Whitehorse, Yukon

Monday, November 17, 1997 - 1:30 p.m.

Speaker: I will now call the House to order.

We will proceed with prayers at this time.

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE

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

Are there any tributes?

Introduction of visitors?

Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

Are there any statements by ministers?

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Land claims implementation: representative public service plan

Hon. Mr. Harding: Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform the members about the joint planning process that has been initiated to fulfill our employment equity obligations under chapter 22 of the land claims final agreements.

This is fully consistent with our government's policy of finding better ways to conduct public business and reflects a clear commitment from the throne speech to set directions toward a more representative public service.

The Public Service Commission, together with human resources people from other departments and representatives of First Nations that have signed final agreements, have formed a joint planning group to identify initiatives to increase opportunities for public service employment for Yukon First Nations people.

Chapter 22 requires the Government of Yukon to develop and implement a plan to achieve a territorial public service that is representative of the aboriginal, non-aboriginal and gender makeup of the Yukon, along with a representative public service in each First Nation traditional territory.

The joint planning process has used a consensus approach to identify the employment issues of Yukon First Nations people. This process has led to increased understanding and appreciation of the structures, responsibilities and needs of both the Yukon and First Nation governments.

Erratum

Hansard, November 12, 1997, issue, page 1408, first column, eighth line from the bottom: "$4,000" should read "$400."

Success of the plan will be measured in numbers, as well as by changes in the workplace that result from implementing the initiatives. Implementation of these initiatives will involve joint planning, cost sharing, shared delivery mechanisms and training of the Yukon First Nations labour force for Yukon and First Nation government employment.

Planned workplace exchanges will further increase understanding between governments, and will provide opportunities for employees to enhance their job skills and work experience.

A draft corporate plan is being circulated for informal consultation within Yukon government departments and First Nation governments that participated in this planning process. M

eetings are underway or being scheduled with the Teslin Tlingit Council, Champagne-Aishihik, Nacho Nyak Dun and Vuntut Gwitchin First Nations.

The joint planning sessions are occurring in the First Nations' traditional territories to develop initiatives that address the specific public service employment issues for each First Nation.

When the corporate and traditional territory plans are completed for these first four First Nations, they will be brought forward for Cabinet consideration.

The continuing relevance of the representative public service plan will be ensured by an ongoing monitoring process that will report progress, update the plan as required and add plans for new First Nations as they sign final agreements.

Thank you.

Mr. Phillips: I would like to thank the minister for the statement today.

I would agree, as well, that the Yukon government should work toward the employment of more First Nation representatives in our public service, but I think that this particular program should proceed with some caution. I think it's interesting to note that there were attempts made under previous governments, both NDP and Yukon Party, to increase First Nation representation in government. It is going to become a little more difficult, I would think, Mr. Speaker, because of the advent of new First Nations governments. Many people who are working in the Yukon government, or have been working in the past, have moved on to their respective First Nations, and have taken on new, administrative roles there, using the skills that they have learned with the Yukon government to help their own First Nation.

Although the minister may want to take more people in on a training basis and bring them up to speed on the various initiatives that are going on, some will leave, because their preference will be to work for their own First Nation. That is inevitable now that they are getting those responsibilities.

There have been some attempts to do this in the past with mixed success. The previous NDP government initiated an affirmative action program and some of the individuals who received jobs and promotions did not have the experience and the training to carry out their jobs.

I heard several complaints from existing, qualified government workers who were bypassed for promotions or jobs, as a result of the program. In fact, in some cases, they were required to assist the person who had the job when they had been bypassed for the promotion to the job - yet they had to assist the person and gave that person most of their information and knowledge in order to carry out their job adequately, and they felt that this was unfair. So I caution the minister with that. This created a lot of frustration and dissent among some government workers who had spent their whole lives dedicated to working hard for the Government of the Yukon, and then were bypassed.

I noticed in the ministerial statement that the minister gave us here today that there was no mention of the local unions' involvement - who would be there to ensure that the voices of the existing government workers would be heard. I would hope that although the planning process has happened already, it sounds like, any future planning and any progress on this would take into account the unions who may have a view that they want to express on behalf of the existing workers.

Mr. Speaker, I'd also like the minister to provide us in the House - and I thought he would have done this - with a copy of the draft plan that has been shared with the First Nations. Since he shared it with the First Nations already, I would hope that he could share it with his colleagues in this House, and I was kind of hoping that he would table it today, or that we could have it today, so we could have looked at what the draft plan actually says.

Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to know from the minister what the estimated cost of this training will be in the long run. I think that training is an essential component to this particular program, because the last thing we want to do is to be putting people in positions where they possibly are not qualified and they fail, or they have to call on the assistance of other co-workers who might have been bypassed in the process. So I think that if we're going to put people in positions, they should be there primarily based on the fact that they have the ability to do the job.

Mr. Speaker, the last question I have for the minister is this: will this program result in an increase in the overall numbers of civil servants in the Government of Yukon, or will it be used to just fill existing positions that become vacant? Maybe the minister can answer some of those questions when he replies to the statement.

Ms. Duncan: I just have two comments and questions for the minister with respect to this ministerial statement.

First of all, I'd like to express the pleasure of our side of the House that the government is moving on chapter 22. I am concerned and note that the minister has avoided reference to a time frame, and yet the last section of 22, 22.9(1), says, "A full and complete review of the effectiveness of the provisions of this chapter shall be carried out in the year 2010." Year 2010 is a long way away. However, there must be interim targets that have been set, and I wonder if the minister can indicate what interim targets have been put in place and what time frames have been established.

My second question for the minister with respect to this ministerial statement is, in light of ongoing devolution talks and reassurances by all parties that we are likely to meet the April deadline, how does this initiative fit in with the federal government's aboriginal workforce participation initiative? Have representatives from the federal government, and particularly this initiative, been invited to participate and share the good work that they've been doing?

Hon. Mr. Harding: First of all, while I'm on my feet, I'd like to take just a second to congratulate the Member for Porter Creek South on her being elected to the position of the leader of the Yukon Liberal Party.

I want to thank the members for their comments and their critique.

I will, I guess to begin, respond to the points raised by the Member for Riverdale North, the Yukon Party critic, who urged me to proceed with caution in terms of these initiatives and making good on our chapter 22 commitments to represent the public service. These are difficult issues, Mr. Speaker, and it's going to take some courage on the part of both governments and this Legislature to actually make good on the commitments in the land claims agreements that were passed unanimously in this House. There will be people who will oppose these sort of government-to-government commitments that we've made to correct long-standing societal injustices and imbalances in this territory, but I think we have to be courageous and we have to stand by the signatures that we've put on the UFA with Yukon First Nations, and we're going to have to try and lead and encourage public debate to say that this is the right way to move forward in this territory.

So, while I am proceeding carefully in the sense that we are consulting and we are working through these difficult issues, I do not, for one second, believe that this is not going to be a difficult task, but that is not going to deter us from making good on our commitments to bringing life to the land claims agreements, which hold a lot of promise for this Yukon Territory for the future.

I would also like to say that, with regard to a copy of the plan, it is being worked on on a government-to-government basis. It is not quite ready for release, but when it is and when I can have some concurrence from the other partners to the plan that are working on it, I would be most happy to make it available to members of this Legislature, and the public as well. It is not ready for release as of yet.

With regard to the costs of the training, I think the critic may have been confusing our land claims training initiative with this particular initiative, which speaks to the chapter 22 commitments of the UFA. They're somewhat separate. The money that we budgeted for land claims training as a government, I believe, was in the vicinity of $200,000. That is another program that will complement this program, but this program, as I'm sure the member will remember from his discussions in Cabinet, was a commitment in the UFA. We don't foresee that, at this point, you could assign a specific cost to it. It's not anticipated that the cost would be insurmountable at all, Mr. Speaker.

In responding to the member's question about the overall numbers of civil servants, I don't anticipate, at this time, that there would need to be an increase in civil servants, but that will have to be worked out with the partners as we go through the planning process. It may be possible to accomplish the representative public service aims and goals through attrition and through long-term planning. We shall see how that goes. I'm certainly not interested in putting more costs to the taxpayer that are not absolutely necessary.

In terms of targets and time lines, again, in response to the Liberal member of the Legislature who raised the questions, when the draft plan comes out, through the partnership, there'll be some more established time lines for delivery.

The member asked about how we fit in with the federal government initiatives and what they are doing in devolution. It has been somewhat of a shell game, as we've moved the devolution process, and First Nation governments, the Yukon government and the feds have all worked to establish positions and to try to deal with the various issues that occur as a result of what we see as devolution on the very near horizon. So, basically what has happened is that the federal government has been involved, to some degree, but we have maintained that it is not good enough for them to set a bunch of criteria for us, pending devolution, then having us take over and deal with the commitments that were made and the fallout as a result of those agreements, so we have been steadfast in our resolve to have the Yukon government's voice and feelings expressed very loudly and very clearly in terms of these important discussions. I think we have involved the feds but we don't want to be dictated to by the feds, in terms of our commitments in the UFA.

With that, I would just say that we feel that our commitments that we agreed to in the umbrella final agreement must be lived up to. We're working in consultation with our partners in the planning, and we look forward to making good and breathing life into those land claims agreements.

Abattoir to be established

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: This government pursues policies that are aimed at diversifying the Yukon's economic base and creating stronger communities.

Today I rise to advise members of a development that will support both these goals. As of next fall, an abattoir capable of processing both white and red meats will be up and running at Partridge Creek Farm in central Yukon. The farm plans to process up to 5,000 chickens, 100 turkeys, 30 beef and 60 hogs in its first year of operation.

This means that for the first time since the gold rush era, the Yukon-raised meat products will be sold in stores in the territory. Without an abattoir, farm-gate sales have been the only option available to consumers wanting to buy meat produced here.

The agricultural industry has sought the establishment of an abattoir for a number of years. Government assistance has been proposed in the past, but no viable proposals have resulted.

Last year, this government identified up to $150,000 to assist with the establishment of an abattoir. Since then, the agriculture branch has conducted a very careful and deliberate search for private-sector proponents interested in serving the growing Yukon meat production industry.

Partridge Creek Farm proposal and business plan was chosen by an evaluation team made up of representatives from the farm community and the departments of Economic Development, Community and Transportation Services and Renewable Resources.

Partridge Creek Farm has been in operation for the past 11 years and has a strong management record. It has been a large-scale producer of eggs for five of those years and currently operates the only federally licensed egg-grading station in the Yukon. The company has also developed farm-gate sales and a custom slaughter service that has processed up to 500 chickens and 12 beef and hogs per year. It was the only proposal that indicated a willingness to process both white and red meat.

On the merits of its proposal, the government will allocate $113,000 to the company to be used to assist in establishing the abattoir and purchasing specialized equipment.

