process was inherently filled with checks and balances, both through the time allotted to us to thoroughly research and evaluate proposed changes, and through the many opinions and suggestions we received. We wanted to keep the things that are good from today’s system and marry them with a system that is more flexible, more responsive yet, above all, educationally sound.

Some of the reaction we received on the draft Education Act indicated that some Yukon people were concerned about how the Yukon education system would change under this Education Act. These concepts are not new. Many, in fact, are the products of Yukoners’ imaginations. They are what the people want to see in their schools and in their communities. While some of these concepts may be new to the Yukon, they have been tried and tested elsewhere. The litmus test for all of these changes is whether they will work, not just on paper, but also in the classrooms.

Thanks to the consultation process, and thanks to the extensive participation of educators and education experts, I am satisfied, as I am sure you will be satisfied, that this test is met by this act.

I have enjoyed more than I could ever have anticipated the many opportunities provided by the consultation process to meet and talk with parents and teachers about education. The moments I remember as turning points for me are not the ones that were turning points for the process, such as receiving the Kwiya report, or attending one of the dozens of conferences or conventions on the new Education Act.

I remember a meeting in Watson Lake where I got a sense of the passion of the parents, the commitment of the teachers, the need for change and the need to be involved. I got a sense of the resentment that these people felt at having their strings pulled from 300 miles away.

While the Yukon had, and has worked long and hard to hire teachers who are innovators, who have initiative and drive, the system all too often suppressed those same values that we prized the most in our teachers. I realized then how important it was to have an education system that did not treat teachers as possessions, but to give them room to innovate, to teach, instead.

I remember, too, a meeting in Pelly Crossing where things were proceeding in pretty much of a pattern when, unexpectedly, the meeting was turned over to several women who had been sitting quietly on the sidelines with the simple statement, “Education is very important to us.” These women then laid out a very articulate plan of what they wanted their children to be. It was sincere and it was, for me, very moving. What these women wanted was their children to be strong individuals in a world their parents did not understand, but members, too, of a community who knew and respected where they came from.

I thought if that kind of enthusiasm and wisdom could be harnessed, it would obviously do wonders for the Pelly school, and I knew that parents had a role to play in education, too. As partners in education, all of us have a role in Yukon’s education system. As partners, our individual and collective abilities are recognized, and our rights, too.

Through all the articles on education I have read over the years, one thing stands out: that parents who respect the system are parents who support, work and participate in that system. It also means that the system is seen to do well, and as a result, the children do better than what might otherwise be expected. Parents, in fact, must participate if the system laid out in the Education Act is to work. They are part of the system as both individual parents who are concerned with the welfare and wellbeing of their child and as members of the councils and school boards that will control the system.

Already, many parents are actively involved in the education as school committee members. There are parents who volunteer precious time as teacher aids or who help out on band committees or sports teams or parent/teacher associations. The Education Act recognizes this participation and enhances, substantially, the opportunity for parents to participate and play a real role.

Partnership and participation: with these we can realize this government goal and the goal of parents throughout the territory of a Yukon education that is relevant to our children, that prepares them for life, both in and outside the Yukon. It will not be a second-class education, one that is so adapted that it is diluted. It will be a system that is flexible, that has a strong core about which we can build the courses, activities and patterns that meet local and individual needs.

Partnership means creating a balance of interest: parents, teachers, the Department of Education professionals, everybody bringing value to the decision-making process.

The Education Act will bring decision making as close as possible to those who are affected. This flexibility will allow different people to do different things. Innovation and imagination will be encouraged to flourish.

Thanks to the Education Act, the Yukon’s education system will be able to respond naturally to the many inherent interests in the system.

The old School Act called for uniformity. Its goal was maximum administrative convenience and not partnership. What the Education Act will do ultimately is democratize the Yukon education system. That is something we should be proud to have accomplished with the help of the people of the Yukon.

The Education Act is based on equality of educational opportunity and on the right of each student to an education appropriate to his or her needs, on recognizing the rights and privileges enjoyed by minorities as enshrined in law and on developing the whole child.

A key goal of the Education Act is to promote, not just in the student but in the community, a love of learning. For all that we are Yukon people, we are also different in many ways. We are rural or urban. We speak different languages and we have different cultural traditions. The Education Act must and will allow each of us to realize our potential despite these differences and also because of them.

I look forward to speaking further with Members on the contents of the act when we enter the discussion during Committee of the Whole.

Mr. Devries: It is with a great deal of anticipation and interest that I speak to this act today.

I have been involved with the consultation process first as chairperson of the school committee and also as a substitute member of the education council and now as the education critic for the Opposition.

The act is also of personal interest to me as this year my youngest daughter is graduating from school, and I have a new grandson that I anticipate will be starting school in five years.

The single most contentious issue I have been hearing from the general public is that quality can be compromised for quantity. We, in the Opposition, will be monitoring this situation carefully. I am not saying it will happen; it is the greatest suspicion we have run into within the general public.

Already we see more people sending their children out to various schools. This creates a tremendous problem, especially for the rural schools in their efforts to maintain existing and new programs. This act seems to do little to address these fears and may possibly even increase them as we see the central focus on local programming, although I do agree that this subject was what the general public was asking for.

I would certainly agree that nobody can say that this act, prior to the latest version, was under consulted. On the contrary, the reverse would be more appropriate. I will touch on this in my closing remarks.

One of the areas that seems to be overlooked is the importance of the family and how family has played the most important role in building our nation, making Canada the great multicultural country it is today.

I realize it often refers to parents, to teachers and to students, but very seldom does it refer to them in one context. Parents and students to me are family. I plan to propose an amendment or an addition to the goals and objectives on page 15 that would stress the important role family has played in the development of our society, and the principle of education being a joint effort between students, parents and educators. There is no doubt that the breakdown of the family is one of the most devastating experiences being witnessed by today’s children. I hope the school can be used to reinforce the important role that families play in the development of a child.

