Recherche avancée

084 Hansard

Whitehorse, Yukon

Thursday, April 10, 2008 — 1:00 p.m.

Speaker:   I will now call the House to order. At this time, we will proceed with prayers.

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE                                                                  

Speaker:      We will now proceed with the Order Paper.

Are there any tributes?

TRIBUTES

In recognition of Trumpeter Swans Society annual conference

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   On behalf of the House it is my pleasure to pay tribute today to a species that is the embodiment of grace, beauty and unspoiled wildness: the trumpeter swan. The Yukon government holds a Celebration of Swans each year, and this is to welcome spring to the north arriving on the wings of the trumpeter swans that stop over here on their long migration to northern nesting grounds.

This year the Trumpeter Swan Society will hold its annual conference here in Whitehorse from April 16 to 19 at the same time the swans visit us. The society works continent-wide to ensure the vitality and welfare of the trumpeter swan populations. Trumpeter swans once numbered in the millions, but by the early 1900s they were almost extinct as a result of hunting for commerce and for subsistence.

Population numbers have steadily increased as a result of hunting bans, and now the Pacific Coast population numbers over 25,000. But there are still problems, such as lead poisoning and habitat loss, which stop the swans from returning to large portions of their historic range.

The Celebration of Swans is unique, and we should be proud of its success. For 15 years, this week-long bird festival has helped us see and learn about the trumpeter swans and other birds that rely on the shallow open waters of M’Clintock Bay, Tagish Bay, Teslin Lake, Kluane Lake and Lake Laberge for food and rest on their northward migration.

So far, more than 800 people have visited Swan Haven this season, and the celebration has just begun. Our biologists have asked me to remind the public that it is essential to let the swans rest and feed in peace during the month of April. The birds should not be disturbed — just observed.

Snow machines, boats, canoes, dogs and people who venture nearby to get a better look jeopardize the well-being of the birds. We all can do our part by staying a safe distance away and telling others to do the same.

I encourage the members of this House to join with me in congratulating the local organizers of the Trumpeter Swan Society conference. This is the first time that the society has met north of 60, and this is their 40^th anniversary.

If members haven’t had the opportunity yet, I do encourage them to visit Swan Haven to see for themselves these magnificent birds we are so fortunate to see each year during spring.

Thank you.

Speaker:   Any there any further tributes?

In recognition of bridge building competition

Hon. Mr. Rouble:    I rise today on behalf of the entire Assembly to pay tribute to the 15^th annual bridge building competition, which will be held on Saturday, April 12, at the Porter Creek Secondary School gym. This competition is an annual event open to students in grades 4 to 12. It is offered by the innovators in schools program in partnership with the Association of Professional Engineers of Yukon.

The innovators in the schools program provides Yukon teachers, from kindergarten to grade 12, with science and technology experts who expose students to the real lives and work of biologists, engineers, geologists, health technologists, chemists, computer programmers and others. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the organizers, teachers and volunteers for their hard work, and I would like to wish all the competitors good luck.

Speaker:   Are there any further tributes?

Introduction of visitors.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. McRobb:   I would like to invite Members of the Assembly to join me in welcoming Ta’an Kwäch’än Chief Ruth Massie and former Grand Chief of the Council of Yukon First Nations, Ed Schultz.

Applause

Speaker:   Are there any further introductions of visitors?

Returns or documents for tabling.

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Mr. Mitchell:    I have for tabling a letter from Chief Darren Taylor of the Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in First Nation to the Premier, dated today, regarding Bill No. 50.

Mr. Hardy:   I have for tabling key concerns of the Carcross-Tagish First Nation, Kluane First Nation, Kwanlin Dun First Nation, Liard First Nation, Ta’an Kwäch’än Council and the Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in First Nation regarding Bill No. 50, Child and Family Services Act.

Speaker:   Are there further documents for tabling?

Reports of committees.

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

Statement by a minister.

This then brings us to Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re:  Child and Family Services Act

Mr. Mitchell:    The Premier was sent a letter this week from four First Nation chiefs requesting an invitation to appear before the Committee of the Whole when Bill No. 50, Child and Family Services Act, is being considered. We now have seen correspondence from yet another chief.

The chiefs have identified concerns that they feel are relevant and material to the discussion and debate. They feel the presence of their respective First Nations merits the attention of this Committee. I agree with their request. We are debating Bill No. 50 this afternoon and, to date, no witnesses have been identified.

So my question for the Premier: why has he ignored the request by First Nation leaders to be part of the discussions we are having this afternoon?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Speaker, to suggest we have ignored the request of First Nations when it comes to the issue of children in care flies in the face of, and is inconsistent with, the facts.

This government, based on an agreement, embarked on a process with First Nations in full partnership almost five years ago.

The process included co-chairs of a design process that we agreed upon. It included forums and consultation. It included policy forums, elders forums and updates for First Nation chiefs through their leadership processes. It also included an unprecedented move by the public government here in the territory to jointly inform the drafting of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, this government has gone far beyond witnesses. We have ensured that the First Nations are, along with public government, architects of a new cutting-edge bill for the Yukon Territory.

Mr. Mitchell:    When the Premier was on the campaign trail he promised to work in partnership with First Nations. He asked everyone to imagine tomorrow. How soon those promises are broken.

We had witnesses appearing as recently as Tuesday of this week about the new Workers’ Compensation Act. It benefited this Assembly to have witnesses here. Now Bill No. 50, the Child and Family Services Act, is far too important for us not to get it right. As the Hon. Premier knows, as many as 80 percent of the children who come under this act are of First Nations descent. These are the families who are most affected. All they are asking is to be given an opportunity to be heard. That is all. It is in the interest of all Yukoners for this to be on the record.

Why has the Premier ignored the chiefs’ request to appear as witnesses before Committee of the Whole?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   The government hasn’t ignored a thing. In fact, the one thing that I can agree on with the Leader of the Official Opposition is how important this legislation is. That is exactly why we conducted the process that we did in partnership with First Nations, ensuring their input is throughout the bill. It is reflected throughout the bill that we have before us today. I would submit to the member opposite that the time has come to debate the bill so that the members opposite will quickly realize that the majority of what is in the new bill is addressing First Nations’ concerns.

Mr. Mitchell:    Mr. Speaker, the Premier says that the input and the consultation from the chiefs is reflected in the bill — the chiefs are saying otherwise. Why not hear from them first-hand so that we can have an informed debate? So much for First Nation consultations, Mr. Speaker.

I’m quite disappointed in the Premier’s refusal to hear First Nations’ concerns on the floor of this House.

I have another proposal for him — let us take a step back. It is obvious that First Nations have concerns with the bill as it exists before us today. We have no objections to withdrawing the bill and bringing it back this fall to try to accommodate these concerns expressed by First Nations. In the spirit of compromise, will the Premier agree to take the bill off the agenda today and bring it back this fall so that we can get it right?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Speaker, the short answer is no; the government will not. The government has gone the distance and, factually, Mr. Speaker, should any First Nation government want to go beyond where this bill takes us today, they have that right to occupy the authority as negotiated in their agreements.

Now, as far as listening to the concerns of First Nations, the government and First Nation representatives in this process have listened to those concerns throughout the course of almost five years. In all that process, one substantive issue that was brought forward we’ve dealt with, and that is the provision of a child advocate in this territory. The next step for us, upon passage, is to immediately engage with First Nations to develop a child advocate position here in Yukon.

Question re:  Heritage resource protection

Mr. McRobb:   I have a question for the Energy, Mines and Resources minister. Yukoners have had some fascinating news recently about interesting scientific discoveries at the Little John archaeological site north of Beaver Creek. Local anthropologist Norm Easton, along with members of the White River First Nation, have discovered this site, which has turned out to be one of the oldest sites ever found in Beringia, uncovering artifacts dating back some 14,000 years. The importance of this site has attracted a lot of attention to the Yukon’s archaeological potential; however, it turns out that the right-of-way for the proposed Alaska Highway pipeline project could damage this site and other yet-to-be-discovered sites in the vicinity, including a mass graveyard nearby.

What steps has the Energy, Mines and Resources minister taken to have the right-of-way rerouted to avoid damaging our precious heritage resources?

Hon. Mr. Lang:    We’ll work with the archaeological branch on addressing those issues as they come forward.