This is an excellent opportunity to promote economic diversification in central Yukon, an area that currently produces about 50 percent of the territory's commercial poultry, beef and pork. The Partridge Creek proposal anticipates being able to process poultry economically from both the central Yukon and Whitehorse area. It also expressed a strong commitment to provide service for beef and pork to the entire Yukon once transportation challenges are resolved.

Mr. Speaker, the Yukon's widely dispersed population and large distances between communities means that a single abattoir would have difficulty serving all of the agricultural industry, regardless of its location. The Partridge Creek operation will be able to deliver freshly slaughtered and properly cooled meats to Dawson City, Mayo and Pelly Crossing within an hour and a half and to the Whitehorse market in only four and a half hours.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the support of all members for an economic diversification initiative that will increase the self-reliance of the central Yukon communities and contribute to the development of industry in a part of the territory that has a long tradition of agriculture and some of the best soil and climate conditions for producing forage crops.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Speaker, I wish I could be more enthusiastic about having taxpayers' money involved in this project. I will say right off that I was somewhat surprised that this operation, at the location it's located in, was the one that was chosen. I would think that the location will have a negative impact on their ability to be able to provide a viable operation.

Abattoirs have not proven successful in the north as it is. The one in Alaska is in serious financial difficulty; it has been since it was established. In July of this year the abattoir in Hay River closed down. Even with $20,000 a month in government subsidies, it was unable to provide a viable operation. And, from my understanding, there's a lot more agriculture in the Hay River area in the Northwest Territories than there is in the Yukon.

So maybe the minister, in his reply, can help us with some of these questions.

The minister said that the planned proposal and the business plan was chosen by the evaluation team, so I would like to ask the minister if he would be prepared to share with us a copy of that business plan so that we can judge for ourselves as to the viability of the operation.

The minister goes on in his statement to say that this company is already providing the custom slaughter service by processing chickens and beef and hogs. Then, the next paragraph says that the minister's going to allocate $113,000 to the company to purchase specialized equipment. Well, I hope the minister will be able to stand up on his feet and tell us what that specialized equipment is.

Mr. Speaker, there are some pretty words in here that don't give me much comfort when saying that the company has expressed a strong commitment to provide services for beef and pork for the entire Yukon - once transportation challenges are resolved. Well, being located in the Stewart Crossing area of the Yukon, transportation issues are going to be a very serious challenge. I don't know how - maybe the minister can tell me how - they are going to serve operations in the Watson Lake area, for example. That's many, many miles away. This is not a very central location.

The other statement the minister made that raises some concerns with me, Mr. Speaker, is saying that a single abattoir would have difficulty serving all the agricultural industry, regardless of its location. Is the minister saying, by that, that this government is going to be prepared to provide funding to other abattoir proposals in the Yukon?

I would like to know about inspections, how the environmental and health concerns are going to be met.

If we could get a copy of the business plan, we would certainly appreciate it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cable: This is a project that the Yukon Agricultural Association and the agriculture branch at Renewable Resources have been working on for many years. It is useful to note that the project now explained by the minister is significantly reduced from the previous project. Quite likely this will protect it, in part anyway, from failure. As noted, the failure rates on small abattoirs is fairly high. I suspect the Northwest Territories went too big and that's possibly the reason for the failure there.

There are a number of questions that arise from the statement. There's no mention, I think, of the inspection services. I believe that the original proposal that was put out was for territorial inspection services, which would mean that the meat could not be exported from the Yukon Territory. It would be useful for the minister to confirm this.

There's also the size of the operation. There was a report done for the Department of Economic Development, I believe it was, back on September 27, 1991, that indicated that Yukon's meat consumption amounted to over 4,000 cattle, 12,000 hogs and about half a million chickens. The anticipated initial production from this abattoir, as set out in the ministerial statement, is about one percent of Yukon consumption. It would be useful to hear from the minister whether that's expected to grow.

I think the effort to displace outside sources of meat is to be encouraged, both from the standpoint of leakage from the economy and from the standpoint of building up the agricultural infrastructure. So, w

hat are the long-range plans? Hopefully the minister can indicate this to us in his reply, and indicate whether he anticipates that, at some juncture, there will be significant contribution to diversification and leakage from the economy.

It would also be useful to hear from him whether this abattoir is being set up in part to deal with some of the exotics, such as bison, reindeer and elk for the restaurant trade.

And, as requested by the leader of the official opposition, I would ask that the minister indicate whether he is prepared to table the proposal and the operational plan - the business plan - that the successful proponent put forward.

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: In regard to the location question that the Yukon Party had brought up, there were three proposals - one from out of the Yukon, one from Whitehorse and one from just north of Stewart Crossing, Partridge Creek. In looking at whether or not the abattoir would service all of the Yukon, we felt that whether it was in Whitehorse or in the north or the southern part of the Yukon that an abattoir that is set up would not service all of the Yukon. It's just, I guess, impossible with regard to transportation. Although, down south there are abattoirs that are of greater distances than this one in regard to Whitehorse.

So with that, once the transportation challenges are resolved and it's viable, beef and hogs could be transported there in a costly manner, then this could service a lot more of the Yukon than we think. This is a challenge, I guess, for years down the road.

In regard to the evaluation and the departments of Community and Transportation Services, Economic Development and Renewable Resources and the farming community, there are some criteria that they put together in regard to this. The proposal and the business plan that was received, I'm told that the business plan itself is confidential, but in regard to the proposal, I need to find out how confidential this is. If it isn't, then I can provide that information to the members opposite.

We mentioned in the statement that the $113,000 going toward specialized equipment would be things such as coolers and specialized hooks and so on, but as to a complete list, I can provide that to the members opposite at a later date.

There was a question in regard to the inspection services. The inspections that will be taking place will fall under the regulations under the Yukon Agricultural Products Act and under the meat and slaughterhouse regs, and those regulations will have to be followed as part of the agreement, and that is the only way that licences can be offered and kept up to date.

Mr. Speaker, this government had made a commitment through the budget speech that we would be looking at the abattoir, looking at it more seriously, and getting interest from the public out there. The team that was set up to do the evaluation was confident that what they had in front of them would work and would be viable for Yukoners.

We are committed to diversification of our economy and we believe that this project will assist in that goal. We also are committed to rural communities, and that's always been our position, Mr. Speaker. We feel that this is a good project, as it stands right now, and we hope that they have all the success in the future.

Speaker: This then brings us to the Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re: Economic picture

Mr. Ostashek: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development. The Yukon monthly statistical review for last month is in and, as the minister's aware, the economic picture in the Yukon is pretty bleak. The number of jobs, and people working, has fallen by 700 since last October. Wages are falling, along with gold prices. Construction permits are down almost a million dollars, and the number of flights into Whitehorse, Dawson and Faro are also down, in some cases dramatically.

Can the minister advise this House what measures this government is planning to introduce to put Yukoners to work this winter? Mr. Speaker, I'm talking about this winter, not years in the future.

Can the minister tell this House if there are any plans by this government to help put Yukoners to work?

Hon. Mr. Harding: Perhaps when the member gets up again, he could be more clear about what he's advocating, because to me, what he's asking for is a massive government spending injection into the economy to get people working. He had that latitude when the Faro mine was lost last time to Yukoners in 1993, with the Shakwak and the hosptial funding, which was the result of good fortunes of the U.S. and the federal government in terms of injections into our economy.

We have committed to being a pay-as-we-go government. We are not going to drive the Yukon into debt, Mr. Speaker, to provide massive government relief for jobs. However, what we will do is work very hard, as we have been, in areas such as the mining sector where there are some bright spots. I understand today the trucks from Faro started rolling. Sa Dena Hes is still, as far as I'm aware, in terms of my last discussions with Cominco, looking at opening up. There's the Minto Explorations property that is expected to be in working production next year. We just tabled the oil and gas bill. It's gone through second reading in this House. We've launched a trade investment diversification strategy. The community development fund has been creating jobs in the communities. We've been investing in that fund with direct government expenditures.

So, Mr. Speaker, we're working on commission, policy work in forestry to try and -

Speaker: Would the minister please conclude?

Hon. Mr. Harding: Thank you. So we've been doing a lot of things, Mr. Speaker, but I really don't have time in Question Period to explain them all to the member.

Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that the minister doesn't know what he's talking about. He has no idea what suffering is going on in the general public. He's looking at the economy through rose-coloured glasses.

Mr. Speaker, this government thinks nothing of spending vast sums of money on themselves - increasing the operation cost and maintenance of government - but they're not prepared to do anything to put Yukoners to work.

When we were faced with that situation, we reallocated funds. We didn't put the territory in debt. We balanced the budget. We reallocated funds to create jobs for Yukoners.

Can the minister tell me if they've given any consideration to trying to do something like that?

Hon. Mr. Harding: I think the member needs a bit of a history lesson. What he actually did was bring in a massive tax increase, and then he used the money that he took out of Yukoners' pockets to spend on false hopes, job creation projects that didn't deliver anything for Yukoners. That's what the member did.

Mr. Speaker, what this government is doing is trying to be thoughtful, deliberate and responsible about spending very smartly to put Yukoners to work in this territory where we can. We're also doing many other initiatives that I've earlier alluded to, and I don't want to run through them all. There's just not time. However, I want to say that if you compare this period to 1993, given the last time we lost the Faro mine, when that member was in power, we are - although I believe the unemployment rate is too high - I think, taking good initiatives to try and refocus this territory and get people back to work.

The member mentioned, for example, air flights in his preamble. Well, what did the Minister of Tourism just sign but a new Air Transat deal to increase the visitation of people to this territory.

And with regard to the member's comment about spending vast amounts of money on ourselves as a government, that's just purely ridiculous, and I think the supplementary budget, that shows we've been investing heavily in health care and education for Yukoners for services, proves him wrong.

Mr. Ostashek: What the supplementary budget has proved is that the NDP can't manage money, Mr. Speaker. That's what the supplementary budget proved.

Mr. Speaker, Yukoners are generally demoralized with the lack of initiatives by this government in creating work for them, and they don't see anything on the horizon. In fact, they're leaving the Yukon in droves to find jobs in Alberta and other jurisdictions.

I would like the minister to stand on his feet, in his final supplementary, and give me one specific example - one new initiative - that this government plans on implementing this winter to help Yukoners that are unemployed.

Hon. Mr. Harding: Well, Mr. Speaker, the member's giving completely mixed messages. On one hand he's saying massive government injections in the economy, spend, spend, spend; then he turns around and says when the government's trying to watch our dollars, taxpayers' dollars, and pay as we go and not raise taxes, that that's not good enough either. He should give a consistent message in this Legislature.

Now, in terms of new initiatives, I just ran through a great big long list for the member. I can do it again; however, the Speaker will rule me out of order. There are tons of new initiatives this government's undertaking. The Cabinet commissions that have been working on furthering policy development in this territory are just one example. The bill the member just supported on oil and gas, that was substantively changed and brought back to life by the NDP government in this territory, Mr. Speaker, is also going to create benefits for Yukoners. I just announced this morning on the radio four projects, two in the Member for Klondike's riding, that are going to put people to work in his riding this winter.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think we're doing lots of things that are going to be of benefit to Yukoners and try and put people back to work, but we're not going to spend, spend, spend and tax, tax, tax like the Yukon Party.