Perhaps it would have been appropriate to point out that the purpose of an act is more directed to someone who lacks interest in their children and tends to abuse the system rather than to set limitations on the family that takes a great deal of interest in the welfare of their children. This stuck out when I read the act. It seemed like yes, you are interested in education and then everything else strikes you: there is rule after rule that have to be followed. I am not saying there is anything wrong with rules, but just in the opening statement regarding the act, if it just stated that an act is directed both toward those who tend to abuse the system and also toward those who take a great deal of interest in it.

As we carry on into the act, we get several pages of the duties of the Minister. Without doing a comparison analysis of the old act, one wonders if we really are turning more powers over the councils and boards.

It is difficult to comment on several areas where they are dependent on what the regulations and guidelines will contain. A number of areas would be special education and 15(3) private schools, in 29(2)(a) and (b), and in clause 5, Yukoners First Nations portion based on the recent land claims agreement. Until we know exactly what is in there, it is hard to define exactly what effect the Education Act will have. There is definitely an improvement in the language of the revised edition of the act. I certainly find it much easier to read and comprehend compared to the draft edition.

We have a concern in the area of damage to school property in clause 21 and will elaborate on this further general debate. In clause 5, in the choice of education, we come to the area that perhaps created more discussion among the affected interest groups than any other. There are still some questions regarding these areas. Clause 28 refers to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms but neglects to mention that there are other laws that may affect whether these regulations are enforceable or legal.

My understanding is that the Minister had a meeting this morning with a group that is concerned about the wording of this section pertaining to private schools, and the interpretation of what the present edition of the act refers to when it says “registering”.

If this area is not addressed by the Minister’s department, there may be an amendment proposed in this area by this side. We have a copy of a paper done by Howard McConnell, Professor of Law, University of Saskatchewan. From reading this document, you develop the opinion that perhaps the act should specify what a group may not teach, rather than set limitations on what they may teach, similar to what they have in the Alberta legislation.

The home educators put forward some very professional submissions, and we are pleased to see the government has addressed most of their concerns in this area. In the area of teachers’ rights, many teachers still feel they are being restricted in administering discipline. Perhaps some suggestions are to make it easier to get the more disruptive students segregated into special classes, where these behavioral problems can be dealt with on a more individualized basis. This could be covered in the special education area but, when I read the act, it is sort of unclear. At one time, special education seems to refer to what you would not want to call overly bright students, but the students who are in the higher areas. Most of the special education seems to be geared toward trying to keep them interested. As much as it does mention it, it does not clearly lay out that it could possibly be geared toward children with discipline problems.

We will be seeking further clarification on this during general debate.

Perhaps the act could be restructured slightly to have the rights of teachers more clearly defined in the same area following students’ rights, rather than the vague references we find here and there. I am well aware that much of the area of discipline will be turned over to the school boards and councils but, in an effort to keep some consistency in the system, I believe there should be a few more guidelines in this area.

The locally-developed courses of study could become a contentious issue in areas where a mixture of native and non-native imbalances exist, and I look forward to debating this subject. I am not saying I am against it; I am just saying that, within the debate, it would be interesting to have this issue further clarified.

The potential of a flexible school year policy could create concerns for students from other jurisdictions who move to the Yukon, or even students within the Yukon. It has the potential of creating some hiring problems for people with families. Again, I realize this has been an issue within areas in a tourism-based economy. I look forward to debate in this area. Again, I not saying I am for it or against it, but it will be an important part of the debate.

The land claims agreement referred to in part five is of interest, and we can only hope the various band councils that are drafting up the legislation keep in mind the importance of equality in the education system. Prejudices are often based on perceptions of favouritism and unfair advantages. We can only anticipate the clauses in the act that encourage more development of native languages and cultural programs will definitely raise the self-esteem of our aboriginal students.

Also, the multicultural program will help the non-natives understand the importance of maintaining their own cultural heritages and identities at home and in the school.

In the area of the development of school boards and councils, we see a rather long process, but with many built-in safety features to provide for a smooth transition into this northern-designed system, which is very similar to what is presently used in the NWT and Alaska. Recently, I have heard that some problems have started to show up.

During debate, we will also have some questions about the election procedures. It is unclear to me if the board elections would piggyback with municipal elections, and how the enumeration process would be handled. There is also the question of whether B.C. parents, whose children attend school in the Yukon, would have voting rights, either for boards or councils.

The increased powers of the educational tribunal are interesting. There were also comments of Professor Donald A. Burgess, who did a study on the draft act for McGill Journal of Education. Upon review of the act, he refers to the great lengths taken to address teachers arbitration process, evaluation and the appeal process.

From the extensive process that has been put into place for appeals, he wonders if Yukoners are a very argumentive lot. Some other comments Professor Burgess makes are the glaring gap in legislation regarding continuing education. I am quite aware this will possibly be addressed later in a Yukon college act. Meanwhile, we will have a period of time where this situation will not be addressed. I would like to read the quote.

“One of the more glaring gaps in legislation is the absence of any reference to adult education, or to continuing education. This is more than strange, if only because, in the government’s policy paper, there was a stated intention to move in new directions and to signify this change by naming the new legislation the ‘education act’, rather than retaining the old title of ‘school act’. As the government stated in its White Paper, the title, ‘education act’, appropriately reflects the government’s concept of education as an integral part of society, reaching well beyond the school room, but there appears to be no reference to education beyond the school room. The absence of this important element is, I think, a serious one, and especially from a government that claims to be progressive and that recognizes early on in its deliberations that we live in a society characterized by continual change, and that planned for its education act to promote an environment in which all Yukon people are given the opportunity to succeed, both in a positive and rewarding education system, and in the world around us.”