Mr. McRobb:   Well, the Energy, Mines and Resources minister assured this House a year ago that he would be awake at the pipeline switch, should the project flare up again. In case he has missed it, the Governor of Alaska, Ms. Sarah Palin, is expected to soon make a decision that is expected to push the start button on the pipeline. This megaproject will take on a life of its own upon an announcement of the project proceeding. Time will be of the essence. The Yukon Territory hasn’t even approved the terms and conditions for this project while every other affected province already has.

If the minister is indeed not asleep at the switch, why haven’t these important outstanding matters been dealt with by now?

Hon. Mr. Lang:    We are certainly aware of the Governor of Alaska and the process that is in place today, and we’re looking forward to the resolution of those questions in the State of Alaska.

Mr. McRobb:   As Mr. Easton has pointed out, there could easily be two lifetimes of work at this site along the project’s right-of-way. Obviously, there isn’t time to complete the archaeological recovery, should this project proceed at any time in the near future.

Time and time again, this government has said that it’s pipeline ready. But as time goes on, we find more and more work left undone that should have been addressed during this pre-project window. We’ve had ample opportunity to do the work necessary to avoid unnecessary delays to the project that, if left unchecked, could even lead to the demise of the project’s viability.

How is the minister going to avoid unnecessary delays with the project while ensuring our precious heritage resources are protected?

Hon. Mr. Lang:    In addressing the issue on how the territorial government is moving forward on the pipeline file, we’re working with the State of Alaska. The Alaska governor, as the member has said on the floor, is preparing to present the proposal to the House. The producers are obviously making some moves, and we look forward to those resolutions.

We as a government certainly will be addressing archaeological or environment issues.

Question re:  Child and Family Services Act

Mr. Hardy:   Now, yesterday my colleague, the Member for McIntyre-Takhini, had an interesting dialogue with the Premier on the question of witnesses appearing before Committee of the Whole. Because the Child and Family Services Act is coming before the Committee later today, I would like to give the Premier another opportunity to let his light shine.

Today the Premier said that it’s time to debate the bill. Then let’s allow witnesses to engage in that debate, just as we did for the Workers’ Compensation Act. Will the Premier direct the Government House Leader to introduce a motion in Committee of the Whole to have First Nation witnesses appear before the Committee during its consideration of Bill No. 50?

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   I appreciate the Leader of the Third Party’s question and the opportunity in fact to remind members of the process that was embarked upon. This has been five years in the making.

As the Leader of the Third Party’s colleague, the Member for McIntyre-Takhini, has recognized, this is a five-year process. The member’s colleague, the Member for McIntyre-Takhini, urged us on February 15 to move forward with this and to table the legislation.

Let me further remind members: I have here a stack that is available on-line, for those who wish to read it, of the What We Heard documents and the topics discussed.

To begin with we have topic 1, a summary of comments made during consultations and meetings about the Yukon Children’s Act from February to August 2004 on the topic of philosophy and principles — that’s document 1. Document 2 is “Prevention/Early Intervention”. Document 3 — again, this is all on-line — “Child Protection”. Document 4: “Child Protection Court Procedures”. Document 5: “Children in Care”. Document 6: “Adoption”.

Mr. Hardy:   What they heard and what they are acting on are two different stories, obviously. I’d like the Premier to consider this question a lot more carefully. Just for his sake, let me remind the Premier what he said just two days ago in the House. As recorded on page 2352 of Hansard, the Premier said the following: “We’re very pleased to have that partnership, very pleased that First Nations, along with public government, are the architects of a new child act for Yukon.”

He also said that today. Mr. Speaker, this is an important building project that is not yet completed. Is the Premier saying that one of the architects of this bill is no longer welcome on the site?

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   Mr. Speaker, it is appalling to hear that from the member opposite. The member is failing to recognize a process that he ought to know. One of his colleagues, the Member for McIntyre-Takhini, was a member of the government when this process was launched. The member should be fully aware that this is a groundbreaking process; this is the first time that any Yukon government embarked upon a process with First Nations to jointly consult with the public, to jointly develop the policy and to jointly inform the legal drafting. That occurred, and it is throughout the bill, as the member would see if he picked the bill up.

In my first reply I listed a number of the areas that had been consulted on and the summary of consultations in the What We Heard document, before my time ran out, Mr. Speaker, and I only got about halfway through those documents. The following themes, as a result of these consultations, are threaded throughout the draft bill: support for families and extended families to care for children; involvement of First Nations in planning and decision-making — far beyond what exists in the previous legislation, which did not recognize it. The new legislation provides for increased ability for First Nations and extended family to be involved and increased cooperative planning processes prior to court. I encourage the member to end this unproductive discussion, pick up the bill and read it.

Mr. Hardy:   Mr. Speaker, I will not end this discussion. This is for the children. This is for the families. I’m not going to have that member tell me when I can shut up. Now, again, Mr. Speaker, I have to remind the Premier that the job isn’t done yet. Fortunately it is not up to the Premier to decide who can appear in Committee of the Whole. That is a decision that will be made by the Legislative Assembly. Just a few days ago the architects of the new Workers’ Compensation Act appeared as witnesses, and the information that they provided the Committee was extremely helpful. Surely a law that affects Yukon children, parents and communities as profoundly as Bill No. 50 deserves no less.

Since the Premier denied the request of several First Nations for more time to consider the proposed legislation, will he at least free the members of his caucus to vote with their conscience when a motion comes forward to invite First Nation representatives to appear before Committee of the Whole?

Unparliamentary language

Speaker:   Before the Hon. Premier answers the question — Leader of the Third Party, you used terminology there that a member indicated that you should shut up.

I would never allow that type of terminology or that type of intonation on the floor of this House, and I would ask the honourable member not to make reference to that. That’s not a fair reference.

You have the floor.

Hon. Mr. Cathers:  Certainly, I would never make that suggestion. What I encourage the member to do is to pick up the new Child and Family Services Act and read it. The member will have no choice but to change the tone of his questions once he sees the information and recognizes that the assertions that he and members of his caucus have made — and that members of the Liberal Party have made — are not factual.

This bill is groundbreaking in Canada, following a groundbreaking process whereby the Yukon government embarked jointly with First Nations on public consultation, joint policy development, and jointly informing the legal drafting. This legislation provides for far more inclusion of First Nations than it did previously.

This legislation provides for far more involvement of extended families; this legislation recognizes practices that First Nations have been urging for years to be recognized, such as custom adoptions. This legislation provides the ability within the public system for a First Nation service authority to be set up by a First Nation to work within public legislation.

This is public legislation; it does not diminish the ability of self-governing First Nations to occupy that authority if they choose to do so, but this provides an ability for them to be involved without taking that step in further addressing these matters.

Question re:  Mount Lorne solid-waste facility

Mr. Cardiff:   Mr. Speaker, last week the issue of unfair treatment for Yukon communities dropped like a sack of refuse on the doorstep of the Minister of Community Services. When the Mount Lorne transfer station asked for an increase in funding on par with their neighbours in Marsh Lake, they got a slap in the face.

This volunteer board is 10 years old and has been a model in terms of redirecting waste into recycling, and these volunteers have given thousands of hours toward a cause that benefits everyone in this territory. Now the members of that society are saying they may not sign a renewal of the contribution agreement.

Why was the minister able to give an increase in funding to the Marsh Lake Solid Waste Management Society after one year of operating their transfer station, while saying no to the same request from the people of Mount Lorne?

Unparliamentary language

Speaker:  Before the minister answers the question, it seems like a day for hyperbole today, members. We have discussed terminology like “slap in the face” as violent terminology — we don’t use that terminology in this Legislative Assembly. Please respect that. Minister of Community Services, please.

Hon. Mr. Hart:    For the member opposite, I will relay the message that I provided to the press, as well as to members of the Mount Lorne solid-waste facility.

The Government of Yukon, as was stated here in the House on a motion put forth, will be doing a review of all our solid-waste facilities throughout the Yukon. That is intended to go out sometime early in May — the work is to be done over the summer, and the recommendations will be coming back sometime late in the fall.

Mr. Cardiff:   The minister didn’t need a review last fall when he increased the funding by $1,500 and 50 percent to Marsh Lake. This is about fairness, Mr. Speaker. It is about environmental health. It is about creating jobs in rural Yukon.

At one time, the Mile 9 dump was synonymous with garbage burning and toxic air pollution. Now the Mount Lorne transfer station diverts 40 percent or better of its total waste into recycling, which is much higher than the national average of 27 percent. It was one of the first dumps to become a transfer station. It has been a model for community waste management, so much so that their expertise was called upon to upgrade the Marsh Lake dump and is being called upon by other communities as well. They have asked for $1,000 a month to be on par with the increase that Marsh Lake received.