Question re: Carcross-Tagish First Nation contribution agreement

Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Speaker, we've had our joke for the day, I guess. My question now is to the Minister of Renewable Resources.

On November 8, 1996, the minister entered into a contribution agreement with the Carcross-Tagish First Nation to provide $25,000 for the purpose of increased monitoring of the Carcross caribou hunting ban. Since that time, Mr. Speaker, six concerned residents of Carcross have alleged that some $25,000 was utilized for the purchase of a new pickup truck rather than for hiring two more patrollers to monitor the herd. My colleague, the Member for Riverdale North, raised this issue with the minister in July of this year and received a response dated in September from the minister indicating that the matter was still under investigation.

Can the minister advise this House today: what was the outcome of that investigation?

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: I have not had any update on this. I was told that they're still looking into the alleged misappropriation of funds. At this time, that's about all I can offer the member.

Mr. Ostashek: I'm concerned and distressed by the minister's answer. Mr. Speaker, this complaint was filed in March of this year. That's six months ago. The minister's not up to date on what has transpired.

Is the minister not concerned with such a serious allegation as a misappropriation of government funds? Perhaps the minister could stand up and tell us if he's concerned about this and when he intends to act on it.

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: Knowing this government, you should realize that of course we are concerned about it. It's not something that we're going to interfere with when it comes to an investigation. We're leaving it up to that process.

Mr. Ostashek: Well, Mr. Speaker, the minister's answers are just not acceptable - to me or the general public. Nor to the six people from the Carcross-Tagish area that complained and who we were in touch with this morning and are still waiting for a reply from this government. Can the government tell me when this government can expect a reply to the very serious allegations that they laid with his department in March of this year?

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: Once the investigation is completed, at that point in time we can give an answer back. We're not going to be stepping in and interfering with any investigation that is taking place.

Question re: FAS/FAE

Mrs. Edelman: My question is for the Minister of Health and Social Services. In April of this year, the minister said that a government report on FAS recommended a more coordinated effort to combat FAS. He also promised that the recommendations would be acted upon.

Can the minister explain why this hasn't happened?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Well, as a matter of fact it has happened to a large degree. We are working on a variety of things in that, but I suppose the most salient point is the fact that we recognize that this was an issue that cut across several departments. And to that end, we have developed a coordinated approach between Health and Social Services, Justice, Education and the Women's Directorate. Our deputies are meeting on a regular basis to address issues such as alcohol abuse.

So, that's the first one. We've also identified some areas that we're hoping to work in in the whole area of prevention of FAS/FAE. As well, we've been working in some other areas with the Child Development Centre.

Mrs. Edelman: I hope that the minister can table some of the results from these many committee meetings. Now there have been multi-departmental meetings on a monthly basis just to discuss the issue of FAS. No officials from the Justice department attend. Are there any plans to include representatives from the Justice department in these monthly meetings?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I would suggest that I just explained that we are working at the deputies' level on some of these issues and Justice is one of the partners in that. We are basically calling it the fostering healthy communities committee and we have directed our deputies to take a look at how to reduce some of the impediments between departments and how to work at a more concerted approach in this regard.

We have identified four key goals in this whole area of alcohol-related problems.

Mrs. Edelman: Well, that's very interesting because there have been some relatively low-level, I guess, meetings on the subject of FAS, and there is a concern from these meetings that the recommendations that they're proposing or the recommendations that they're presenting are not getting to the decision makers. I wonder if the minister could be a little more clear about that and whether, in fact, these people are meeting on a monthly basis for no particular reason because their message is not getting through to the people who are having these other meetings about alcohol-related issues.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: We take into account all of the concerns raised by individuals and, as a matter of fact, we have individuals who bring forward a variety of issues to me. Just recently, I met with the Health and Social Services Council. They discussed this issue in some substantial detail and they brought forward a list of proposals, which I then passed on to our officials to take a look at how these could be implemented as soon as possible.

Question re: Taylor House, proposed use

Ms. Duncan: My question's for the Minister of Government Services. During my fall visits with constituents, I was asked by members of the Kinsmen Club if their volunteer services could be used in the renovation of the Taylor House into a possible youth facility. I wrote the Minister of Government Services with this suggestion on October 6. Late in October, I received a response from the minister, which states that the government is already in the process of discussions with a special interest group for the possible use of this building.

Would the minister indicate today who that special interest group is?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I think I can elaborate on that, as I indicated in my letter to the member. The group that had expressed a substantial interest there was the Heritage Resources Board and Geographical Place Names. I've had some discussions with them. We've talked about how the, I suppose, renovations development on the Taylor House could proceed. Those are still ongoing. They've run into some impediments. We've been working back and forth on that.

Ms. Duncan: What I understand the Minister of Government Services to have just said is that they've owned the Taylor House for eight months and they still don't know what they're going to do with it. In April of this year, the minister indicated that they would be doing a preliminary estimate on the building envelope cost and a detailed study to follow as to what the cost would be to renovate the building. Would the minister indicate today what the cost of renovations for Taylor House are anticipated to be and who is paying for those costs?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Well, I can tell the member that the estimate that came in on the necessary renovations came in at $180,000. What we are currently doing is we have found much of the code work - the necessary upgrading of plumbing, lights, et cetera - we can do internally with our own Government Services people, and we're proceeding on that basis right now to do the necessary code work. That would be in advance of, I suppose, the more heritage restoration aspect, and we're looking at a variety of programs there, including some federal programs, in terms of heritage restoration, and some other avenues to actually do work on the exterior and, I suppose, maintain the heritage aspect of the property.

Ms. Duncan: Could I ask the minister to provide this House with the time frame as to when he might anticipate someone - whoever that someone might be - occupying the Taylor House?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: As I've told the member, we're looking at proceeding on the code work over the course of the winter. We'll be doing this with our own in-house team and we'll be carrying this out over the winter to bring the place up to code.

We're still discussing with the Heritage Resources Board their proposal to come in as a tenant. Of course, one of the things we're still doing is discussing with the city, because the city has indicated an interest - and I've written to Mayor Watson in this regard - in working with us on this. This would be, perhaps, in terms of forgiving some costs like water or garbage - that kind of thing - or whether they want to participate directly, using some of their heritage resources. We have contacted the city. We are searching actively for heritage restoration funds.

I would hope that, if we're successful, by early spring we could have a group in there. We're still continuing our discussions with the Heritage Resources Board.

Question re: Carcross-Tagish First Nation contribution agreement

Mr. Phillips: I want to follow up on a question today from the leader of the official opposition to the Minister of Renewable Resources regarding an alleged misappropriation of $25,000 of Yukon government money to the Carcross-Tagish First Nation. This is a very serious allegation and it should be treated by the department and the minister in a very serious manner. It appears it is not being treated that way.

Mr. Speaker, I wrote my letter in July, raising the issue with the minister. The minister wrote me back at the end of September. It took almost two months for the minister to reply to my letter. The minister informed me in the letter that, on June 6, Dan Cresswell, a caribou monitor employed by the Carcross-Tagish First Nation, gave a report on his work to a regional technician. That was June 6. He said we are now reviewing the report with the First Nation.

It is important that the minister clear the air. It is important that the minister treat this as a priority. I want to know from the minister why, today, five months later, the minister can't tell us whether or not his department has determined that there was a misappropriation of funds.

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: As I said earlier, there is an investigation going on. The department is reviewing the report from the First Nation, and it's premature for us to contact the RCMP, and we're still gathering all the financial information that's needed to assess the situation until the time we can come back with an answer.

Mr. Phillips: I want to direct my supplementary to the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker.

We've heard today from the Minister of Renewable Resources that five months is not enough time to review an alleged misappropriation of funds by the Yukon government and notify the RCMP.

I would like to ask the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker, if she feels that five months is an appropriate time to delay notifying anybody about this, and will the Minister of Justice herself ask her department to investigate this matter and notify the RCMP immediately if they feel there is a misappropriation of funds?

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: We understand that this is a serious matter, and we are not going to be rushing it because of a lack of information, and at such time as we do gather information, we will have more of a complete answer for the member.

Mr. Phillips: I can't believe this government, Mr. Speaker. You ask a question about tourism, and somebody else jumps up because the Minister of Tourism isn't doing his job. You ask the Minister of Justice a question, another minister jumps up because he's not doing his job.

Mr. Speaker, this is serious. Six residents - members of the Carcross-Tagish First Nation and others - have taken it upon themselves to write a letter to the minister alleging that a $25,000 grant to the First Nation was misappropriated by an individual buying a vehicle. That's not a hard thing to investigate.

I want to ask the Minister of Justice if the Minister of Justice will call in the RCMP - because obviously Renewable Resources aren't capable of doing so - and carry out a proper investigation so we can get to the bottom of this allegation, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: Obviously the member across the way wants more information, and so does the general public. Like I said, we are still gathering information on this, and once we do get an update, we can bring it back to this House.

Question re: Land, rural residential

Mrs. Edelman: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Transportation Services.

A complaint that I have heard over and over again is that residential lots in rural Yukon developed by the government are failing to meet the needs of the communities. What steps are your government taking to remedy the situation?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Mr. Speaker, it's the Minister of Community and Transportation Services. Certainly, as I look through the inventory of lots that we have, by community and by type, there does not seem to be a shortage of lots. If the member could be more specific, I will endeavour to answer her question. If not, I will get more information.

Mrs. Edelman: The purpose of the lands branch is to develop and dispose of land. Development of land increases the tax base. In Teslin, Mayo, Faro and Haines Junction, lots have been available for months, in some cases years, yet they've gone unsold. The main complaints have been the cost and the size of the lots. Infrastructure in some of these subdivisions has already begun to deteriorate. What options is your government pursuing to dispose of these lots?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: The lots that the member is speaking of will be sold to the public at the cost of the developmental price. And, as I look through here, if there is an inventory we will not accept inventory within the region and we will not be developing any more lots there. Certainly, though, the dollars we get for the land that is developed is at the cost.

Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, holding on to lots costs the government more and more money over time. In 1984, unsold lots in Porter Creek C were offered at a discounted rate and building restrictions were lifted. Are these possibilities being considered by your department?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Mr. Speaker, I will have to look into that further and get back to the member opposite with a pertinent answer.