Just as a matter of interest, I think I could comment on what happened at a cafeteria discussion one day just prior to the release of the act in December. This is one of my scenarios on why the continuing education thing has been dropped because it was addressed in the White Paper.

I have a question to the deputy minister about my concern in the area of discipline which I felt was relaxed considerably in the White Paper. He said, and I quote, “John, do not worry, I have thrown the White Paper in the garbage and the new act is very good. You will be hard pressed to find anything wrong with the draft act that we are about to table.” He said this to the wrong person. We in Watson Lake are only too familiar with what happened with the deputy minister’s last venture.

These comments led me to go through the act with a fine-toothed comb. I must admit I have found nothing that really stands out. But the overall act seems to come to a dead end in the area of continuing education. It does not assure students that they will receive adequate counselling if they indicate they would like to drop out. It does not address the subject of continuing education throughout adult life. As such, a large portion of the act seems to focus on appeals and procedures. One can only agree with Professors Burgess’ assessment that it may lead to increased litigation and get us bogged down in complicated appeal procedures.

Yes, we have an act that attempts to address the concerns of the general public. We have spent four years in consultation and now face two more years of implementation. During this process, we must make sure we do not lose sight of what it is all about: the education of our children.

Just getting back to the process of the consultations I mentioned earlier. We went through four years of consultations and many of the school committees were focused on consultation. I am not saying they neglected education, but if they had had more time to address the concerns of education, possibly we would be further along as far as the education process goes - perhaps if it had been limited to two years. Now what we are faced with is, I believe, that 90 days after the act is implemented, most of the school committees have the option of becoming - or will become - school councils. Once they become school councils, they receive a much broader range of situations in different areas of education they must address. It will take them at least one year to get all that further authority in proper perspective. Then, after one year they have the option of becoming a school board. Then again it will take them a whole year to get used to that. My greatest fear is that education itself could get left behind. I think our duty as opposition members is going to be to monitor this very carefully and to make sure that we do not lose sight of our chief objective which should be the education of our children.

Again, I realize that the formation of the councils and boards is what the general public wants. I am not saying there is anything wrong with it but we have to be very alert. I should warn the school boards, councils and committees not to get carried away in the formation of these boards, but to remember what their real mandate is.

While we support the majority of the act in principle there are shortcomings and we will be asking for some improvements. We will be monitoring this very closely.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: I want to enter the debate on the Education Act for a number of reasons. Some of them are very general, but many of them are very personal and very special. I think the act as introduced by the Minister of Education indeed culminates a most arduous and lengthy, but very rewarding process. While there may have been thousands of people who participated in that process over the past number of years, I think it is for the many more thousands of people who stand to benefit from this act where the real rewards are going to be felt. When the last school act was passed some 16 years ago, I was a teacher in the Yukon school system. I remember its introduction and passage. I see no comparison to what is taking place today. There is no comparison to the consultative process that took place to lead to this act, and will continue with the implementation of the act. There was no comparison to the imagination and innovation that was introduced into this act and the ideas that become enshrined in legislation. Compared to the principles of a balanced educational set of interests to deliver our system, those principles of partnership, participation, empowerment, of decision making, of flexibility, I think this act is indeed a major milestone in educational thought.

I would go so far as to submit that this act is on the leading edge of educational reform in the country.

I think Yukon people feel as I do, very much a part of this act, if only because they helped shape it. I remember as early as in the mid 1970s, shortly after the last act was passed, listening to the growing concerns about the educational system from parents who did not feel a part of it, from students who felt alienated, and from society at large, who felt detached from the system and almost betrayed by it, and even from educators, who felt confused over the mixed signals the system provided or did not provide, in terms of direction, philosophy, and responsibility. In spite of that difficult time, there were some excellent initiatives during those years. There were excellent teachers. There was excellent work. There was even a fairly substantial financial commitment by government, but there remained a certain frustration surrounding the school system. That frustration expressed itself in the words of many Yukon people, that it was failing the needs of their students, that it was not democratic, that it was not relevant, that it was not flexible enough.

It hit home even harder as my two sons made their way through the school system and the 12 formal grades. I remember those years quite well. It was part of that inflexibility and frustration with the system that propelled me from the classroom into politics. It goes back to 1976.

I had just returned from a year’s sabbatical, where I had spent the better part of a year at university developing a media course. I tailored it to a grade 8/9 level, and I got the idea to develop this course from the lack of reasonable options at that level that were being offered in the school in Faro at that time.

I remember bringing the course back to Faro when I returned from my sabbatical. I had my outline and my lesson plans and my backup material. I presented it to the principal, and he was excited and took it to the school committee, who gave me accolades of encouragement. I proceeded to teach the course and by all accounts, from my point of view, the course was quite successful. I had a dozen students. We produced a newspaper. We did other media work. We did filming. We did writing. It was a media course. The students, I thought, enjoyed the class. They found it challenging and exciting; it was different and we were doing things. It was very relevant to them. We were writing about things in Faro, things in the Yukon and tying it all into global media concepts. About two months into the course, an official of the Department of Education walked in one day. He observed what I was doing for 30 seconds and he asked if the course was on the B.C. curriculum of studies. I said “No, but...” - I was never allowed to finish my sentence. I was ordered to stop teaching the course. The course was removed from the timetable that day and 12 students floundered to pick up a credit by correspondence in another option that was being offered - I think it was home economics or electricity or something. They had declined those classes earlier.

I guess it was that day that I decided that if I could not reform the system from within, then I had to do something else. I am not suggesting that my entry into politics has reformed the school system or the educational system, but I do feel, like many other thousands of Yukon people do, that I can stand with pride today as this act goes into passage here in the House.