Will the minister direct his officials to sit down with the Mount Lorne Garbage Management Society and redraft the contribution agreement that gives them what is fair and what they need to carry on?

Hon. Mr. Hart:    I’ll just reiterate what I said. We’re in the process of doing a review of all our dumps throughout the Yukon, including Marsh Lake and Mount Lorne. We intend to do that study. When the recommendations of that study come back, we will act upon those recommendations and go forth.

Mr. Cardiff:   The minister should explain why he didn’t need a review last fall and yet he needs one this spring. We do need a review of dumps throughout the Yukon. There are still far too many examples of garbage being burned in the territory. He says that the review is going to take place in the spring with recommendations in the fall. As for implementation, who knows when that is going to happen. But a review can’t take the place of taking the important steps now and adequately funding the programs that we know here today are working, and the minister knows that it is working.

Mount Lorne has proven the job that they can do. The increase that they are seeking really means creating a decent job in the community — the same thing that Marsh Lake asked for and received from the minister. Surely the environmental health of Yukoners should not be compromised by playing favourites. Will the minister stop playing favourites and give Mount Lorne the same increase as Marsh Lake?

Hon. Mr. Hart:    Mr. Speaker, there are 18 other jurisdictions within Yukon that are represented by this government, not just the member opposite’s riding. We are responsible for all the solid-waste facilities throughout Yukon. There are some issues — the size of the one in Mount Lorne. There are other solid-waste facilities that do provide the same amount of good, solid-waste management that is being provided in Mount Lorne. That facility is to be commended for what they do. Okay? We are in that process. We are going to do the review and we will provide — when the recommendations come in. We’ll do an assessment of how we’re going to deal with all our solid-waste facilities throughout Yukon, especially in the small rural areas.

Question re:  Environment report

Mr. Elias:   I have some questions for the Minister of Environment. In May of last year, I asked the minister several times about the release of the state of the environment report. The Yukon Environment Act requires a state of the environment report to be completed once every three years.

Last fall, the acting minister finally tabled the interim reports from 2003 and 2004. The reports are four years late. Last spring, the Premier didn’t seem to be too worried about breaking the Environment Act by not tabling these reports on time. He called it a “benign legality”.

The fact of the matter is this: the Yukon Party government is still not in compliance with the law. When are Yukoners going to see the state of the environment reports for 2005, 2006 and 2007?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Thank you to the Member for Vuntut Gwitchin for the question. I’m sure Yukoners are well aware of the state of the environment in this territory, given the good work of the Department of Environment and all the input we’ve received from First Nation governments and other stakeholders, such as the Yukon Conservation Society, renewable resource councils, and the establishment of special management areas, habitat protection areas — all the work that we do to protect our pristine environment is certainly much valued by Yukoners.

As far as the report, it’s being worked on. And as I said last year, any time the member wants to ask —when the reports are complete, we table them — not before.

Mr. Elias:   Well, the minister’s cavalier conservative attitude is to the forefront again, and it’s not helping any. It’s obvious this government is not concerned about meeting its requirements under the Environment Act. If they were, Yukoners would see these valuable reports brought forward to the public on time, as required by law.

The state of the environment report provides early warning and analysis of potential problems for the environment and it allows the public to monitor the minister’s progress toward the achievement of the objectives in the Environment Act.

We’re living in a rapidly changing environment, Mr. Speaker. When will the Premier produce these reports that are required by Yukon law?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, I must make the statement that reports invariably do not deal with the challenging issues of our changing environment. They merely demonstrate that the changing environment is actually happening, and we all know that. So our focus right now when it comes to that changing environment is ensuring conservation and protection. The Porcupine caribou herd and the new harvest management plan for that herd to ensure its conservation is a shining example. Protection of some 8,000 kilometres of Old Crow Flats, because we recognize that changing environment, is happening, and one of the barometers for that change exists up in the traditional territory of Vuntut Gwitchin — and the list goes on: climate change strategy, climate change action plan, investment in our future when it comes to research and development and innovation with respect to climate change — all these things are happening. I’m sure at some point, when the report’s done, a lot of what I’ve just articulated will be in the report. I hope this helps the member to understand the state of the environment.

Mr. Elias:   Well, if the minister of non-compliance is going to play this game, he had better be prepared to wear the name.

Speaker’s statement

Speaker:   Order please. Sit down.

Hon. Member for Vuntut Gwitchin, we do not attach prefixes to members’ names. He is the Minister of Environment. Please address him as that.

You have the floor.

Mr. Elias:   Mr. Speaker, I’ll rephrase. As long as this minister remains in non-compliance of the act — which is central to his department, I might add — then I will be asking these questions on the floor of this House so, in his words, he should just get used to it and get over it.

Yukoners have relied on these reports for the past years and years, and they need up-to-date information. They don’t need to be four years too late. For the life of me, I can’t understand why this minister has put such a low priority on getting these reports done to facilitate proper public disclosure and engagement. Will the minister tell Yukoners when he intends to bring forward the reports for 2005, 2006 and 2007?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   As I said previously in my answers, the short answer is, “When they are done.”

I want to assure the Member for Vuntut Gwitchin that he should continue to ask questions, because it gives the government side more opportunity to present here in this Assembly, and to the public, the state of the environment. I think it’s fair to say that what goes on here takes precedence over reports, because here we can demonstrate, through debate, all these matters. I would encourage the member to continue to ask those questions. The government values being able to respond and demonstrate the good work it’s doing in protecting our environment.

Question re:  Trust in government

Mr. Mitchell:    I have questions for the Premier about why Yukoners don’t trust this government. Let’s start with the fact that this government has trouble following the law. We heard earlier today how the government is not following the Environment Act. Last fall, we found out it broke the Financial Administration Act with $36 million in bad investments. We know this for a fact, because the Auditor General of Canada said so. Yukoners expect their government to follow the law. Why does the Premier place so little importance on this fundamental principle?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I am not going to engage with the Leader of the Official Opposition on a matter that has been much ballyhooed by the Leader of the Official Opposition, who has yet to really reflect what’s going on and/or the facts. It’s well known that investments were taking place in this area since 1990 — some $1.7 billion dollars’ worth of investments.

Is the member suggesting that those hard-working Finance officials have been breaking the law for all that period?

By the way, this is the member who stood on the floor and basically accused Finance officials of being uninformed, overzealous and careless with taxpayers’ money.

Is he suggesting that since 1990 that has in fact been the case in the Department of Finance?

I challenge him to present that evidence.

Speaker’s statement

Speaker:   Before the honourable member asks his next question, Hon. Premier, I spoke earlier about hyperbole. I would ask the honourable member to be careful with his remarks.

Leader of the Official Opposition, you have the floor.

Mr. Mitchell:    This Premier had best get engaged, because it is all about trust, Mr. Speaker. It is not about officials.

Let’s move on to another reason people don’t trust this government: broken promises. The government promised to follow the law. It is not happening.

They promised to reopen the Thomson Centre. It is not happening.

They promised 12 new beds at Copper Ridge — also, not happening.

What about the two-year supply of building lots? Not happening.

They promised a good working relationship with First Nations and then shut them out of appearing as witnesses in the debate of the Child and Family Services Act.

This government is also in court with Little Salmon-Carmacks First Nation after promising compromise and consultation. Instead we have litigation.

This government said anything to get elected and now the broken promises are piling up.

When is this Yukon Party government going to start living up to the commitments that it made to Yukoners?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Leader of the Official Opposition for this opportunity.

This party and this government promised Yukoners a better quality of life. It is happening. Look at what is going on around us. This government promised a growing, diversified private sector economy. It is happening. Look at what is going on around us. This government committed to and provided good governance to the Yukon public, and that included First Nation partnership. It is happening in spades.

The list is miles and miles long. This government promised to protect our pristine environment and that also is happening in today’s Yukon. That is the commitment we made; that is what we are delivering, and we are proud to do so.

Mr. Mitchell:    Mr. Speaker, the list that is miles and miles long is the list of broken promises. Mr. Speaker, I have presented a couple of examples of how this government is not following the law. These are serious breaches of the public’s trust — the Premier calls them “benign legalities”.

This government said anything to get elected and it will say anything to stay there. We saw a good example of that this week. Let’s look at more broken promises: no tax increases — there is a tax increase in this year’s budget; develop a climate change action plan — we’re spending more on furniture this year than on climate change and still no action plan; recruit more nurses — another failure; be fiscally responsible — the government has misplaced $36.5 million and turned the $5 million Watson Lake Health Centre into an $11-million project; open and accountable — they blocked public hearings into the $36.5 million investment. The list goes on, Mr. Speaker.