Question re: Health and social services costs

Mr. Jenkins: My question today is for the Minister of Health and Social Services. Under the previous NDP government, prior to 1992, health and social services costs were rising alarmingly and it took the Yukon Party government considerable time and effort to bring these constantly rising costs under control. The NDP, in opposition, of which the current minister was a member, were severe critics of the Yukon Party's ability to stabilize these social assistance costs. With the supplementary budget tabled, it is evident that, once again, there is an alarming trend developing in relation to health and social service costs. Can the minister advise the House if he intends to follow the old NDP ways of allowing social assistance costs to escalate way out of control?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I suppose we can all change from week to week. As my colleague has pointed out, last week we were being called upon to spend more. The issue regarding social services I think will become evidently clear in the discussion on the supps. We have a couple of issues that are driving our social services costs up. One is certainly the demographics and population increases. Last year I believe 684 people moved into the territory; approximately 4.3 percent of those can be calculated to go on social assistance at any given time. So therefore the demographics will push it up. As well, we've had some anecdotal evidence that difficulty surrounding EI, or insurance, the need for more hours to qualify, is having an impact on people.

There are federal cutbacks, as well. If the member has any particular interest, we've also taken on some DIA - disabled young adults - whose costs are extremely high. As well, we've had some increases in terms of utility costs for individuals. We're in the process of protecting people, and that's our job, and that's what we intend to do. I suppose the member's rather Darwinian view of society means that he thinks we should throw them out on the street. Is that what he wants?

Mr. Jenkins: It is the government's responsibility to create an environment that creates jobs - that develops jobs - not to create an environment that attracts people here because of the social assistance benefits.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Jenkins: A $5 million to $6 million increase in health and social services costs clearly shows that the good ship HMCS Yukon is heading directly toward a financial iceberg, and the minister is on the bridge looking to the stern.

Can the minister advise the House if he believes he has firm control over these increased costs, or is this massive ship of ours rudderless?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Well, I'm a little at a loss about what the member is using with this Titanic analogy. I believe that John Jacob Astor was standing at the bar of the Titanic, and he said, "I asked for ice, but this is ridiculous."

Just to go on with that, I don't think we're actually attracting people to the territory, as the member alleges. We have people come because they believe that, in the national folklore, this is the place where people can come when times are tough elsewhere in Canada. People come; sometimes they require going on social services.

With regard to many of these programs - for example, health physician costs - those are mandated programs. Is the member actually suggesting that we refuse people medical services? Is that what he's suggesting? I can tell him right now that we have taken some steps in the fee negotiations with our physicians to put some brakes on the rising costs, but I can tell him right now, I - this government - will not deny a person medical care.

Mr. Jenkins: Where you can start is to stop paying the back taxes of delinquent taxpayers here in the Yukon.

What is particularly alarming is the increase in social assistance costs, which have risen over $1 million since last year, which basically means that many Yukoners are out of work and have exhausted their EI benefits.

What is the minister planning to do about these increased social service costs in view of the fact that this government has no job creation strategy?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: As some of the economic effects of Faro come through, there will be a positive impact. We have had a tough period of time with Faro down. We know that Faro is a major economic engine in this territory, but we also know that people are being impacted, for example, by changes in EI. It's a very simple equation. As well, we have some cases where we have assumed the responsibility for individuals that are very high costs.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Speaker: Government Bills.

GOVERNMENT BILLS

Bill No. 24: Second Reading

Clerk: Second Reading, Bill No. 24, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Moorcroft.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: I move that Bill No. 24, entitled Family Violence Prevention Act, now be read a second time.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Minister of Justice that Bill No. 24, entitled Family Violence Prevention Act, be now read a second time.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: It is my belief that all of us want to live in a culture of peace. In today's society, we read reports every week about how people are organizing to make their communities safe. The fact remains that not everyone is safe. Women, including women who live with violent men, want the right to live in their homes without the fear of violence. Children deserve to live in a safe, secure home environment. Seniors and parents who may live with their adult children are often victims of family violence.

In the Yukon, family violence is society's hidden crime. It's hidden because of the shame and the guilt that is felt by the abuser and the victim alike. It is mistakenly viewed by many as a private matter. Behaviours of family violence get passed on from one generation to the next. Often today's victim is tomorrow's abuser.

Mr. Speaker, this government wants to end this vicious circle of abuse. One of the reasons this ongoing cycle continues is because victims of family violence feel that the justice system does not move quickly enough to help them. They feel that existing laws are costly, inefficient and, in many circumstances, operate in the interests of the abuser. Laws, no matter how creative, can only complement counselling and treatment programs for victims and their abusers. But Yukoners who are subjected to acts of family violence need to know that there can be steps taken to protect themselves and their children. They need laws that can offer them both immediate and long-term assistance.

Mr. Speaker, the Family Violence Prevention Act is about recognizing the rights and needs of victims of crime and making the justice system work better for them. It gives victims of family violence the ability to make decisions for themselves. It provides them with additional choices in how they choose to live their life.

Who are the victims? What do we mean when we use the term "victims of family violence"? It's women and children and elders who live in fear of someone they love, someone they should be able to trust, someone they should be able to respect.

This act defines victims as a "cohabitant," meaning someone who lives in the same household or an intimate companion who has been subjected to family violence. This would include married couples, common-law relationships. It would include same-sex relationships where families are living together in the same household.

The definition of "family violence" that is used in the act includes "acts that can cause bodily harm or damage to property, threats that cause reasonable fear of bodily harm or damage to property, forced confinement, sexual abuse, or depriving someone of food, clothing, medical attention, shelter, transportation or other necessaries of life." These elements of family violence, Mr. Speaker, are acts that are occurring in our territory on a regular basis.

The proposed Family Violence Prevention Act will provide for three protection orders that are intended not only to safeguard the victim but also to allow the victim to regain control over their own lives. Existing laws, such as the Criminal Code of Canada, are more directed toward the guilt or innocence of an offender and offer little assistance to the victim.

This legislation is designed to focus on victims' rights. It will help to ensure that the justice system does not revictimize them but, instead, responds to their needs at the most crucial of times.

Mr. Speaker, the three orders contained in the proposed Family Violence Prevention Act will provide a systematic way in which women, children and elders who are abused can seek help. This government recognizes that victims of family violence often require emergency assistance if they have been subjected to or threatened with bodily harm or damage to their property.

The emergency intervention order set out in this legislation will allow the victim, or someone acting on behalf of the victim, to have the abuser removed from the home by a peace officer. This will offer immediate protection to the victim, who can then choose between having sole occupancy of the residence, if they feel it is safe to do so, or to go to a shelter or other safe place.

These emergency orders can be readily obtained, even over the telephone, from a justice of the peace, who will be on call 24 hours a day.

The emergency intervention order gives the power to a judge or justice of the peace to direct that the abuser must surrender all firearms in their possession and to prevent them from pursuing any contact with the victim.

Over the period of time that we have been consulting with the community on this bill, we've brought in a number of measures to make our legislation stronger than the bills that have been put in place in other jurisdictions in Canada. The Yukon's Family Violence Prevention Act has an offence section, so that if an abuser fails to obey the emergency intervention order or any other order under this act, they will be charged with an offence and could be fined or incarcerated.

In many circumstances, emergency orders will be the only ones sought by a victim. However, a longer term arrangement can also be obtained by way of a victim's assistance order. In addition to the effect of an emergency intervention order, it can give victims sole occupancy of their home, control over their own finances and personal property, and compensation for monetary losses resulting from the domestic violence.

Lastly, warrants of entry contained in the proposed Family Violence Prevention Act will provide the authority for a peace officer or other individual on reasonable grounds to enter the residence of someone whom they suspect is being abused but have previously been denied access to. The warrant would also allow the individual to remove the victim from the home.

Mr. Speaker, this act is thus about holding offenders accountable for their behaviour. If people are unable to control their behaviour to the extent that they are dangerous to the family members around them, they can be removed from the home.

We will continue to offer programs in Whitehorse and in the communities to help people who have difficulty managing their anger. The Department of Justice budget for the current fiscal year includes increases for the family violence prevention unit to offer more community programs.

The Crime Prevention and Victim Services Trust Act, also brought forward by our government during this session, is an important companion piece of legislation. It creates a trust fund, which is designed to be used for community-based preventive measures and offender management programs. There is increasing interest in developing new programs to deal with addictions, healing, anger management and community safety. These may focus on family relationships or on ways for people to learn to control their behaviour. People must learn to deal with their emotions without hurting others.

Mr. Speaker, everyone deserves to be treated with respect. This means that all of us have a responsibility to behave respectfully to the people around us, no matter what their age, race or sex. We also have a responsibility to uphold these values in our daily lives. This legislation respects victims of family violence and recognizes people's rights to live in their own homes without violence.

I know that this legislation is not the sole answer to dealing with issues of family violence, but it will offer more choices to victims, choices that they can decide whether they are best for their own personal situation, choices that will help to keep them safe should they seek counselling services or legal advice.

Mr. Speaker, we want to help victims to gain control over their own lives. I see in our communities today a strong desire to break the cycle of family violence that would otherwise plague future generations of children and grandchildren.

This bill has already provided an opportunity for many groups and individuals to make recommendations to the government on how to tackle the serious problem of violence in our communities. Passage of the Family Violence Prevention Act will give further opportunities for public discussion and public education on the ways we deal with family violence now and the new provisions contained in this bill to help victims. We intend to publish information pamphlets about the bill and to meet with people in the communities to ensure they understand how it can work.

Over the past few months, there has been a healthy dialogue among First Nations, community agencies, law enforcers, women's groups and government about how to make the Family Violence Prevention Act a useful bill. This discussion will continue after the bill is passed and before it comes into effect.

Violence in family relationships is often as close as our next door neighbours. It's not a problem we can choose to ignore, because the abuse often happens behind closed doors. We need to educate young and old alike - in our schools, social service agencies and the broader community.

It is important to understand that this bill does not in any way diminish existing laws, but adds to the existing legislative regime.

Criminal Code offences remain in effect, and the RCMP will continue to apply their mandatory charging policy.

The Family Violence Prevention Act and the Crime Prevention and Victim Services Trust Act are part of this government's larger focus on working cooperatively to achieve our goals of strong, safe, Yukon communities.

Mr. Speaker, I am aware that there are many decisions that need to be made surrounding the implementation and enforcement of this important legislation. I intend to continue consulting, not only with those persons and groups who work in the family violence field, but also with victims themselves, so that we can be as certain as possible that the proposed Family Violence Prevention Act does what it is designed to do: protect those people who are presently not able to protect themselves.

Thank you.

Mr. Phillips: I support the principles of this act, and I certainly applaud the intent of the bill, but the bill does have a few shortcomings.

I guess the first shortcoming of the bill was sort of echoed in the last few words that the minister just spoke, and that was that the minister said that there were many important changes to be made and more consultations to be done. I guess that's my concern. It is very difficult to change laws in our Legislature or make new laws in our Legislature, it seems. So, I'm wondering why there seems to be a rush or mad panic to get this through at this time, when there're so many people out there, and in fact the people out there who are concerned about this bill the most appear to be the ones who we are trying to protect the most. That's the concern I have.