I think this act addresses all those concerns that Yukon people have raised, not just in the past four years but perhaps in the last 10 or 12 or even 15 years. Those concerns were probably best articulated and represented to me when the current Minister and I toured every Yukon community during 1983 and 1984, as an Opposition task force on education. I think that was perhaps, unofficially, when the review began for this act.

A couple of Members opposite know about a task force effort.

I remember all about the business of going around communities to talk to people. Mr. McDonald and I, through those meetings and discussions, and many submissions, were overwhelmed, not only by the range of frustration over the school system but by the very innovative ideas for change that came from the people who were talking to us. They came from every organization, group or club in virtually every segment of society. It was overwhelming, but exciting.

I think the Minister would agree that we recognized at the time that reform was needed, but probably what we did not realize was how complicated, time consuming and extensive were the requirements of educational reform. I think the Minister now knows.

I sincerely look forward to committee debate, to some of the ideas that are being proposed by the Member who just spoke. I think the act we see before us is by far more comprehensive, more innovative, more imaginative and more democratic than anything I ever envisaged in 1976 or even 1984. It is clearly a credit to the thorough consultative efforts in its preparation. It is a credit to the many people from every walk of Yukon life who made their contribution, whether they were on school committees, in the Teachers Association, or from the public at large, or from the Council for Yukon Indians, or from the department, people who gave so much of their time, hours, weeks even months in some cases, to the preparation of the bill before us. It is a particular credit to the Minister who stayed on top of this monumental task and provided the democratic steps necessary for its preparation.

I conclude by saying that the passage of this act will be a great day for all Yukon people, for the health and enhancement of education in Yukon, as all the parties in education form the partnership that is necessary to make our education system truly democratic, truly flexible, truly imaginative and yet reflective of the highest standards.

Mr. Joe: I want to tell the Members of this House about some wonderful things that happened at Eliza Van Bibber school in Pelly Crossing. Last year, there were programs to teach the students how to trap. The principal and teachers at the school, the school committee and the Selkirk Indian Band worked together to set up the program.

Last year, Roger Alfred took students out on a trapline for a first-hand view of what it is like to trap. A trapline has also been set up south of Pelly Crossing and students learn how to check and maintain traps on a regular basis. They work and learn just like full-time trappers. The students who went out and trapped were able to communicate what they had learned. They were also able to sell their fur and the money went toward future events.

This is an example of how students can learn about their traditional way of life. They have the opportunity to spend time outdoors. This is healthy. They are also given the chance to support activities at school by doing something very practical to raise money. We all know how important it is to work toward good feelings about school in common with reaching that goal. Students at the Eliza Van Bibber school who took part in the trapping program sure learned a lot.

This year, a native handicraft program was also worked out in grades four to 10. They learned how to work with moose hide to make moccasins, belts and other items.

Both of these programs show that we can have alternative programs in our schools. We learn a great deal in the outdoor classroom.

The new Education Act is good because it gives all the communities the opportunity to make suggestions about what they want in terms of programs for their children.

The programs in Pelly Crossing are a way to reach a standard school curriculum. They show that school staff, parents and bands can work together to plan education. Everyone has a chance to find out more about the Education Act. The department has visited the community and talked to parents and the school committee and other groups. They have done a good job following this consultation process.

The Education Act is an act that will work for all the people of the Yukon. Thank you.

Mr. Lang: I would like to begin by commending the Minister for the obvious time and effort that he has put into the act that we have before us. As he said, it is the product of many hours of consultation with the public, with educators and various interest groups throughout the territory. I think that, although in many cases, as my colleague has said about the bill, it is vague in many areas, it is very easy to read and I want to commend the writers of the bill for what we have before us, as far as the bill is concerned. Obviously, it will make things easier for us, as legislators, as we go through it clause by clause when we proceed into Committee of the Whole on this very important bill.

In the areas of education, I think that the Government of the Yukon deserves a lot of credit over the past number of decades. When you think back, a number of us in this room have gone through the education system. I can recall the fact that we had the hostels in the Whitehorse area for students, primarily from outside of town. I remember the fact that there was one school in the City of Whitehorse for all the students in Whitehorse.

When you travel to the community of Watson Lake or Old Crow and take a look at the facilities, time and effort that has been put forward by the various administrations over the years, I do not think the government can take a back seat to anyone, as far as the facilities are concerned. Yes, there is always room for improvement. There is no question about that. When you take a look at our facilities and gyms, I am sure if we brought people from the northern parts of the provinces to do a review of them, they would be very envious, and rightfully so.

This is an area I do not think anyone can question.

Over the past 15 years or so, the government deserves a fair amount of credit for special education. This is an area that was relatively new here a number of years ago but, quite properly so, it is an area where a number of administrations have taken as a priority, as money has permitted. It is an area where taxpayers’ dollars are well spent when we find children who are having significant problems, because of hearing handicaps, other mental handicaps or things of this nature. It is to society’s benefit that we diagnose these problems early and address them so these individuals, as they grow up, can contribute to the general well-being of society and, at the same time, forge out and make a good life for themselves.

In years past, especially in the 1950s and 1960s, this particular area was largely ignored, possibly because people did not know much about it. It is an area that we, in the Yukon, can be very proud of.

Another program in the area of education I want to give some accolades to is the program for the teen unwed mothers. It is a good program, and I am pleased to see we are affluent enough to be able to provide such a program. I know how expensive it is. Between that program and the program that has been started for the “street kids”, I think we are addressing a lot of the problems that are out there. These teachers have a very onerous task,  and they are facing these problems, which are not only in the classroom but a product of where these kids spend their time outside the classroom. We will be looking forward to seeing the success of programs such as this. They can only be measured in social terms.