When is this government going to stop breaking promises to Yukoners?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   The one thing for sure, Mr. Speaker, is the promise that we will ensure that the facts always debated in this House will continue. Every time the member opposite relays misinformation to this House, we’ll point that out. The list that he just articulated is all incorrect in terms of what is actually happening in today’s Yukon. I would encourage the member to rethink the strategy, rethink the cunning approach and do his own writing for questions.

Speaker:   The time for Question Period has now elapsed, much to everyone’s disappointment, I am sure. We will proceed to Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   I move that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.

Speaker:   It has been moved by the Government House Leader that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.

Motion agreed to

Speaker leaves the Chair

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Chair:   Order please. Committee of the Whole will now come to order.

Bill No. 50 — Child and Family Services Act

Chair:   The matter before Committee is Bill No. 50, Child and Family Services Act.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Chair:   Mr. Edzerza, on a point of order?

Mr. Edzerza:   Mr. Chair, I give notice of the following.

Chair:   Order please. Committee of the Whole hasn’t come to order yet. If the member is standing on a point of order, he is welcome to stand on a point of order. Is the member standing on a point of order?

Mr. Edzerza:   No.

Chair:   Please sit down.

Committee of the Whole will come to order.

Committee of the Whole Motion No. 8

Mr. Edzerza:   I move

THAT Andy Carvill, Grand Chief of the Council of the Yukon First Nations, Daryn Leas, legal counsel to the Council of Yukon First Nations, Ruth Massie, Chief of the Ta’an Kwäch’än Council and Corrine McKay, legal counsel to Carcross-Tagish First Nation, Kluane First Nation, Kwanlin Dun First Nation, Liard First Nation, Ta’an Kwäch’än Council, and the Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in First Nation, appear as witnesses in Committee of the Whole on Thursday, April 10, 2008, to discuss matters relating to Bill No. 50, Child and Family Services Act.

Chair:   It has been moved by Mr. Edzerza

THAT Andy Carvill, Grand Chief of the Council of Yukon First Nations; Daryn Leas, legal counsel to the Council of Yukon First Nations; Ruth Massie, Chief of the Ta’an Kwäch’än Council; and Corrine McKay, legal counsel to Carcross-Tagish First Nation, Kluane First Nation, Kwanlin Dun First Nation, Liard First Nation, Ta’an Kwäch’än Council and Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in First Nation appear as witnesses in Committee of the Whole on Thursday, April 10, 2008, to discuss matters relating to Bill No. 50, Child and Family Services Act.

Is there any debate on the motion?

Mr. McRobb:   I would like to commend the third party for bringing this motion forward. We in the Official Opposition fully support it and will be voting in favour of this motion, which will allow these representatives of the First Nations to provide expert testimony during the debate of the Child and Family Services Act.

Mr. Hardy:   I also want to make it very clear that it’s incumbent upon this Legislative Assembly to allow witnesses to come before us when we discuss and debate extremely important legislation — especially far-reaching legislation — to get it right, and get it right once and for all.

So I am hoping that everyone in this Legislative Assembly is allowed a free vote in this matter. I am also very encouraged that the Official Opposition is in support of this motion.

Mr. Mitchell:    I want to speak briefly in support of this motion. I thank the Member for Whitehorse Centre for bringing it forward today. Clearly, I think it’s in the best interests of this Assembly — and more importantly, of all Yukoners — to make sure that the debate we have in this Legislative Assembly is the best possible informed debate we can have.

We have expert witnesses here who can provide us with better insight into the issues that exist and arise out of the existing Children’s Act and the new legislation before us, Bill No. 50, the Child and Family Services Act. We saw just last week how effective that was in the debate on the new Workers’ Compensation Act, and I would urge all members to have an open mind to bringing this debate forward as informed debate by allowing witnesses to appear here this afternoon.

Mr. Elias:   It is very encouraging to see in this House that we have a united opposition. In speaking to the motion, we were led to believe that the government did their due diligence with regard to the Child and Family Services Act. It is very obvious that that has not occurred and I support this motion.

Chair:   Is there any further debate? Do members agree?

Some Hon. Member:   Count.

Count

Chair:   A count has been called.

Bells

Chair:   Order please. I now call Committee of the Whole to order.

There is a motion before Committee. It has been moved by Mr. Edzerza

THAT Andy Carvill, Grand Chief of Council of Yukon First Nations, Daryn Leas, legal counsel to the Council of Yukon First Nations, Ruth Massie, Chief of the Ta'an Kwäch'än Council and Corinne McKay, legal counsel to Carcross-Tagish First Nation, Kluane First Nation, Kwanlin Dun First Nation, Liard First Nation, Ta'an Kwäch'än Council and Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in First Nation appear as witnesses in Committee of the Whole on Thursday April 10, 2008, to discuss matters relating to Bill No. 50, Child and Family Services Act.

Chair:    Would all those in favour please rise.

Members rise

Chair:    Would all those opposed please rise.

Members rise

Chair:   The results are eight yea, nine nay.

Committee of the Whole Motion No. 8 negatived

Committee of the Whole Motion No. 9

Mr. Cardiff:   I move

THAT the letter dated April 10 to Premier Fentie from Chief Darren Taylor of Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in First Nation, tabled today by the Leader of the Official Opposition, and the document entitled “Key concerns of Carcross-Tagish First Nation, Kluane First Nation, Kwanlin Dun First Nation, Liard First Nation, Ta'an Kwäch'än Council and Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in  First Nation”, tabled by the Leader of the Third Party, be accepted as briefs for the information and consideration of Committee of the Whole during debate on Bill No. 50, Child and Family Services Act, and duly appended to today’s Hansard.

Chair:   It has been moved by Mr. Cardiff

THAT the letter dated April 10 to Premier Fentie from Chief Darren Taylor of Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in First Nation, tabled today by the Leader of the Official Opposition, and the document entitled, “Key Concerns of Carcross-Tagish First Nation, Kluane First Nation, Kwanlin Dun First Nation, Liard First Nation, Ta’an Kwäch’än Council and Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in First Nation,” tabled by the Leader of the Third Party, be accepted as briefs for the information and consideration of Committee of the Whole during debate on Bill No. 50, Child and Family Services Act, and duly appended to today’s Hansard.

Is there any debate on this motion?

Mr. Hardy:   I am extremely disappointed in the vote today. It sends a very, very clear message.

Chair:   Order please. Mr. Hardy, the debate is on this motion and not on the previous motion. I would like you to focus the debate on this current motion, please.

Mr. Hardy:   The letters before us today that we are considering in this vote refer to outstanding issues that could have been heard. What we have to do now is consider them in their letter form. There are seven outstanding issues and I’m going to name them because I think it is extremely important that everyone understands before they vote what it says: too much discretionary power for the director and the social workers; establish accountability measures — extremely important but it’s missing in the Child and Family Services Act; a child advocate — not in a year, not a promise, but now; no support for First Nation involvement — Mr. Chair, I think we have seen that today; inadequate support for ADR processes, — and those are alternative processes, instead of having to go to court all the time and the problems, stress and cost that causes; extended family support, which is lacking in the act that is before us; inadequate provisions for transition of children out of care or custody. There’s an eighth one down here that also has to be considered, and it’s called guiding principles, fundamental to any kind of consultation that happens.

Mr. Chair, we very rarely see the gallery full. Having the people come into the gallery today to hear the debate and the decisions that are made by the Legislative Assembly that affect their lives is indicative of how important it is that we finish this process the way it was started — in consultation and working together to revamp the Child and Family Services Act.

It is not over. There are still concerns that need to be addressed. There are still people who want to ensure their voice is heard. First Nations still want to ensure that their concerns are addressed in the Child and Family Services Act. It is not over in their minds. It should not be over in the minds of the government, and it should not be over in the minds of the opposition parties, which have stood united on this issue.

I’m not just speaking on behalf of the NDP. I am speaking on behalf of the NDP and the Liberal caucus. I am taking some liberties there — maybe I am overstepping my boundaries — but I did have a meeting with the Leader of the Liberal Party today, and we talked about our shared views and the concerns that have been brought to our attention by First Nations.

We agree that they have a voice, and that voice has to be right to the end of the process, not three-quarters of the way through, not nine-tenths of the way through. That voice needs to be heard in the Legislative Assembly. It is not going to be heard.