I applaud the minister's efforts here to do something and do something quickly, and I do support much of the initiative encompassed in the bill, but I think there are a lot of unanswered questions. I almost expected that, when we received several letters from individuals and groups out there who were opposing the bill and from organizations who spoke out in the local media, wrote letters to the editor and such, the minister would have backed off from proceeding right now and would have possibly suggested that this needs a little more thought and that we have got to do this thing right.

I would have hoped that this would have been the approach that the minister would have taken. It appears that the bill is going to be pushed through by the government, and then, after they've got all the laws written, they are going to ask the people for their input when it's going to be, in fact, too late for another year to change this bill.

I have no problem and we in our caucus have no problem in getting this bill into second reading and Committee and having a discussion on it and then, rather than pass the bill, have the minister go back out to these groups and individuals and get suggestions of changes, because I know I would like to meet with some of the groups and individuals and find out what areas they would like to change and improve in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, interestingly enough this is probably the only piece of new legislation we have in front of us in this session. We had quite a full legislative calendar but a lot of it was housekeeping, rehash work, work that was done before - a lot of work that needed to be done. Not that it didn't need to be done, but it wasn't anything new from this government. It was all work that others had worked on. This is really the only new piece of legislation and, interestingly enough, I think it's the only piece of legislation there's any controversy on. Everyone else is sort of accepting many of the other initiatives that were in the works for years.

So, I know the minister's intentions are good. I know the minister wants to bring something in, to act immediately, and I know there are women and children out there who need some protection immediately, but I am also concerned about some of the concerns that are raised by others. And I'm going to go through the bill a little bit and raise some concerns that I've heard and some concerns that I've heard from others as well.

Mr. Speaker, in the first couple of sections in the bill, and in the second section where we talk about regulations, I guess this is one of those bills where I'm a little nervous about asking the bureaucracy to go off after the fact and make up the regulations and have us sort of give them a blank cheque on the regulations. I would have preferred, on a bill of this magnitude and this much power, that there would have been at least a draft set of regulations so the individual groups and organizations and the legislators, the members of this Legislature, would have an opportunity to see how the bill was going to work and see what was going to be encompassed in those regulations. I know the guidelines to the regulations are a bit broad.

Another area where I see the bill has real shortcomings is with respect to the judiciary. And here I go onto this thin ice again, but I'm going to go there. The problem I have with the bill is that it appears, by the way the bill is written, that the Supreme Court Judge or designated justices of the peace are going to be the individuals who can decide whether or not an order is issued. Well, that's where my problem comes in. I haven't been given any confidence in the Supreme Court of the Yukon Territory or the justices of the peace, in the training programs that I've witnessed or seen that they use, that they are in a position to decide what is violent. One only has to go back the last few weeks and months to some of the comments that have been made locally and otherwise about what some consider violent.

I would like to see something in this bill that requires our local judges and JPs to be involved in a training program with respect to violence against women and children before they can actually sit and make the decision about whether or not what is being described to them is violence or not.

I have seen - and so have other Yukoners - cases where it has been described by some that because they didn't use any weapons in the rape, it wasn't violent. I think I and everybody in this House have a problem with that. I think that those kinds of statements need to cease. We're giving someone an awful lot of power here to step in at an earlier stage. Sometimes there won't be a black eye or a broken nose or a broken hand or a foot or a cut when these orders were asked for. Sometimes there'll be the threats of such. Sometimes there will be a history of violence and then threats and more violence. I think these kinds of orders need to be initiated in some of those cases, but the people who are granting such orders need to first of all understand what violence is against women and children.

I don't see anything in this bill that would aid the individuals in the judiciary to understand better what the issues are, what the symptoms are, and that leaves me uncomfortable. If we're going to put some teeth in some legislation that's going to deal with a very serious issue such as this, I think we need to put some money where our mouth is as well as with respect to bringing up to speed the justices of the peace and the Supreme Court Judge on these issues. I would hope that the minister would see that as a serious issue.

I know when recent comments were made in the public about recent violent acts against women from murder to rape to other initiatives, the public was outraged at the point of the bench, and I think we have to do something about that. And we can't.

We shouldn't be telling judges how they make a decision on particular cases, but we could be requiring the judges and the justices of the peace - making available to them - a program of training and upgrading to understand how the issue affects women and children out there. I would hope the minister would consider that in a serious manner.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of other sections of the bill are troublesome as well, and that is with respect to invoking an emergency intervention order on First Nation land. Let me give the minister a couple of examples, and maybe when the minister is responding the minister could possibly tell us how this problem would be solved. If there was, for example, a request for an intervention on a house on First Nation category A land, and the individual who committed the act of violence was removed from the home, and the individual left in the home wasn't a member of that band, and there was a request possibly from the band. Have the First Nations discussed this? Could there be a problem there if the band intervened? What would happen?

What would happen if the individual who was left in the home was not a First Nation person, because then they would have exclusive use of a home on First Nation land, and a community, for one reason or another, may or may not side with the individual who has allegedly committed the violent act, and there may be a strong move to ask the person to leave that home if it carries on for a length of time. What protection would be given to any individual who was seeking security and safety in that kind of a situation?

The other issue I think that has been raised is the issue of the RCMP and their staffing. I attended a community meeting a couple of weeks ago in Riverdale where we talked about a citizens-on-patrol program. One of the issues that came up at the time was, will the RCMP respond to every call? The answer was that they would try, but they are limited in their staffing. There are not members to cover every situation at immediate notice. In fact, I think there was an example given that if there were three or four bar fights going on at the same time at three or four different locations in town and there was a sighting of someone in somebody's neighbourhood, they might have to respond to the immediate bar fights at the time, then they would get over to the neighbourhood as quickly as possible.

So, I know from some of the individuals and groups that are out there, they have raised the issue of, does the RCMP have the manpower to respond? It would be unfair to the victims in these cases to make a move to get an emergency intervention order, and then if the order were violated would the RCMP be able to get there in time to protect the individual if it was a busy night? Because, we're not, in this bill, putting any more money into the RCMP budget, I don't think, for more staff.

So it just gives them more things to do. I know from my experience as the previous Minister of Justice that they are taxed to the limit now with their people who are actually on the road. So that's a concern that I think should be there for the women and children, who may be given a false sense of security that if they make a call there will be an immediate response. I would like the minister to tell us what the response time is expected to be in this case.

Also, in section 4, I believe, there is a provision, 4(e), which I find rather weak-kneed. Provision (e) reads "a provision requiring the respondent to surrender all firearms in their possession to a peace officer for whatever period up to 180 days that the justice decides."

Well, here we go again, Mr. Speaker. We've had some pretty strong speeches from all members of this House with respect to firearms legislation and firearms being used in offences. I can tell the members what my view is. My view is that if an individual uses a firearm in a domestic violence offence - or, for that matter, any offence - that individual, regardless of his race, colour or creed, should never own a firearm again as long as they live. Ditto. Gone.

Send the message out there. Do we mean it? I know the argument will be from some that you're taking away someone's livelihood and possibly aboriginal right, because they want to use their firearm to go out and shoot some caribou or a moose or go hunting. I don't care. What about the rights of the individual that the firearm was used on?

Firearms are supposed to be used for hunting or target shooting - sport - not for threatening people. If we're going to bring laws into place that conform to what we have said in this House, in my view, this law should say that if you used a firearm in the committing of this offence or a violent act, your firearms are confiscated forever - gone, never again. It would only have to happen two or three times, and the message would get out: it didn't matter who you were, if you used a gun to threaten someone's life, you were never going to be able to touch a gun again.

I find the bill rather weak in that area.

The minister did not address any of the concerns that were expressed by the individual groups and organizations that wrote her in the past few weeks and months, so I'm not sure whether or not those concerns were addressed. I guess we'll just have to kind of go through that and ask the minister some questions about the letters.

The minister did talk about the RCMP's directive for mandatory charging in all domestic violence, and that's good. I'm glad that that won't change.

I asked the question of the minister earlier or raised the issue about more resources for the RCMP. Is there going to be a special unit dedicated to this, which will respond to these intervention orders - that, if somebody violates it, there'll be some kind of a system set up where everything else will be dropped and someone will respond?

There were questions asked about who will ensure that the RCMP will get copies of the civil orders. Unless they issue the order themselves, presently they don't get copies of it.

The role of legal aid. Maybe the minister can explain to us what the role of legal aid would be.

And there was another question about who will cover the cost when the order needs to be reheard by a judge if the victim or the offender are in the outlying communities. And there's a lot of concern about the outlying communities expressed by groups and organizations, primarily because the resources are not as handy as they are in the City of Whitehorse.

The other concern I have with the justice of the peace is, although they do this already in some cases, these kinds of things might put some of the JPs in an awkward position because, especially in the small communities, they are usually fairly well-known, and some of these intervention orders will take place based, I suppose, on threats or history of actions. So it might place a JP in a rather awkward position in their community, as in the most cases, justices of the peace are, I would think, responding to an actual charge or a violent act that has actually happened, and this might take place before the act became extremely violent, so it might place them in an awkward position.

The letter from the Kwanlin Dun talks about the spousal assault and mandatory charging in the Yukon working document of 1986. In it, they made some recommendations and they felt the bill didn't cover many of those recommendations. One was a treatment centre that focused on healing, training initiatives requested by the communities and resources. I spoke to the training initiatives earlier with respect to the judiciary and others, I think, that are involved in implementing this bill.

This could put a real strain on some of the resources in the outlying communities. So, I'd like to know from the minister if more money in the budget is going to be allocated to deal with the concerns that I've raised, and if the minister agrees with the issues that I've raised with respect to the training of people who are going to be involved in implementing this particular law, and if the minister agrees with my views on firearms-related issues and believes if someone uses a firearm in committing an offence that we should take an extremely hard line. It won't kill a person to remove their firearm from them if they use it in a threatening manner toward somebody else, but it might kill another person if you don't. I think that it's something that we should be considering.

I'd like to know from the minister, when she talked about further consultations on the act - and I'm not clear what the minister means, because usually you go out with a bill or a piece of legislation and you ask for public input. In this case, it was selected public input by the minister and her officials.

The minister is shaking her head that it wasn't, but there are some who think it was. Some of the very groups the minister is hoping to help suggested initially that the minister didn't consult them. So, the minister produced a discussion paper, which I've read, and now has come forward with the bill.

Like I've said, I applaud the intent of the minister's bill. I support, for the most part, the initiatives that the minister is trying to implement here to protect women and children, but I have a real problem with the fact that the people that the minister claims that this bill is going to benefit the most seem to be the people who are most concerned about the bill. Then, the minister said that what we want to do is pass it first and then once it's into law, we'll ask them what they think. Well, usually when you consult with individuals, governments in the past have tried to consult first, change the bill to accommodate the concerns or the wishes of the general public and then bring it into the House and then pass the bill that has the public's support.

This appears to be a backward approach that the minister is taking here, so I'd be interested to hear if the minister feels that all are on board now, that all groups that wrote letters and had concerns are now happy with the approach the minister's taking. What assurances has the minister given these groups and individuals, Mr. Speaker, that anything in here can be changed down the road? What specifically is the minister looking at possibly changing down the road?