We hope these young people, who are getting the benefit of these well-intentioned and thought out programs, take advantage of them. In the long run, it is they who are going to benefit from it, as well as society as a whole.

There are a number of areas I want to raise as concerns and will look forward to debating them during the clause-by-clause reading.

One area I feel quite strongly about is the quality and standard of our education system. Over the years we have followed the B.C. curriculum in most part. In the last 10 years, we have made some significant modifications to our curriculum. It is absolutely critical to the direction our territory is going that the principle of excellence be there. I have to concur with my colleague from Watson Lake because people have asked me about the quality and standard of our education system. It is going through some very major social changes, not totally brought on by itself, but also from outside forces such as the Sullivan report that the Minister spoke on briefly in his ministerial statement. This report is very important as to what is going to happen to our curriculum and what we are going to do in the future for providing teaching materials for our teachers. It is going to have to be scrutinized very closely. There are some good things in it, but I am sure there are going to be some significant pitfalls. We will be monitoring this curriculum committee. It is one of the most important committees struck during the life of this government, because it is going to have some long-range effects on our education system. The Minister noted we have up to 10 years to make up our minds, but we are closely tied in with the Province of British Columbia and its curriculum. For us to make a big change in our curriculum is going to be very costly. We could probably not afford the cost of a major change of that kind. If we were dissatisfied with the B.C. curriculum, we may well have to consider coordinating our education system with the Province of Alberta.

A concern we should all listen to, as legislators, as members of school boards or school committees, is that quite a number of people have made the decision to teach their own children. I realize some do so because of religious ideals. Since this draft act has been tabled I have been approached by a number of parents who have taken their children out of our education system because they are dissatisfied. In some cases, they are dissatisfied with the standards, but more importantly with what they see as a lack of discipline.

Obviously, following that lack of discipline is a lack of respect for those in the teaching profession and for society as a whole. In their cases, right or wrong, they have removed their children from the system and made the decision to teach them at home.

We should be watching that very closely because there is a loud and clear message there. Although the government has made the decision to remove corporal punishment from this new act, the reality of the situation is that we still must give the teaching profession every support we possibly can in the area of discipline. If we do not, we are doing a disfavor to our young people because there must be discipline in our school system in order for it to work. There is a section under the duties of the students that I am going to be raising in the course of debate with my colleague on that very question - the student’s responsibility to follow the instructions of the teacher - and have it clearly spelled out.

Another area of concern we have concerns government overall. I just looked at the decisions that are being made over the course of this sitting. With the Mental Health Act, we are forming a board. In the Child Care Act, we are forming another board. We are now converting what are known as school committees to school councils and then to school boards. These boards that are being created within the proposed Education Act are going to be the most important boards the public can serve on in view of the authority that is going to be vested under the new act. My concern is with the number of boards we are creating within government. The smaller communities only have so many people who are prepared to serve in this type of capacity, whether it be on a school board, municipal council or whatever other kind of board there is. We have not even touched on the number of boards and committees that are going to be created as a result of the umbrella land claim agreement. My concern is in regard to the number of people who are available and will make themselves available to serve in these capacities. I am just serving notice to the government that this is an area they must scrutinize closely, because we are putting boards and councils into place with this proposed act. We must ensure we get the best people possible to serve in these capacities. My concern is not for the City of Whitehorse, but for communities such as Watson Lake, Mayo and Haines Junction where there are only so many people who are prepared to come out and serve.

The other thing that has to be stated is that, with the passage of this new act, the time commitment being asked of these people is going to be vastly greater than it has been in the past, along with the responsibility vested with it.

Another area of concern that I have - and I have already talked to the Minister’s officials on this - goes back to the question of curriculum. I am looking at part 4 on section 43. My concern is this, and it is a legislative concern more than anything else, and has to do with accountability: I was very surprised to read about where the Minister makes an decision and his decision can be appealed to a board that is created by this House. I may stand corrected but I do not think ever, in legislation that has been brought forward to this House, have I seen the Minister - and therefore the Legislature - give up their right to accountability and responsibility, allowing it to be appealed to another board. Yes, the Minister’s decision can be appealed to the courts, and rightfully so, but the accountability and the responsibility for decisions in the area of education ultimately must come to the floor of this House. It is an area on which I hope the Minister can enlighten us. I find it difficult to accept, when we are dealing with curriculum - something as important to the curriculum of the territory - and it goes back to the concern raised by my colleague, the Member for Watson Lake, with respect to the quality and the standard of our curriculum, that this type of decision would be appealed to a body other than the court.

Another area of concern, that my colleague referred to, is an area that people that people should be well aware of. I think this is, in part, the consequences of the repatriation of the Constitution some number of years ago. We are rapidly going to the American system, where litigation is the name of the game. In many, many areas, when you read through this legislation, the court will make the ultimate decision and it would almost appear, in some cases, the way it is written, that they are encouraging the court to make those decisions. I do not know if that is really the system that we should be going to in the writing of our legislation. In the briefing that I had, the Alaskan system was spoken about. We know what happens in the American system; basically everything is settled in court. It is very expensive and I wonder sometimes if it really succeeds in answering the questions for society as a whole. It is an area of which the public should be fully aware and acquainted. With the passage of the act, the probability and the possibility of litigation in the education system is very much evident and probable.

The one area in which I was a little disappointed was that the Minister was written to by my colleague, the Member for Watson Lake, and asked what the cost would be of the act, once passed. He asked to get a projection of the cost for the next five years because there is obviously going to be added cost with respect to the running of the system and the effects of it.

I am looking forward to the Minister tabling that document and reviewing it because it is a factor; it is one that we all have to take into account. I hope the Minister is not going to blame Mr. Wilson for this one, if there is an increase in expenditure. If there is an increase in expenditure, it has been brought on by ourselves and by this House and we are going to have to bear the brunt of that, down the road.