We have other acts that have come before this Legislative Assembly and we have allowed witnesses. Just last week and this week, we listened to witnesses on the Workers’ Compensation Act. And now we are saying no to First Nations to have a voice in the Legislative Assembly. Is that fair, Mr. Chair? Is that fair to anybody here? Does that make sense? It doesn’t.

This act has been a long time coming, and I recognize the work that has been done by the government. I recognize the work that has been done by the First Nation governments as well, and the Council of Yukon First Nations, and the commitment that was made to bring forward a better act to address the concerns and needs in this area of child and family services, and working together.

I recognize that and I applaud the work that has been done. But it is not finished. Let’s not cut it short now when there are still outstanding issues that need to be addressed. Let’s work together and finish this properly so it is one piece of legislation that we can stand up proudly in this Legislative Assembly and say, “We’ve got it right. We did it together, we got it right, and everybody had a voice, right to the end.”

The second motion we put on the table is because the witnesses have been denied. At least allow this one to pass, so the key concerns that have been brought forward — with over a third of the First Nation governments signing on to these documents — can be addressed.

These are serious issues. We have a chance to do it right. Let’s stand together and do it right together. I’m proud to stand with my colleagues in opposition in doing this. I want the Yukon Party to join us and do it as well — and send a message to the people in the gallery that we’re with them all the way on this, and send a message to the people in the public that they have a place in the Legislative Assembly and their voice will be heard.

And when witnesses on major legislation are brought forward — when there is an opportunity to have witnesses — we’re going to open up this Legislative Assembly and make it happen. And we’re going to make it happen for the future of the Yukon and not cut people out of the final process. So let’s do the right thing. Let’s do the right thing and pass this, at least.

And one final note — if somebody wants to bring another motion forward to hear witnesses, he’ll get the support on this side of the House — if somebody on that side wants to do it.

Thank you.

Mr. Mitchell:    I want to, first of all, thank the Leader of the Third Party, the Member for Whitehorse Centre, for his eloquent and passionate remarks in support of this latest motion and in support of the first motion as well.

And we do speak with a united voice on this issue. He’s not taking liberties when he says that we speak with a united voice. We are united.

The Leader of the Third Party has already spoken to a number of the issues in the document that he refers to that he wants to make part of the record. I’m not going to repeat what he said, because he said it as well as it can be said. I just want to point out the first heading in this document, “Outstanding issues”. Mr. Chair, if there are outstanding issues, it is incumbent upon this Assembly to ensure that those issues are addressed and not to leave them unspoken, unheard or outstanding. It is our job to see that they are addressed.

The Leader of the Third Party has made reference to the interest that is shown in this issue by the people who have gathered in the Assembly today in the visitors gallery. Only a few days ago, he made reference to the fact that there was only one single soul in that gallery. It is clear that this is a matter that is of interest to all Yukoners. We know that at the beginning of the land claims process there was a very important visit to Ottawa along with a very famous document entitled, Together Today for our Children Tomorrow. I think today when we’re debating Bill No. 50, Child and Family Services Act, we also have to stand together today for all our children tomorrow. I would have preferred to have heard the witnesses in their own voices to be able to counsel us and provide answers to questions and have input. At the least we have to have the written record reflect their input.

We in the Official Opposition, the Liberal caucus, want to add our voice in support of this motion to have these matters that were tabled today, these documents, appended as part of the record to appear in Hansard as opposed to simply a reference that people have to go and look up.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Chair, the government side has absolutely no problem with allowing this kind of information to be tabled as briefs, if it will help expedite the debate. The information contained within the aforementioned document, as tabled, is important because, as we go through debate, we will clearly see that, within the act, these issues are being addressed.

These issues aren’t new, by the way. In the process that we went through over the last almost five years, many of these issues were brought forward and indeed dealt with jointly by First Nations and public government.

The government will support the tabling of these documents to be used as briefs, but I would encourage everybody to recognize that the time now is to debate the bill so that all people in this House, and anybody else listening, will become aware of what is actually in this act.

What are the significant amendments to the child act here in the Yukon? There are many, and that is why we have brought it forward. That is why we want to debate it. That is why we will pass it. That is why we will move on, because this is about children, not other interests.

Mr. Fairclough:   I will be brief. I would also like to speak to this motion.

Mr. Chair, we have information that was brought forward by the chiefs and is now being attached to Hansard for all to read.

Many times we have said that the First Nations had concerns, and they wanted to see them reflected in changes in the legislation. I heard the Premier say the concerns were dealt with. The fact of the matter is there was consultation that took place and it was not reflected in the changes. We have said this over and over, and we talked about this with the government side, and thought perhaps others could shed some light on it by having witnesses appear before this Legislature when we talk about this bill.

There are a lot of concerns. There are some powerful words being said by some of the First Nations. Some call it regressive legislation. Why? Because the concerns they brought forward were not reflected in the change in the legislation. Yes, the child advocacy was taken care of and is reflected in the legislation, but some First Nations just don’t trust that it will happen.

We did have a meeting with some of the chiefs. The question was: is it fixable? The answer was yes  — yes, it is.

There was a formal letter from the Council of Yukon First Nations asking that the legislation not be tabled. Now, the Yukon Party said that they work well with First Nations, they consult with them, and they are partners in many things. Why isn’t this reflected there?

In January, the Yukon Party government wanted to fast-track this, and they wanted First Nations to put their positions in place in a month. Well, we all know that the spring sitting is all about dealing with the government budget and, most times, this big legislation comes in, in the fall, and there is much time for the public to debate this and reflect changes in legislation in the fall.

Well, this isn’t happening. This government wants to move things as quickly as it can, ignoring First Nations’ requests. Even as late as February 12, there was a resolution that came out from the Council of Yukon First Nations. There were no responses to the formal letter from the Council of Yukon First Nations to government — no responses from them on their request that this legislation not be tabled. Why? Why is there a communication breakdown? I thought there was a good relationship — obviously not.

So, we’re fully in support of this motion, and I ask the government side. When I look at the previous motion, and I look at the faces on that side of the House, I know that many of them are in agreement with the opposition. But they’re voting as a bloc, and that’s a shame.

Mr. Edzerza:   Well, Mr. Chair, I just have to say a few words to this motion also.

Number 4 really jumps out at me when we look at the seven issues brought forward, where it talks about inadequate support for alternative dispute resolution processes.

I beg to ask all the members on the government side how many of them have really had children in the predicament where they had to deal with this act? I think it is quite obvious, from the number of people in the gallery today, that this is an issue that is very near and dear to First Nations’ hearts.

The government has said repeatedly that they have spent the last five years drafting this legislation and all the consultation that they did with First Nation people.

In my humble opinion I believe that it took five years to draft what they wanted to put out there. It took that long to listen to the First Nation people and at the end of the day say, “This is what we are putting in it.” I know the members opposite have repeatedly chastised me for saying things about this bill in previous sittings, maybe to the media or maybe to the public at large.

Mr. Chair, there is one thing that may seem unbelievable, and that is that I do make mistakes, but I can admit my own. I can admit to mistakes that I make, and I like to be accountable for them. I wonder how many on the government side can say that. I don’t mind saying that at the outset, after a very quick look at the act, I thought it might be good that it was going forward. However, after a few discussions with some of the different chiefs, we looked at these major concerns and after reviewing them, I said definitely, “These are all legitimate.”

I have to put on public record that I have been an advocate for probably 20 years plus. I have seen, first-hand, First Nation families that were broken apart. I have witnessed families trying for years and years to get their children back and never succeeding.

Mr. Chair, this area is very important to be addressed and I would really ask the Premier today to consider looking at a couple of these and putting these into the act. The First Nations are asking for a few more months — well, Mr. Chair, it took this government this many years to build a facility in Watson Lake. To not accept and respect the wishes of the First Nations is — I can’t help but believe that it is going to be a very, very difficult situation to overcome. This is really about a trust issue here. This is really, really focused on trust. As First Nation people, they trusted that these things would be addressed in the act, and they are not.

Mr. Chair, I can’t explain in words to this Assembly how difficult it is within child and family services legislation for First Nation people in this territory. From what I see in this act, the battle is going to continue like it has for the last 50 years.

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   As the Premier has indicated, the government side has no problem with the motion brought forward to attach the letters and issues brought forward to Hansard. As the Premier already indicated and as members will see, once we get into line-by-line debate on this legislation, these matters are addressed within the act and it has been incorporated. With that, Mr. Chair, I would urge members not to be so concerned about the camera’s presence and let us get on with the debate.

Chair:   Is there any further debate?