Legislation is almost written in stone when you get it here in front of us, and sometimes it takes a great deal of effort to bring a bill back into the House and change it. I'd like to know from the minister what her future plans are with this bill, because it's a little late to consult after the barn door is closed.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will look forward to hearing from the minister and other members on this bill. I think that this bill will provide some comfort to women and children who are victims of crime, and there needs to be something done. There's no doubt about it, and the days should be over where, if a man carries out an act of violence against a woman or children in a household, the woman and children in the household have to leave it just to seek security. I think those days are over.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Phillips: One of the members just said that's why the minister's acted and, like I said, I applaud that. I think those are good intentions, but there are some problems with the bill. It's not without its problems. It's not without its concerns on how it's going to be administered and whether or not the RCMP can respond when they're supposed to respond, or what will happen with respect to incidents on First Nation land.

Mr. Speaker, I can support this bill in general but I would like to see it strengthened in a couple of areas I mentioned, and I'd like to hear the views of the member and other members on that. I think if we're going to do something positive with respect to violence against women and children, we should send a strong, clear message to those who carry out this violent act that it won't be tolerated.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mrs. Edelman: Everyone in this House has known a victim of domestic violence. It's a sad fact that there has been little or nothing that we could have done to help those families that endured violence at home. By passing the Family Violence Act, we will have done something to ease the suffering of future abused families.

The most vulnerable of all domestic violence victims are, of course, those people who live in rural Yukon. This act does much to increase their list of options for relief. The act also speaks to not only actual violence, but the imminent threat of violence. If a victim truly believes that they are about to suffer abuse, they will have some ability to seek safety under this act. This is a marked improvement to the system now, which will only offer help after the victim has been hit. The circle of violence must be broken before it contaminates another generation. This is good legislation. Many Yukon victims of domestic violence will benefit from the passage of this act.

Generally speaking, again, this is a good act. Of course this act is remarkably similar to the private member's bill the Liberal caucus tabled this spring. We tabled my bill as a starting point for discussion. The Liberal caucus is actually quite pleased that the government took a good idea and ran with it. The only problem we have is how consultation on this act was so haphazard.

Now, the initial consultation I did on our private member's bill, which is so remarkably similar to the one we're discussing today, was actually quite favourable. In a very limited way, because a third party is extremely limited in its resources, we sent out copies of our private member's bill and followed up our correspondence to various women's groups with phone calls and conversations. The groups I spoke with thought the bill was a good alternative, and many groups asked for the review of the Saskatchewan legislation, which our bill was based upon. At no point was there a corresponding start of consultations by the government, so when I heard that the very valid concerns of the executive director of the largest women's shelter in the Yukon was dismissed because she knew about the act since the spring - well, I was a little shocked. And when I found out that quite a large number of the documents had been passed out to various groups in town, but not the domestic violence unit of the RCMP - the group that deals with domestic violence 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year - I was somewhat amazed.

The concern that I always keep in the back of my mind is that the people who are recommending the use of this bill most often were not consulted at all. I heard this concern from Dawson and I've heard that concern substantiated by the working document on spousal assault and mandatory charging in the Yukon, and I quote, "Conclusions drawn in this study about the reporting of spousal violence are as follows:" and this is point number 2, "For a variety of reasons, community service agencies are not highly influential in convincing women to report assault; instead, support and encouragement comes primarily from friends and family members. This suggests the focus of agencies, the media, conferences and community networking should be to assist community members to identify spousal assault among their circle of friends and relatives, and to offer practical forms of support that could create a zone of safety for the victim. Feeling this zone of safety, the victim may feel more secure about reporting, or simply about drawing firmer lines around acceptable spousal behavior."

So plainly, the people that are offering help to victims of domestic violence are their friends and their family. The helping agencies are only called in as a last resort, but these agencies are the only people that the government consulted with.

Now, I respect the opinion of the executive director of the largest women's shelter in the Yukon. I do not dismiss her point of view lightly. She has suggested to the minister on numerous occasions that she hold public forums on this act. Why not?

I mean, if you aren't willing to listen to the advice of the head of the largest women's shelter in the Yukon on the issue of domestic violence, then who will you listen to?

What we have heard from the minister over and over again is that we don't need to consult further. Women's groups are sick of talk; it's time to take action. I have read the letters to the minister from the Kwanlin Dun, Skookum Jim Friendship Centre, Kaushee's Place and the Council of Yukon First Nations, and as well I have spoken to the staff of the shelters in Dawson and Watson Lake. They're saying, "Hold on. Do a good job." The minister has met with these groups on at least two occasions privately, and they're saying, "Wait. Do this well." They're saying over and over again, but the minister is not listening, "Wait, or we won't use the bill." Mr. Speaker, those are powerful words.

The minister says these groups have only implementation issues with the bill, but that is not the case. These groups want to know whether it is legal to take away firearms from an individual, as stated in section 3(e). They want to know why the act can't be proclaimed after adequate funding has been identified and an implementation plan is complete. They want to know why there are warrants of entry in this bill when there was never even a request for this order in Saskatchewan, and it's probably illegal under the Canadian Charter of Rights. Does any of this bill apply on First Nations land? Can you legally force someone to take counselling and therapy, as written in section 7. I don't think so.

These are very valid concerns for this stage of the discussion of the bill. Why have these concerns been minimized by the minister? They are not implementation issues. They are legal issues that seriously impact the acceptance and the validity of this bill in the justice system. At the very least, this House needs to hear from the witnesses who have concerns about this bill.

I would suggest to the minister again, in the interests of good legislation, would the minister call witnesses during Committee of the Whole, as Mr. Penikett did on the Faro Mine Loan Act in May of 1992, and as now Government Leader Piers McDonald did on the Environment Act in January of 1991, and as Mr. Phelps did on the Yukon Family Services Association Rent Act in 1994? Why not?

The minister has to realize how oddly the consultation on this document has been conducted. Groups received their technical consultation paper on a proposed Yukon victims of domestic violence act in the middle of September. On the same day, they read in the paper that the government would be passing this act in the Legislature the very next month. It certainly would make me wonder how important my feedback is to the development of this bill that is supposedly already ready to be passed in the Legislature that very next month. And how can a volunteer group possibly prepare good feedback on a proposed bill in only a month? Groups were given this technical paper in the middle of September and they were expected to have their consultation document back to the government by the middle of October. Most of these volunteer groups only meet once a month. Some meet less often. It takes considerable time to put together a committee, possibly hire a person to do the consultation with the group, and write the document. These groups have many priorities. Are they expected to drop all their other commitments to get this consultation paper ready? Quite frankly, I wonder how truly interested this government was and is in the quality of the feedback they expect from these groups, like the board of the women's shelter.

At the very least, the minister should answer the many concerns of the groups she did her one-way consultation with, and agree to amend this act by agreeing to not pass this bill until an implementation plan is complete and funding has been identified.

The minister says that she will answer all concerns by waiting a year to proclaim this act. Apparently, this act won't be proclaimed until consultation is complete and funding identified, but isn't this backward? It would be much easier to consult and then do the implementation. How can anything raised in the consultation be implemented in the bill? Are we just setting up for amendments in the future? Amendments are very difficult to do. They are expensive and, in this case, if the process is slowed down, probably unnecessary.

Our caucus will be suggesting an amendment to the act: that a plan be developed, funding be committed, and consultation be complete before we pass this bill.

We are all very much aware that the government has a large majority in this House. They can pass any type of legislation they want in the House. I just hope the minister and her Government Leader remember that we, on this side of the House, represent the majority of Yukoners. We deserve to be heard.

The government has to be prepared to foot the bill for this legislation or it isn't worth the paper it's written on. Who is going to pay for training and public education? Who's going to pay for travel and administration and all the other expenses of new legislation? I hope that the minister is not going to be abrogating her financial responsibilities to already-overburdened women's groups and women's shelters across the territory. I really hope that that is not her intention, because that would be quite disappointing.

And what about fixing the present system? How will this act mesh with other legislation? How will custody issues that are dealt with in this act interact with Supreme Court custody issues? Will this act just add an additional step that will cost parents even more money? What is being done to fix the system that we already have? Legal aid is drastically underfunded for civil cases. You do better in the Yukon being a poor crook than a mother who just wants to keep her kids away from their abuser.

There's a lot to be done, and a more comprehensive program for the passage and deliver of this bill has to happen. The consultation on this bill has been poor but, nevertheless, our caucus supports the intent of this bill. Anything that makes the lives of victims of domestic violence just a little bit better has to be a good thing. I hope the minister hears my words. I hope she examines what I know is truly her commitment to doing the right thing.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I'd like to rise today in support of Bill No. 24. The greatest tragedy in regard to family violence, in my view, quite frankly, is that it is family violence. Family is meant to be a retreat from the difficulties of the world. It's meant to be a safe haven. It's meant to be a source of encouragement, respect and support without judgment, a relaxed and knowing acceptance and trust in one another, a bond far beyond that of friendship and community.

I think there's one word we often overlook nowadays in talking about families, and that's the word "love". It's the one word that gets so much attention in our lives that we're told by social scientists that we seek this above all else, and which we hope to find in the family situation.

Violence is the antithesis of all that a family represents. It violates the very foundations of a society. It's hard for me to imagine how women and children who have been violated in their own families can ever recover from the broken trust and have a healthy relationship again.

Violence is such a horrific breaking of the sacred trust of a family that I don't think it can ever be adequately recovered. Quite frankly, I have tremendous admiration for those who are able to overcome these difficulties and move on with their lives.

Sometimes when we listen to the news or we watch it on television, we can be thankful that some of the problems revealed don't affect the Yukon. We live in a sheltered corner in the top left area of Canada. We are isolated from much that's wrong with the world: pestilence and famine, tornadoes, hurricanes.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we can't say the same about family violence. Too bad it isn't just an issue in large cities or Third World countries. Too bad we can't say that we're safe from it here, Mr. Speaker. Too bad that we have to deal with a number of horrific examples of family and domestic violence in our own small community to remind us of this horrible societal problem.

Most recently, two of the cases that have seized the imagination and the sense of horror have been the case of Krystal Senyk and Susan Klassen. We know, for example, that Krystal Senyk was murdered, allegedly by the husband of a friend when he discovered that Krystal had helped his abused wife leave an abusive situation. We do not know where that accused is now. He disappeared.

Susan Klassen also became a victim, in this case by her husband. Does that bring it home, Mr. Speaker? Does that put it right in our own backyard? Yes, it does. Family violence is a blight on our society. It's a crime against many generations.

We know that children who see violence, learn violence, and act out violence in their own families when they become adults.

Sometimes it seems that I refer to my experiences, both as a teacher and a principal, in this House and I guess it may sound odd, but in some ways those positions gave me a somewhat privileged view into families. I don't know how many times I have, over my years in educational administration, spoken to women who had come to see me. They were pulling their kids out, they were gathering together their kids' books, they were leaving that day on the bus or leaving that day on the plane, to try to escape an abusive situation.