The other concern I have is the election process: how it is going to run, who is going to run it, the projected costs of such an election. Running elections is not cheap. It is something we have to address as a Legislature.

I am going to be looking forward to the Minister’s observations in the area of the right-to-strike provisions in the act and what he sees as the effect on the education system. It is a significant change from where we were 15 years ago. It is a right I do not think this side is going to dispute, but I want to see what the Minister has to say with respect to how it is going to affect our education system and the students within the system.

With those few comments, we look forward to the debate in Committee. I hope the Minister takes our comments in a constructive manner. We view this act as a people’s act. It is not necessarily that of the government, nor anyone else’s. It is a piece of legislation that is going to direct education in many years to come. No matter who sits on that side of the House, they are going to have to operate under the rules as outlined in the act.

I hope we are going in the right direction, with the decentralization of our education system, at that same time ensuring that the quality, standards and principle of excellence is going to be respected.

The one area I failed to mention is one of major concern, which is the question raised over the last year on the changes in departmental personnel and what is happening within the Department of Education. That is of major importance to the whole area of education in Yukon.

It bothers me when the Minister of Education stands up and says everything is fine in the Department of Education, yet we have had almost a 50 percent turnover of administrative staff in the past year.

I do not argue with the need for change, as time goes on, but when we see change to the extent that has taken place, I question what is going on. Nobody can tell me the morale within that department is high. The Minister can stand and huff and puff and carry on, but when you have a turnover of the numbers we have seen over the past 12 months, it is a cause of public concern.

We have seen people within that department who are very well accredited, very well thought of, and their professional credibility has been questioned. It is a sad day for Yukon when we pass a bill of this magnitude and at the same time experience such a drastic personnel change within the department. It does not bode well for our education system to see such major changes take place within such a short space of time, especially when quite a number of those people are very well accredited and thought of in the fields they were working in on behalf of the people of the territory.

I hope the Minister takes the necessary steps to correct that. If he does not, the government will pay for it, and the students of the territory will pay for it. We have a vested responsibility. A situation has developed within the Department of Education during the last 12 months and the necessary steps have to be taken to correct it. The responsibility lies with the Minister of Education. It is clearly outlined in this act, and it is clearly outlined in the old act.

Hon. Ms. Joe: As we begin this review of the proposed Education Act, we begin a new era on our outlook toward education in the Yukon. This is not just a small amendment to a piece of legislation; it is a whole new exciting concept. This piece of legislation will be a front runner in the whole country.

I would like to congratulate our Minister of Education on his vision and wisdom, in very carefully and considerately preparing the Education Act that is presently before this House. I know he has spent many long hours labouring over this legislation, ensuring that every single voice in the Yukon that wanted to be heard was heard - not only heard, but concerns were carefully considered and reflected in each new draft of this act. Since 1986, I have waited with anticipation for this act knowing that it was an almost impossible task. For many years I watched with concern as students, particularly those from the communities, whether native or non-native, struggled with a system based on values, understanding and curriculum of a big city in the south end of our country. Not only were they struggling, but if they did not succeed, they had little or no options open to them. Many of these students were left to the streets with many heartbroken parents frustrated with a system that appeared to have no sympathy.

What I see now are options: options for schools and communities that will allow for the flexibility that is needed in our communities; options that will meet the needs of all those people who yearn to be productive partners in our society. Never before have we had the opportunity to make such exciting changes that will make learning more meaningful and relevant to our jurisdiction. All of this will be done without leaving out any participants, students, parents or teachers.

We live in a fast-moving society with knowledge increasing by the hour. We owe it to our children to ensure that the process by which they learn is the most effective for their learning needs.

I believe this act will allow for these provisions. Now that we have a land claims agreement well on its way, we have a responsibility to include the Yukon’s First Nations as an equal partner in providing the very best education to the young aboriginal people of the Yukon, whether it be by way of recognizing the equality of native language teachers with any other teacher or by ensuring they have the ability to participate in decision-making bodies.

A long time has passed since residential schools were here; a long time has passed since native people have heard their concerns about education. Now, we can look forward to a new future for our young people that will include their input, their parents’ input and their community’s input. I am personally excited, and excited as a Member of this House that, together, we can work cooperatively to meet the challenges of the future of our young children and grandchildren.

Mr. Phelps: I want to say a few words about this act because it is an extremely important piece of legislation. Firstly, I want to thank the Minister for the work that went into bringing the bill forward and to add my thanks to all of those who have been involved in the process that has led us to this stage in the bill’s history.

There is no question but that it was time to have a fresh look at the education system and the overhaul of the act that has been done to a large extent. It is an important bill. It is important to our kids; it is important in allowing all Yukoners to train, adjust and understand the rapidly changing world.

When the draft first came out, we on this side had some concerns and we received a lot of representations from concerned parents in the community. I was somewhat surprised by the number of people who, in the course of the last number of years, have taken the step to remove their children from our education system - our public schools. I was surprised by the very large number of people who teach their children at home. A significant number of my constituents have made that choice and I must say these were very concerned parents who had spent a lot of time agonizing over education issues and who provided us with the well-thought-out position papers and briefs on education in general, and papers about the philosophies behind home education.

There are a number of people, of course, who believe in private schools and an increased number of parents send their kids outside to seek education in fairly expensive private schools in southern Canada.

There are a number of concerns in areas such as discipline and how control in the classrooms is going to be maintained. I do not think there is any question that a good many parents are concerned about the behavior of children and their peers who are attending our public schools. They are concerned about the way in which the issue of discipline and respect is deteriorating.