Some Hon. Members:   (Inaudible)

Count

Chair:   Count has been called.

Bells

Order please. Committee of the Whole is now called to order. The matter before the Committee is Motion No. 9. It has been moved by Mr. Cardiff

THAT the letter dated April 10 to Premier Fentie from Chief Darren Taylor of Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in First Nation, tabled today by the Leader of the Official Opposition, and the document entitled “Key concerns of Carcross-Tagish First Nation, Kluane First Nation, Kwanlin Dun First Nation, Liard First Nation, Ta'an Kwäch'än Council and Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in  First Nation”, tabled by the Leader of the Third Party, be accepted as briefs for the information and consideration of Committee of the Whole during debate on Bill No. 50, Child and Family Services Act, and duly appended to today’s Hansard.

All those in favour please rise.

Members rise

Chair:    All those opposed please rise.

Members rise

Chair:   The results are 15 yea, nil opposed.

Committee of the Whole Motion No. 9 agreed to

Chair:   The matter before the Committee is Bill No. 50, Child and Family Services Act.

Committee of the Whole Motion No. 10

Mr. Mitchell:    I move

THAT the Legislative Assembly defer debate on Bill No. 50 to a special sitting to be held prior to the fall sitting of 2008.

Chair:   It has been moved by Mr. Mitchell

THAT the Legislative Assembly defer debate on Bill No. 50 to a special sitting to be held prior to the fall sitting of 2008.

Mr. Mitchell:    It has become quite evident, in recent days and recent weeks and certainly today, that there is a great deal of public interest and public concern regarding Bill No. 50. It is clear that many members of the public -- not only First Nations, but many members of the general public -- recognize the importance of this bill, but also recognize the importance of getting it right.

We have before us in this sitting a budget of historic proportions. It is traditional in this Assembly to bring forward major pieces of legislation in the fall sitting but we have already seen three major pieces of legislation come forward in this spring sitting, and we have yet to even commence debate on a $900-million budget.

This matter is too important to be squeezed into an afternoon or part of an afternoon. It deserves our undivided attention to make sure that we get it right. I therefore request all members, in the interest of moving forward in the best interests of all Yukon children and all Yukon families, to allow us to get it right by dealing with this at a special sitting, rather than trying to push it through now when there are voices that are yet to be heard and people who wish to be heard.

We recognize at the same time that it is very important that we have the best possible legislation for children who may need to be in the care of others beside their immediate families from time to time, so we feel that we should not defer this to the fall sitting but we should try to deal with this at the earliest possible opportunity when it can have our undivided attention. That’s why I request the support of all members for a special sitting to deal with this matter. It is not unprecedented to have special sittings, although it is rare. I can’t think of any occasion more important than dealing with the lives and the welfare of Yukon children.

Chair’s statement

Chair:   The Chair would like to remind all visitors in the gallery that they are supposed to remain silent.

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   I would like to remind the member opposite — I know that he is standing here with the visitors in the gallery and the cameras have just left.

Chair's statement

Chair:   Order please. Mr. Cathers, the comments with regard to camera time is not appropriate in the Assembly. Mr. Cathers, please proceed.

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   I would like to remind the member opposite and encourage him to check out the Web site of the Department of Health and Social Services for the Children’s Act revisions. For the member to suggest that there has not been consultation and that the public has not been heard flies in the face of the facts that nearly five years have been spent on developing this legislation, that an unprecedented process has been followed — jointly working with First Nations to jointly consult with the public to jointly develop the policy and to jointly inform the legal drafting. As far as public consultation, that includes meetings in every Yukon community. These documents are available on the Web site.

Topic 1: “Philosophy and Principles”; Topic 2: “Prevention/Early Intervention” — again, a summary consultation from the Yukon public, Yukon First Nations, other stakeholders and of course interested members of the general public. Topic 3: “Child Protection”; Topic 4: “Child Protection Court Procedures”; Topic 5: “Children in Care”.

These are, as members will note if they go on-line, very lengthy documents noting the public comments, that which was heard from First Nations, from stakeholders, from elders and from the general public. What We Heard, Topic 6: “Adoption”; Topic 7: “Custody, Access and Guardianship”; Topic 8: “Child’s Legal Status and Who is a Parent”; Topic 10: “First Nation Governance”; Topic 11: “Service Delivery”; Topic 12: “General Issues”.

This new legislation includes new themes threaded throughout the bill, including support for families and extended families to care for their children; support for parents to fulfill their parental role, including periods where their children may not be living with them; inclusive collaborative planning and decision-making; recognition of the importance of culture and community in the lives of children and families; involvement of First Nations in planning and decision-making.

Again, I encourage the members to pick up the legislation, do their jobs and actually read it. They will see that there are far greater provisions for the involvement of First Nation governments than exist in the Children’s Act, and they cannot help but recognize that this is a significant step forward in the legislation of public government.

Theme 6: Interventions to start with the least intrusive approach, based on an assessment of the situation.

The draft bill is also written in clear, straightforward language using updated terminology, examples being things such as “protective interventions” rather than “child in need of protection” and “cooperative planning process” rather than “dispute resolution”, and “continuous care” rather than “permanent care”.

I’d also mention that a new provision within the act provides not only for open adoptions, but if a child is required to be put into the care and custody of the director of family and children’s services or the director of a First Nation service delivery agency pursuant to the act, there is the increased ability for the involvement and contact by family members with the children when it is safe to do so, even if that child has been, by decision of the court, placed into custody of the government.

The draft bill is also written in a manner that will enable planning and service delivery options to meet the unique needs of children and families.

Other themes include guiding and service principles, which do not exist in the Children’s Act. The new Child and Family Services Act includes the guiding principles that are to be used by the court and others in interpreting the document.

The current act does include a statement about the best interests of the child, but it does not provide a detailed list, as the new legislation does, of specific factors to consider in determining the best interests of that child. One of the specific factors noted in the guiding principles includes recognizing the importance of protecting and preserving the First Nation culture of a child.

Support services for families — the new part sets out provisions aimed at promoting and strengthening families through supportive and voluntary services, including cooperative planning processes, such as a family conference, in planning for child or support services to be provided to a family.

It provides for formal agreements to allow for the provision of family support services or in-home supports and for out-of-home care.

As well, it provides a new provision: special needs agreements, to enable a child with special needs to be provided with out-of-home care without requiring a determination that that child is in need of protection. Parents would retain their role and responsibility for that child.

As I have indicated previously during this legislative session, we have acted already to strengthen the programming available through mental health services, if a child is in need of services outside the territory for mental health issues. Previously the status quo had been that only children who were taken into custody could receive such service, despite the fact that a psychiatrist had designated and recommended the need for such services. We have made the change so that parents are able to enter into an agreement with the government and, while retaining their guardianship of their child, get their child the services that they need outside of the territory, if indeed that is necessary.

Mr. Chair, as members are hopefully aware, these are a rare number of cases but are for mental health challenges and behavioral issues. There are a rare number of cases, but they are complex and they require services outside of the territory. This has been the practice for many years. There is another area, contrary to assertions by members, that this government has not supported mental health areas. Here is an example of where we have expanded this programming and made it available to all parents.

Mr. Chair, there are also provisions to encourage and facilitate placement of a child with his or her extended family through the use of a formal support agreement. It notes that it is preferable to place a child with extended family rather than to place them with someone else — if there are suitable extended family members available, willing and able to provide that service. As well, there are provisions enabling the family and a director to enter into a voluntary care agreement to provide out-of-home care services for a child when there are concerns that the child cannot remain safely in the home. This allows temporary agreements by mutual agreement — whereby if a family believes that it is necessary to engage in such an agreement or, if there is a separation between parents and one has custody and is experiencing safety concerns with the other parent, they can voluntarily enter into an agreement with the director of family and children’s services or the director of a First Nation authority — person established pursuant to this act. They can enter into such an agreement without being required to give up the custody of their child and the guardianship authority.

As well, there are provisions for voluntary agreements for support services for the youth between the ages of 16 and 19 who cannot safely live at home, and where the issues with their parents cannot be resolved.

Another provision allows for transitional support services for youth between 19 and 24 years of age who have been in the care of a director and are making the transition to independent living.

One thing I should point out to the members — because, unfortunately, it does appear from debate that they have not read the act — is that the act is worded in a language that includes, in the definitions, the ability for a First Nation to establish a service authority contract with the department to provide that and, through that agreement, provide services to their citizens. This would then allow them to use that legislation. The legislation is worded so that a director of such a service authority would have equivalent power to the director of family and children’s services.