Sometimes I saw violence directed toward children. Sometimes we saw children who were afraid to go home. Sometimes we saw children absent too often from school. We saw grades drop, bruises appear, and black eyes for no explanation. I can recall, one young girl in grade 5 who confessed to me her tremendous fear because her dad was coming back from a job that he had been away at. When I spoke with her, I learned that this was a fear of yet another cycle of violence beginning in the home.

As I've said, I've seen mothers retrieving children from school and fleeing. The most horrific thing about this was that here were victims who were continuing to be victimized. Here were people forced to leave their homes; women forced to leave their homes. Children were forced to leave their friends, their neighbourhoods, their schools - the special things that make being a child the experience that it should be.

In some cases these children were uprooted from friends that they gained and friends that they had, only to flee - simply, I believe, in some cases - to survive.

I hope that this act will give victims a safe environment without the upheaval of such a move. I believe that this act will place blame where blame belongs, with the violent perpetrator. It will help stop punishing the families of domestic violence and help preserve the safety of the home. It will allow the removal of the offender from the home, and give the victim or victims the choice to remain there, if that is their will.

The other related problems that arise from domestic violence are a loss of financial independence. We know, for example, that women tend to become impoverished in domestic breakup at a much higher rate than men. The loss of control of personal property and personal assets: why should a woman who has contributed to the development of the family home, to the development of many of those assets that go into making up that family home be forced to leave those possessions - be forced to leave what she has contributed just for personal safety?

The victims assistance order of this act will address those issues. This act increases the options available to the victims of family violence.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that this act will not solve the problems of domestic violence. It is not the ultimate solution that we all wish it could be, but it is a start. It begins to protect the victims of violence - those who have suffered and those who must be protected. I have to applaud the efforts of my colleague in this regard, and I urge all members of this House and everyone in our communities to work toward the eradication of all forms of domestic violence.

Thank you.

Mr. Livingston: I am pleased to be able to rise in support of the Family Violence Prevention Act presented by the Minister of Justice and the minister responsible for the Women's Directorate.

Crime and punishment is a pretty topical discussion in our community. It evokes many emotions and is something that people feel pretty passionate about.

I note that this week has been declared as a restorative justice week by many churches across Canada. The theme that they've outlined is "challenging fear, creating hope".

This bill goes some ways toward addressing the fears that victims feel as a result of family violence - the women, and children in many cases. The strong measures that are provided for include emergency intervention, orders to provide for a safe home by immediately removing a spouse or partner who is a threat in a home situation, and further restricting communications, access and the use of firearms.

The primary thrust here is to ensure victim safety.

Another aspect of the bill places the onus of responsibility on the perpetrator for the impact of their actions, including such things as appropriate compensation, the assigning of property, and so on.

There is also an opportunity for review, to ensure that due process is followed and that everyone has an opportunity to present their case. I know that there are some serious penalties for any breach of this order, ensuring that this act has some force.

I was pleased to note, as well, that hearings are able to occur in a somewhat informal and private manner. I think that that respect for personal privacy can go a long way to ensuring that this bill can be part of a solution, rather than stirring up additional problems.

I want to make just a couple of remarks. I know that in her closing remarks the minister will comment on the remarks that all members have made in the House today, but I'd like to respond to some of the things that the members opposite, in particular, have raised.

I was pleased to hear the former Minister of Justice from the Yukon Party agree with the minister bringing in a bill like this because of the necessity of it, and for doing it quickly. Those are something like the words that he used.

I think that there is always additional work that can be done in this kind of an area, and I'm pleased to note the consultation that my minister did on these matters. I would note as well that the member opposite sometimes had difficulty making decisions, and so I'm pleased to be part of a government that does more than simply think about a lot of things. We've heard a lot about that. That's been a recurring theme from the opposition party: "We thought about that." I'm pleased to be part of a government that actually goes out and does something about it, that gets something done.

One of the concerns that was expressed was around the judiciary. In fact, I think the member said, "I've got very little confidence ... nothing to give me any confidence in the Supreme Court of the Yukon." I think it's easy for us to jump to quick fix-it fixes. We jump on the law-and-order bandwagon. When we see kind of a get-tough initiative or the prosecutors in the courts getting tough on a situation, we applaud it. When the problem doesn't go away, we still have our fears. Those fears don't go away in fact.

And when we don't agree with the court decisions, the member opposite calls for an overhaul on the judicial system without asking about the values that we want to retain and acknowledging what we maybe don't know about the whole story in any particular case that comes along.

Concerns as well were expressed about the aplication of this law on First Nations land, and I don't think there should be a great deal of doubt about that. We've heard in responses to these kinds of questions, time and again, that what we pass in this Legislature are laws of general application unless First Nations would choose to draw down their powers in any particular area, and in that case, of course, they are subject to some conditions and must meet certain tests. But certainly, we can take considerable comfort from the law of general application.

It's easy, I think, to call for more police in the streets, as if that was the panacea for all of the ills out there, and we hear about that. But the member also talked about a false sense of security coming, and I would suggest to the member opposite that we can always paint a scenario where we need a policeman on every corner. What we really need to do is, through initiatives like this - this is one more tool - through the many community initiatives, such as Neighbourhood Watch, where essentially the community is given the tools to take back control of their neighbourhoods where they feel the threat.

And this, Mr. Speaker, is one of those tools, and I know that the Minister of Justice certainly will be ensuring that those that carry out the law, the RCMP in this case, will see this act as a priority and will do everything within their power to carry out the letter of the law.

The many procedural questions that the member opposite raised - I know that regulations are being developed and I anticipate that those types of procedural questions will be addressed through that.

As I said at the outset, crime, safety and the judicial system are topics that often give rise to intense emotions and heated debate. Now, it's curious to me, when the statistics tell us that crime rates are on the decrease, that our anxiety in the Yukon and across Canada is on the rise. And I don't want to talk too much about that. I want to focus on the act before us, but I would just note that one can only guess that, despite the social safety net that we've developed in this country and in this territory over the years, maybe in fact we have more people on the margins, we have more people who are fearing that they won't have enough, that they won't be able to provide enough, fearing that they might be rejected - people who are on the margins for a variety of reasons. And that's increasing tensions within our society and maybe increasing the anxiety around how we're going to be treated by our neighbours, because the crime that occurs in our neighbourhoods, that's in fact what's happening.

The emotion of fear I think is central to this debate and to the issue itself. Where this bill works to address the fear of victims, ironically also the perpetrators in many cases are experiencing fear - as I said, the fear of not belonging or of losing one's loved ones or not meeting the test. And, of course, the general public, you and I, we also are experiencing fear - fear for our safety and the safety of those around us. And it's a real fear. It's one that we can't wish away, and it's one that we do need to address.

It's interesting to note in the report of the talking about crime committee, we talked about the previous government doing a lot of talking, and this is the talking about crime committee report. I noted in one section that there were, in fact, tremendous social and psychological costs which we all pay as a result of crime.

It's noted also here that Yukon has one of the highest incarceration rates in all of Canada and, to many Yukoners, "The time has come to do things smarter and to do things better."

I think that this bill is one step, Mr. Speaker, in trying to do things smarter and to do things better. That's how our fears, in fact, are being addressed in a positive and constructive manner by this bill. The implications for the victim, of this bill, are that it addresses the issues of physical safety first and foremost. We've got the emergency orders that can be drawn down almost immediately, but the bill goes beyond that. It also works to attend to the issues of security, over at least a medium term, and to begin to build that sense of hope for tomorrow.

The implications for the offender in this bill, I think, are to ensure that the potential offender is accountable for his or her actions and carries responsibility for them. This bill also, I think, is part of a larger picture. It's part of the larger picture of trying to address some of those fears that are underlying the actions of the offender. I note, for example, programs are already in place and ongoing, such as the living without violence program, offered by the Whitehorse Correctional Centre staff as an in-house program; the individual and group counselling program at victim services - the sex offender risk management program; and a number of other programs that work to try to address some of those fears - often fears of belonging, fears of loss - that the offenders are experiencing. What we want to try to do, of course Mr. Speaker, as the minister has said, is create safer and healthier communities. Part of that is having members of the community who feel a hope for tomorrow and some sense of security.

I think, in the same way, this bill helps to address the fears of the general public, because it is part of a larger effort - that of peace making. This really is working to address the fundamental safety concerns that victims - or potential victims - have, spouses and family members. It goes beyond that to ensuring that there is a bridge to a better tomorrow by providing for compensation, in some cases; by providing, if you like, an area within which a potential victim can move without fear of coming into contact with the offender.

So, this bill, I believe, goes a considerable way toward addressing the significant fears of the victims and it's the important part of the whole array of strategies that will help us together to shape a safer community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Jenkins: I rise in support of the intent of the bill on family violence. I have a few areas of concern that I would ask the minister to consider addressing. The major issue is the consultation program that the minister has gone through with the many individuals who are knowledgeable about the issues before us. I don't believe that consultation program has been as thorough or as widespread as it should be for a bill of this nature that is going to play such a very necessary role in the lives of Yukoners.

The other concern I have is that there are many legal questions that one looks at when one goes through this bill. Though this act has been fashioned on the Saskatchewan model, there are quite a number of sections of this act that add on to that Saskatchewan model, and their interpretation can come into question and we're going to be spending a lot of time establishing case law in a number of these areas. I would see it as an area that we can probably reduce our exposure to many, many years before the courts if we dealt with issues that have a background in case law in these areas.

The next major area that concerns me would be the downloading of responsibilities to shelters to interpret and implement sections of this act as to how its going to work because these are the front-line people who come into contact with the individuals, the families that need help, need assistance and they're going to have to be knowledgeable in the many ins and outs and intricacies of this act.

Following through is the necessary funds for implementation and I would really urge the minister to consider such funding coming from general revenues and be voted on in this House rather than seeking it from a number of different pots that have no - well, they're variable pots of funding and they're not always going to be in existence. So, rather than having the constant need and worry to grope for funds, it would seem to be contingent upon the minister to ensure that these funds are in place and in place through a vote of this House.

As to the need for additional policing, one only has to look at the Yukon and the number of RCMP members here. One will find that it's the highest per capita and not just in Canada. If you look at the number of enforcement officers here in the Yukon compared to any other jurisdiction in North America, you will see that we are the highest in North America. There are 131 members here, posted in the Yukon, for a population of some 35,000 individuals.

So in closing, Mr. Speaker, I urge the minister to consult with the knowledgeable groups with respect to this act and bring it back in the spring. I'm sure we can still meet the minister's self-imposed implementation deadline of one year hence and deal with the bill in our spring sitting.