We had people approach us with concerns about the costs that would be going into the new administration that is envisaged in the bill and whether the expensive aspects going into the process would mean that less money would be spent on the issue of quality in the education system. There was a concern that the process does not outweigh the substance. Substance is always far more important than process. Systems should be set up to try and give us substance and quality in the schools.

I have listened with great interest to the comments made by people who have spoken before me from both sides of the House. I am not going to get into the sections of the bill we will be discussing but I think fair notice has been given to the side opposite and the public through the speeches I have heard so far on second reading and I too look forward to getting into Committee of the Whole and going through the bill clause by clause.

Hon. Mr. Webster: I rise at the second reading of Bill No. 29, the Education Act, to commend the Minister of Education, officials of his department and thousands of Yukoners, from all walks of life, who have written a model piece of legislation. Both the legislation and the process that lead to this culmination will be studied endlessly by educators from all over the country.

The legislation before us is further recognition by this government that people with a direct stake in the issues before them are best equipped to make important decisions about those issues. The Education Act offers parents, students and teachers much more of say in our education system than ever before. Just as we have devolved more decision-making responsibility to the municipalities, the Education Act will allow local communities to decide how much involvement their citizens will have in the education of their children. No longer will all the decisions about educating our children be made by senior officials in the Department of Education or by curriculum developers in British Columbia; instead, important decisions will be made by parents as part of the school authorities, council, or committees, depending upon the degree of authority that the communities feel ready to assume. Students will study a curriculum that makes the subjects studied more relevant to their own experience.

I cannot help but reflect upon how democratic these educational reforms are. This act has not been patched together by educational and legal experts, locked away in some ivory tower. Thousands of Yukoners have had opportunities to shape the contents of this act and they have taken them in submissions to the education act task force, at community meetings held by the Joint Commission on Indian Education and Training, and comments made on the Education Act White Paper. This is not to say that officials in the Department of Education were dealt out of the process. They met with school committees in communities around the territory, both before and after completion of the draft act. They have studied carefully each submission and comment made in the course of the process.

In short, the act that we have before us is the product of a profoundly democratic process. I am confident that this process has resulted in an act that clearly delineates a new balance among the partners in the educational process: parents, children and educators. I believe that the democratic process of consensus-seeking, which has defined this balance, has contributed to a better public understanding of the importance of education.

I also believe that the process has also encouraged the public involvement in education, which this act is designed to foster. Democracy depends upon the active and interested involvement of its citizens. The act before you today will contribute to a healthy Yukon democratic tradition for years to come. I believe it does a fine job of exemplifying the philosophy that was stated in the 1988 White Paper and I quote: “Public education should prepare people for life and work in the Yukon, Canada and the world, and promote in the community a love of learning.”

I believe that the Education Act offers the framework to ensure Yukon children will be well equipped to lead active, productive lives, no matter what they choose to do or where they decide to live.

Ms. Hayden: My children - now adults - attended grades one through 12 here in Whitehorse. Now my grandchildren are in school here. It is very important to me that we have a progressive school system, one that reflects the changing needs in the Yukon. I believe the five principles set out in the preamble to the Education Act show the great strides we have made as a society. I am proud that we are willing to accommodate the educational needs and philosophies of so many different groups and individuals, all of whom make up Yukon society. The act will guarantee the rights of individual learners. There will be a guarantee of equality of opportunity for all students, regardless of physical or intellectual impediment, race, religion or language choice.

Parents, children, teachers, communities and administrators will all truly be partners in education. This act will make it possible for schools and school committees to provide courses that mean something to their specific community.

There is a new opportunity to learn about the Yukon, its land, its resources, its people, its cultures, its environment. This act is a foundation for coming generations to become more knowledgeable, caring residents of the Yukon.

The time of the residential schools is gone. Students who come to live in Whitehorse now to attend high school live in entirely different circumstances. The Education Act before us represents an improvement in the delivery of education that we could not have imagined even 10 years ago.

The act is one of empowerment and determination. It is an act of fairness and accommodation. It is an act that will enrich the educational opportunities for students and provide the avenue for creative instruction for teachers. Recently a biology teacher at F.H. Collins Senior Secondary School was on the radio talking about his Yukon-specific biology program. I believe the kids get a better shake when they learn about things that are part of their environment. This teacher knows that, as do many others at schools throughout the territory.

The act is an opportunity for inclusiveness. There are options for education. Special-needs kids are clearly as important as other children. French language programs have an autonomy rare in other jurisdictions in Canada. There are provisions for aboriginal language instruction. The act also recognizes that some people choose alternative education for their children; home schooling is accommodated too. The act meets the needs of the time and the people by allowing for unique, more informed and more relevant learning situations and content.

I want to take just a moment to extend my support to the teachers of the Yukon who will have the opportunity to work within this act. They have a major challenge before them, but one that I am sure they will meet with sensitivity and creativity.

I am proud to be part of a government that has had the foresight and ingenuity to take the lead on this major education initiative. I lived in B.C. for a number of years, and I know the concern parents and teachers had with their curriculum. With this act, we are ensuring we have the best for our own Yukon students.

Ms. Kassi: I, too, am very pleased with the consultation process that has gone on around the Education Act. There are few enough times we congratulate the people who work in the departments, but I sincerely thank everyone who took part in the development of this act. It is a major step forward in the rules for education of our children here in the Yukon. So many people contributed to this act. It recognizes the needs of aboriginal people at the community level in a way that was never formally been sanctioned before.

As my colleague, the Member for Tatchun, has already pointed out, education does not mean just regular classroom study. My people were educated long before schools were brought into the north. The Education Act recognizes that, and it also has made provision for self-government initiatives in the future, which gives us more flexibility for the education of our own children.