Just returning briefly to the area of transitional support services for youth between 19 and 24 years of age: this is an example, of course, of an area whereby this would be by voluntary agreement, and this is for youth who often find — as do many youth who leave the family home — that it’s easy to charge out into the world at 18 or 19 years of age and think that they can handle everything, but they find that they have a need for support from their parents. For children who are in a situation where they do not have those parents available to provide that support, this allows the government to provide similar services by voluntary agreement with those youth.

This, again, is another example of something that came directly from consultation from what we heard, and I have to encourage the members — I know this is a big stack of documents, but it’s all available on-line. If the members have not read them, please read them. They will have no choice but to change their tone of questioning because they will recognize that the statements they are making in the House are not factual.

Further, protection of children, part 3 of the act — the provisions dealing with the protection of children have been completely rewritten. The draft bill includes the provision of supports and services to help maintain a child safely at home or to facilitate reunion.

Provisions that require working in cooperation with children and families to achieve agreements on plans and to reduce the use of the courts to make decisions — again — reduce the use of the courts to make decisions, and where agreement on a plan cannot be achieved, the parent will have the ability to present their own plan to the judge to be considered in making an order. This is groundbreaking, Mr. Chair.

Again, the members need to read the act. I hope that when we get into line-by-line debate they will recognize the error of their comments and the inaccuracy of their comments.

I appreciate the intent the members are coming forward with, but the members are misinformed. The members need to do their work — to read it and to understand it; because anyone who has read this legislation cannot help but recognize that this is a significant step forward in the involvement of First Nations, the involvement of extended families, the recognition of custom adoption practices of First Nations, and the provision for children to be placed with a member of their extended family as a preference, rather than being placed into foster care or adoption by someone else. This is groundbreaking, but the members are not recognizing it because, clearly, they have not read the act.

I see that the Member for Mayo-Tatchun appears to be very eager to enter the debate, but I remind him that debate in this House, by Standing Orders, is through standing up and being recognized by the Chair. I would encourage the member to resist the —

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Point of order

Chair:   Mr. Hardy, on a point of order.

Mr. Hardy:   Mr. Chair, I believe that is for you to make those types of rulings and not the person standing there and responding to what he perceives as harassment on his part.

Chair’s ruling

Chair:   There is a point of order and the Chair would like to remind members, if they have a problem with the way the debate is proceeding, they should stand and raise a point of order and then the Chair will rule on the proceedings. Mr. Cathers, you have the floor.

Hon. Mr. Cathers:  I was certainly not trying to supplant your authority. I can’t comment on your ruling; I recognize you will call me out of order for that.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Point of order

Chair:   Mr. Hardy, on a point of order.

Mr. Hardy:   It is my understanding that, once the Chair makes a ruling, it is not debatable.

Chair’s ruling

Chair:   There is no point of order. Mr. Cathers, you have the floor.

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   As you recognize, and as the Leader of the Third Party will, upon reviewing the Blues, I was curtailing myself from the temptation to comment on your ruling and was respecting the Chair’s authority to make that ruling.

I see that the Member for Mayo-Tatchun does not appear to be listening with as rapt attention as one might hope. He has expressed concerns and has engaged in comments off-microphone, but the member does not have an interest in listening to the facts.

Chair’s statement

Chair:   Order please. We are debating Committee of the Whole Motion No. 10 and that motion is that this Legislative Assembly defers debate on Bill No. 50, Child and Family Services Act, to a special sitting to be held prior to the fall sitting of 2008. I encourage all members to focus their debate on that, please. Mr. Cathers, you have three minutes.

Hon. Mr. Cathers: I recognize that, regarding my illustration of the provisions within this act, you may not have seen that as being directly connected to the motion.

Chair’s statement

Chair:   Order please. Mr. Cathers, the Chair has made a ruling and I would prefer if you stuck to that and just debated Motion No. 10, please. Mr. Cathers, you have the floor.

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   As I was illustrating, the points within the act —

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   — the provisions that I was relating are the examples of the provisions and the changes in this legislation that are the direct result of public consultation. If the members would read the legislation, they will see this.

I recognize that the members appear to be finding themselves reluctant to engage in debate on this legislation. I see that their lack of taking the time to pick up this legislation is perhaps driving that. There is no substitute for that but to do their job, pick up the legislation and read it. Perhaps, since they have not done so, when we get to line-by-line debate, the members will recognize the error of their comments.

With that, Mr. Chair, I believe that my time for debate is running out here quickly, but I would just return briefly to provisions in the new act — providing for First Nation involvement in planning, service delivery and court proceedings. There are provisions to encourage the use of extended family in supporting parents in the care of their children and in providing care for family members’ children who cannot live at home, either on a temporary basis or permanently.

Mr. Chair, there are also more options for responding to circumstances where intervention is necessary. An example of this is to order an adult who is causing a child to be in need of protective intervention to have no contact with that child.

The requirements for the court to determine that cooperative planning has happened or has been tried or carefully considered are within the legislation — contrary to the assertions by the members opposite. Consultation has occurred and there is no need to defer consideration of this legislation to another setting, as at least one member opposite has previously called for. It is time to move on with what is a groundbreaking piece of legislation. It is a significant step forward in public legislation and I would encourage members to provide the opportunity to engage in the debate of this legislation itself. They will recognize that their concerns are in fact addressed.

Chair’s statement

Chair:   Order. Order please. Before proceeding, the Chair will make a statement on a point of procedure.

Committee of the Whole can only deal with a question referred to it by the House. Bill No. 50 has been referred to the Committee; the issue of the special sitting has not. The proper wording of the motion should read: “THAT Committee of the Whole defer debate on Bill No. 50, Child and Family Services Act, to a special sitting to be held prior to the fall sitting of 2008.”

That means that, for this special sitting to take place, the House would actually have to pass a motion.

Is there any debate on the procedurally correct motion?

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Point of order

Chair:   Mr. Rouble, on a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Rouble:    Regarding clarification of the new motion, Mr. Chair, I think we need your guidance on this. Has the motion that is on the table been reworded?

Mr. Chair, if the motion has been reworded, I would suggest that the only one who should reword a motion should be the mover of the motion or there should be a motion to change the motion. I find it quite irregular that the motion should be changed by the Chair.

Chair’s ruling

Chair:   On the point of order, the Chair and the Speaker have the authority to change motions where they relate to procedure, not the intent of the motion.

Mr. Hardy:   Now, the comments made by the previous speaker with respect to the motion are very interesting. He has indicated that we have not read the act. He is indicating that we haven’t read the act, because what we are standing up for, and why we’re asking for a special sitting — and I want to emphasize that point: “we” are asking for a special sitting — is because of the concerns that have been brought forward by First Nations.

In accusing us of not reading the act, he is indirectly accusing the First Nations of not reading the act, or not being part of the consultations, or not being aware of what is in that act.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Point of order

Chair:   Mr. Cathers, on a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Cathers:  I’ll get the point of order in front of me. Contrary to Standing Order 19(g), the member is imputing a motive to me that certainly was not in place. I did say that the opposition members had not read the bill. I did not say that First Nations had not done so. Mr. Chair, I would ask that you have the member retract that comment.

Chair’s ruling

Chair:   On the point of order — it is a dispute among members.

Mr Hardy, you have the floor.

Mr. Hardy:    In making those statements, he is making accusations in regard to the outstanding issues that are not relevant. He has indicated that they are already in the act. If we read the act, they are already in it. My question: why are the First Nations bringing these forward? Why is it still a big concern? Why are these outstanding issues still a big concern for the majority of First Nations? I ask that question.

This — no, I won’t go down that path, definitely not.

This motion has been brought forward, has come about, because we on this side have heard concerns from the First Nations in the final stages of this act that we believe — united on this side — would strengthen the act. We would not be bringing forward, or try to interject, things that would weaken the act. All the recommendations are the outstanding issues that have been brought forward to the Official Opposition parties as well as to the government. Strengthen this act.

I don’t think this government wants to bring forward a faulty act. As it stands right now, there are serious concerns.

It is incumbent upon the government to want to hear those concerns from the architects of this act. Five years of debate; five years of discussion; five years of consultation; five years of working together; five years of compromise, in many cases, and we are in the final stages and we can get it right.

I do not understand the resistance around this. What would it mean to delay the act a few more weeks or a month in order to ensure that all concerns are met, and in order to ensure that our children and First Nation children — who make up 80 percent of those who fall underneath the Child and Family Services Act — that all children in the Yukon have the best act possible.