Mr. McRobb: Today I rise in support of Bill No. 24, presented by my colleague from Mount Lorne. Family violence is unfortunately widespread throughout the Yukon and occurs so often that, in some situations, it's been accepted as a way of life. There are many incidences of extreme family violence that have been reported in the media, and in many situations, some of us are aware of people in the community who have suffered as a result. A number of those reported have been instances of spousal assault, which have ended up in tragedy for women in particular. There are many other instances of repeated family violence that have been brought to charges.

Sometimes we hear about those charges through media reports. The majority of incidences of family violence, however, are never reported. In some of these situations, women are often beaten, usually with children as witnesses. For the children, Mr. Speaker, this is an extreme horror and, in some cases, a beginning of a vicious cycle - a learned behaviour, if you will - sometimes passed on and on, generation by generation.

It is the hope of the Family Violence Prevention Act that it will break this vicious cycle by making people and communities aware that abuse such as this will not be tolerated.

I want to talk a little bit about the forms of violence and the effects they have on our communities. There are many other forms in a family situation where the woman or children and, in some instances, men are subjected to emotional or psychological abuse, intimidation, threats, sexual abuse, and isolation from family or friends and the rest of the world. Women in such situations often accept abuse as a way of life. Sometimes nobody seems to care. Sometimes there is no one to intervene and come to the assistance of the abused. Unfortunately, women often have extreme feelings of hopelessness and feel powerless to do anything. They have no place to go. In the Yukon, this would mean moving to another community, and for many this is simply not an option. So, instead, they are forced to live with the abuse rather than move.

In other situations, it means having to leave without the children and, again, that is not an option for them.

These situations of family violence have traumatic effects on children, who sometimes learn to live in fear. This affects all other aspects of their lives, including their outlook on life, their health, education, and how they interact with others.

In cases of sexual abuse, women are often victimized even through the court system and, again, by the community. Sometimes they are threatened and become more isolated and are forced to keep the abuse to themselves.

Another problem is the lateral violence in any community, large or small, which often keeps the abused from reporting or seeking help.

Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, this bill - the Family Violence Prevention Act - can help to resolve these problems and reduce occurrences of abuse in our territory.

The bill sends out a strong message to victims, offenders, children and the community. This bill focuses on the needs of the victim to empower them to change the abusive situation. For instance, women and children are no longer forced to leave the home. Instead, a police officer can be directed to remove the abuser from the home to give the victim exclusive occupation of the home.

This bill will encourage more victims to come forward as protective mechanisms are put in place for their protection. This bill allows justices of the peace - and there are several of them in the outlying communities - to direct a police officer to remove the abuser, provided there is certainty that abuse has occurred or is likely to occur. This bill sends a powerful message to abusers and the community. Abuse is not acceptable and will not be tolerated. Women and children have the right to stay in the home and feel safe. This bill recognizes that safety has to be the key concern. The bill also contains a provision for the seizure of firearms when violence has occurred, or if there is a threat of violence.

This bill will require a major shift in attitude throughout the whole Yukon, in particular by men. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I support this bill and realize that we all need to work together on the prevention of family violence.

This bill is one more step that our government is taking in building stronger and safer communities.

Thank you.

Mr. Cable: As was indicated earlier, our caucus is supportive of the bill in principle, but I should say that we certainly have no geography in its drafting. The session is moving forward rapidly and our caucus is quite prepared to use whatever time is available out of our agreed 25 days in this sitting to hear groups and individuals.

Now, witnesses have been heard before by this House at the insistence of NDP members. It escapes me why we have been reluctant to hear evidence on the concerns that have been expressed by various groups.

The minister knows that there are people out there, stakeholders in the protection of victims of violence sector, who are prepared to come and give us suggestions and advice. I have to say there has been some public consultation, but there hasn't been a lot. This is a fairly important bill.

We don't have a justice committee system in the House. A bill such as this, if it were in the federal Parliament, could be given to the House committee for input and then recommendation made by the committee to the House. So, we are left to follow the public discussion and the various submissions that have been made to the minister. We are not in the position, really, to hear people first hand.

May I suggest to the minister that it is not an imposition on this House to hear the stakeholders for two or three hours or four or five hours - whatever is necessary. We've lots of time in this session to hear them.

The act, to work best, needs the stakeholders on side and that exercise would assist in getting those stakeholders on side.

I ask the minister to reconsider her government's resistance to call witnesses. Nobody in this Legislature runs a transition home. No one in this Legislature practises family law. No one in this Legislature deals with violence as a part of their livelihood. There just might be some advice out there that is worth hearing.

Now, the principles behind the bill are sound. The other alternatives that are available to people under stress or in situations where there is perceived violence that could happen are the peace bond process and civil injunction. I think we've heard that the peace bond process criminalizes actions and may cause antagonisms and some people are just reluctant to use it, for whatever their reasons.

A civil injunction or restraining order process also has its shortcomings. A person under imminent threat, who does not wish to use the peace bond process, at present is left with the civil restraining order process. And under that process, the victim, particularly in outlying areas and particularly at night, has to phone a lawyer, whom the victim may or may not know, and who the victim may or may not know practises the appropriate type of law, and the victim has to brief that lawyer. The lawyer must then, at night, or on weekends possibly, take instructions, contact the trial coordinator, if available, and set up a hearing with a Supreme Court Judge, if available. I'm not sure whether pleadings have to be prepared, as is the case with normal actions, and filed to initiate the action, but even assuming that that problem could be overcome, it's a fairly lengthy process and it's not a particularly useful process where there is imminent danger.

Even if the problem has been or could be resolved - this is the problem of filing pleadings and getting a judge and having a hearing - there are still some delays that may - not necessarily will but may - pose a problem.

This bill, which we support, sets up another remedy that buttresses those other remedies. It is not foolproof. If someone is bound and bent on causing physical hurt to some other person, no amount of law is going to stop that. If someone is prepared to break the law, then we have to deal with the consequences, not the prevention. But this bill can act as a good remedy in some cases. There are people out there who, despite being involved in domestic violence, will, in fact, respect the law. And this bill will add to the victim protection armoury - much the same as the British Columbia government's recent initiative in providing cell phones to potential victims who cannot afford them is an addition to the protection armoury.

Now, we have heard and I have heard, both here and elsewhere, the issue of cost, and it would be useful for the minister, in her reply, to spell out just what kind of training is needed for the JPs. It appears to me that the training for the purposes of the act could usefully be part of most JPs' training.

Now, we're not asking JPs to pass judgment on some fine point on the Constitution. We're asking them to pass judgment on an interpersonal situation that most people can readily comprehend. The JPs now must deal with bail applications by alleged rapists, sometimes in the middle of the night, so they should be able to deal with the type of orders that are contemplated by this act.

Now, the orders under this act will have some dangers. They are initially, of course, ex parte in nature. The act does set up a situation where there can be unjust or improper accusations made by people who approach the JPs, and this of course is possible in the case of peace bonds or civil injunction applications. We can't get away from that.

There are also third-party or other parties' property rights that can be unfairly affected, but when we balance the rights and the downsides, I think we can clearly see that the downside to victims is of a much different and greater order than the downside to other affected parties. The protection from the danger of physical violence is a much greater good than the protection of some property.

As has been mentioned by the Member for Riverdale South, we will be introducing an amendment to delay proclamation until implementation is in place.

We support the bill in principle and will support it, but we certainly do have reservations about the consultation process.

We don't want to wait until the 1998 legislative session, but let me again urge the minister to reconsider her position on calling witnesses before the House. I think we can all benefit from hearing witnesses. We have the time, and our time is not too precious to say, "No, we don't want to hear you. We know you might have something to say, but we're just too busy. We want to get on with this bill." I think we should listen to people that deal with violence in the community.

Hon. Mr. Harding: I'm not going to talk too long, particularly on the aspects of the bill. They've been listed many times and very well by members on this side of the Legislature and, to some degree, by members of the opposition.

This bill is a tool. It's an advancement in dealing with the very difficult and very troubling problem of family violence that we have experienced so much of in this territory over the past many, many years. This is not a bill to bring us to utopia. This is a bill that we believe can help Yukoners to further deal with these problems that we all, I believe, feel very strongly have to be addressed.

I must say, though, Mr. Speaker, that in listening to the opposition speak to this very solid and very well-founded and very much needed bill, that I am amazed at some of the comments. The new member of the Legislature from Riverdale South, you would have thought that she had invented the fight against domestic violence because she has tabled a private member's bill in this Legislature. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Justice, has been actively out there, working on this issue, long before she ever became a politician, for the last 20 years in this territory. I think this kind of trying to grab some credit for a good initiative is quite transparently wrong and misplaced surrounding a bill such as this.

I believe that, when I hear the other comments about bringing witnesses, I don't discount the notion totally of bringing witnesses before this Legislature. It's done very rarely, but the Member for Riverside, the Liberal member, implies that the only way we can hear people on a bill or the only way we can have any direct democracy is by bringing witnesses before the Legislature, to hear evidence.

It sounds a lot like the member is speaking in a bit of an interesting light. One wonders if he has got the Legislature confused with a court of law. There are many other avenues for the minister and for the government and for the opposition to speak out and to hear people.

The implication is that the only way you can hear advice on this bill is to have witnesses before the Legislature. It is not the only way. The minister has been consulting with the public, has been meeting with the public, has been talking to the public, and has been listening, and has been reflecting that in the bill.

So to say that the only way we can get our head out of the clouds and hear the people is in this Legislature I think indicates that the Liberal Party is seriously out of touch on this issue.

The people want us out of the Legislature and talking to them in other ways, Mr. Speaker, to hear their views. It's very rare when I hear someone on the street who says to me, "Listen, I've got to tell you something about something that's bugging me about the government. I'd really like an appointment to come before the Legislature and let you know."

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Harding: What they say, Mr. Speaker, is they've got a problem with a piece of legislation or something the government's doing and they want to bend my ear on it, or they think there should be a public meeting.

Or they think there should be some survey work done or there should be some form of consultative work undertaken.

So, Mr. Speaker, I don't follow the logic of the members opposite. I'll just say that I am very proud of my colleague, the Minister of Justice. She knows that this bill is a tool. She knows it's not the be-all, end-all. There's lots more work to be done. We don't want to wait until the next session of the Legislature to bring this bill forward. She's going to continue to consult and fine-tune. The Member for Riverdale South said that amendments are expensive. I don't know where the member's getting that information from. If there's a fundamental change to the bill that has to be brought forward in the future, then I'm sure we'll be prepared to do it, but in the meantime surely there are aspects of this bill this session of the Legislature that are going to help people in this territory over the next year.

So I say, let's get on with it, let's pass this bill and let's keep working. Thank you.

Ms. Duncan: I'm pleased today to rise to support the intent of this bill and particularly to add my support to the efforts of my colleagues, namely the Members for Riverdale South and Riverside, in their constructive points during second reading of this bill. I believe that our caucus has done its homework on this matter.

The wrongness of domestic violence has been articulated by many. It's too often and a most unfortunate fact that we are aware of and a misery that many l