It is important to develop the human part of the child at an early age. We cannot expect children to develop into capable, self-assured adults if we work simply on the facts of reading, writing and arithmetic. Lifeskills and communications are important. A holistic approach in a child’s development is really important. The earlier children begin to learn and work together in harmony, the better prepared they will be for adult life.

This Education Act also recognizes the needs of aboriginal students in Whitehorse, and provides for the direct participation of aboriginal people at the school committee level.

I want to thank the Minister of Education for making it possible for so many groups to have a say in the education of our children for the future.

Mr. Nordling: Rewriting an act such as the Education Act, which affects almost every Yukoner, is no easy task. One of the problems is that the results of such a bold initiative will not be known for many years. However, we as legislators must take steps that we think are right and proper, and that is what we are doing with this new act.

The search for improvement and excellence in education is difficult and has been going on for centuries. I believe the success of this new act will depend upon how it is used. As introduced, the act has answered many of the concerns expressed about the draft, which was released earlier.

I understand and accept the direction Yukoners have given to the Minister. After passage of this act, the ball will be in the hands of Yukon parents, to a large extent. It will be up to those people who have been involved in the consultation process to keep up their involvement and interest in the education of our children.

This new act is open to different interpretations in many areas. This may or may not be a good thing. Some will argue it is good because it allows for flexibility. Others may prefer things to be filled out in more detail.

I am looking forward to debating this act clause by clause because I do have some specific areas of concern and will be asking about them at that time.

This new act will have to be used and tested to see if it will work as well as the Minister says it well. I hope it does and that my three children, who are just getting started in school, will benefit from this legislation. I hope that they will not be victims of growing pains and suffer through revision after revision where the children’s needs will be set aside or put on hold while the government and administration sort out definitions, interpretations and what can and cannot be done.

I as a parent and MLA am willing to take that chance and work with this new act. As a parent I will get involved in the education of our children and as a legislator, I will assist to adapt and fine tune this act to make it work for all Yukon children.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I want to begin my observations at second reading on the Education Act by complimenting the Minister of Education and the Deputy Minister, Mr. Shakir Alwarid, and all the people who have contributed to the act we see before us today. It has been a monumental task and I think all who have participated should take some satisfaction in the process.

I want to note that I was very interested in the observations of the opposition’s Education critic since he quoted extensively from an article contained in the McGill Journal of Education, written by Professor Donald Burgess. I, too, have had the opportunity to read that article about the Yukon Education Act and I want to remark on how radically different my reading of the article was than the Member for Watson Lake’s. I hope, as I go through my observations on this bill, to indicate where I differ from the interpretation that the Member for Watson Lake has put on that piece and I hope I can make that clear by borrowing heavily from the structure of Professor Burgess’ article to deal with the different issues in this act.

First of all, certain things have to be said. As the Member for Porter Creek West observed, our western or European civilization as we know it has been arguing about education for at least a couple of thousand years and probably longer. Much of what we now regard as inventional wisdom in education comes from ideas that were first articulated in the middle ages in a time when a scholar, someone who claimed to be a scholar, or who had a reputation as a scholar, was likely to have read every book that had been published. We now live in a world that is radically different. I dare say it would take a lifetime for the average Canadian in 1990 to read all the books that would be published in Canada this year. People talk about the information explosion. People talk about the need of our society for specialists in the future for unimagined fields, thousands and thousands of different specialties and niches in our economy and society. Our education system has to prepare people for that kind of world.

It also has to give people some knowledge and understanding of some fundamentals, some basic tools to enable them to achieve learning in more specialized areas, and the more arcane disciplines.

That is a tall order. I think people in schools have felt that quite unrealistic pressures have been placed on them by society. In some sense there is a feeling by teachers that parents have contracted out of the responsibility they once took for educating their children, that as wonderful as the innovation of public schools was - and I believe it is one of the great achievements of western civilization, something that the labour movement, the working people fought for in the last century, the idea of universal education paid for out of taxes and accessible to all, was one of the great victories by progressive forces in our civilization.

It has had some negative consequences: the separation of schools from family and, in some sense, the alienation of schools from the community and, in some sense, a segregation of roles and responsibilities, which is inappropriate.

I am going to make an argument that I would like to develop a little later, that one of the great achievements of this act, one of the accomplishments that this Minister of Education should be applauded for, is that it reintegrates the responsibilities, creates this partnership between parents and communities, between educators and children, between government and its citizens in a very, very instructive way.

As others have said, it is also true that the process of education reform is going on everywhere in the western world today. It is common to hear people talk about crisis in the education system, whether it is in the United States, which has recently been moving in a couple of directions, or Britain, which has been moving in another direction, or other societies like France, Japan or Korea, which have been moving in different directions.

What has been happening increasingly is there have been processes of consultation to bring about legislative reform. The process by which this act was developed is not only remarkable but exemplary, especially when one realizes this is perhaps the smallest jurisdiction in the world that has been contemplating this kind of overhaul.

We are, admittedly, a small, but complex, community, and have about 5,000 students in two dozen or more schools. This is a culturally varied community. We have 14 distinct First Nations, with their own interests in this area and who, through self-government agreements in land claims, will be asserting their jurisdiction in a lot of fields. As the Minister of Education said, we could easily have ended up with a situation that was founded on right, with a segregated or separated school system. Given the scarce resources available to our community, I believe this would have been in nobody’s interest.

It is true that almost all the models of education we have used up to now have been borrowed. They are not indigenous. They are not inspired much by local experience. We are even now officially using the curriculum of the Province of British Columbia which, as the Member for Whitehorse North Centre has said, is quite inappropriate to our circumstances in many ways. Nonetheless, it has survived quite well, but British Columbia has a curriculum that is now undergoing change. With the adoption of this act, we will have an opportunity to assess whether the changes happening in that province are appropriate to all of our schools in the territory.

As Professor Burgess sa