The best act possible, Mr. Chair, will come about by ensuring that voices are heard right to the end and when we vote on this act, we can stand up proudly and recognize the fact that the contributions made by the people of this territory, by the First Nations, by the government, by the opposition members and all members representing each of their regions, is one that we can take back to the people and say, “We got it right. This is a good step.”

Instead, we are having a debate on the floor today that we should not be having. All we were asking for was to have witnesses. This is not uncommon. Why is there such a resistance to this act? It is not uncommon to have witnesses for major legislation that is brought before the Legislative Assembly.

As a matter of fact, earlier this week we just finished up with witnesses in the Legislative Chamber on the Workers’ Compensation Act.

It was welcome, it was appreciated and the contributions that the witnesses made were significant and very well done. Everybody benefited from it. The resistance — and I can’t understand this — to allow and have First Nation representation — and even going beyond that to have other witnesses who have a stake in the future of this act — to be able to come forward and finish up this act together, doesn’t make sense. I have not heard a defence in this matter yet. I have not heard anything that I can believe justifies refusing to allow people to come before the Legislative Assembly, be witnesses and allow each and every one of us to question the witnesses on their concerns or positions and to allow their presentations to be made. It enables us, with that knowledge, to make a good decision, one that will carry us into the future, one that we can be proud of, one that we can build on again as times and needs change in the legislation that we do pass.

We have a chance and we have started to indicate to the people of this territory that we can do things differently. The Smoke-free Places Act is an indication that we can work together to bring about good changes for the people of this territory. The select committee that went out to consult on the Smoke-free Places Act, with representatives from all three parties working together to bring back changes to that act, was indicative that together we can make this a better place to live.

Witnesses that we allow in the Legislative Assembly add, strengthen and benefit our decision-making in here. We should not live in a vacuum. It is wonderful to see people in the gallery who care deeply about this. This is what I would like to see every single day when we are debating issues that affect their lives.

We owe the people who are willing to come out respect. We owe it to them to listen to them, because ultimately we are not passing laws for ourselves — we are passing legislation for all people of the Yukon to benefit from.

Change has to happen. Change has to happen in the legislation that we bring forward. Change has to happen in the way we act and behave in this Legislative Assembly. We have to put down the sword sometime and work together.

On this issue I was hoping today to hear the government say they will allow witnesses. I expected that. We have made so many strides in working together on other matters. Why not this one?

Instead, what we had today was the opposition working hand in hand together, because they put the children and families in front. They have listened to the concerns brought forward that say that the act is still not enough, it still has one more step to make to be acceptable to the people.

We came together to bring that about. I thought the Yukon Party would have been there too, but they are not.

The latest motion is the third one that we have brought forward — and I say ‘we’ because it originally started by calling for a very simple motion that the leader brought forward and ran by me, very quickly, and we agreed upon, with one change that we both contributed to and we’re standing together on it. We are both willing, as are our colleagues on this side of the House, to have a special sitting. That was the one change we wanted. We felt we could live with that. That is working together and that is what we want to see when the government works with the First Nations: finding ways to work together, not apart. We hope we are demonstrating that today.

We are willing to put in the extra time. That special sitting can be in the evenings. I am not averse to working in the evenings. When I first got elected, that’s what we did. We are actually sitting less time now and getting paid more than we were six or eight years ago.

A special sitting would allow this to happen and a special sitting in regard to this very significant legislation can happen in the evenings during this sitting. We can do it because we did it before and there is no excuse why we can’t.

It can happen immediately after this sitting or whatever works best for everybody who is going to be here. We can do that as well. The fall — from my perspective — was a little too far away. I think this legislation needs to be brought in now. People have been waiting a long time. People have contributed a tremendous amount to make this happen, to bring this forward. We’re in the final stages, and this is where it gets tough. This is where people either stand together and bring it forward, make the changes necessary and allow amendments to strengthen it, or else they start breaking apart.

It’s like the end of a race — like the end of a marathon. Anybody who has ever run a marathon or half-marathon will understand very clearly what happens. You start out very eager, united, and totally confident you’re going to make it. You get halfway, and it starts to set in — the struggle you’re going through. Your resources are being depleted, and you have to start calling on deeper reservoirs. You get close to the end — and often the feeling in a marathon, as you get closer to the end, is a feeling that a lot of people can relate to. It’s the feeling of being on a long hike in the wilderness in the winter or they’ve been quite a way away from home.

I’ll shift a little bit here. I want to apply this to the Yukon a little bit. The marathon is the same thing. You’re walking home — and this has happened to me —

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Point of order

Chair:   Mr. Cathers, on a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   It’s my understanding that recording devices require permission to be in the gallery.

Chair’s ruling

Chair:   There is a point of order. The Chair would like to remind all visitors in the gallery that photography and recording devices are not permitted and would request all visitors to refrain from using them. Thank you.

Mr. Hardy:   A lot of people can relate to this. This is what this kind of legislation is about. You have walked a long way in the freezing cold, you come around the corner — whether it’s a cabin in the woods or it’s your home — you see your home, and the tendency is to sit down. You’ve made it. You don’t have to do anything else. You sit down before you get inside.

Most deaths happen within a very short distance from the shelter that you are trying to get to. This is the same thing. We have come a long way and we’ve worked very, very hard. People have contributed so much. They have put so much into this to make it good legislation. We’re on the final stages and it is not over. We’ve got to make the necessary steps to bring it home.

I am asking the people on the other side, the Yukon Party — which is blocking this right now — to consider this motion in front of us; to consider calling the witnesses and expanding that; to consider taking those final steps together to be home with this legislation and not give up now. We can’t shut the door, we can’t lock the door when the people are still on the outside and still wanting to have a say.

We make a commitment when we get elected to the people of this territory. That commitment is for five years right now and I don’t think that there is anybody in here who isn’t committed to the people of this territory. I say this very sincerely, that I respect every single member in this Legislative Assembly, even if I fundamentally disagree on the principles, values or positions that they may bring forward at times. I believe that people are in here to do the best for the people of this territory. The best for the people of the territory right now is that the legislation before us needs final touches. The final touches are the outstanding issues that have been brought forward that need to be debated and, from my perspective, incorporated or clarified within the bill, as it is before us.

If the Member for Lake Laberge — beautiful Lake Laberge, I am sure — believes it is already in the bill, I wonder why the First Nations are so concerned. Maybe it is the language. Maybe the intent is already there. Maybe we just need to strengthen the language, if that is what he is saying.

There is a concern and I want to see a bill we can all be proud of, and not have people upset over it, or who felt it never went far enough in the final stages, because too much has been put into it. Too many people have worked too hard to bring this about. Let’s not give up now. Let’s not break apart now. Let’s stand together and allow the voices back into the Legislative Assembly. Let’s debate this and give it the proper time that it needs and stand together at the end of it and all vote together on this bill: a unanimous vote. I would be very proud to stand beside every one of my colleagues in here and do that, if we allow the process to finish the way it should, and that is to allow the last concerns that have been identified to be addressed properly.

Mr. Mitchell:    I would like to thank the Leader of the Third Party, the Member for Whitehorse Centre, for his words in support of my motion, Motion No. 10. I would be pleased to refer to it as “our motion” as he has made reference to, because we did work on it together.

It is not really that complicated when we look at what we are trying to do: have Committee of the Whole defer this until there can be a special sitting of the Legislative Assembly.

The Minister of Health and Social Services has suggested that the members on this side haven’t done their homework, that we haven’t read the bill, and that we don’t understand what is in the bill. Well, I beg to disagree, Mr. Chair. We have read the bill. I know my copy is underlined, highlighted, and it is getting rather dog-eared because I bring it home at night and bring it back in the day.

I attended the briefing put on by department officials, along with some of my colleagues and staff, to make sure we could get a better understanding of the bill. I will say that I was operating under the belief that the concerns of First Nations had not only been heard, but had been addressed within this legislation, because I accepted the word of the Minister of Health and Social Services and the Premier, and I accepted, of course, the explanations provided by the officials.

I spoke at second reading and I said that this bill was not utopia. Does it address the concerns of every Yukoner? I said, “No, of course not.” I was asked if I had questions concerning certain aspects. I said, “Of course I do.” In the end, I asked, “Do I think that this is legislation that would improve the care of children in Yukon, improve their health and safety?” I said, “Yes, of course I do,” and I still do. I still believe that the intent is in this legislation.

I look at the preamble and it says, “Every child is entitled to personal sa